1956-02-08

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 66, to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Barnett: 1.	Has the Department of Fisheries been informed of plans by the British Columbia power commission to initiate a hydroelectric project on the Somass river system, Vancouver island, British Columbia?
2.	If so, have plans of this project been submitted to the department in sufficient detail to enable a full assessment of its effect on the sockeye salmon run to this river system?
3.	Has any conclusion been reached as to whether or not this sockeye run would be adversely affected?


Mr. MacNaughl:: The answer to the first part of this question is that departmental officials on the Pacific coast have learned unofficially that the British Columbia power commission is contemplating the development of hydro power on the Somass river.
The answer to the second part of the question is that no details of the project have been submitted as yet to the department. And the answer to the third part of the question would therefore be "no".


SOURIS RIVER DAM, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. McCullough (Moose: Mountain):
1.	Has application been made to the international joint commission by the government of Saskatchewan or any agency thereof, in connection with the proposed construction of a dam on the Souris river, south of Estevan, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, will the minister inform the house of the progress which has been made with respect to the studies surrounding this application, and recommendations of the commission?


Mr. Marlin:: As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has had to go to the airport with the Prime Minister to extend a farewell to the British Prime Minister and his foreign secretary perhaps I may be permitted 67509-61
to give the replies to this question. The reply to No. 1 is that an application dated May 30, 1955, has been made to the international joint commission by the province of Saskatchewan for the proposed construction of a dam south of Estevan on Long creek, a tributary of the Souris river.
The answer to the second question is that the Saskatchewan application is one of several applications now before the international joint commission covering projects in the Souris river basin which have been submitted for the approval of the commission. Hearings on these applications were held by the commission in September in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and North Dakota. The matter of these applications has recently been discussed by the commission in its executive session held in January in Toronto. No report, as yet, has been presented to the government of Canada or to the government of the United States.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is the FN automatic rifle being manufactured in Canada? If so, by whom, and in what quantities?
2.	Is the Canadian brigade in Germany equipped exclusively with the Canadian-manufactured FN weapon? If not, from where else does it obtain the weapon and in what quantities?
3.	Has the Canadian brigade in Europe experienced any malfunctioning difficulties with (a) the Canadian-manufactured FN rifle; (b) the FN rifle obtained from other sources? If so, what is the nature of the difficulty?
4.	Does Canada supply the FN rifle to any other countries? If so. what countries and in what quantities?


Mr. Pinard:: I would ask that this question be made an order for return which I understand will be tabled later this day.



MENTAL HEALTH


Mr. McCullough (Moose: Mountain):
1.	What financial assistance has the federal government made toward mental health to the various provinces for the years 1945 to 1955?
2.	What other contributions, if any, are made by the federal government in connection with mental health?


Mr. Martin:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if this could be made an order for return, as

Orders for Returns
the information would be very extensive and take quite a number of pages?


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



MENTAL ILLNESS STATISTICS

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What has been the expenditure by each province, in the care of the mentally ill for each year since 1950?
2.	What proportion of this cost was borne by the federal government?
3.	How many mentally ill patients have been registered in Canada each year since 1950, in each province?
4.	How many psychiatrists have been employed in hospitals for the mentally ill in each of the provinces for each year since 1950?
5.	How many psychiatric social workers have been employed in hospitals for the mentally ill in each of the provinces for each year since 1950?



DEMONSTRATION AIRPLANES FROM IRON CURTAIN COUNTRIES

Mr. Starr: 1.	Were any airplanes manufactured behind the iron curtain allowed to enter Canada for demonstration or sale purposes during the year 1955?
2.	If so, (a) How many: (b) by whom were they brought in?



SUMMER EMPLOYMENT OF STUDENTS BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Boisvert: 1.	How many students were employed by the federal government, during the summers of 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955?
2.	What was the average earning of the students when at work and how many weeks or months were they employed during those years?



HEART RESEARCH AND CENTRES

Mr. Campbell: 1.	How many heart centres have been established in Canada, and how long have they been in operation?
2.	What is the total amount of grants made by the federal government for heart research to date, by provinces?



TAXES ON AUTOMOBILE TIRES AND ACCESSORIES

Mr. Bryson: 1.	What was the amount of money collected by the federal government from sales and excise taxes in 1951 and 1954 on (a) automobile and truck tires; (b) other automobile and truck accessories?
2.	What amount of money was collected by the federal government from customs duties levied on foreign cars and trucks sold in Canada in the years 1951 and 1954?



COMPANY DIRECTORS-CABINET MINISTERS

Mr. Knowles: 1.	Are any cabinet ministers now directors of any companies, corporations, etc.?
2.	If so, which ministers, of what companies or corporations, and what date were any directorships presently held by cabinet ministers assumed?
tMr. Martin.]
3.	Have any cabinet ministers resigned any directorships since being sworn of the privy council?
4.	If so, which ministers, on what dates and from what companies or corporations?



NATIONAL GALLERY


Mr. Murphy (Lambion West): 1.	How many paintings have been purchased by or for the national art gallery of Canada in the last 20 years?
2.	Who were the artists, what were the names of the pictures and the price paid for same?
3.	How many of these paintings have not been shown to the public for a period longer than a few months since their purchase?
4.	Of these, what are the names of the artists, the names of the paintings and the price paid for such paintings?
5.	If paintings were stored in the vault and not shown to the public, what was the reason?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if question No. 80 could be made an order for return and if the hon. member for Lambton West would permit one modification in the second part of that question, which asks:
Who were the artists, what were the names of the pictures and the price paid for same?
There is no objection to giving the price paid for all the pictures bought in each year, but for obvious reasons it has never been the practice to give'the prices paid for individual pictures. With that modification, I would be very glad to bring all the information down.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister been advised of any change in policy by the government of West Germany regarding that government's contribution towards the maintenance of Canadian troops in Europe? If so, would the minister make a statement on the situation?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question, which I received just as I was coming into the house. The only information I have as yet is the dispatch contained in the newspapers. This is a very important matter, as I am sure we all realize, and I would prefer not to comment until we have official confirmation of the position.


George Randolph Pearkes: Will you make a statement at a later date?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, when I am in a position to do so.



REFERENCE TO ACCIDENT AT BRAMPTON, ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago the hon. member for Peel inquired about the regrettable aircraft accident which happened near Brampton on February 5 last. Specifically, he asked whether the pilots who were killed were practising forced landings.
In reply I would point out that these two officers were members of the Royal Canadian Air Force primary reserve carrying out training in an aircraft owned by the R.C.A.F. but on loan to, and operated by, the Toronto Flying Club under civilian licence.
As the aircraft is under civilian licence, the investigation of the accident is being carried out by the Department of Transport. However, preliminary information indicates that the officers concerned were practising forced landings for which they had been duly authorized in accordance with the refresher flying training plan in which they were participating.
For the information of hon. members perhaps I might add that the refresher flying training plan is designed to maintain a pool of approximately 600 primary reserve officers as basic flying instructors who can be available in an emergency to assist in the rapid expansion of air force training capacity.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I ask
the Minister of Justice if his department has yet reached a decision with respect to the prosecution on the basis of the report of the restrictive trade practices commission of an alleged combine in manufacturing, distribution and sale of transmission and conveyor equipment?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. The report was submitted for the advice of counsel to Mr. D. W. Mundell, Q.C., of Toronto, about three weeks ago, and we have not yet had an opinion from him.



PULPWOOD AND PAPER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Maliais (Charlevoix):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question.
67509-61J
Inquiries of the Ministry Would the minister care to comment on what progress has been made with respect to the investigation under the Combines Investigation Act into the alleged price fixing of pulp-wood in the pulpwood and paper industry?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wish to thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of his question. The answer is that the inquiry in question is proceeding in the usual way, but until I receive a report from the commission I am not in a position to report to the house.



EXPORT OF MILITARY SUPPLIES TO UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does the dominion bureau of statistics issue under his authority a publication known as Trade of Canada, giving full details of the value and destination of all products exported from Canada? If so, does the issue for December, 1954, disclose the export from Canada during the calendar year 1954-


Mr. Fleming:: Order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -of aircraft, aircraft parts, cartridges for guns, rifles, etc.,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now putting a very lengthy question in which I am afraid he is giving the house much more information than he intends to* ask for. Would the hon. member be good enough to put his question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Nowlan:: Order paper.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Does the December, 1354^, issue of the publication, Trade of Canada,, include exports of aircraft and aircraft partis, etc., in the value of $81 million conforming; to the figure given yesterday by the T-^rW of the Opposition? What proportion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is obvious that the hon. member has looked at the report and knows that the information is there. Why-should he ask that it be confirmed m the house?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that is quite a legitimate question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The authority on legitimate questions.


Mr. Speaker:: It amounts to the same thing: as if the hon. member, after perusing the

Inquiries of the Ministry public accounts tabled in the house, had asked the Minister of Finance to confirm whether so many items are contained therein. This is a printed publication available to the public and I presume it is available to any hon. member who wishes to look at it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that these figures can be misused.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Goode:: May I ask a supplementary question? I have not seen the report and I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should go to the library and ask for a copy of the report.


Mr. Knowles:: Take the Minister of Trade and Commerce with you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You do not want the truth. [Later;]


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce an abridged question which I hope will meet with your approval. What proportion of the $81 million of exports mentioned yesterday were directed to the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question, and the answer is 94 per cent.


Mr. Drew:: To assist the minister, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the Leader of the Opposition have a question to ask?


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Alexander Drew: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce explain to the house that none of this had anything to do with the arrangements between the NATO countries for the mutual shipment of arms?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The shipments to the United States, Mr. Speaker, had to do with an arrangement made with the defence department of the United States, by which Canadian purchases of armaments in the United States would be offset by United States purchases placed in Canada. Our purchases from the United States of armaments were somewhat larger than the figures referred to as our shipments to the United States.


George Alexander Drew: The minister did not answer the question. I would point out that it is quite-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Leader of the Opposition be good enough to put his question.


George Alexander Drew: Is the minister aware that on page 6 of Trade of Canada, a record of the dominion bureau of statistics which is under his department, it is stated that none of these shipments referred to transfers under the Defence Appropriations Act, and that the exports under the Defence Appropriations Act-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Alexander Drew: -in 1954-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


George Alexander Drew: -were $202 million.


Mr. Speaker:: As I quite properly pointed out a moment ago, the purpose of question time is to seek information and not to read documents that are public. I realize the position of the Leader of the Opposition, and a moment ago I tried to offset what I considered to be something that would become a debatable matter. I do hope we will return now to the question time.


George Alexander Drew: I was really trying to find out whether the minister knew the facts or was trying to mislead the house.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister in a position to make a report to the house on the success or otherwise of the revision of the interpretation of the Unemployment Insurance Act, concerning which he made an announcement two weeks ago, with reference to qualifications for benefits? Has it been successful and can he say how many persons have benefited by it to date?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: No, I am not and I do not expect to be for some little time to come. It will take some weeks yet to carry out the program I outlined to the house the other day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister will be able to give that information by answering a set of questions of mine which will be found on the order paper.



CRIMINAL LAW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister tell us how soon the report of the royal commission now studying the problem of sex offences will be completed?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Inasmuch as my hon. friend did not give me notice of his question I suggest that I take it as notice.



ALLEGED REFUSAL BY MINISTER TO ANSWER QUESTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can he inform the house on what grounds there is a refusal to give the price paid for individual pictures as he did refuse in answer to a question today?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that I refused anything. I asked concurrence of the hon. member for Lambton West to a modification in his question and I understood him to nod and give that concurrence.


Mr. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, if I may say so at this time, I did not give concurrence.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think we should now revert to a matter that was dealt with before the orders of the day were called. I stood up and I said "Is it agreed?". Not hearing any objection I took it that it was agreed and I called the orders of the day. We are now dealing with the orders of the day.



DISABLED PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Can he tell us when we might expect to have copies of the report and recommendations of the national advisory committee on the rehabilitation of disabled persons?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I am constantly getting reports from that committee. Perhaps my hon. friend would tell me to which report she refers.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I refer to the report which I understand was finished a couple of days ago. I just wondered how long it might take for it to be processed and to be printed for the use of members of this house.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The report referred to was a report of a subcommittee of the national advisory committee. That subcommittee indicated that they would like to make their report back to the main committee.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Warner Murphy: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, if I may. I wonder if he would consult with the heads of the Canadian National Railways with a view to seeing that the C.N.R. property on the St. Lawrence seaway is not disposed of at a fraction of its value.


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I do not understand the hon. member's question. However, I shall read it in Hansard tomorrow and see what answer should be given.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I can give you full particulars. I have done it before.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. When he is making his inquiries, I wonder whether he would ascertain whether within the last two or three years the Canadian National Railways sold property other than in my area to defeated Liberal candidates?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister indicate whether any action has been taken respecting the tariff on potatoes subsequent to the report by the tariff board on November 5 of last year? If so, is any further action contemplated? Would the minister please explain?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: The
report of the tariff board on potatoes was an extremely comprehensive document and was the result of a hearing before the tariff board which occupied considerable time. When we

Grain
realized that, we felt that it would be proper to consult with both the applicants before the board and the various governments concerned. We therefore wrote to the ministers of agriculture in all those provinces which are particularly interested in potato growing and marketing, to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and to the Canadian Horticultural Council, inviting them to come here and discuss the report. I think they will be here on Friday and Saturday of this week.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 3, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)- Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide, by way of a guarantee for bank loans made on or after the 15th day of November, 1955, and before the 1st day of June, 1956, for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver their grain; to provide also that the governor in council may extend the application of the act to cover loans made before the 1st day of June, 1957; and to provide further that any amount paid to a bank under the act be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Mr. Caslleden:: When this debate was adjourned I was dealing with the reasons why we were opposing this legislation as a' means of correcting a very serious cash shortage situation in the prairie regions. At that time I pointed out the scheme was impracticable as a measure to get cash into the hands of the farmers who needed it most.
I maintain it was unjust and wrong in principle to ask those people who had spent their time during the year in producing grain and then, because of the policies of this government, were unable to deliver it, to assume a further burden of debt, and to carry on top of that a further interest of 5 per cent on the loan.
The Manitoba farmer who blasted his television set in a moment of righteous indignation expressed the feelings of the prairie farmers in a very real manner. What he is reported to have said on that occasion exemplifies exactly what the producer thinks. He is reported in the Winnipeg Free Press of February 3 as having said:
That man Tucker! Does he think I am going to work all year and then pay interest to the banks on my whole summer's work?
That is exactly how the farmer looks at this legislation. For that reason we maintain it is unjust and wrong. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) says that he is supporting it, and that the legislation does
(Mr. Harris.]
exactly what it was intended to do. Well, a few farmers may be compelled to pay the 5 per cent interest. A very small percentage of the farmers may be able to qualify. Under the pressure of debts against them they may go to the banks and, if they qualify, assume an extra burden of debt, but I can assure the minister and those who are supporting this legislation that the farmers do so with a great deal of disgust, and they feel the injustice of it.
The difficulties of the situation are very real. I have a letter from one of the producers in my own constituency. He writes:
On January 11, 1956, we delivered our first load of grain since December 22, 1954.
It is over a year since he had been allowed to deliver any grain at all. Many farmers are in the same position, particularly if they had decided that they were not going to deliver the grain except to an elevator which they owned. The farmers' requests have been very clear. If the minister or anybody else assumes that the farmer has been asking for anything else, he is entirely wrong. They made their requests very clear. They asked for cash advances on the grain which is properly stored on the farm. It could be inspected by people who know how to inspect it. It could be graded; it could be sealed up and the advance noted in their permit books so that they would be absolutely sure that they could not deliver without repaying the advance which they had obtained. Surely there is a minimum of justice in their request.
For anyone to agree with this legislation is to agree with what the leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan termed it. It is something useless, as he described it. It is like voting for a stirrup pump in fighting a forest fire. As a matter of fact, the producers there look upon it as a deliberate insult. It reveals a callous disregard for those people who have been placed in the difficulties in which they find themselves today by the policies and the administration of the government opposite. The failure to sell the grain, the failure to provide the means for transporting this grain out of the elevators, have been the two things which have brought about the situation that exists at the present time. Here they are with their bins loaded. Many of them have not even room in their bins for all the wheat. They are still sitting there completely unable to get anything in the way of money to carry on their businesses or to pay any of the cost of operation of the past year.
I was speaking the other day of the difficulty that a person from the prairie region has in letting the people of eastern Canada know what some of the difficulties are out there. I went to the net farm income of the

dominion bureau of statistics and found that the reports for the past three years gave the net farm income in 1954 as compared with 1952. The figures for 1955 are not out yet but the trend is exactly the same. The following are the decreases in net farm income for the eastern provinces from 1952 to 1954:
Maritime provinces	
19	per	centQuebec	
3	per	centOntario	
15	per	cent
When we come to the prairie provinces we find these figures:
Manitoba	
54	per	centSaskatchewan	
77	per	centAlberta	
50	per	centBritish Columbia	
10	per	cent
Those figures reveal why it is the farmers in the west are disturbed about the situation when after another year of decrease in their income they find themselves with an abundant crop of good grain which they are unable to deliver.
It is in the face of the unqualified refusal on the part of the government to give consideration to the payment of cash advances against properly stored farm grain that we make the protest we are making. We are going to continue to make that protest.
To add insult to this refusal to make cash advances on properly stored farm grain, similar to what has been done in the United States for years, we have the Minister of Trade and Commerce saying that those people who recommend such cash advances are enemies of the wheat board method of delivering grain. Then we have the Minister of Agriculture who comes from that area, and who should know what the situation is, saying that the bank loan system will do what it was intended to do. What it is intended to do is to put the producer deeper into debt. It must be that because that is exactly what is going to happen, there will be another burden of interest placed upon his back.
What do we suggest should be done under the circumstances? We say that the farmers should be given advances on properly stored farm grain. This job is too big for the banks to handle and we suggest that since the elevator agents under the arrangement proposed by the government are going to be asked to collect the grain and thus pay off the loan they should be allowed to recommend the advances.
The elevator agent is the one who knows the farmer well. There are far more of these agents throughout the west than there are bankers. Many farmers are some distance away from the bank and they possibly cannot get out to the bank, but all farmers haul their grain to the local elevators. They know the
Crain
elevator agents personally because they do business with them. The elevator agents know the farmers and they could even visit the farms to grade the grain and see that it is properly stored. If necessary they could place seals upon the granary doors. They could enter the details in the permit book which is in the elevator, and when the farmer is allowed to deliver his grain, that could be deducted from the cash advance. The producer would thus be enabled to carry on his operations.
Next I would suggest to the minister that he get his box cars into operation and clear up the congestion that exists. Box cars should be placed across Canada to do the job they are intended to do, that is to carry grain from the small delivery points to the space available in the elevators.
On Monday of this week the house had the privilege of listening to Sir Anthony Eden, Prime Minister of Great Britain. Sir Anthony made a statement which should have been listened to closely by the members of this house when he said:
Economic weapons may take the place of military ones. But always our purpose must be the same; to maintain the right that men's minds may be free and the care that their bellies be filled.
Sir Anthony told the government and this country that the economic weapons of today may replace military weapons. We have a government here which is ready to spend $2,000 million a year on defence and military weapons, but not one-tenth of that for economic production. This government is ready to administer the affairs of this country so that money is spent on military weapons to provide profits for industry in the heavily industrialized areas where prosperity is maintained, but little is spent on those who are producing the economic weapon of food for a hungry world. While the rest of Canada enjoys prosperity, agriculture, which represents about 20 per cent of the population of Canada, must be satisfied with slightly over 8 per cent of the national income.
The government is sponsoring this resolution and the bill to follow, and the official opposition have declared that they are going to support it. The Social Credit party have indicated that they are going to support it, although somewhat reluctantly. The 23 members of this party cannot hope to prevent the passage of the legislation, but we do urge the opposition parties to support us in our fight against a piece of injustice, a piece of useless legislation which will accomplish little more than to add an increased debt burden to those who are doing this job of producing. We oppose it in principle and it is clearly our duty to fight against it. Certainly I can say to the committee that we will never support it.

Grain


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I rise to deal with a matter which I attempted to place before the house on an earlier occasion this week, but as it was pointed out to me that there would be another opportunity, I am availing myself of this opportunity as 1 indicated I would. In the Winnipeg Free Press of February 3 was an article on the editorial page dealing with the debate in the house on this subject. It was headed "Farm Loans Debate at Ottawa" and then followed in capitals, "One Solution Overlooked". The article then went on to suggest that the solution overlooked was the proposal for the payment of cash for wheat actually on farms.
I started to point out earlier that this was entirely contrary to the facts. As it was indicated at that time that I could not proceed with the matter, I intend now to place on the record exactly what is the situation. This article, which would be read extensively in western Canada where this subject is of utmost importance, contains statements to which I should like to refer, one being:
It is a curious fact that so far no party has advocated payment by the wheat board on the farm-that is, neither lending nor advancing money but making a partial payment on the farm.
Later in the same article these words appear:
The loans or advances proposed alike by the Liberal, Conservative and C.C.F. parties would be repayable by farmers in cash.
I realize that those who are dealing with the debates in this house must find it difficult to follow every detail, but most certainly this article is entirely inconsistent with the facts. For that reason, and because this subject is so important, it does become necessary to place side by side with that statement what has already been said, and said without any uncertainty. An added reason why this becomes necessary is that the Minister of Justice took it on himself to enlighten his own constituents by a letter to the Minnedosa Tribune. He was discussing this proposal by the government which is now under consideration. He tried to throw a smoke-screen around the debate that has been taking place here and he sought to convey an inaccurate impression of what has been said in this house. Whatever excuse may be offered on behalf of the writer of an article of this kind, such an excuse does not apply to a member of the house who sits here and knows perfectly well what the facts are. This statement was contained in the letter of the Minister of Justice to the Minnedosa Tribune:
This is a much more beneficial arrangement for western wheat farmers than any small difference there might be between bank loans at five per cent and a slightly lesser rate of interest on advances made by the wheat board.
IMr. Castleden.]
That is the line that is being followed in attempting to becloud the issue. The suggestion is being made and, undoubtedly, innocently picked up by others who are not so directly acquainted with the facts, that it is simply a difference of the method by which the loans will be advanced and repaid. That, of course, is not the situation. Not at the beginning of this debate, nor even during the recent months that have passed, but very much earlier, we advocated that there should be legislation on the statute books under which it would be possible to make cash payment for wheat stored on the farm at any time when the elevator space to absorb that wheat was not available. I made that specific proposal, as I have mentioned on other occasions, on December 17, 1952. I am not going to suggest that others may not have made that on earlier occasions. I do say it is a matter of record in Hansard that on December 17, 1952, I advocated without any reservation that there should be placed on the statute books legislation which would make it possible to pay cash for grain stored on the farm where that grain could not be taken over by the elevators which would ordinarily provide not only the storage but the payments.
I indicated then, as I have indicated since, that we are dealing with an abnormal situation and that the farmer has no place to look to but the government for the grain he produces, under the laws and regulations as they now stand. Because of the attempt to create the impression that it is only a question of which kind of loan and the amount of interest that is involved, it does become necessary to recall what has been said during this present session. The fact that it was said so short a time ago makes it doubly difficult to understand why anybody should be so confused about what has taken place in this house, and particularly a minister of the crown'who has been following a subject. This was what I said on January 12, 1956, and this session opened only on January 10. I quote from my remarks recorded at page 40 of Hansard:
The banks are not in a position to carry out any system of cash payments. There was a perfectly simple method, and that was to make cash payments as advances on the quota book in the ordinary way in relation to a stated quota of the grain grown last year, and then to have the grain made deliverable upon demand as soon as space became available in the elevators. No real difficulty presents itself in connection with that. The elevators are strategically situated to absorb the grain; the elevators have the staff to do the job. The elevators could have handled it satisfactorily under a system that would have been simple and that would have involved no serious difficulties of any kind.

Then I discussed the responsibilities of the government in regard to this matter, and on page 41 of Hansard I am reported as saying the following:
I have made certain proposals and I repeat them now. One: Provision should be made for immediate cash advances in the ordinary way on the quota book by the wheat board for farm-stored grain on a quota basis, making an initial payment thereon as if the wheat had been delivered to the elevator. The wheat would then be delivered on demand by the farmer as elevator space became available.
Two: Low-grade wheat now occupying elevator storage space while high-grade wheat cannot be stored should be sold for feed grain in Ontario, Quebec and abroad. This would provide elevator space for a good part of last year's high quality crop.
Three: The government should recruit top-flight salesmen from Canadian business concerns who would plan an aggressive selling policy for Canadian wheat and give advice as to long-term selling policies.
Four: The government should refer the whole problem of the handling and sale of Canadian wheat and its relationship to the Canadian economy as a whole to the Gordon commission on Canada's economic prospects and ask for an early interim report as well as a more complete report later on.
Five: The government should take immediate steps to assure the full use of all elevator space.
Those were the specific proposals made at that time. They were definite; they were clear; they were not subject to any qualifications. Since that time, in the discussion which has taken place, I have emphasized the vital importance of a statement by the government at this time as to what its policy is going to be, not only in regard to this immediate problem but in regard to the crop that will be grown in 1956. I have pointed out that not only are we concerned with the immediate and urgent problem confronting so many farmers in western Canada at this time but that these farmers very shortly will be called upon to ask themselves what they are going to do about seeding for the coming year. It is the duty, it is the urgent obligation of this government, not only to the farmers of western Canada but to all Canadians, to say now what they are going to do about the 1956 crops. Otherwise we may have a gravely aggravated situation infinitely worse even than that which exists today.
The government can have no excuse. Not only from ourselves but from members of other parties in this house, although not from the government side, has come the demand that there be a clear statement in regard to the policy that will govern our farmers in their seeding and in the planting of their crops for the current year.
Now I should like to deal with another matter. I pointed out that there is a vital and fundamental difference between this
Grain
problem and the problem that confronts many other agricultural producers. It is very natural for the potato grower in Prince Edward Island, in New Brunswick or elsewhere to say to himself that he faces an even more urgent problem. In some ways in regard to his own farming he does. He has a perishable crop. He has a crop that cannot be held in the same way. The farmer who is relying mainly on potatoes faces a real crisis. The same can be said of the apple grower. The same can be said of other agricultural producers. But I pointed out that there is a difference. These problems must be dealt with. It is the responsibility of the government to face up to these problems.
In the case of the western wheat grower, however, there is a particular aspect to the problem which makes it a different problem and one for which every member of parliament must accept responsibility. We are accepting that responsibility by urging the government to act now in a practical, sensible way in order to meet the immediate requirements and also to state their policy for the current year so that the farmers may know where they are at in planning their seeding for the current year.
We have also urged, as it is our duty to do, certain specific things with regard to the long term problem as well. In order that other Canadians not living in the prairie provinces and not directly affected by this may understand why this problem is different and why there is a special obligation on the part of the government to take appropriate steps with respect to the situation, I said this, as recorded at page 608 of Hansard of January 27 of this year:
One of the things which should be borne in mind, without in any way debating all the questions that may arise as to details of operation and otherwise, is the fact that the government says by law "this is our grain", which makes them in effect the owners of that grain the moment it is harvested.
I emphasize that point. In effect the moment the wheat is harvested the government becomes the owner of the grain. There is no other purchaser. The wheat farmer has been permitted to assume, and with reason, that the wheat would be taken up appropriately year by year so that from this grain, which must be delivered to the government agency, he would get an adequate return on the basis of a quota per acre at the initial price fixed by the board, and that this amount would then be handed to him as a cash advance on his quota book.
Our argument, and we have put it forward for some considerable time, not just in the last few months, is that the government alone can take the wheat and the government is already in fact the ultimate owner and by law can be the only owner in the end when it is sold.
That is the crux of this whole problem, Mr. Chairman. The government has said: You can only sell to us. The government has implied: You can look to us for an adequate

Grain
return. Any other interpretation would be meaningless, would be senseless. Unless and until the government is prepared to say that some other policy applies, it is reasonable for the farmers of western Canada to expect that they would get an appropriate cash payment for their grain. When the government has failed to take the necessary steps to clear the elevators, that is all the more reason why the government must provide a cash payment to the farmer on his farm for the grain which in fact can only be sold to the government.
It is not open to question that there is over 100 million bushels of elevator space in this country at the present time where grain could be absorbed if the government took real action with respect to this matter. It is not open to question that certain things could have been done under the authority of the government to move out lower quality grain and make way for the high quality grain which is marketable at all times with appropriate sales efforts in the markets of the world.
These are the things we have put before the house. I have only re-entered the discussion in the committee stage to correct the most inaccurate impression that was conveyed, I am sure innocently in the case of the writer of the Winnipeg Free Press but I am certain not so innocently by the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Chairman, I rise this afternoon to take part in the debate on the resolution because I feel every Canadian is interested in the problems of the wheat growers of western Canada. This is my third session sitting as a member on this side of the house, and I have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the intricacies of the wheat problem. As a member of the standing committee on agriculture I have had further instructions respecting wheat.
When speaking to the house the other day the hon. member for Saskatoon referred to the Liberal backbenchers, and goodness knows we have been called everything you can imagine, rubber stamps and so on. In referring to the majority here he said that it was so large that he could not keep track of it and that it would never do for three members on the government side to get up and vote for something which would be for the good of the wheat farmers of Canada because the government might be defeated. 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.
As the member for Westmorland I do not know of any constituency outside of the

prairie provinces that is so greatly affected by the wheat situation. When wheat does not move to the winter ports we suffer greatly through the reduction of the number of men required by the C.N.R., and when it moves through as it is doing now we experience a small local boom. I of course am not a wheat expert but I have listened to wheat growers here. In fact, from the opposition benches I have listened to school teachers and assorted professions as well as the usual platoon o| Tory colonels and assorted brass who are experts on everything. As an eastern barrister I therefore feel I have a right to speak on this question.
I also represent a great number of real farmers who are on their farms the whole year round and who do not get their milk from the nearest city. I should like to point out to some of these representatives of wheat producers that farming did not originate in the prairie provinces. I have here a paper, the Maritime Farmer, which is in its 61st year of publication. It was first published about 11 years before the prairie provinces were carved out of the west.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Manitoba is older than that.


Henry Joseph Murphy: I think the guarantee of loans to western wheat producers should be of assistance to them. I know that the farmers of New Brunswick 4 would like to have the same guarantee. Of course I am often told that we do not have farmers because our farms are much smaller and that when we are dealing with the question of guaranteeing loans to western wheat producers we are dealing with a different type of producer than in eastern Canada.
The farms out west are as big as entire foreign countries. Speaking here in the House of Commons the other night the hon. member for Macleod stated that in his riding there were some farms that were as large as the state of Israel. I have heard members of the C.C.F. party who view with alarm the conditions of the wheat producers. I have heard other farmers from the west who tell us that the western wheat producer is not badly off. What is the socialistic government of Saskatchewan doing to assist the western wheat growers? I do not know. They may be doing something. Perhaps later on in the debate we shall be told.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Plenty.


Henry Joseph Murphy: There must be provincial loan institutions that the Saskatchewan government can guarantee loans of, in just the same way as the federal government proposes to guarantee the loans to farmers at the chartered banks. 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 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.


Mr. Blackmore:: That is a nonsensical remark.


Mr. Quelch:: Is the hon. member aware of the fact that the farmers' organizations have asked for cash advances?


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


Henry Joseph Murphy: I have the floor and I intend to keep it because if the wheat growers get it they certainly will not give me the chance to finish.


Victor Quelch: Do not make silly statements.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Another point that I think the C.C.F. should take into consideration in the guaranteeing of these bank loans to the farmers is that last year in this house we listened to a debate on the nationalization of banks. If this proposal-the government's guaranteeing bank loans to the wheat growers-is not the first step towards the nationalization of banks, if not I do not know what is, and therefore I think they should applaud it.


Victor Quelch: Are you supporting nationalization?


Joseph Warner Murphy: In this session I have heard people from the opposition benches criticize the selling of butter at 37 cents a pound and say that the government should have sold this butter to the Canadian consumers. Why do they not come up with the same suggestion on wheat? Why do they not suggest that the government buy the wheat and give it to the Canadian public at such a low rate that bread will be a penny a loaf? Why do they not attempt to wreck the domestic market on wheat as they did the domestic butter market? No, they do not suggest that. They suggest that we should have an increase in the price of domestic wheat.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that your way of getting rid of the surplus?


Edward George McCullough: You
do not know the difference between May wheat and Mae West.


Henry Joseph Murphy: I have noted with amusement the enjoyment that the C.C.F. members have derived from an incident that was reported in the paper, namely the shooting of a television panel. Of course, no one understands why this western wheat producer 67509-62 J
Grain
would use a shotgun or scattergun on a li-foot target containing four members of the panel. One would have thought he would have shot everybody. Speaking of this incident the other day, the hon. member for Humboldt -Melfort-and I wonder whether he is summing up the mentality of the western wheat grower-said this, as reported at page 835 of Hansard:
So all winter long this man nursed this great and burning sense of wrong. Then, almost at the breaking point, he had the great misfortune of seeing on television the hon. member for Rosthem in an extremely clumsy attempt to justify the government's bank loan legislation. I can imagine with what demon-like glee he reached for his shotgun and in one reckless moment had his revenge, satisfied at last that he had gained some kind of wild justice.
What does the western wheat producer want? Does he want wild justice?


An hon. Member:: More shells.


Henry Joseph Murphy: I have here in my hand a clipping from the Regina Leader-Post which contains an article from Saskatoon. It is headed "Mass march on Ottawa 'next step' " and reads in part as follows:
A mass march on Ottawa was the next step unless the federal government heeded the demand for cash advances on farm-stored grain, parity prices and a more realistic export sales policy, Hazen Argue, C.C.F. M.P. for Assiniboia, warned in an address here Thursday evening.


Mr. Nicholson:: What date was that?


Joseph Warner Murphy: I have not the date but it appeared in the Regina Leader-Post.
I listened to the members of the opposition parties here all trying to say something that is going to please those western wheat growers, and all making a plea for the support of the western wheat producer. It seems to me that the western wheat producer in this case is the man who holds the big stick and of whom everybody is afraid politically. However, I cannot see the reasoning in this regard because we know that the judgment of the majority of the western wheat growers does not seem to be too good.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that the Liberal opinion with respect to the judgment of the western wheat growers?


Henry Joseph Murphy: Otherwise
they would not send to Ottawa this large number of splinter party members; they would send more Liberal members.


Mr. Ellis:: Liberals make good targets.


Henry Joseph Murphy: We in this party are doing what is best for the western wheat producer. If the western wheat producers in these constituencies represented by the C.C.F. members would stop shooting

Grain
at their radio and television sets and would listen to what we have to tell them, I think we would soon have a large Liberal representation here from Saskatchewan. I think that this point should be gotten across to the wheat producers, namely that we are trying to do something for them. All this obstruction by the socialists is used only as a weapon to keep them dissatisfied in the west. Use is made of such expressions as "burning sense of wrong" and "march on Ottawa". As long as they can keep the wheat producers discontented, they feel that they will come back here to Ottawa. I have listened to these members pleading with the government. I will now make a plea to them. My plea is this: Let the government do something for the western farmers. Stop your obstruction and you will have contented wheat farmers in the west.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the hon. member was not in the house the other day when the Minister of Agriculture spoke. As reported at page 858 of Hansard the minister said this:
I am sure we all agree that this is no question about which we can indulge in too much humour.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Toe the line over there.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I really have not any quarrel with the farmers down in Westmorland county, and I am sure that the hon. member who has just spoken will not go down to meet his farm people and compare what he has said this afternoon with what the western farmers are saying through their members in parliament. I want to establish the fact that, while we are probably more vocal than are the members from other farm communities in Canada, our situation is not more serious. But that should not muzzle us all. I wish the hon. member who has just spoken would take some time to find out the position of the farmers in Westmorland county and ascertain if they are satisfied with the share of the national income that they are getting compared with-


Henry Joseph Murphy: No one is
guaranteeing their loans.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -the share of the national income that is going to other sectors of the economy.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The hon. member for Westmorland is satisfied with the government.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: When the Minister of Trade and Commerce opened this debate, he spoke about the sales of wheat for the last five years and said there is no period of five years which comes within hundreds of millions of bushels of this record, and that is quite true.

However, the minister did not say that for the same period farm costs had been at the highest level of any time in the history of Canada. The minister indicated that he was very well satisfied with sales. I am sorry that he and the Minister of Agriculture do not agree, and I am sorry that he does not take time to read his own statistics.
The last issue of Canadian Statistics Weekly, issued January 25, reached us last night or the night before. It points out that farm marketing of wheat in the period August 1, 1954 to 1955, was 126 million; this year 94 million; marketings of oats dropped from 45 million to 20 million; barley from 74 million to 49 million and rye from 7 million to 1 million. How can the minister say he is satisfied when farm marketings are dropping off at this rate?


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I was speaking about export sales. I was not speaking about marketing. My hon. friend is speaking about marketings in the country and I was talking about export sales.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister said, as
reported in Hansard for January 27, 1956, page 603:
It is now evident, however, that sufficient sales will be made by the Canadian wheat board this crop year to enable farmers to deliver the equivalent of a better than average crop.
He went on to say the farmers would be able to deliver 320 million bushels. If the farmers are going to be able to deliver that quantity of grain it is time the minister got the trend moving in the other direction.
The hon. member for Assiniboia was good enough to lend me a copy of "Full Prosperity for Agriculture". This has been produced by a conference on economic progress. There is a very imposing list of about a dozen outstanding people in the United States who have worked on this project. On the cover there is a graph showing how the national income in the United States has been going up since 1951 and the farm operators' net income going down. In this book there are some charts showing the position of the United States farmer in their economy, and the farm income in the United States compared with the national income going to other sectors of the economy. While I cannot prove it I am sure that these United States figures are true of Canada. I shall have something to say about this a little later.
Although the minister who has sponsored this bill is in charge of the bureau of statistics he has failed to give directions to the bureau to make similar statistics available for Canada. Here is a chart showing the percentage of the people in the country who are

able to enjoy such comforts as electricity, running water and so forth. I am sorry the hon. member for Westmorland cannot take it any longer, but some of his neighbours-


Henry Joseph Murphy: What is that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Welcome back.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am glad to see the hon. member has come back. I should like the hon. member for Westmorland to look at this table which has been supplied to me by the bureau of statistics giving the percentage of Canadians who are able to enjoy these comforts, necessities for most people. This is for Canada. Only 56-2 per cent of the rural areas enjoy electricity; 75 per cent of the non-farm and 99 per cent urban; running water, 32 per cent farm; 46 per cent non-farm and 94 per cent urban; flush toilet, 20 per cent farm; 34 per cent non-farm and 85 per cent urban; installed bath or shower, 15 per cent rural; 27 per cent non-farm and 77 per cent urban; telephone, 44 per cent farm; 33 per cent non-farm and 71 per cent urban; mechanical refrigeration, 21 per cent farm; 30 per cent non-farm and 58 per cent urban.


Mr. Boisvert:: What about television sets and cars?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I will come to that later. I ask members of parliament who have any farmers in their constituencies: Do they like to live in a country where only 20 per cent of them in the hundred years that Canada has been developed as a farming country now enjoy the luxury of flush toilets in their home? If there is any member in this house who believes that farmers should not have these modern conveniences, let him get up and say that we should be satisfied with the situation where so few of our farm people are able to go into the market and provide employment for plumbers and other people.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Would the hon. member permit a question on those figures? Does he know that the percentage enjoying such facilities as flush toilets and running water is almost twice as high in New Brunswick as in the socialistic state of Saskatchewan?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If my hon. friend wants to make another speech, he will have another half hour when I am through. I am speaking about the rural areas, not the city.
This publication from the United States gives the information concerning the percentage of farm people in the United States getting less than $1,000 a year, less than $2,000 and different amounts. I thought this
Grain
was valuable information to have, so I telephoned the bureau of statistics to get comparable information for Canada. I was advised that we have never compiled that sort of information in Canada. I was advised that it would cost some money to compile it and I know it would. I think it also costs some money to keep 20 per cent of the Canadian people in a position where they have no accurate information as to how rotten a deal they are getting in the country.
Now, in the United States in 1953 there were 10 per cent of the farmers who had an income of less than $2,000 a year. This suggests that there is a large sector of the population that should be in the market for the things which they want but which they cannot have. The other day I mentioned the fact that we have this information broken down for the non-farm sectors of our economy. I think it is interesting to find that in the non-farm sectors of the economy we have 34 per cent of the people who get less than $2,500, and we have 23 per cent who get less than $2,000. If we could put those two sets of statistics together, if we could have the percentage of farm people who are getting less than $1,000 a year, less than $2,000 a year, and face up to the fact that in the year 1956-


An hon. Member:: Order; he is out of order.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Well, Mr. Chairman, if some of the backbenchers want to take over-


Mr. Sluder:: That is the speech you made last year.


Walter Edward Harris: On a point of order, I quite realize it is pretty nearly always desirable to let hon. members say what they will because they will speak 30 minutes and sit down, but it is a little difficult at this time to understand just what the remarks the hon. member is making have to do with the bill to provide loans on a voluntary basis to those farmers who wish to take them.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am glad the Minister of Finance has intervened at this stage because one of the reasons this legislation is before us is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has admitted there is a problem; but it is obvious that the Minister of Finance does not share that view. And certainly, if you listened to the hon. member for Westmorland there are a lot of backbenchers here who do not think there is any real need for this legislation. We have to decide whether wheat farmers in western Canada have been able to set aside bonds, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggests that if advances were put through they would go into the bond market. With all due respect,

Grain
Mr. Chairman, I think what I am presenting here is quite in order. We should have some more information on this.
I received from the Minister of National Revenue his last taxation statistics. These also suggest that this problem affects all sectors of the country. After I spoke the other day one of the government members, who flatters me by listening to what I have to say, remarked that surely I was wrong in suggesting that fewer than 20 per cent of the farmers have ever had enough income to pay income tax. I admitted that I did not have statistics before me, but I checked with national revenue and I found that I should have said around 10 per cent, because in
1953	only 69,200 farmers in Canada had enough revenue to pay income tax. I would also say to the member for Westmorland that the farmers in poverty-stricken Saskatchewan paid more than half of the income tax paid by all farmers in Canada in 1953.
I am suggesting that there has been a very serious development since 1953. When the
1954	statistics are available the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue are going to find that their revenue from income tax is away down on farm revenue all over Canada. It is a pretty serious state of affairs.


The Chairman:: Order. I did not rise immediately after the Minister of Finance raised the point of order because I wished to give the hon. member who had the floor every opportunity to discuss this resolution. I feel that I must rise at the present time, however, since, on a resolution in regard to guaranteeing bank loans to farmers, he is going into statistics with regard to income tax, and comparing payments of income taxes as between the several provinces in this country. I think the hon. member will agree that a discussion of that kind has no place in the discussion of this particular measure. I hope he will try from now on to confine his remarks particularly to the resolution before us.
May I remind him that we are governed by a rule which states that speeches in committee must be strictly relevant to the item under consideration.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Thank you, I shall be glad to come back to this ait some other time. Before the legislation is passed hon. members should be satisfied as to whether or not there is need for it.
I have returns from the municipal secretaries in my constituency giving the arrears of taxes at the end of last year compared with the year before.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
IMr. Nicholson.l


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Well, if farmers cannot pay their taxes, it is some indication that something is wrong. If the arrears at the end of last year amounted to $1,209,000, compared with $819,000 the previous year, it indicates that something is wrong in this sector of the economy.
If the Minister of Trade and Commerce is satisfied that there is not a thing to worry about; that sales are to go on; that we are going to be able to market more than an average crop, then all the people of Canada should take an interest in this important industry.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce supplies us information with regard to what they are doing in other countries in the world. He boasts of the fact that Canada has not provided any subsidies. We have this large amount of wheat on hand because of good crops and good weather. Surely, he is not going to suggest that our hope of salvation lies in our having a series of crop failures. If we can have poor crops for a year he will be able to dispose of the surplus, and the municipalities and somebody else will worry about the people who have not been able to meet their responsibilities.
The Minister of Agriculture also sends us a good deal of information from time to time. I see that in the last issue of Agriculture Abroad he has an interesting section on what they are doing in the United States. In his report to congress the President of the United States gave quite a different picture from what the minister gave in the book he put out. The Minister of Agriculture points out that in the United States they are making plans to provide a soil bank and to try to move some of the surplus wheat in that country. He said something about people who are not able to get enough to eat in certain countries.
I should like to move to another subject. On Tuesday, January 31, I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question about sales to Poland. The minister gave me a bit of a lecture and said, as reported at page 704 of Hansard:
It has been a well-known rule of the department not to answer questions on current wheat transactions. My hon. friend could ask me today how many bushels we have sold to Poland, and tomorrow how many bushels we have sold to the United Kingdom, and following that how much to Germany, thus telling our competitors our exact position in every market.
Well, I find that in the issue I have here the minister gives the exact figures of the sales to the different countries; he gives the details of the sales to Poland.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is quite mistaken. What he is looking at is the list of exports. Sales are never made public.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have before me one of the minister's reports. It does tell the number of bushels that went to Poland in the last month and in the last six months.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Exports.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Well, those are sales.


Mr. Argue:: They are pretty closely tied together.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This grain is moving into one of the important markets.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Tied together or not, let my hon. friend refer to the list by its proper title, which is exports instead of sales.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I presume they would not go if they were not sold. In the minister's wheat review he does not mind telling us what our competitors are doing. He points out that:
The French grain board has made another large sale in the form of around 200,000 tons (7,349,000 bushels) of wheat and 100,000 tons of flour (5,062,000 bushels of wheat equivalent) to Poland. Recent purchases have been at $71.25 per ton ($1.94 per bushel) c.i.f. with a year's credit.
If France is prepared to make wheat available to Poland on that basis, then I do not think the minister should consider what he has proposed to do as a secret. If this type of transaction is to continue the minister is going to have to take the people of Canada into his confidence and encourage the purchase by Canadians of some of the goods that Poland must sell if it is to participate annually in this sort of transaction. It is not good enough for the minister to suggest that it is secret.
I understand that Poland wanted to buy
200,000	tons of wheat. I realize that the government must decide whether they can take a risk as to credit, but I should think that, with such large supplies of wheat on hand, having once decided that we will take some chances in extending credit, we should be ready to take further chances by extending additional credit. Nearly everyone in the west who wants to get something in the west can get it if wheat can be used on a barter basis. There is wheat all over the place and farmers are dealing with one another and making deals with the townspeople. Wheat is being used for a variety of purposes.
If Poland is prepared to take part of their imports from Canada we should welcome that sort of transaction. Apparently France has
Grain
agreed to give credit for a year for 7 million bushels in the form of wheat and over 5 million bushels in the form of flour. With such a large volume of wheat on hand I see no reason why we should not be prepared to extend more credit for a longer period.
I understand that Poland is making a real effort to get goods into this country. I have seen some of the booklets they are putting out on Polish foreign trade which are printed in English, French, German, Spanish and Russian. They are sending these out with a view to interesting Canadian importers and buyers in their products. I suggest that the two organizations with which I am associated, the wheat pool in Saskatchewan and the federated co-op, should be brought into the minister's confidence.
For instance, last fall you could not buy cement within 60 miles of where I live. Finally we were able to get hold of some United States cement but the price was 80 cents a bag more than Canadian cement. At the same time Poland was trying to get cement into the Canadian market. When we are unable to supply our own market it seems to me that the Department of Trade and Commerce should be-


William Alfred Robinson: I am sorry to be forced to rise once more, but I have now listened tc the hon. member for a considerable time and he has spoken of transactions in wheat with Poland and he is now speaking of purchases of cement. I am utterly unable to ascertain how he relates those remarks to the particulai resolution before us. I realize that in his opening statement the minister referred tc exports of wheat in a general way and a discussion of that kind is not being denied any hon. member during the course of this debate but I do feel that these particular matters have little or no relationship to the resolutior under discussion and therefore should not be entered into at this time.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I aocepl
your ruling. We are discussing a problem which is vital to the prairie wheat farmers in three provinces. The proposal which is before us to shift responsibility from the government to the banks is one which I jus1 cannot support. I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he thinks his colleagues would accept a proposal of the kind he is making to the wheat farmers and that instead of having their cheques for $2,250 eacl month they would have to go to the ban! for a loan and would not receive any furthei salary until our wheat surplus had been disposed of. That might not be a problem tc some members of the cabinet, but it would be a great problem to many Canadians if they

Grain
were told that they would not be able to get their salaries, that they could borrow up to $1,500 maximum under certain conditions but regardless of their expenses they would not be able to have the balance made available to them.
I suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce have another look at the problem which has been presented to him. I think that hon. members in all sections of the house who speak for farm people-


Irvin William Studer: You are speaking for the socialists.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member who has interrupted me has not taken part in this debate but I am sure he will not go back to Swift Current-Maple Creek and try to convince the people there that this proposed legislation is good enough for the people of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, 1 am not going to traverse any of the ground that I covered on a previous occasion, but I do want to reiterate the stand I took against bank loans on the security of farmers' wheat. During the last few days, as a consequence of the debates that have taken place in this house, I find that western farmers more than ever regard this legislation as something in the nature of a deliberate slap at their legitimate demands. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat suggested to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that ministers of the cabinet, under the circumstances which he outlined, should be advised that instead of getting their monthly salary they might very well go to the bank and borrow. It occurs to me that there has been a great change in the Minister of Trade and Commerce in recent years. A few years ago he said, "What is a million?" But the other day he said, "I aim not interested in those who think $1,500 is chicken feed."


Clarence Decatur Howe: While we are on that subject may I say that a few years before that I was going to the bank to borrow money so I could pay the people who were employed by me.


John George Diefenbaker: I am still comparing the million dollar mentality of the minister with bis later comment in regard to the farmers when he said that he was not interested in the man who thought that $1,500 as the maximum loan under this plan was chicken Eeed.
As far as the western farmer is concerned, be is not asking for a handout nor is he expecting to receive anything in the nature rf a handout under the legislation now before this house. The alternative suggested by the

opposition is a system of cash advances on wheat in the farmers' granaries.
Some mention was made the other day that the wheat pool of Saskatchewan was in favour of this legislation. 1 have before me a report which appeared in the Star-Phoenix of November 9 last in which it was indicated that the wheat pool officials, having read a report to the effect that the government bank loan policy was supported by the pool, issued the following statement:
Over the years, the policy of the wheat pool organization is laid down by the delegates in annual meeting . . . After a very complete discussion of the whole situation, the delegates passed resolutions, reading as follows:
"That we urge the government of Canada to make immediate provision for advances to farmers on farm-stored grain.
"That advances to farmers on farm-stored grain should be up to one-half the normal delivery expected and repayable on the basis of one-half of the value of each delivery made by the farmer.
"That advances on farm-stored grain should be made by way of government-guaranteed loans to the Canadian wheat board; the Canadian wheat board to arrange with elevator companies to make the advances to individual farmers, and that any interest involved in such loans should be absorbed by the federal treasury."
That in general represents the viewpoint not only of the wheat pool organization in Saskatchewan but of farmers in general throughout the province. The situation in which they find themselves today is resulting in very pronounced reductions in the purchases by farmers of those manufactured products which come into the western provinces, in the main, from the eastern provinces. This is not a sectional problem. This is a national problem, the maintenance of a fair purchasing power among farmers.
The other day mention was made of the prices of wheat during the 1930's as compared with today, to indicate that today there was no real need for cash advances. What really counts is the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat. According to unchallengeable statistics issued by the bureau of statistics, it is interesting to note that the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat of the 1953-54 crop is the same as the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat in 1933-34. In other words the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat today, as then, is 70 cents. In 1934-35-that would be the period while Mr. Bennett was in power-the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat was 84 cents. Then that figure went up and down, and last year we found-and the situation is worse this year-that the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat was 70 cents. It was 71 cents in 1939-40. It rose to $1.28 in 1945-46; the purchasing price since 1945-46 until 1954 has fallen by 58 cents to the bushel. That is a major consideration. It

is not the actual price; it is what that price will supply in purchasing power.
When I hear my hon. friends opposite talking about the 1930's, let me repeat this. In 1953-54 the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat was exactly the same as it was in 1933-34. That, I hope, is an answer to the situation of the western farmer. It is less today. The purchasing power of the 1954-55 and 1955-56 bushel of wheat today is approximately 59 cents a bushel. In other words it is much lower than it was in 1933 and 1934, which indicates the major need for something to be done.
As far as this present plan is concerned, I do not know anybody who is in favour of it outside of this house and other than Liberal supporters in the country who, regardless of what the government does, support it. Even in the last few days one or two organizations have passed resolutions in support of this policy of advances on grain in the granaries. The Saskatchewan credit union league, in the last 10 days or so, passed a resolution in support of it. So, generally speaking, the farmers are asking for a very simple action on the part of this government.
There is no danger of loss. Any suggestion that fraud will be committed is denied by the fact that the local elevator man in each case knows approximately the production of all the farmers in his area. The quota book hampers any possibility of wrongdoing among the small percentage of wrongdoers. Indeed, a few years ago there used to be a great many wheat thefts. There are no wheat thefts any more because there is no quota book for thieves, and there is no way in which a thief can in any way dispose of wheat that does not belong to him.
I mentioned a moment ago the decline in the purchasing power of wheat. Now I wish to refer to the price of Canadian wheat in the free market. I am quoting from the representations Dr. Britnell made last June. He is head of the department of economics of the University of Saskatchewan. He says the price of Canadian wheat in the free market has fallen almost 50 cents a bushel over the past two years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, may I ask what market he refers to as the free market?


John George Diefenbaker: Dr. Britnell is referring to whatever market is available to the Canadian farmer outside of the international wheat agreement and outside of domestic sales in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You mean the bootleg market?
Grain


John George Diefenbaker: No, he is referring to the selling price of wheat. He goes on to say:
.	.	. the price under the international wheat
agreement and for domestic sales in Canada is somewhat less.
He refers to the fall in the price of wheat over the past two years of almost 50 cents a bushel. Then he goes on to say:
The present and prospective future purchasing power of No. 1 Northern wheat is reduced to not more than one-half the 1945 level.
Then he goes on to mention the cost-price relationship. He says that ordinarily this cost-price relationship, with rising costs of what the farmer has to buy and the fall in price, would long since have been disastrous, but he says:
... a cost-price relationship that would normally have squeezed the wheat grower was eased and obscured for several years by higher than average yields, higher than average farm marketings and higher than average overseas exports.
Then he deals in general with the entire wheat picture. He points out the very serious position in which the Canadian wheat farmer finds himself, with falling prices, precipitously falling purchasing power of the bushel of wheat and, at the same time, rising farm costs. The farmer finds himself generally in Canada in the position that in the past three years his actual income has fallen by approximately 23 per cent. The costs of the things that the farmer has to buy have risen by approximately 2J per cent across the board. I put it to the committee in this way. What would happen if labour across Canada found itself in the position today of having to accept 25 per cent less than it received three years ago? That is the position of the farmer. He is not asking for a raid on the treasury, but simply for justice. I mentioned a moment ago that in the last couple of weeks a resolution had been passed by the Saskatchewan credit union league board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Are there any farmers, any wheat growers on that board?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes, the president himself is a farmer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Where does he live?


John George Diefenbaker: I understand there are also other farmers on the board. There is a suggestion on the part of the minister that the only people asking for this are, as he said the other day in a rather derogatory and sneering fashion, those in the city who are endeavouring to take advantage of the situation. Let me tell you that is not a tribute to the demands of the Saskatchewan wheat pool and the other farm organizations in the

Grain
province. The resolution, to which I referred a moment ago before the minister interrupted, reads as follows:
Whereas it is necessary to maintain the national economy of Canada at a high level; and
Whereas the agricultural industry of western Canada is suffering from a serious lack of cash because of the inability of farmers to put their grain into the hands of the Canadian wheat board and that this disruption in the usual farm income is having a serious effect on business and municipal governments which, in turn, may well cause a serious disruption of the entire national economy;
Therefore be it resolved that the federal government be urged to provide a permanent system of cash advances on grain . . .
That represents exactly the attitude of the overwhelming majority of western farmers, go where you will. I really cannot understand my hon. friends from the western provinces who support the government in the face of this almost universal demand, believing that haphazard dibs and dabs here and there will meet the situation.
The other day the minister provided for a payment of 10 cents a bushel on certain grades of the 1954-55 crop. As far as northern Saskatchewan is concerned, and I am speaking now of the Prince Albert district, the Prince Albert Herald immediately recorded the fact in its news columns that almost all the wheat in that area graded lower than 4 and that therefore the advance of 10 cents a bushel, welcome as it was-and I welcomed it when it was made the other day-will not help those farmers whose crop is grade 5, 6 or feed. I suggest to the minister that something be done to extend the application of the advance of 10 cents a bushel; otherwise it will be of no advantage to farmers in many parts of northern Saskatchewan.
As far as the policy contemplated by the resolution is concerned, it does not, it cannot and it will not meet the situation. It constitutes a stubborn and relentless disregard of the wishes of the people. It seems almost as if the government has determined that they have a steamroller majority, and regardless of the wishes of the western farmers they are going to push the measure through hoping that by the time the next election comes around something will happen that will cause the western farmers to forget. There will be no forgetfulness, Mr. Chairman, of this deliberate slap in the face to the western farmer.
This is something that could be repaired even at this time. With all its power the government finally abdicated last summer from the arrogance of the position it took on the Defence Production Act. It is not too late now for the government to take action, realizing the universal demand for cash advances on farm-stored grain is supported not only by all the farmers but also by the

opposition parties in the house and by many of my hon. friends who support the government who, were they able to speak as they feel, would denounce this resolution as unjust to the legitimate demands of western Canada.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Chairman, the members of the government may wonder why they are meeting such opposition in introducing this measure at this time. I think I can offer some explanation of that; the method by which they introduced it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce stated in a previous debate that before going out to address the annual convention of the Saskatchewan wheat pool he knew that things were rather bad and something would have to be done, so he introduced the bank loan legislation. It is a very ill-conceived piece of legislation, because it does not take into consideration the wishes and desires of the farmers and farm organizations in western Canada. It is ill-conceived because of the way it was introduced, by order in council and by a television program.
It seems to me that we in this democratic parliament are receiving an annual stipend commensurate with a year's work, and I think we should be free at all times to be called together to discuss such important problems. Had we been granted that privilege the Minister of Trade and Commerce would have had our advice expressing the views of the farmers and farm organizations in our constituencies, and he would have been able to modify the resolution in conformity with our suggestions in order to meet the requests of western Canadian farmers.
He could, for example, have taken into consideration the resolutions which the hon. member for Rosthern continually ignores in all his dissertations. The hon. member for Rosthern tries very hard to prove that a bank loan is a cash advance or vice versa. He has quoted at length from the conference held in Saskatoon. I should like to read certain resolutions passed on the first day of the 31st annual convention of the Saskatchewan wheat pool after the suspension of the regular order of business. These resolutions were passed virtually unanimously on the floor of the assembly. They are under the heading, "Advances on farm-stored grain", and read as follows:
2.	That we urge the government of Canada to make immediate provision for advances to farmers on farm-stored grain.
3.	That advances to farmers on farm-stored grain should be up to one-half the normal delivery expected and repayable on the basis of one-half of the value of each delivery made by the farmer.
4.	That advances on farm-stored grain should be made by way of government guaranteed loans to

the Canadian wheat board; the Canadian wheat board to arrange with elevator companies to make the advances to individual farmers; and further, that any interest involved in such loans should be absorbed by the federal treasury.
That is quite a different thing from the proposal already conceived by those in the higher brackets of the government before going out to discuss the problem at the Saskatchewan wheat pool convention.
The subdistrict and district conventions of the Saskatchewan farmers' union could have given the minister some valuable advice and recommendations. If the minister had doubted their capacity to represent the farmers he could have asked the municipal councils, and there would have been no doubt left whatsoever as to the inadequacy of government guaranteed bank loans on the basis of the 1951 legislation. He could have gone further and asked individual farmers. Individual farmers I have asked indicated to me that they were unalterably opposed to the principle of paying interest on their own money. As a result of the meetings held in the constituency last fall I have concluded that we could sum up this legislation by saying that it is unjust, inadequate and impracticable. It has been pointed out by my colleagues that it is unjust because it requires farmers to borrow money on their own earnings.
There are many members of this house who have no comprehension whatsoever of the conditions that exist in agriculture in western Canada. It is most sickening to hear members talk about western farmers driving about in their Cadillacs. The hon. member for Westmorland gave an indication of that lack of knowledge on the part of members from other parts of Canada. Their absence at the vote last Friday indicated that they were not concerned with the problem. In fact, as I recall it the hon. member for Westmorland served on the agriculture committee. In order to impress him with the importance of our task, I took him down a sample of wheat. He greeted me with thanks, saying that he had never seen it before. What kind of advice can we expect from members who have no knowledge of the subject matter and who are not interested in finding out?


An hon. Member:: They had better stick to marsh hay.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: As was pointed out by my colleagues, this legislation is unjust because the financial position of the farmers in western Canada demands that they have additional purchasing power with which to pay off previous commitments such as store bills, gasoline bills and labour charges incurred during the harvesting season. In many
Grain
instances they are unable to borrow directly from the bank. They were unable to sell their grain. The crux of the matter really is that of correcting the cost-price relationship of the farmers with respect to the goods they are obliged to buy and the prices they receive for their products. It is indeed a cruel blow to see a surcharge of 5 per cent placed on the moneys to which the farmers are entitled.
I say the resolution is most inadequate because, as the hon. member for Prince Albert has pointed out, the minister said he was not interested in the farmer who thought $1,500 was chicken feed. I think the minister would do well to refer to some of the publications put out by his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, because in the Economic Annalist of February, 1951, there is a study on costs of farming in the Elbow-Saskatoon area of Saskatchewan in 1948-49. Since 1951 it is estimated that the cost of production has increased by 20 per cent. It therefore works out, Mr. Chairman, in this way. The costs of production on a one-section farm in the Saskatoon-Elbow area, on good soil, were $2,006 in 1948-49. Costs have increased nearly 20 per cent since that time, so the cost in 1955 would be over $2,400. By the same token, the costs of production on a larger farm, one of over 800 acres, would be nearly $4,000. These are the cash outlays required to operate your farm. The minister must reorganize his thinking. He must appreciate the fact that was pointed out by my leader in the previous debate, namely that the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat has declined 50 per cent since 1945.
The Canada Year Book points out that in 1955 Saskatchewan had 247 branch banks, Alberta had 270 and Manitoba had 175. This problem is a real one in my constituency. For example, there is a bank in the town of Leader. If someone in the area of Horsham down in the southwest corner of my constituency is desirous of going to the bank to get this loan, he must travel 55 miles to go to the bank. He normally does his business with the credit union in Fox Valley, but this legislation requires him to go to a bank. He will therefore make the trip to the bank and make application for the loan. He will fill out the necessary forms and return to his farm.
The banker will have the task of mulling over the application. He has never seen the farmer before. He does not know whether the farmer has on his farm 1,000 bushels of wheat or 1,000 head of sheep or just 1,000 trees. So when it comes to a matter of resolving the question of granting the loan, knowing that bankers are in this business for the purpose

Grain
of making money we can expect that the loan will be refused. That is precisely what has happened.
I have placed a question on the order paper to determine the amount and the number of these loans but evidently I do not have the same luck in getting this information as does the Minister of Agriculture, since the question as yet is unanswered.


Mr. Gardiner:: That is because you do not take the trouble to get it.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I beg the minister's pardon?


James Garfield Gardiner: Anyone can get all the information I had. It is only because you do not take the trouble as a member of this house to get it that you do not have it.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I have put a question on the order paper. If the minister can prod his colleague into fulfilling his parliamentary responsibility, I shall in turn be gratified.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will give the hon. member the information now if he wants it.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend is talking about two different things. I had my secretary go to the bank and ask how many loans were made. You can get that information anywhere.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I point out that the government are apparently having difficulty in getting the information. I would suggest to the government that they talk to their colleague the Minister of Agriculture, who has evidently no difficulty, so they in turn can get the information and answer my question.


James Garfield Gardiner: You can get it if you go out and ask for it. You do not want to know.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Grain
orderly marketing through the Canadian wheat board, a principle that has met with so much favour on the part of the farmers of western Canada. It is these same members of the government who are always pointing the finger at the opposition and saying, "You are the enemies of the wheat board." It is an indication of where the real enemies of the wheat board stand or lie as the case may be.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, the case for the western farmer has been so well put by so many able speakers on the opposition side this afternoon that I believe it would be impossible for me to say anything that would not be a repetition of what has already been said. In the circumstances I think I will not say a great many of the things I had intended to say. But, in discussing the resolution calling for provision for making loans to western farmers, what actually is being done is something like this. The measure provides for only a nibble at a slice, while the wheat grower is entitled to, and ought to be granted, the whole loaf of bread. He has earned it; he ought to have it.
Everywhere on the prairies we have the demand for advances on farm-stored grain. This demand comes from all over the west. Apparently the government has made up its mind that in spite of everything it will not give the western farmers, or the western provinces, what they want.
This measure reminds me of a few words which I read from Nikita Khrushchev's remarks last September. He said:
If you really think (addressing the capitalist world) that your system is not too old and rotten, if you believe that it is really possible to keep in the race, go ahead and try and compete. But the truth is on the side of our people.
If Khrushchev wanted a specific instance to establish the general truth of his position, le could ask for nothing any better than this lontemptible wheat loan proposal the govern-nent is offering to the farmers of western Canada. Here we have Canada one of the inest capitalist nations of the earth, endowed vith about the finest resources to be found n the world, with a production of over $26 iillion in the year just past, showing abund-intly that it is completely possible physically o provide those farmers with all they want. U1 that is required is a little financial intelli-;ence to make financially possible what is ihysically possible-and here we have the ibsolutely disgusting scene which is presented >y Canada at the present time! I must say am absolutely ashamed of the government. In my speech of January 13 I advocated immediate payment on wheat stored on farms o cover full average costs of production, plus living allowance large enough to cover the 
average costs of carrying on. My remarks are to be found on page 95 of Hansard. That is all we want, and certainly that is what we ought to get.
I will quote a statement from the caucus of the Social Credit members of Alberta, which will show the position they took after the proposal was made to make available loans of up to $1,500 at 5 per cent. I am quoting from one of the Alberta newspapers:
The federal government program of loans to farmers on farm-stored grain Wednesday was described as "entirely inadequate" by Social Credit members of the legislature attending their annual fall caucus in Edmonton.
The policy statement on the wheat situation said, "The proposal to put farmers further in debt is unfair and unjust."
It added, "Not many farmers will be able to qualify for the full amount of the loan. Even if more of them did, the amount would not be sufficient in many cases to take care of the debts incurred in putting in and taking out the crop.
We believe the federal government should make it possible for the Canadian wheat board to make cash advances to the farmers against grain stored on the farms. The Canadian government should make an immediate start on provisions of approved storage on the farms.
One way of doing this would be to pay the farmers storage rates on the same basis paid to elevators, if they built approved storage facilities.
It is obvious the federal government does not* have the answer to surplus production. We do not look upon surpluses as a calamity. It is only when we bungle the handling of them that they become such. If we provide proper storage, widely dispersed on the farms, and are prepared to use the national credit to finance the cash advance against the surpluses so stored, these surpluses can become a blessing to our country, and the world in the years ahead".
I think nothing more needs to be said by me. The hon. member for Prince Albert presented a case which, as far as I could see, was as completely airtight as it could be, a case which makes utterly contemptible the efforts of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture to becloud the issue and confuse the people generally by playing a lot of silly, childish politics when they should have been facing up like responsible members of the cabinet of Canada and dealing with the problem honourably and honestly.
Just as an example of some of the things the two right hon. gentlemen have attempted to convey-I hope I am not unfair-the first point was that there would be greater costs in the case of advances than there would be under the loans which Eire proposed. The case made by the hon. member for Prince Albert explodes that idea completely. Surely the government of the Dominion of Canada, with all the credit behind it of this great nation, could borrow money in a vast sum incomparably more cheaply than could any farmer, even though the government's guarantee is behind his loan.

If the money were borrowed in a large lump sum and advanced to the wheat board, with instructions that the wheat board would disperse that money or disperse it through the elevators to the farmers, you would have none of the costs that were conjured up by some of the speakers on the other side as being certain to accrue if advances were offered to farmers.
The argument that this process would wreck the wheat board is absolutely puerile.
I do not know how a man could undertake to delude the Canadian people in that way, how he could stand up and face a parliament of intelligent people or go out and address an intelligent audience, and say it could possibly wreck the wheat board to take a vast sum of money borrowed by the dominion government from the Bank of Canada, put into the wheat board's hands and dispensed through the elevators to the farmers as a forward payment or an advance payment on farm-stored grain. How that could wreck the wheat board it would require a congregation of lunatics to see. There just is no sense at all in such a position. Apparently a deliberate attempt was made to confuse the people of Canada through the press from coast to coast into believing this bit of nonsense.
An attempt was made to indicate that the farmers were fairly well off. These hon. gentlemen were not able to find very many farmers who were sufficiently in need to have any requirement for advances! That is almost in the class with the other piece-I must keep from using too strong words-of nonsense, I will say once more. If in the United States, just across the border, farmers can store grain on their farms and get $2.10 per bushel; if in the United States farmers are fairly well off, how can it be reasoned that Canadian farmers on this side of the border, under the treatment that has been meted out to them, can be said to be fairly well off, especially when it is remembered that the costs of producing in Canada are just as great as they are in the United States, if not greater.


Victor Quelch: Higher.


John Horne Blackmore: My colleague suggests that they are higher. That is my own impression, but I am not able to speak from first-hand knowledge.
I do not propose to multiply words before you this afternoon, but I do want to say that we are going to vote for this measure as a Social Credit group because even though it is a contemptible morsel of a slice of a loaf, it is better than nothing. Let no one suppose that in supporting this measure we are in any way whatsoever approving of it.
Grain


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman, I almost hesitate to enter this debate because I make no pretence whatever of having any specific knowledge of the problems facing the grain farmer. I leave that to my colleagues. However, there are some aspects to this question that I think need to be discussed.
As I understand it, we are being asked today to give statutory authority to a program which is already in operation. For that reason it is most necessary that we should understand just how it is working today and what are the implications of that program. On Friday, February 3, the right hon. Minister of Agriculture made a statement in this chamber which disturbed me greatly, and which caused me later on in the day to rise and question him. I received an answer of a sort, but on studying that answer in Hansard I discovered it was no answer at all to the question I had raised.
In order to refresh the memories of hon. members I should like to quote the statement made by the right hon. Minister of Agriculture on that occasion. He had been discussing the number of loans that had been granted under this scheme by chartered banks in various places in the province of Saskatchewan, and the minister then said:
I have been given a note which says, "Tell Mr. Gardiner so and so got the first loan." He was the only man who got up at the meeting and objected on the ground that he would not be able to get a loan. He got a $1,500 loan. The note goes on to say that the bank expects 20 more loans if no quota is opened and none if a quota opens.
Shortly after that the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace asked:
What is the source of the figures on bank loans which he has just quoted?


James Garfield Gardiner: These are the actual figures
obtained by my secretary from the banks where the loans were made.
Then afterward he told us that his secretary went out there to obtain the information.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is scarcely correct. My secretary was out there and he obtained the information; he did not go out there to get it.


Colin Cameron: He was out there. Later on I asked the right hon. minister this question, and I quote from page 869 of Hansard of February 3:
I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture arising out of his remarks a few moments ago. Do I understand that the banks are revealing to the minister's staff the names of those who are borrowing under this act?
At that point the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce interjected with what I must say with all respect was a complete non sequitur. It was quite irrelevant to the

Grain
question I had been asking. When the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce sat down I continued:
It is necessary for me to square that answer with the comment made by the Minister of Agriculture when he said he knew who borrowed the first loan in a certain place. I want to know how he knew who that individual was.


James Garfield Gardiner: I read it from this slip that is in my hand.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: What is that slip? Mr. Gardiner:	It was supplied from the community where the discussion took place. But in fairness to the individual I think I should ask permission of the committee to strike it out of Hansard where it appears.
At that point I informed the right hon. minister that I was not at all satisfied with his answer. When I read the answer over later I was still less satisfied because when I asked him how he could possibly have received this information except from the bank I got this reply, as reported on page 870 of Hansard:


James Garfield Gardiner: No. It was a matter of discussion.
He went on to describe a public meeting which 200 people had attended. Earlier he had told us that he got the information from a certain note in his hand, but he did not identify the note. It still leaves us in the position that in some way or another the right hon. Minister of Agriculture is able to obtain from-


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, the hon. member is not giving the story as it is in Hansard. My hon. friend simply started out to say that something is not inserted which is not there. I want to point out that the information was obtained at a public meeting. The gentleman said that he was not going to be able to get a loan. There was a banker in the meeting at the time, as well as other people. It was a public meeting, and anybody could go to it. One gentleman got up and said the man who complained was going to get a loan. This discussion all took place in public, and all that was in the note was that the gentleman who raised that discussion got the loan.


Colin Cameron: The right hon. minister is not reporting correctly what he told us. He is omitting one important operative word. The note did not merely inform him that so and so had got a loan, the note informed him that so and so had got the first loan from that bank.


James Garfield Gardiner: I stated before this committee that if that name were there I would like it removed. I do not know whether that name was ever in Hansard, because it was not there when I saw it. The words are just exactly in Hansard as when I first saw Hansard. There has been no change.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that I had the floor.


James Garfield Gardiner: I had the name because the man got up and discussed it.


Colin Cameron: Quite obviously you had the name.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: On the first occasion when the minister rose the hon. member for Nanaimo I believe indicated that he was willing to hear the interjection.


Colin Cameron: I was willing to hear the explanation.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: But on the second occasion he did not. If the minister has an explanation to make he will be afforded an opportunity to make it at the conclusion of the hon. member's speech.


James Garfield Gardiner: He sat down, which is the same thing.


Colin Cameron: Perhaps in all fairness to the right hon. Minister of Agriculture I should tell him that although I have not been very long in this chamber, I sat for many years confronting Liberal cabinet ministers, many of whom for evasiveness and mendacity were the equal of any one could find anywhere. The minister told us that he received certain information in a note, not from any public discussion at the meeting, which took place, incidentally, by the internal evidence of this record in Hansard, before these loans were made.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but the hon. member wants to get this correct or he would not be discussing it at all. On a matter of privilege, I am sure my hon. friend wants to get this correct. The note to which I referred simply said, "Tell Mr. Gardiner so-and-so-" and if I did not use the name I could have used it and I might have used it, "got a loan of $1,500." That is all, because the gentleman got up at the meeting and insisted to me that this loan to him should be possible. The discussion all took place in public. The banker who sent the note to me was not at the meeting at the time, but another banker was, and I presume he got his information from him and that he probably said, "Tell Mr. Gardiner he got the loan."


Colin Cameron: Again I must point out that the minister has very carefully left out the important operative word. I have no doubt whatever he could find out the name, and many of us could find out the names of people who got loans under this act. They were in one of the various small towns where loans were made. But there is only one place from which the information could come as to who got the first loan. The

knowledge as to the names of people who got loans might be a matter of common gossip. People might tell their neighbours they got loans. But only the bankers could tell the minister who got the first loan.


James Garfield Gardiner: The man himself told-


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I really must ask your protection from this continued interruption.


James Garfield Gardiner: You need a lot of protection somewhere.


Colin Cameron: As I say, I have dealt with such people many times before, but I am not to be diverted from this point. The minister has not yet told us how he obtained the information as to who was the person who obtained the first loan from that bank. There is a very ugly implication here that in some way or another the minister through his-


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. gentleman was asking me to tell him something, and I want to tell him.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I would suggest that if we are ever going to proceed with this particular aspect of this debate the hon. member for Nanaimo should make his statement and complete his speech, and I shall see that the Minister of Agriculture is given ample opportunity to reply thereto and at such length as he sees fit. I hope both hon. members will permit me to say that during the last five minutes we have had the same allegations and the same denials. If I may use a colloquialism, this is almost where I came in. I would suggest that we proceed as speedily as possible to a discussion of the resolution before us.
I am not indicating that the hon. member for Nanaimo is out of order, but I am indicating that he might well come to the point and complete that part of his remarks, and then come back to the advisability of our carrying or not carrying the resolution.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, on a point of procedure might I suggest-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. May I point out to both hon. gentlemen-


Colin Cameron: I do not propose to tolerate it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: May I point out to both hon. gentlemen that it is usual and customary, and I think expected by the house,
Grain
that members on either side will resume their seats when the chairman considers it necessary to rise to his feet. If the Minister of Agriculture is rising on a point of privilege,
I shall hear him. If in my opinion it is not a point of privilege, I shall so advise him; but let me tell both hon. gentlemen that if there is to be any toleration we shall have to find out to what extent the house will tolerate an abuse to its rules. I do not propose to tolerate such abuses while it is my responsibility to see that the rules are carried out. If the Minister of Agriculture has a question of privilege, and it is a question of privilege, we will hear it. If it is a question of debate, then he will have ample opportunity to make his reply when the hon. member for Nanaimo has resumed his seat.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, with regard to your suggestion, I accept it. I have never been in the habit, in this house or in any other house for that matter, of asking any special privileges from anyone, but when a member on the other side of the house stands and keeps shouting at me certain things that I ought to say, I think probably I ought to have the privilege of getting up and saying them. If he is going to address this committee, he should address it through the Chair and not through me. If he is standing there and shouting things that happened in British Columbia and he is not going to allow them to happen here, I shall probably have to shout back at him. Otherwise I shall respect the Chair.


Colin Cameron: I trust we shall not have any other points of privilege of that type, but I do want to suggest that there has been in the statement of the Minister of Agriculture ground for suspicion that he and his staff are exercising, by persuasion or some other means, an influence on the banks who are making loans under this proposed legislation, which places in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture the names of those who are receiving the loans.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, on that suggestion, I just want to say I am not going to take up the time of this committee in discussing that question. It will only be of interest to the people in one town and community in Saskatchewan-


An hon. Member:: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: -and they know all the facts, and they know what my hon. friend is stating has no relationship at all to them. They know how I got the information. They know the information was produced in a meeting, and all this statement says is that the man who said at the meeting he was the first one to apply for a loan, got it.

Grain


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, it is with great difficulty that I approach this subject with coolness, owing to the fact that we are discussing a resolution to bring in an innocuous bill in respect to bank loans to wheat farmers. I feel that this government is to be sharply criticized for its inaction in meeting the situation that has developed in western Canada. It was certainly plain to all people who at least wanted to explore the situation that there was difficulty in respect to the grain marketing situation in western Canada, and in respect to the western farmer's income.
I may say, in spite of the optimism the Minister of Trade and Commerce expressed in this house on occasions during the latter part of the last session, that some of us, particularly in this group, indicated to him that we had great concern about the movement of grain in this country and the plight of western farmers, and we tried to bring to the attention of this government the fact that a real policy for agriculture was needed to meet the ever-growing surpluses of grain in this country. I wrote the Prime Minister on October 3, 1955, before the crop season, and urged that consideration be given to an immediate plan of cash advances to farmers on farm-stored grain. The premier of Saskatchewan also, in view of the situation which he knew was developing, sent a telegram to the Prime Minister on October 24, which reads as follows:
Saskatchewan government feels that proposed bank loans on farm-stored grain will not meet present situation. Urge that cash advances be handled by the Canadian wheat board through elevator companies. Farmers of this province almost unanimously in favour of cash advances through wheat board as permanent feature of orderly marketing system. Strenuous objection being taken by farmers to proposed bank loans on farm-stored grain as being unsatisfactory method of meeting present critical situation.
I want to indicate some of the factors leading up to the present situation. I may say that some of the western newspapers came to the rescue of the farmers in their effort to depict the situation to this indifferent government. I should like to refer to the questionnaire distributed by the Saskatchewan Farmer and Livestock Times as reported in their publication of November 3. With respect to the questionnaire it has this to say:
Nearly 56 per cent favoured direct cash advances on farm-stored grain as a means of getting immediate cash into the hands of the farmers while just under 13 per cent recommended low interest loans.
Almost without exception the western farm organizations have been in favour of cash advances, interest free, on farm-stored grain.
I for one do not feel that the measure before us will meet the situation adequately at all.

I believe that the provision of bank loans, with the banks having the right to charge 5 per cent interest, is nothing short of a farce as far as meeting the needs of the western farmers is concerned. Indeed, it is more than that; it is an insult to the western farmer who obtains his income from the production of wheat and now, by reason of this iniquitous legislation, is forced because of the market situation to go to the banks in order to get cash with which to meet his obligations.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture are to be sharply criticized for the statements they have made in and out of the house respecting the financial position of western farmers. I have here the issue of the Western Producer of February 2, which deals with an earlier statement carried in the Globe and Mail of January 24. The Globe and Mail article is headed, "Gardiner argues income up and farmers not badly off." The article in the Western Producer refers to a statement made at the meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture held in Hamilton, and it is headed, "Making monkeys out of us, delegate criticizes Gardiner."
I feel there has been a definite underhand movement on the part of government officials to try to play down the present critical cash situation facing western farmers. I believe the present position, as it has developed, is even worse than that. In my opinion members of the house are now being intimidated by the attempt of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to use what is termed in one editorial "shotgun methods" to squelch any opposition in the house to the government's proposed bank loans.
I have here an article that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of February 6, 1956. It quotes Hansard and goes on to say that Mr. Howe foresaw a filibuster. At another point in the article it has this to say:
He insisted that the highly unpopular bank loans bill must be approved before the storage bill can be considered. In his words, "We have undertaken to pass a very simple resolution and until that is passed we are not prepared to take any other resolution." He has thus, in effect, made consideration of a final payment on 1954-55 deliveries dependent on the passage of the loans legislation-a bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with wheat payments. Mr. Howe's desire to get this unpopular legislation through the house with a minimum of embarrassment to the government is quite understandable. Western farmers, however, would have more confidence in the legislation- and in the minister-if he did not apparently feel it necessary to use shotgun methods to secure parliament's approval of it.
I for one want to say that as far as I am concerned there is going to be no intimidation of me in this house at any time, and I speak for 98 per cent of the western farmers when

I say they are unalterably opposed to bank loans and paying interest on their own grain. I am one who has great faith in democracy, perhaps more than is indicated sometimes by the actions we see on the other side of the house. This afternoon I heard the Minister of Justice quoted as having said at a meeting in his own province that there were two methods, the first being bank loans through the banks at 5 per cent interest and the second loans at perhaps a lesser rate of interest from the Canadian wheat board.
I think the Minister of Justice should confer with his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, because the Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that if the Canadian wheat board were to undertake what we are proposing as an alternative method of giving advances to the farmers it would wreck the wheat board. Now the Minister of Justice says it will not wreck it but just partially destroy it. He has not suggested in his statement by any means that the Canadian wheat board could not have handled this matter.
Therefore I think the whole thing is a phony issue when the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture or anyone else suggests that it is not possible for the federal government to authorize the wheat board to make cash advances to the farmers interest free. We now see the Minister of Trade and Commerce trying to use dire threats in order to prevent members putting the real situation before the house.
The key problem has not developed overnight but over the years. It has only come to the fore because the cost-price squeeze has now developed to a point where the farmer is left without any cash in his hands. It is true that over the last five years we have had unprecedented production of grain in western Canada, but it is also true that the income of the western farmer has dropped very substantially, particularly in the last three years. I should like to give the house the bureau of statistics figures showing the drop in farm cash income in the province of Saskatchewan for the nine month period beginning in January and ending in September in the years 1953, 1954 and 1955. In 1955 the figure was $305 million. In 1954 it was $300-2 million and in 1953 it was $516-7 million.
There we have the story. From $516-7 in 1953 there has been a drop to $305 million in 1955. In addition, the Minister of Agriculture is prone to refer only to the cash income of the western farmer. He nearly always fails-as a matter of fact I have never heard him do it-to give the net income to the western farmer. In other words he gives the cash picture, but he does not give the net
Grain
income to the western farmer; and relatively speaking, net income is the real income.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Edward George McCullough: I should like the minister to make his own speech.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am rising on a question of privilege. If my hon. friend will check the article he quoted at the beginning of his speech, in which the Free Press reports what I said at Winnipeg, he will find the net income and the cash income given.


Edward George McCullough: I do
not think the minister has a point of order.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not a point of order. My hon. friend said I had never reported the net income. Yet in the very news article to which he was referring a few moments ago both figures are given.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And probably misquoted.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, I was quoting from the report of the Hamilton meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: I thought the hon. member read from the Free Press.


Edward George McCullough: It did
not quote all the figures of the minister, but it gives some figures. It also claims exactly what I have claimed, namely that he does not give the net income to the farmers and that is the important thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, let us get this thing straight. My hon. friend quoted from the Winnipeg Free Press and the other article refers to it, and both figures are in there.


Edward George McCullough: As I
indicated earlier, because of the heavy crops this drastic situation which has now developed in western Canada did not come to the fore. So in 1951 agricultural prices were at 268-7 and costs were at 225-5. But by 1954 agricultural prices had deteriorated to 200 * 9 and costs had increased to 234 [DOT] 4. It is therefore understandable how the farmers have come to a cash position where they cannot pay their debts, and where they now should and must have some cash income to make up for their inability to deliver their grain in order to pay their debts.
As I said before, I am quite happy that some of the newspapers have taken it upon themselves to help to present to the Canadian people the actual financial position facing western farmers. That information can be found by the government if they want to read some of these newspapers. I have here an

Grain
article appearing in the Toronto Star. It is a dispatch written by correspondent Robert Nielsen who, I understand, has written a series of articles. He has toured the west; he has gone into Saskatchewan and some of the other provinces and obtained firsthand information as to just what is the situation. I want to read from this article. He is talking about the bumper crops and the present situation. He says:
That ailment is a cost-price squeeze. Between 1951 and 1954 the Saskatchewan prices of farm products (at the farm) fell by nearly 25 per cent while the prices of the goods and services the farmer buys rose by nearly 5 per cent.
Then he goes on to show that in the bountiful years between 1951 and 1954 the farmer was getting by but that now the cost-price squeeze has caught up with him. In the same article it is indicated that Professor K. A. H. Buckley scored the Ottawa government, and I quote:
. . . for not having developed a grain storage policy to accompany the price stabilization policy effected by the wheat board.
I speak for myself, and I think for this group, when I say we support the wheat board's policy of marketing grain. Here is a situation where the farmer, after producing his grain, must depend upon this government and its policy to sell that wheat for him in order to receive his income. This government is now bringing in and forcing on this house the present legislation which will compel the farmer, if he wants any cash from his wheat, to go to the bank and pay bank interest.
I have in mind another resolution and, I suppose, legislation which will come before this house where a certain corporation will be given a low rate of interest on a projected pipe line. Here we have the farmer who has produced his wheat, who now, like any other person with an income in this country, must go through a great deal of processing, must give certain details of his financial status, and take out bank loans at 5 per cent interest. As far as I am concerned that is nothing short of adding insult to injury.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I had a return tabled in the house which shows that this government is not doing its job and that the eternal optimism of the Minister of Trade and Commerce is often misleading. I am speaking now with respect to the marketing of wheat in this country. He assured the farmers last year that their bins would be empty and that they would be able to sell their wheat.
I had a question on the order paper and I obtained a return as to the trade commissioners in foreign countries and how many of those were specifically appointed

to sell Canadian wheat. The return I received on January 24 states that out of 85 trade commissioners posted in 55 places, not one is specifically appointed to sell Canadian wheat. When wheat is our primary industry, I feel that we certainly should have some people appointed to go abroad and try to find markets for that wheat. Thus we have the situation backing up on us, and now the farmer once again is going to be obliged to stand the brunt of it.
I never felt at any time that bank loans were going to meet the situation. I wrote to all the secretaries of the rural municipalities in my constituency and asked them for a survey of the financial situation of the farmers. In every case there has been growing arrears of taxes in all those municipalities. In addition, in one letter there is a comment in respect to bank loans. This secretary informs me that at this point, where there is a bank which serves not only that village but also three hamlets, to date only one bank loan has been issued.
I want to be fair in this matter, and say that this situation has arisen in a place where the farmers' crops have been fairly well drowned out because of the heavy rains and flood conditions last year. But the same fact remains, namely that here is a community which is similar to many others, where there has been only one bank loan issued up to date. I feel that this legislation does not meet the situation that prevails in western Canada.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce tried to indicate in this house that those of us who are unalterably opposed to this resolution preceding a bill providing for the making of bank loans at 5 per cent interest are in effect trying to wreck the Canadian wheat board. Nothing could be more ridiculous or further from the truth. We support the Canadian wheat board. But if the western farmer is to have faith in the marketing of his wheat through the Canadian wheat board, we feel that this government has to wake up and has to formulate policies which will meet the situation.
I recall that last year one of the newspapers in my constituency carried an article which indicated that if we had a crop failure it perhaps would be a blessing in disguise. I believe that must be what this government is hoping for because of its failure to formulate policies to meet a situation where we are having great overproduction. I think, Mr. Chairman, that in the years to come we are going to have a situation where science and technology will help us produce more grain. I think we should be prepared for it.
I came into this house in 1945, and I have repeated the suggestion many times in the

house that we should adopt a policy of an ever-normal granary. I know that perhaps it is not an original suggestion. I said that I believed Canada should store grain in years of plenty to prepare for years of scarcity. I was only young during the thirties, but I recall that we were scraping our bins as we did not have any wheat. I believe it would be a good idea for the federal government to finance a policy under which this country would store wheat and other things for years of scarcity which have prevailed in the past and which undoubtedly will come again.
If we undertook such a policy, Mr. Chairman, we would not have this type of legislation coming before us which only puts the farmer in a more difficult financial position. We would set up a proper plan for agriculture whereby we would store for the years of scarcity. If we undertook such a plan I believe we could keep in federal storage the 400 million bushels of wheat which we need for domestic and export trade. We could do better than that, even. If our farm people could produce sufficient grain to carry a billion bushels of wheat in this country in government storage, it would be one of the greatest things for the peace of the world and security at home. The farmers would be paid for their grain and the grain would belong to the Canadian people.
Some of the newspapers have stated that there has been no definite statement as to what the opposition parties would propose as an alternative to bank loans. I do not feel that is a true statement, because those of us in this group who have spoken have made our position quite clear. We are against bank loans at 5 per cent interest. We do not believe it is fair. It is just as unreasonable as saying to the wage earner, you cannot get your wages but we will make arrangements with the bank to make you a loan on your income at 5 per cent interest. It is an analogous situation. We do not go along with the government's proposal. In this case we believe there should be a long and a shortterm policy undertaken. The government has allowed things to dangle along and get completely out of hand.
As an immediate solution I feel the government should have done what the farm organizations in Saskatchewan and in the west generally advocated, namely made cash advances on farm-stored grain through the Canadian wheat board. It would have been a very simple matter to put cash into the hands of the farmers, which would have enabled them to carry on until future deliveries took place. I am at a loss to know whether once again the government is trying to do a favour for the banks, or whether they
Grain
are not ready to undertake their responsibility as a government and underwrite a parity policy for all agricultural products.
This afternoon, Mr. Chairman, I heard a member from the province of New Brunswick state that the farmers in his constituency had never asked for handouts or for any bank loans. Well, I do not know what assistance they get down there, but I am one who has always favoured any policy which will help agriculture in every province and the people in every province, regardless of their occupation. I believe we in this house should realize that we are like the mother of parliaments, responsible for all the provinces. We should legislate to bring those policies into being which will be in the best interests of every Canadian, regardless of where he lives or what his occupation may be.
Getting back directly to the proposals, I would suggest first that this government should not introduce this legislation at this time. I feel it could do something better. The government could pay the interest on those loans already made, and then set up proper lending facilities through which the farmer could get interest free loans on farm-stored grain until such time as he could deliver his grain.
From time to time we have suggested tha1 this situation would not have developed ii the government had done certain things Amongst those suggestions has been bilateral agreements with other countries that would enable us to sell our wheat for the goods we wanted from the other countries. We have suggested barter arrangements. We have suggested the extension of credit. We have suggested that further assistance be giver under the Colombo plan, and also that in some cases famine relief be considered as a measure for helping people less fortunate than we
Another thing I want to deal with at an other time but which I should like to mentioi now is the tariff. I feel that a change in rate! would be of great assistance to the westeri farmer. Earlier I indicated that the westeri farmer is in a price squeeze, and it is goinj to be a problem for him to continue to operati unless we can develop a plan by which th< prices for which he sells his products bea: a closer relationship to the prices of what hi has to buy.
In closing I should like to indicate that thi western farmer is now in a very unfavourabli position in respect to the income of othe workers throughout the nation. I have heri figures for 1946 to 1954 from the dominioi bureau of statistics, which state that althoug] farm income from 1946 to 1954 increased t 10-4 per cent as compared with 6-1 per cen in the 1930-39 period-

Grain


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It seems to me that a word now to bring this debate back into focus would be worth while. There seems to be a feeling on the opposite side that we are forcing something on the opposition. We are not doing that. At the request of the delegation that came down from western Canada, we arranged with the banks to institute a system of loans on farm storage grain. We thought we were following the wishes of the delegation that put this before us. The unfortunate thing is that the house not being in session, the government gave an undertaking to the banks that if they would not wait for legislation, as the first bill before this parliament the government would undertake to ratify the action it was asking the banks to take. In other words we asked them to lend money on the undertaking that the government would see that the losses were guaranteed.
Well, we have been a long time on this debate. I think most members in the C.C.F. party from the prairies have now spoken twice. I am willing to delay this matter. We will have to tell the banks we cannot carry out our undertaking now. We will have to tell them that at the end of the session we will undertake to keep the house here until we can have this undertaking by the government ratified. It will be up to the banks whether they want to continue lending without the guarantee, but the government is not insisting that this be thrust upon the farmers. We thought it would be helpful.
According to the records I have in hand, it has helped some 8,000 farmers. I have received some letters saying that they are eery happy with the assistance they have received. But somehow or other this has got iwisted around so that the government is attempting to force this policy on the opposition. It is nothing of the kind. It seems to me that no more repetitive speeches are leeded. We have had the same speeches made twice now, I think, by all the members :rom the prairies. I now see a member getting ip to speak for the third time. That is his privilege in committee; nevertheless, we are low down to the point of obstruction.
When we recall that this is a bill that can ie obstructed on second reading and on third [DOT]eading, as well as in the resolution stage, we [DOT]ealize that it is nothing new. There is lothing to debate in the principle of this bill, t is up to the opposition to decide whether hey want to carry this on tomorrow. I am villing to drop it until June, but it is just as he opposition say. I think there is a limit

to patience. When we get away from debate and get down to obstruction, I think I should have the privilege of making these remarks.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I think the last remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce are certainly an inexcusable piece of insolence on his part. We were sent down here to do a job. Meetings were held throughout the province of Saskatchewan last fall. I do not recall any issue in recent years which has aroused so much interest and resentment throughout the prairies as the resolution we are discussing at the present time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my
hon. friend a question? Does he wish to block this bill? All he has to do is say yes, and the bill is blocked for several months.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I resent the minister making a threat under the guise of asking a question. It is just another example of the type of intimidation which has been going on in this whole debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We want something better.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Interest has been expressed in this measure throughout the prairies. Hon. members have attended meetings called by the farmers' union groups and other groups throughout the prairies. If there is a great deal of interest evinced in this house it is certainly not out of proportion to the interest throughout the country.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce rose in his place in the house to answer a question asked by an hon. gentleman on the orders of the day just a few days ago and implied that there was a filibuster because we had had the temerity to debate this thing for one-half a day. If that is the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on a matter which has aroused the interest-and I might say the resentment-of farmers throughout the prairies, then I suggest the government know full well we are not getting the type of legislation which we have a right to expect.
I attended a few meetings and spoke to a great many farmers in southern Manitoba last fall. I found wherever I went great interest among the farmers and hostility and resentment toward this measure. We came down here. We are expected to put forth the views of our people, and we are not going to be intimidated by any minister of the crown.
Why the impatience? I suggest the minister is impatient to ram this through the house because he knows it is the most unpopular measure that has been brought before this house for some time. Because it is unpopular the government wishes to spare itself the embarrassment of criticism. You follow that

line of reasoning to its logical conclusion and it will lead you to a totalitarian state. Any time ministers rise in their places and suggest that the opposition are obstructionists because they wish to debate a measure, you get a scene such as we have had here today.
As far as the members of the government are concerned, they would just as soon the opposition did not say anything. They would like to be given a free hand to mismanage the country as they have done in the past.
I believe that the unseemly haste, the impatience of the minister in this connection, prove very revealingly the arrogance which we have been subjected to in the past. It reveals, I think, better than anything else the knowledge on the part of the government that this measure is highly unpopular. We have heard hon. members read the names of farm organizations throughout the prairies that have expressed their opposition to the measure.


Irvin William Studer: That is all you have ever done.


Alfred Claude Ellis: In spite of the fact that farm organizations and important people throughout the western prairies have protested against the measure, the government not only want to put it through, but they want to put it through with a minimum of discussion. I suggest that in a democratic parliament every member ought to have the right to speak his mind on any piece of legislation before the house.
A few moments ago the minister said that some members of this group had spoken two or three times. That is not true. There is not a member in this group who has spoken twice on this measure. I challenge the minister to name one. He cannot do it. Yet the minister suggested-he did not suggest it, he said it a moment ago-that a member of this group was getting up for the third time. That is patently false. I think it is time the minister pulled in his horns and permitted the opposition to do the job they were sent down here to do.
There is a resolution on the order paper dealing with farm storage. We were told in
Grain
effect by the minister the other day that he was not going to allow that matter to come before the house until he had rammed this bank loan resolution through. What happened? The other day we had an amazing spectacle. There were only 36 Liberals in the house, and when a vote was called on a motion for the committee to rise and report progress, and that motion was passed, we went on with the storage resolution. But the minister was not satisfied. Just as soon as he could round up enough of his cohorts he reverted to the bank loan legislation.
The country ought to know-indeed they do know-that the reason the storage legislation has not been passed at this time is entirely the responsibility of the government. The matter was brought before the committee, but because the minister was so angry and in a huff, and wanted to save face, he came back to this house and overrode the previous decision of the committee, disposing of the storage bill and turning back the committee to the bank loan legislation.
The fault is definitely with the government. I hope we hear no talk among the Liberals that the C.C.F. group have obstructed the legislation. I hope we will not have the Liberals going out saying they were anxious to pass the resolution and get this storage bill through, but the C.C.F. stood in the way. It is the government that has prevented the measure from coming up. As a matter of fact it was before the committee, but was turned aside in order that we could go back to this unpopular, controversial legislation.
Of course, we know from experience their efforts to use this kind of intimidation on the opposition to force it into silence.
Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: In the hope that we might conclude this debate we will continue it tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
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.	Did the chairman or any members of the wheat board notify the government at any time since July 1, 1955, that they would resign within a matter of days if loans on farm-stored wheat were brought into effect? If so, which of them did so?
2.	What was the date or dates of said notifications and were same given verbally or in writing?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1 above.


PENSION PLANS
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Is the government now in possession of. information as to the number of pension plans in Canada, covering firms with 50 or more employees, which include any provision for the employee to transfer his pension rights, including his own and the employer's contribution, and any accrued interest, to some other employment? If so, how many of such plans are there?
2.	How many pension plans in Canada include provision for transfer thereto of an employee's pension rights or interests earned in a previous employment?
3.	Is the government taking any steps to encourage and facilitate the mobility or transferability of pension rights, (a) with respect to employees in private industry; (b) with respect to employees in the public service?
4.	Is the government studying the possibility of an over-all government-sponsored industrial pension plan, into which various industrial pension plans might be integrated, to facilitate retention of pension rights by persons who move from one employment to another?
5.	Are any studies being made of any other ways to facilitate the mobility or transferability of pension rights? If so, what are the results of such studies?
Answer by: Mr. Gregg:
1. No statistical information is available on the transferability of pension rights, but it is believed that such provisions are comparatively rare in industrial pension plans.
While no statistical information is available, the Department of Labour does know of three types of plans which contain provisions for a limited type of transferability:
An amendment to the Ontario Municipal Act in 1953 made it mandatory for the standard municipal plan for municipalities and municipal organizations in Ontario to provide for immediate vesting of the employer's contributions where a terminated employee left to become employed by the civil service of Ontario or Canada, the civic service of any other municipality or local board in Ontario,
or the staff of any board, commission or public institution established under any act of the Ontario legislature.
The Canadian Welfare Council, Halifax community chest, and the greater Toronto community chest have plans in operation. Each plan contains a special transfer clause which gives complete vesting of employer benefits if any employee transfers to another social welfare agency.
In employer-union negotiated plans there is a recent trend toward the recognition of the principle of "transfer values" within the industry or between the member employers in a specific trade in a particular locality or localities. These plans cover union members in good standing. The elevator (lift) industry has such a plan in effect. As long as an employee remains employed in the industry by one of the member employers, his pension credits continue to accumulate in accordance with the terms of the plan. Not until he leaves the group of employers represented does the termination clause of the plan become operative. The printing trade in the Toronto area has a plan on similar lines. If an employee stays with the trade but moves outside the Toronto district or if he leaves the trade, he is considered as a terminated employee. The garment making industry in Montreal and Toronto jointly had introduced a scheme along the same lines for members of their union.
2.	Answered by No. 1 above.
3.	(a) Under certain circumstances persons entering the federal civil service from companies in which they were eligible to be covered by pension plans may claim their service in such plans as pensionable service under the Public Service Superannuation Act, but they must make contributions to cover such service. In such cases there is a type of transferability of eligibility rights but no transfer of benefit rights.
(b) Under section 28 of the Public Service Superannuation Act there is provision for transfer of pension rights as between the federal civil service plan and the plans of (1) provincial or municipal governments, (2) Canadian crown corporations, (3) the government of any country other than Canada, and (4) any international organization designated by the governor in council. Five such agreements have been signed. There are such agreements with the province of British Columbia, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Bank of Canada, the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Arsenals Limited.
4.	No.
5.	A study is being made by the Department of Labour in co-operation with other interested

departments of the effect of pension plans on the employment of older workers. In the course of this study various possible ways of facilitating or encouraging the retention or transfer of pension rights are being explored.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many adult offenders in Canada have been placed on probation In each province lor each of the years 1945-1955?
2.	How many juvenile offenders in Canada have been placed on probation in each province for each of the years 1945-1955?
3.	What has been the rate of recidivism among these (a) adult probationers; (b) juvenile probationers, for each of the years 1945-1955?
4.	How many probation officers have been employed in each province for each of the years 1945-1955 for (a) adult offenders; (b) juvenile offenders?
Answer by: Mr. Garson:
Under section 92 of the British North America Act the provincial legislatures are given exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the subject matter of probation under head 14 which relates to the administration of justice in the province, including the con-
Questions
stitution, maintenance and organization of provincial courts. The government of Canada does not require returns to it from the provincial courts concerning the number of adult or juvenile offenders who have been placed on probation during any period, the rate of recidivism among such persons or the number of probation officers who have been employed by provincial governments.



IMPORTS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND PARTS

Mr. White (Middlesex East): 1.	What number of motor vehicles have been imported into Canada from the United States of America each month, in the years 1953, 1954 and 1955, inclusive?
2.	What is the value in Canadian dollars of these importations, by months?
3.	What quantities of motor vehicle parts have been imported into Canada from the United States of America in each of the above mentioned years, by months?
4.	What is the value in Canadian dollars of these importations, by months?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):
1 and 2. Imports of motor trucks, passenger automobiles and buses, from the United States, were as follows:
Month	1953	1954	1955	No.	Value	No.	Value	No.	Value$	$	$January	1,652	4,377,442	1,319	3,169,782	2,604	6,725,905February	2,059	4,693,454	1,964	4,629,604	2,379	6,050,714March	2,978	6,685,553	3,097	7,322,988	2,736	7,242,638April	4,503	9,905,368	3,024	7,138,874	2,985	8,017,211May	4,268	9,444,859	2,843	6,648,693	2,751	7,847,444June	3,691	8,136,021	2,826	6,880,573	2,285	6,179,602July	2,823	6,733,504	1,139	2,659,554	2,969	7,316,556August	2,078	4,934,725	794	2,330,650	4,654	9,826,437September	935	2,339,118	695	1,819.135	2,778	6,598,8S6October	772	2,101,710	428	1,265,911	2,255	6,765,761November	814	3,096,686	2,184	6,698,436	December	1,052	2,795,669	1,727	4,893,396	3.	No statistics available.4.	Imports of motor vehicle parts (including engines), distinguished in trade statistics, from the United States, were as follows:-
Month
January - February..
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August....
September.
October___
November December.
1953	1954	1955$	$	$20,239,864	19,841,210	19,299,60720,775,068	20,991,775	23,003,33224,390,895	23,583,941	29,194,08724,232,530	19,758,759	30,362,40625,576,440	20,269,453	32,417,24724,586,534	19,984,411	28,149,22220,675,074	14,915,963	21,189,98713,030,936	7,500,303	15,639,63519,083,997	8,959,594	17,554,90915,004,311	11,039,663	19,033,68715,060,043	13,657,100	19,576,102	15,692,649	
995

Thursday. February 9, 1956