1956-02-03

AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: On a question of privilege, I wish to say that on Wednesday, in replying to a question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I said that flight hours and hours between flights for aeroplane pilots did not fall within the jurisdiction of the air transport board.
I find that I was misinformed and I much regret that this wrong information was given to the house. May I add that I am informed that no representations in this matter have been received by the air transport board.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES    CHANGE IN FLIGHT HOURS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce supplementary to the statement just made by the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say whether Trans-Canada Air Lines have received representations asking for a change in flight hours and hours between flights for air line pilots?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I know of none, and I would not be informed on that subject. That is a matter of conditions of work, which is wholly the responsibility of Trans-Canada Air Lines. It is a matter of internal management of the air line.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: I have been asked by all the hon. members from Prince Edward Island to make a statement in regard to railway cars for the shipment of potatoes.
I have made inquiries of Canadian National Railways and the management inform me
that the present is a period of the year when the demand for refrigerator cars throughout the continent is at a peak. Movement of all commodities in the maritimes was hampered severely in the first two weeks of January by extreme weather conditions, resulting in a backlog which has not yet been overtaken. I should add, however, that on January 25 there were 32 per cent more refrigerator cars in the maritimes than on the same date last year, and that everything possible is being done to increase further the number for Prince Edward Island.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he enlighten us further or indicate the position taken by this government in regard to the shocking facts disclosed in a report to Dag Hammarskjold referred yesterday to the United Nations in connection with the reported purchase of arms from Russia by the delivery of 1,500,000 Chinese slaves?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I was not given notice of this question, therefore I am not sure that the facts as reported in the press or as reported by my hon. friend are correct. If I recall his question correctly, I believe he said that this was a report of the Secretary General of the United Nations. That was not my understanding of it, but I shall look into the matter and see whether a statement can be made as soon as I have seen the report in question.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the question of the Leader of the Opposition, addressed to the Prime Minister. The question was:
In that case, Mr. Speaker, just to clarify it, may I ask the Prime Minister if the published list which is issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce covering aircraft is not in fact the full list of permits that are issued?
832	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
The answer is that there is no published list of permits issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I assume that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to the export statistics published monthly by the dominion bureau of statistics recording exports from Canada. This report shows the export of one aircraft to Egypt in May, 1955, and one aircraft to Saudi Arabia in July of that year. I am advised that the aircraft in question are light civilian planes purchased by oil companies operating in these countries for patrolling their pipe lines. Export permits were issued covering each of these transactions in the usual way.
Canada has developed commercial aircraft which are in demand all over the world and we do not consider that these aircraft have any strategic importance or that these should be considered as war material. It will not help Canada's growing civilian aircraft industry if full particulars of every transaction in this highly competitive field have to be made public for the benefit of their foreign competitors.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Yesterday the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) asked whether goods obtained from the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation are subject to export permits. The answer is that goods purchased from Crown Assets Disposal Corporation are subject to the same export permit procedure as goods purchased from commercial firms, and these documents are given the same confidential treatment.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of record, I would point out that the lists-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would remind hon. members of a story I told in this house and ask who is in charge here.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might supply a clue as to that. It is, of course, well-known that answers to questions should not be debated. If the Leader of the Opposition is leading to a question and wishes to state some facts in order to come to his question, of course it will be allowed; but I think what provoked the calls of order by the hon. members was the fact that the Leader of the Opposition apparently proceeded to debate the question.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in view of the observation you have made I would point out that it is impossible before a single sentence


has been completed to determine what the remainder of the sentence is going to be.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I had understood that it is not only permissible but desirable to correct inaccuracies in statements when they are made.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Alexander Drew: However, Mr. Speaker, there will be other opportunities to deal with that aspect of it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Alexander Drew: I will ask a question, however, in regard to this matter. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has given for the first time the information as to the aircraft. Is it not correct that the air force of the United States has bought quite a number of these same aircraft?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge. If they have bought the same planes, the reference is to the Chipmunk plane arranged for civilian use.


George Alexander Drew: And used for training purposes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not used for training purposes. It is used to inspect oil pipe lines. It was bought by a private oil company and if a private oil company uses it for training purposes I do not know what the training would be for. I hope my hon. friend does not attempt to distort a simple statement of fact.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. What is the present position in regard to the embargo which the Prime Minister undertook to impose pending the foreign affairs debate on shipments of aircraft and armaments in general .to the Middle East? Has the embargo which was imposed been lifted or is it still in effect? What is the position with regard thereto?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The embargo has not been lifted
and the matter is now under consideration.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that no response was made to my suggestion during the debate which took place on

Tuesday and Wednesday, may I ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to give the house an unqualified undertaking that there will not be recognition of the government of communist China until the subject has been brought before the House of Commons?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, there is no consideration being given at this time to any proximate recognition of the government of communist China.


George Alexander Drew: That was not my question. I
asked the Prime Minister if he would give an undertaking that there would not be recognition before the subject had been brought before the House of Commons for consideration.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government will give careful consideration to its responsibilities, both to the House of Commons and to the Canadian people, in considering this matter.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport, of which I gave him notice. Can the minister say when the swing bridge over the Trent canal on the Warsaw road in Peterborough will be ready for traffic since the veterans in that district now have a long detour to get to the city to work?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said
he gave me notice of the question, but I regret to say I have not received it. I shall have to made inquiries in order to answer the question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am sorry.
The letter was mailed in this building at eight o'clock last night and I thought the minister would have it.



NEGOTIATIONS WITH RUSSIAN DELEGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether it is a fact that in the course of the current negotiations the representatives of Russia are seeking the right to reopen consulates across Canada. If so, what position are Canadian representatives in these negotiations taking on the subject?
Inquiries of the Ministry Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to talk about pending negotiations. When the negotiations are completed I shall be glad to make a report to the house, but I think I can say that no suggestion of opening consulates across Canada is involved in the present trade agreements, which are merely that, trade agreements.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in view of the earlier answer given to my question by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Has any application been received from the Russian government or the Russian ambassador for permission to open consulates across Canada? Has there been any expression of a desire in that respect?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was not able to give me notice of his question. I take it that it does not relate to the current trade discussions but to whether or not a request has been made previously to open consulates in Canada. Obviously that is something I will have to look into to see if such a request has been made.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). There are dispatches stating that the heavy water plant at Trail, British Columbia, is being closed down. Can the minister inform the house if that is correct and if so what disposition is to be made of that plant?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the heavy water plant at Trail was built under an arrangement with the government of the United States. If it is being closed down it is being closed by arrangement with the United States. The government of Canada has never had any interest in the plant nor has it obtained any material from that plant.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce concerning the closing of the heavy water plant at Trail. Can the minister assure the house that this will not affect the operations of the plant at Chalk River? I ask this question because in the years when the atomic energy committee was sitting we were

Inquiries of the Ministry told that the heavy water used at Chalk River came from the plant at Trail.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure my hon. friend that the closing down of the plant at Trail will not affect the position of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. I am surprised that the hon. member has been told that the heavy water at Chalk River came from Trail because it is not to my knowledge that that is the case. We purchase our heavy water from the atomic energy commission of the United States and it is my understanding that it comes from quite a different source.



HOUSING

[Stage Direction]
offered to the union in a previous automobile strike, which terms had been accepted at the time. ,
Mr. Knight:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? May I take it then that the report is not true that these people will be evicted on Tuesday unless the conditions put to them have been fulfilled, namely payment?


Mr. Pinard:: As I have already said, the conditions offered by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the union are the same as those which were offered previously and it is hoped that these conditions will be met.



ST. CATHARINES-REPOSSESSION OF HOMES OF MEN ON STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker,
I have given the Acting Minister of Public Works notice of this question together with representations and telegrams received. Will the minister state the status of negotiations carried on with regard to the possible eviction by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation of certain workers on strike in St. Catharines?


Roch Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to indicate to me his intention to ask this further question. I think the statement I made on the 1st of February was quite clear, as to what had been going on at that time, and I shall quote from what I said on that date. This is what I said on that occasion:
At the present time there are 13 orders for repossession in the hands of the sheriff, but action is being withheld on these pending negotiations now going on between representatives of the union and officials of the corporation.
I did not refer to any negotiations between General Motors and the union but to negotiations between the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the union.
Now, to answer the question of my hon. friend, I would say that these negotiations are still going on between the officials of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the union; in fact, a meeting has been arranged for Monday between the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the union officials.
I might add as a further comment that the conditions which are being offered and discussed between the officials of the union and the branch manager of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and his officials are along the same lines as those that have been



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
25-pounder shells
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Can the minister advise if Canadian Arsenals Limited or any other firm in Canada is manufacturing 25-pounder ammunition?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take that question as notice. I am under the impression that our lines on 25-pounder ammunition are closed, but I should like to check.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 27, 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 shortterm 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. Bryson:: Mr. Chairman, during the course of this debate I have attempted to point out a few of the many reasons why this legislation should not be passed. In conclusion I should like to summarize those points which I attempted to make when I last spoke in this debate. Before I do so,

however, may I refer for a few moments to what must surely have seemed like an extremely humorous incident involving the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) and a Manitoba farmer's reaction to this legislation. I mention this matter only because of the fact that it has some significance. As far as I am concerned, this man's feelings were quite understandable. I imagine that since last fall he was completely incensed at the injustice of the situation and became further incensed at the proposition the government is putting forth in the form of bank loans to cure that particular situation. 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 Rosthern 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. I think that all of us in the opposition should take up a collection and buy for this, shall I say, rather impetuous gentleman a new television receiver as a token of our appreciation of his having brought to the attention of this house in a dramatic way what surely must be the inner feelings of the majority of western farmers. As far as the hon. member for Rosthern is concerned, he can take cold comfort from the fact that it was only a television show.
The producers are opposed to this legislation because they see in it an attempt to exact a penalty for the production of food. In other words, they feel that they are being victimized because of the fact that this government has failed to bring in a realistic agricultural policy that would be geared to distribution, not only on the domestic front but in the export market, with respect to the agricultural products that have been produced in this country. The farmers repudiate this legislation on the ground that it did not work in 1951. In the light of present-day conditions they see in it an indication of its utter uselessness, in view of the unfortunate experience in 1951. As to the $1,500 as a maximum loan, they see that as a delusion.
It is just a piece of bait that is being dangled under the noses of western farmers. I suggest to the government that when they attempt this sort of thing on future occasions they should keep in mind the old adage, when you bait a mousetrap be sure to leave room for the mouse. If these are not enough valid reasons why this legislation should be 67509-53i
Grain
rejected, then I suggest to hon. members that the arguments put forward by the Minister of Trade and Commerce are in themselves the best reason why it should be rejected. To imply, as the minister did, that all those who oppose the legislation do so with the express desire of getting rid of the wheat board-mind you, that opposition includes the western pools, the farm union organizations, the federated co-operatives and many thousands of individual farmers-is a pretty weak argument.
The farmers feel that only by a realistic agricultural policy are they going to be able to obtain for themselves a standard of income comparable with that now being enjoyed by other industries in the country. I agree that farming, as was said by the Minister of Agriculture, is a way of life and it cannot be confused with any other kind of business. In other words, when no profit is forthcoming the farmer still stays in business. That is the difference, but I accuse the government of exploiting that fact to the very limit. The government knows that the farmer will stay in business in order to try to protect the investment of a lifetime even if he knows that at the end of the year he is only going to get the meanest of wages for his work. The government knows the farmer will carry on until he goes under in order to protect that investment.	:
If every farmer stopped producing because his farming operations were not showing a profit today it would mean chaos for the Canadian economy and starvation for most of our people. Yet if the government allows the farmer to go under because they fail to introduce a comprehensive agricultural policy that will put some stability under the industry the whole economy will be dragged down.. The most expensive gesture any government can make, and apparently it is the expensive gesture this government is making, is to believe that our prosperity rests on the manipulations that take place on the stock exchange rather than believing, as they should,, that our prosperity rests on the broad base of our land resources. To think otherwise is a fallacy and one that can only end in disaster.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a few remarks with regard to this question, interest in which, in the prairie provinces, has never been exceeded by any other political issue. Indeed, as we read last evening of the near tragedy that might have been suffered by the hon. member for Rosthern, some indication of the feelings of the western farmers and people in general was shown thereby. Indeed, the fact that this incident took place during the course of a debate in

Grain
which the hon. member for Acadia, the hon. member for Assiniboia and myself were also participating might have placed us in a very disagreeable position if anything had happened because we might very well have found ourselves in the position, to use a legal expression, of having been accessaries before the fact.


Mr. McCann:: It is reported now that you were the one involved.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend should not be interrupting after the "McCanntics" of last summer. What I want to speak about is the general reaction in western Canada to this legislation. Meetings took place in various cities and towns. There was a suggestion by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that I had had something to do with convening the meeting in Prince Albert. Let me say that statement bore about as much resemblance to the truth as some other statements the minister made. As a matter of fact, three of four days before that meeting was convened by representatives of the farmers union, the board of trade and the Prince Albert chamber of commerce, business representatives such as the retail merchants association, I was invited to speak. The total length of time I spoke in a meeting of some three hours in extent represented not more than 10 minutes. Indeed, one of the outstanding Liberal supporters and a very fine gentleman named Mr. James McCarter who I believe is one of the senior members of the Prince Albert Liberal executive, came out strongly in support of the only means whereby anything could be done on behalf of the western farmer, a system of advances on farm stored wheat.
Now, for the life of me I cannot understand the attitude of the government. All kinds of explanations have been given as to why the farmers should not be entitled to this. The first position that was taken was that it could not be done because the elevator agents would not be able to do it. Today the elevator agents are responsible for the collection of whatever moneys are lent by the banks. The farmers in the western provinces find themselves in this position, and I think the analogy is a fair one. What would any labouring man do if, working for a concern, he found himself in a position when he came to collect his wages where the employer would say, "Well, we have not sold the raw products yet. We will guarantee your loan at the bank. We are the only source of payment but we cannot pay you now. You go to the bank and borrow and we will guarantee, up to a certain extent, the 
repayment of that loan." That is the position in which the farmer finds himself under this legislation, substituting one debt for another, substituting a series of debts for one united debt.
So far as this legislation is concerned, it had its birth in a series of statements made by various ministers. Tracing something of the history of this legislation, we find the first notice we had was when Mr. McDonald, the leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan and an estimable gentleman, realizing that the situation was serious, made a pilgrimage to Ottawa. He said his plan was a secret, but it would be revealed to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and to the members of the cabinet who were particularly concerned with the marketing of wheat. He went and he carried that secret in his soul. He revealed it to the cabinet. Two or three days later he was able to return to Saskatchewan and say, in effect, "Eureka, I have got it."
Well, it was the old, old loan scheme of 1951, decorated up a little, polished over and reburnished. This scheme did not work, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has so often said. Now, when the first announcement was made that the loan scheme was going to be the one, Mr. McDonald, with true powers of statesmanlike perception, said, "This thing will be just as helpful as a stirrup pump against a forest fire." Today the stirrup pump has become the cornerstone of government policy.
Now, apparently the Minister of Agriculture did not know what government policy was on October 24, for in Winnipeg on that date-


Mr. Gardiner:: I just said you did not know.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not know because it was a secret carried to the cabinet. Cabinet secrets are not divulgeable at all, under any circumstances. The minister was speaking to the Manitoba young Liberals' association, and this is the press report of what he said:
Agricultural Minister J. G. Gardiner hit back Saturday at critics of the federal plan to aid cash-short western farmers, branding the criticism as ''premature" and based on speculation rather than facts.
Speculation was that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was going to bring ini a system of loans. According to one report the right hon. gentleman declared that he believed that cash advances from the wheat board might even be combined with bank loans.
Well, that apparently was his view at that time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I never said any such thing.


John George Diefenbaker: I never heard of a minister who was so completely misquoted.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are members in this house who heard what I said and they will agree that I did not say any such thing, no matter what is in the press.


John George Diefenbaker: I am reading from the record, Mr. Chairman, and there has been no denial at any time except when it becomes convenient to deny a statement made that should not have been made. This was reported in the Free Press and Winnipeg Tribune. The minister says there are some here who heard. They may have heard but apparently they did not understand.


James Garfield Gardiner: They understood.


John George Diefenbaker: Now, the new scheme that was finally evolved was this loan scheme. Now, what kind of scheme is this? What is the purpose of it? The people in western Canada are aroused. The farmers are annoyed at this time. The only western people who are in favour of it so far as I am able to ascertain, and I have spoken with a great many, are those who are bound to this government. The wheat pool in Saskatchewan came out in favour of cash advances. The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) sent a resolution from his association and the other day, amidst what Hansard records as a considerable clatter, he endeavoured to distinguish between an advance and a loan, much to his own discomfiture.
Now, sir, what is this scheme? What is this loan scheme? Well, the doctors have what they call a placebo. It is an inactive medicine prescribed to quieten a patient, to neutralize opposition. It is a harmless substance given to soothe a patient's anxiety rather than as a remedy. It is a preparation given to silence or temporarily satisfy a patient. It is something intended to soothe. This is the government's placebo, but it has not done what it was intended to do, to soothe the aroused feelings of western farmers.
What information have we regarding the success or failure of this plan? I cannot understand answers like these. They seem to emanate generally from the Department of Trade and Commerce. I asked a simple question. It is answered as No. 12. The questions were:
1.	How many bank loans on farm-stored grain subject to government guarantees have been applied for in each province, week by week, since the inception of the plan in November last?
2.	Of the said applications, how many have been turned down or refused?
3.	What is the total amount loaned in each province to date?
Grain
The answer to questions 1 and 2 is as follows:
As applications are made to chartered banks, the government has no record of the number of loans applied for and the number turned down or refused.
Up to November 30 the loans under this scheme amounted to $2,500,000.
Up to November 30, Mr. Chairman; why did we not get the information up to December 30 or up to January 15? Why is it that the information given the other day was so restrictive and circumscribed? The reason is that this plan has been a total flop so far as the western farmer is concerned. It has not worked; it will not work. It is not supplying money to the western farmers. Farmers are being turned down by the banks on every hand when they do apply. If their normal credit is not sufficient, time after time they find themselves turned down. They are asked what the purpose is in securing the money, and if they give as the reason that they have in mind the payment of certain accounts, in many instances the answer immediately is: "That is not what this loan plan is for."


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend is making statements about the lending policy of the banks. I think he should prove his statement by specific instances. If the banks are doing that, they are violating the agreement with the government. I do not believe my hon. friend knows many farmers. He talks for the city.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am making this statement in this house as a responsible member responsible to the people.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In very vague terms.


John George Diefenbaker: I have example after example. Let me make it clearer. Your scheme is a complete flop.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In your opinion. You did not understand it before.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some people think you are a complete flop.


John George Diefenbaker: Since the Minister of Agriculture has spoken, let me give him one. I suppose he will deny this. He was explaining why the government had not acted, and he said: "The mills of the government grind slowly". It used to be the mills of the gods.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact, if I made the statement that is what I would have said.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the government say today these two terms are synonymous? Sometimes we agree, Mr. Chairman.

Grain
I now want to deal particularly with one of the major reasons why the farmer is not getting funds.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You would not know why he is not.


John George Diefenbaker: These are the types of interruptions that indicate the attitude of the minister to the western farmer.
Let me deal with some of the records in so far as the marketings are concerned. Here are the actual figures that cannot be contradicted. I am going to deal first with marketings in the prairie provinces. Let me compare 1954-55 with 1955-56, up to December 8. In the latter year 50 million fewer bushels were marketed in that period than there were a year ago, and it has been getting worse. The minister said things are improving. Up to January 19 the marketings in the prairie provinces were 75-6 million bushels fewer than they were a year ago. In other words, the total prairie marketings of grain have steadily declined right from the beginning of the crop season, from August 1, down to the present day.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why was that?


John George Diefenbaker: I will come to that in a moment. It was because of the department's failure, firstly, to provide through the controller the necessary freight cars that were available for the purpose. I have the actual statistics now. The minister gave us the figures the other day, but I do not know where he got them. They certainly did not come from the wheat board.
Let us take a look at lakehead stocks. Up to December 8, 1955, as compared with the preceding year, the lakehead stocks were down by 1 [DOT] 9 million bushels. Up to December 14 they had decreased by 9-9 million bushels; up to December 29, they had decreased by 15-3 million bushels; up to January 5, they had decreased by 20-3 million bushels; and up to January 19, by 21-1 million bushels. Lakehead stocks have continued to decrease steadily during the past several months.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is because wheat is being sold.


John George Diefenbaker: We will come to that in a second. That is the explanation at the moment, but I shall show shortly what the explanation is.
I now turn to millions of bushels in country elevators. On December 7, 1955-56, there were 23-8 million more bushels of wheat in country elevators than a year ago. That has been reduced. Up to January 19, it had been reduced to 12-9 million.
(Mr. Diefenbaker.]
We now come to the shipments from country elevators. For the week of December 9 we find the shipments were fewer by 3-9 million bushels. That situation was accelerated, until December 28, when shipments amounted to 5-1 million bushels fewer than the preceding year.
The minister mentioned that that situation had been somewhat improved, and very considerably improved lately. Because these facts and figures are unchallengeable I am going to say immediately that up to January 19 of that week there was an improvement. There were 500,000 fewer bushels of wheat in country elevators in 1956 than in 1955.
The cumulative shipments from country elevators are very interesting. Up to December 7, 1955-56, the total number of bushels of wheat shipped from country elevators amounted to 141-7 million bushels. In the previous year the figure was 212-2 million bushels. In other words, the cumulative shipments from country elevators were 71-5 million bushels fewer. What is the position today? On January 19 they had increased. The cumulative shipments from the beginning of the season this year to January 19 amounted to 188-8 million bushels, as compared with 274-6 million a year ago, or 85-8 million fewer. There is your picture. If the farmers had been able to market the same amount of wheat, if the storage facilities had been used -and I emphasize that-if cars had been made available as they should have been, there would have been an improvement. You say the weather had something to do with it. The weather had nothing to do with cars being made available to remove the wheat that was in the elevators in the province of Saskatchewan, or in the line elevators of Alberta or Manitoba.
What about car unloadings? This tells a story of somnolence on the part of the government. Up to December 8, 1954-55, 67,791 cars were unloaded at the lakehead. This year it was only 45,537 or 22,200 less but it got worse week by week since that time and on December 14 for that week there were 24,482 less cars unloaded than the year before. On December 28 there were 27,869 less cars unloaded at the lakehead than a year before. January 25, 29,656 less; and January 19, 30,106 less than a year ago. In other words car unloadings are far below last year's approximately 35 per cent.
The daily average tells a story. The daily average during December and in successive weeks was 201 less than a year ago, 210 less than a year ago, 218 less than a year ago, 219 less than a year ago and up to January 19 it was 203 less per day than a year ago. In other words, we are placed in

Grain
a position where car unloadings have fallen to unequalled depths as compared with a year ago.
The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that we have increased the number. The average for the last week of January was 867, as I remember it. That is all to the good, but what does that show? I have averaged this out and the average indicates that, even making allowance for what has taken place during the last week of January, this year 31,000 less cars of wheat have been unloaded than a year ago since the beginning of the crop year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is my hon. friend just now analysing the situation and discovering that Canada is short of box cars? I announced that three months ago.


John George Diefenbaker: We will come to the question of box cars. I have some statistics from the dominion bureau of statistics indicating that every industry in Canada has had an increase in box cars, but as far as western farmers are concerned there was a tremendous decrease of approximately 35,700 up to January 19. Where has the controller been? He has been away on vacation at a time when a most serious situation faces the western farmers. I say that this reveals a collapse in organization. It indicates that not sufficient attention has been paid to providing cars to the western farmer.
There was space available. I have figures concerning the availability of terminal space. The hon. gentleman said we were all wrong in assuming that there was 100 million bushels of terminal space available. I have taken the rated capacity of the elevators across the country in British Columbia, the prairies, the lakehead and in eastern Canada. Deducting that rated capacity of from 10 per cent to 12 per cent in order to provide for the effective working capacity, accepting the figures which appeared in the wheat board returns, there was available in the month of January at least 95 to 97 million bushels of space that just lay there because of the failure of the government to act in regard to the provision of cars.
I shall read what the Regina Leader-Post said with regard to that on December 27, 1955:
Empty terminal space worthless-
Clearing space in the lakehead and Pacific grain terminals for approximately 97,000,000 bushels of prairie grain should be cheering news for prairie farmers. Deducting the 38,000,000 bushels in transit, this would leave room for approximately 60,000,000 more bushels. If utilized for wheat, this would put something like $85,000,000 more cash into the prairie farmers' pockets. But it will do no good if it stays empty while country elevators remain clogged so that farmers are unable to deliver their grain.
The fact that within a few weeks, this space has developed to the extent it has indicates a grave weakness in our grain handling system. Reports attribute it to a shortage of cars for shipping grain.
The situation smacks at the best of a lack of foresight on the part of those who are in charge of grain handling. At the worst, it has the earmarks of ignoring the prairies and the plight of its farmers who are hard pressed to maintain their families and their operations on the proceeds of the sale of their wheat plus what they are able to borrow from the banks at five per cent interest.
Then it goes on to say this:
Mr. Howe said in Edmonton a few days ago that he had made it plain to the railway companies that there is no higher priority than box cars for grain. Obviously, he did not make this sufficiently plain to get results. This oversight should be rectified immediately.
Here are the two positions which indicate what happens when governments are long in power and when those in charge of departments develop an infallibility belief. There was storage available to the extent of from 90 to 100 million bushels.
I have the record for freight cars indicating that practically every other type of industry has had a tremendous increase in the number of freight cars available to it. Why should the western provinces have been placed in the position, in this regard, of being a depressed area in an otherwise expanding economy? Those are the things in relation to which we have a right to ask what is being done. Why did the controller not act?
I mentioned that I would give certain figures from the dominion bureau of statistics published on January 11, 1956. These figures tell their own story. Loadings in the year 1955 were as follows: Grain, 1955, 333,233 cars; 1954, 364,160 cars. Grain products, 1955, 130,902; 1954, 134,900. Then you take the other elements within the economy and you find tremendous increases in the number of cars made available.
What has happened, Mr. Chairman, has placed the government in the position where they now run for cover and they intimate that anyone who criticizes the situation is thereby inimical to the wheat board. As far as I am concerned I still remember that it was the Conservatives who set up the wheat board and I remember it was the Liberals who set it aside in 1937 and did not restore it until 1942 when they brought it in in order to keep the price of wheat down. Those things I remember-


James Garfield Gardiner: Your memory is bad.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very faulty
indeed.


John George Diefenbaker: As far as the wheat board is concerned, a statement was made

Grain
the other day in my absence by my hon. friend from Provencher (Mr. Jutras) which I must refer to. That statement was to the effect that my attitude was at fault and the hon. member for Prince Albert would fire the wheat board overnight without batting an eye. Mr. Chairman, that statement does not have the degree of truthfulness for which my hon. friend has established such an enviable reputation. That statement bears no relationship to the facts. When I spoke about the wheat board I asked the question, which is not yet answered: why is it that the members of the wheat board said they would not stay on the job if cash advances were provided for? We have not yet had an answer to that question. I asked for the letters that were received. I wonder if they take that attitude. As far as I am concerned the wheat board must remain inviolate and it must stay, but we have a right to ask that the government's tinkering with the wheat board be discontinued.


Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Chairman, during the course of the debate last Friday I obtained the idea in some way or another that it was thought to be highly dangerous if members of the opposition group continued to prolong this debate. It was indicated that by doing so we would do more harm than good. I cannot follow that kind of reasoning because it is my opinion that members of this house should be permitted to express themselves freely at all times on any matter that concerns them. This particular question before us surely is of great concern to all hon. members of the house because it deals with the basic roots of the greatest industry in Canada.
It was intimated last Friday as well that if this debate were to continue much longer the farmers of western Canada might panic. I have lived with the farmers of western Canada all my life and I know that they do not panic. Yesterday a newspaper contained a picture of an hon. member with a few comments about the use of a shotgun. I can assure the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) that he or any other hon. member can come out to my constituency and no shotguns will be used. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is fully aware of the fact that the farmers of Alberta can shoot some pretty warm questions when they are concerned. He experienced it at the farmers' union meeting at the Alberta college auditorium in December last year when for 90 minutes the delegates peppered him with questions to which they received answers which did not satisfy them.
Our farmers are used to being treated roughly, as apparently that is their lot in

Canadian society. On Friday the old reciprocity issue of 1911 was dragged across the floor of this house. I thought that skeleton was buried long ago. The farmers of the west were able to get through the days of the depression even though they were on an almost starvation level. They came through the war period. They are true Canadians and they will stick to their guns even though they are not getting what the national economy should provide.
However, they have learned a few lessons throughout the years. They have learned one lesson in particular, that it is only through organized efforts that they have been able to get the few advantages they have obtained.
Some mention has been made of the wheat board, and that we on this side of the house are opposed to the wheat board. I submit that that statement is far from the truth. We have always supported the wheat board and will continue to support it as the years go by. Through their co-operative organizations, through the wheat pools, the united grain growers, the farmers' unions in the three western provinces, our farmers are now presenting a united front which I hope will continue to grow stronger and stronger as the years go by.
The farmers in my area are definitely opposed to the $1,500 5 per cent guaranteed bank loan. They do not like it and I do not believe there are many of them using it. I know for a fact that a few have tried to obtain loans but were refused. I am thinking in terms of a young farmer who applied for the $1,500 bank loan but was refused. Why? He was refused because he had an outstanding debt of $1,600 on a combine, $800 payable this fall and the other $800 payable next fall. His only other debt, besides his store and fuel bills and so on, was a $300 breaking bill. That young man wanted to establish himself as a good farmer but he was unable to get a loan.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is it not true that his grain was pledged under section 88 of the Bank Act in connection with his other loans?


James Alexander Smith: This young man had 5,000 bushels of wheat. What is the history of this so-called bank loan as known to the people down here? We know the history as it has been related to us many times. I have been quite concerned when in the corridors of this building I hear from hon. members who are not directly associated with wheat growing that they are getting sick and tired of hearing about the wheat problem. I can only say that I hope they get so sick

Grain
and tired of listening to the details of that problem that . they will get behind us and support us. The Edmonton Journal of October 19, 1955, contained the following statement as a result of an interview with the Prime Minister:
The cabinet spent the morning discussing the urgent need of getting some cash into the hands of prairie farmers who hold heavy stocks of grain on their farms.
And again:
He brushed off questions about cash advances for farm-held grain, saying Mr. Howe will make the announcement.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce finally made the announcement of a $1,500 guaranteed bank loan to the farmers of the west. Following that announcement a wave of protest swept through Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Protest meetings were called, not by politicians or big businessmen but by farmers, the little fellows on a quarter or half section of land. They got together and protested and they are still protesting about these bank loans. The following statement which appeared in the Edmonton Journal of November 30 seems significant to me:
Ottawa. The federal government is guaranteeing the chartered banks against any foreseeable loss on their wheat loans to western farmers but it is also making assurance doubly sure that there won't be any loss to the treasury.
There seems to be great concern on the part of the federal government that the chartered banks shall not lose any money or that the federal government itself shall not lose any money, but what about the farmers of the west. When they take out a loan they are faced immediately with a 5 per cent reduction in the amount of the income they should receive. The article goes on:
The only thing that will save Mr. Howe from a repetition of last year's defence production bill filibuster is the fact that by the time parliament gets its hands on the issue it will be a fait accompli.
I submit that the issue of surplus wheat disposal, was critical enough last fall to have justified the government in calling a special session of parliament so that this issue could have been fully discussed before it was a fait accompli. In the same statement the following appeared:
The elevator officials-the agents-will make out two payment tickets.
Still we are told in this house that the elevator officials are not capable of doing that in the case of cash advances. This surplus problem is not a new one; it has been with us for years. It became of great concern toward the end of the last crop year. Throughout the early fall the farmers were wondering
how they were going to market their wheat so that they could pay their bills and so on. Through the press we had statements which were issued by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He blamed all sorts of things for the surplus. He blamed better European crops, scarce ocean shipping and United States surplus disposal methods. He is now blaming the box car situation, the weather and so on. I should like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that he lay the blame where it belongs, namely on the operation of his own department.
Let us go back to the shortage of box cars. May I ask this question, Mr. Chairman? Who owns the Canadian National Railways, other than the people of Canada? Who subsidizes the Canadian Pacific Railway other than the people of Canada? Surely we should, as a group of people, have something to say about the directing of box cars to where they are needed.
It has already been pointed out by the hon. member for Prince Albert that box cars are apparently plentiful for other branches of industry in Canada, but certainly they are not plentiful so far as agriculture is concerned. Last fall the farmers of my area were permitted to market-if they could find space in the elevators-300 bushels of grain. The income from 300 bushels of grain was certainly not enough to meet the day by day expenses incurred by the farmers of the west, such as fuel bills. I can well recall one farmer showing me a cheque for $413 and, at the same time, a fuel bill for $456. That was a fuel bill only. Grocery bills are unpaid. Taxes to municipal governments and so on were not paid before the last day of discount or are not paid at all. I know of one well-established farmer who, for the first time in his 25 years on the farm, was this year unable to pay his taxes. This situation affects not only the farmers, Mr. Chairman, but it is having its effect in every small community in my part of the province. Its influence is being felt, I submit, even right down here in the east. There is not one small town or village in Alberta through which you can travel and not notice stored up on vacant lots or other places combines and farm equipment of all types which have not been sold. If you go into hardware stores which had been expecting to sell deep-freezes, and other equipment that is badly needed by the farmers in the west, you find it is still there in the stores. The farmers have no money with which to buy it.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: The government is in a mental deep freeze.


James Alexander Smith: Much has been said, Mr. Chairman, about some of

Grain
the so-called fantastic schemes by which this situation might be cured, such as the adoption of a two-price system by this government, the use of the barter system and so on. May I ask this question, Mr. Chairman? Which is the more fantastic: to attempt some of the schemes used by other respectable nations in this world and get rid of our grain, or to stay away from these so-called fantastic schemes and to see millions of bushels of wheat on the farms of western Canada while at the same time millions of people are starving throughout the world?
I should like to submit, Mr. Chairman, that in the United States of America the farmers are offered $2.08 a bushel for wheat. What does the United States do with this wheat? It gives special deals to importers backed by the federal treasury. In the Argentine the price is $2.72 a bushel; Argentine offers special deals to the importers and accepts barter deals. In France the price is $2.64 per bushel, and the two-price system is used. In Canada the price is $1.40 a bushel. The farmers in Canada are still forced to follow that so-called old system of rugged individualism in this modern age. Australia accepts sterling. I am suggesting that it will not be too long before we in Canada as well are forced to accept sterling.
It has been suggested that the farmers of the west do not want cash advances. May I say that the farmers of the west have asked for cash advances. The Farmers' Union of Alberta in convention early in December passed the following resolution:
Cash advances on farm-stored grain after inspection as to quantities, grade, and condition of storage facilities.
For the life of me, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see why the government is so reluctant to grant this request for cash advances. That is something I just do not understand. However, I know that the $1,500 bank loan will not be used to any great extent. It will certainly not be used by the people, the younger farmers, who actually need it because the banks will not give them the loan without banker's security.
I have before me this resolution. It is a modern one, and I can produce others as well. It was passed by the Farmers' Union of Alberta local in my territory, and it reads as follows:
Resolved that this meeting go on record as being dissatisfied with the federal government's policy on guaranteed bank loans on farm-stored grain. We regard it as completely inadequate and unrealistic in view of the economic situation of the western farmer.
At this particular meeting 72 farmers travelled to a centre over roads that were
[Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose) .1
practically impassable. They are concerned and they are determined that something must be done.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. Instead of trying to spend our time in debating something that has already been accomplished-by so doing we are not going to change the course of history-I feel that we should adopt another course. Parliament did not ask for the $1,500 loan. It was the Minister of Trade and Commerce who did that. What has been done is done. There is nothing we can do about it but cry. Instead of wasting our time doing this, I suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should bring forth immediately a definite, longterm policy regarding the marketing of wheat so that we could sit here as a group of legislators and discuss it.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Chairman, I am not
rising to prolong the debate. I am rising to put forward, as briefly as I can, the position that I think most of us on this side of the house take in relation to the proposal now before us with regard to bank loans. I want to say categorically that my understanding of the position of the western farm organizations is that they regard this bank loan legislation not only as being ineffective but as legislation which discriminates against the wheat producer.
After the tremendous barrage of criticism made by the official opposition, and in particular by the hon. member for Prince Albert this morning, in respect of this legislation, I suggest that they should do what I intend to do as an effective protest, namely vote against this measure when it comes to a vote in this chamber.
The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce made certain statements. I cannot quote them from the record, Mr. Chairman, because they were made in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. However, he said something like this. He said that recently there has been a drive for advances on farm-stored grain. Then he went on to say that the suggestion had been made that three-quarters of the value of the grain be advanced by the wheat board. He stated that many hon. members might think that this inspiration came from the farmers but that the fact was nothing of the kind, that it came from the cities. Then he went on to ask who were its supporters and said that its supporters were the enemies of the wheat board method of marketing. I have summarized what he said, but it can be found at page 127 of Hansard of January 16. I want to say to the house and to the hon. gentleman that if any group in the house should be ashamed of its record in connection

with the wheat board it is the Liberal party and the Liberal government.
I have a long memory and vivid recollections. There was only one Liberal member elected in the province of Saskatchewan in 1921, and that one Liberal member was the late Hon. W. R. Motherwell. I remember seeing the hoardings plastered with signs and a big sign stretching across the main street of the city of Regina saying:	"Vote for
Motherwell and the wheat board." At that time I was a member of the old Progressive movement which I supported until the movement disintegrated. I remember the fight for the wheat board all through those years. I remember how the wheat board came into being in the 1930's. I remember that in June of 1935 one of the very last acts of the Liberal representative on the committee discussing the wheat board legislation, the late Colonel Ralston, for whom I have a very high regard, was to move a resoution providing for the winding up of the wheat board within one year.
I came to this house in 1935 and the very first speech I made in the house was in criticism of the government's action in relation to the wheat board, the dismissal of John I. McFarland and the appointment of a new chairman of the board who was president of one of the line companies which had been so closely connected with the agitation against the wheat board. I have vivid recollections of all of this but I have a more vivid recollection of an event in the house in June of 1938 involving one of the men-I was going to say "the" man and I do not think I would be very far out, the man who perhaps more than any other except the late Ed Partridge of Sintaluta was responsible for the establishing of the old grain growers organization in the province of Saskatchewan in the early part of this century.
I refer to the Hon. W. R. Motherwell. I can see the Hon. W. R. Motherwell in my mind now standing before his desk in the front benches of the Liberal party. I remember what the Hon. W. R. Motherwell said then about an order in council that had been passed and which was designed to discontinue the operations of the wheat board as laid down in the legislation. I am going to quote what the Hon. W. R. Motherwell said on that occasion, and it can be found at page 4446 of Hansard of June 30, 1938. He was discussing the order in council setting aside the wheat board as the legislation had created it and he had this to say:
. . . that while the present government was joint father of the Wheat Board Act. it has committed infanticide or at least has mutilated the foster child to such a degree that it might as well be dead. This act is simply an ornament on our statute books.
Grain
Those were the words of W. R. Motherwell, a former Liberal minister of agriculture, not my words, and I remember the circumstances very distinctly. Then he went on to speak of his own experience shortly before and said this:
I first heard about it-
The order in council.
[DOT]-on a Saturday night and I refused to believe it. I thought it was some fool report across the wires such as we sometimes get, some mistake; and it was not until Monday morning that I discovered, when I went to deliver my wheat to the pool elevator for the board, that I could not do it.
The order in council prevented the delivery of the wheat to the wheat board, as Mr. Motherwell testified. I do not suppose any man could have borne more eloquent and authoritative testimony to what the Liberal government had done to the wheat board in 1938. The Minister of Agriculture remembers those words of the late W. R. Motherwell. The order in council said that the wheat board was not to accept wheat from the farmers if the wheat had not fallen below 90 cents a bushel-


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: -and the floor price that was set was 874 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: Tell the reason.


Major James William Coldwell: You may be able to tell the reasons but I am quoting Mr. Motherwell and I remember perfectly well the Minister of Agriculture rising on occasion after occasion in the house and defending the grain exchange method of marketing.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no.


Major James William Coldwell: Hon. members who were in the house at the time, and I am sorry to say there are only a very few of us left, can remember it as vividly as I can.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no. My hon. friend should not quote unless he has Hansard here to prove it.


Major James William Coldwell: I have read Hansard. That is what I am doing now. I am quoting Hansard. I am not quoting from memory. I am talking about what Mr. Motherwell said with regard to the government's and the minister's policies.


James Garfield Gardiner: Do not mix it up with something I did not say.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not mixing something the hon. gentleman did not say. I have read the record right through, and not only that, I sat through the proceedings and have a very vivid memory.

Grain


James Garfield Gardiner: Would the hon. member permit me to correct him?


Major James William Coldwell: Certainly.


James Garfield Gardiner: He is quite right in saying that at one time I supported the grain exchange method of marketing, but it was long before I came to this house.


Mr. Argue:: You still do for rye and flax. You are only half converted.


Major James William Coldwell: I am very glad to hear the minister admit that some time he did support the grain exchange method of marketing.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was long before I came to this house.


Major James William Coldwell: It was not until the necessities of wartime arose that the wheat board became really effective. At that time we had to market our grain nationally and through agreements with our customers. Then we got the wheat board method of marketing. So please do not let any member on the Liberal side of the house rise in his place and accuse those of us who have supported the wheat board method of marketing for the last 35 years of wanting to undermine and get rid of the wheat board. Do not let us have that. The record is too clear and too concise.
I did not want to go into the background of this matter this morning but I felt that somebody just had to put this statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce right. I felt somebody should say to hon. members who want to know the whole story of the wheat board method of marketing: Go back into the records. Read the debates of 1935 to 1940, of 1941, 1942 and 1943. Read those debates. See from which side of the house support for the grain exchange method of marketing came. See from which side of the house support for the wheat board methoding of marketing came. Let us hear no more of the statement that certain of us who have supported the farmers' demand for the wheat board are now trying to undermine it.
I say to hon. members opposite and to the government that the farmers of the west are incensed. I am not going to bring in any extraneous happenings in Manitoba, but the farmers of the west are incensed because of the policy the government has adopted and which it is trying to force upon the house and the country.
You may say to me, and quite rightly, what do you mean by advance payments on farm stored grain? About all I intended to do this morning was to say very precisely what I said last October and November when I was in
my own constituency of Rosetown-Biggar and in western Canada. I am going to put as concisely as I can what we mean when we speak of advance payments on farm stored grain. What we mean is this. Parliament should authorize the wheat board to make a payment through the elevator companies, as is now being done, of 75 per cent of the initial price of farm stored grain. That is the first point.
The second point is this. The government should ask this parliament to appropriate funds for this purpose and provide those funds through the wheat board without interest, so that these payments could be made. Then, what would happen? The grain would become immediately the property of the government through the wheat board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Major James William Coldwell: Parliament appropriates the money, the government provides it to the wheat board and payments are made on behalf of the wheat board to the elevator companies so that the wheat then becomes the property of the agent of the government and therefore it is in effect the property of the government.
Then, on what amount of grain should these advances be made? I make the suggestion to the minister that it should be determined by the anticipated quota for the current year. What do I mean by the "anticipated quota"? If the minister is optimistic and says we are going to market 12 bushels, then the quota would be 75 per cent of 12 bushels. If he says we are going to be as low as last year, 8 bushels, then the payment should be made on 75 per cent of the initial value of the 8 bushels. The elevator agent who took title on behalf of the purchasing authority could measure the bin and seal it if the government wish. But I am going to say this. I think the experience of the past will show that the western farmer is fundamentally honest, and not one in ten thousand would misuse the trust that would have been placed in him. The agreement then is made accepting the grain at the initial floor price.
On later delivery of the balance of the grain at the elevator itself, the other 25 per cent should be paid to the farmer. Of course, the usual participation certificates would be issued on the balance of payment as at now for presentation after disposition of the current crop by the wheat board. That is the policy. It is very simple and very sound, I think. I believe it is one that would be acceptable to the western farmers.
It would do two things. It would give him an advance payment on a quantity of


Clarence Decatur Howe: Could I ask my hon. friend a question?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would the grain elevator operator be expected to search the records and find out if there were prior commitments against the grain on which he was making an advance?


Major James William Coldwell: I do not think that is necessary. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smith) was challenged a few moments ago to ascertain if he knew that there was a lien of $800 against 5,000 bushels of grain. There is ample security there. I think that is merely a side issue for lawyers.


John George Diefenbaker: He could make an affidavit.


Major James William Coldwell: He could swear an affidavit. An affidavit is a legal document and a man making a false statement could be attacked in a court of law and dealt with severely.
Now, then, look at the house at the moment. Look at the Liberal side of the house. Look at the number who are interested in this particular problem. Lpok at the other side of the house. We will find out how many there are, Mr. Chairman. I move:
That the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman-


Major James William Coldwell: It is not debatable.


The Chairman:: Would the hon. member be kind enough to send me a copy of his motion?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


William Alfred Robinson: May I remind hon. members that we are not sitting as the house but we
Wheat
are sitting in committee. While I am reading the question any hon. members who wish have the right to enter the house.
Motion (Mr. Coldwell) agreed to: Yeas, 46; nays, 36.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the motion carried.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the committee have leave to sit again?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Later this day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting of this house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Later this day?


Mr. Nicholson:: Next sitting.



PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF CARRYING COSTS OF TEMPORARY EXCESS RESERVES

Clarence Decatur Howe: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure for the payment of carrying costs of temporary wheat reserves owned by the Canadian wheat board in respect of board stocks of wheat in excess of one hundred and seventy-eight million bushels at the commencement of a crop year, such payment to be made to the board by the Minister of Finance out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, in form, this is a simple bill. In principle, it is of great importance. It is proposed that the government of Canada should assume carrying charges on stocks of wheat held by the wheat board in excess of 178 million bushels as of August 1, 1955 and that a similar obligation should be assumed by the government in each crop year until the board's stocks of wheat drop below 178 million bushels as of the first of the crop year. At that time, the legislation will lapse.
The purpose of the bill is to relieve the wheat board, and through the board, the wheat producer, from the burden of paying storage and interest costs on the abnormally large stocks which have accumulated in the hands of the board in recent years.
These excessive stocks have accumulated for one reason and one reason only-good rainfall on the prairies during the past 4 or 5 years. They are not due to excessive plantings of wheat. In fact, acreage is lower than

Wheat
it was 25 years ago. They are not due to subsidization of wheat production in any form. Prairie wheat growers receive exactly the price realized on world markets for their wheat, less storage and other expenses of handling and marketing. Unlike wheat growers in so many countries of the world, they have not cost the taxpayers or consumers of this country a penny in recent years.
Nor have these excessive stocks accumulated because of poor sales. In fact, during the period of accumulation of present stocks, export and domestic sales have been at record levels.
The cause of excess stocks is simply and solely good, well-distributed rainfall which produced a series of remarkably big crops, including the largest and second largest in history.
To all intents and purposes, the Canadian elevator system was filled to capacity on August 1, 1955, the beginning of the present crop year. At that time the Canadian wheat board owned 395 million bushels of wheat. The elevator system is likely to continue to be filled to capacity on August 1 next as producers deliver grain now on farms to replace grain moving into consumption at home and abroad.
The wheat board, therefore, faces the prospect of having to carry very large stocks of wheat for some time to come. Under the wheat board system of grain marketing, all carrying costs are charged to the producer who receives the net proceeds of sale, that is, the sale price less all costs.
The impact of increasing carrying charges first affected wheat board operations in the administration of the 1953-54 pool account.
Could we have a little order, please, Mr. Chairman?


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Apparently these genial comedians across the way are not interested in wheat.


Mr. Ellis:: How many members did you have in the house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: How many have you listening to this speech?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Put your temper in storage.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am going to ihave a few words to say about the opposition when I get through this more formal part of my remarks; make no mistake about that. I continue with my statement. This pool was under administration from August 1, 1953 to April 29, 1955. Carrying charges and interest came to 15-67 cents per bushel on the 398

million bushels of wheat delivered to the pool by producers. By way of comparison, if we look at the 1952-53 pool, the same items came to only 7-57 cents per bushel on producers' marketings of 533 million bushels.
The heavy carrying charges incurred in the 1953-54 pool would, of course, again be felt in the 1954-55 pool on which the board is still operating. In fact, it is estimated that the carrying charges incurred by the board in the administration of the 1954-55 pool might run close to 20 cents per bushel.
Under ordinary circumstances, there would, in my opinion, be no reason for the government and the general taxpayer to intervene to relieve the wheat board and the producer from any share of carrying costs. At the present time, however, I think there is a broad measure of agreement that it is in the interests not only of wheat producers, but of the country as a whole, that the wheat board should follow an orderly policy in disposing of its large holdings and not resort to panic methods of selling or giving-away. The experience of the 1930's is too fresh in the memories of all of us for anyone to suggest that attempts should be made to clear the shelves at any price. The frantic efforts to sell wheat in those years only produced price collapse. They did not sell any more wheat than could have been sold by orderly marketing. And extremely low wheat prices helped to aggravate and prolong the world depression of the early 1930's.
Aggressive but orderly selling is therefore in the national interest. If, however, the wheat board is faced with the burden of unusual and accumulating carrying costs for some time to come, it will be under the necessity of balancing price cuts against accumulating storage and interest costs. An assumption by the government of abnormal or excess carrying charges will therefore be a powerful aid to the principle of orderly marketing of wheat which this government supports.
This proposal may, therefore, be regarded as a contribution, and an essential contribution, to the stability of the wheat economy of the prairie provinces and an indirect contribution to the stability of the whole Canadian economy.
Over the period of 15 years prior to the harvesting of the large 1951 crop, average stocks of wheat in elevators at the end of each crop year was 178 million bushels. It seemed to the government that this was a fair gauge of normality. The 15-year period includes the low carryovers of the late 1930's, the high carryovers of the war years, and the low carryovers of the late 1940's.
The stocks of wheat on which the wheat board were paying carrying charges on

August 1, 1955 were 395 million bushels. Subtracting 178 million bushels, we arrive at a figure of 217 million bushels on which the government will assure the carrying charges during the present crop year. The charges themselves are in each case based on the last year's actual rates of storage and interest so that a figure may be arrived at immediately. The rates in effect on July 31, 1955 were equivalent to about 15 cents per bushel per annum. Therefore, the cost to the treasury this crop year will be about $32 million. What it will be in subsequent years will depend upon the level of board stocks, but it cannot go much above $32 million in any event because of the physical limits on storage capacity.
I believe that I have said sufficient to explain the government's reasons for introducing this legislation. The detail of the legislation itself, I believe, is self-explanatory.
The government has been urged to subsidize the western producer. It has been urged to subsidize exports and to resort to camouflaged forms of give-away. It has been urged to guarantee a minimum price considerably higher than the present initial prices.
The government has rejected all these proposals. It does not want to get into the business of subsidizing wheat production or exports as is being done in so many countries of the world, for this is the basic cause of the trouble in world wheat markets today.
The government does believe, however, that it is in the national interest that the treasury should help the producer over the present rough spot by carrying stocks in commercial storage above normal levels.
In due course, present wheat stocks owned by the board will begin to decline. When they fall to 178 million bushels, payments by the treasury will cease. If at some future time they should rise again above normal, it will be for the government and parliament to decide at that time whether there is any national responsibility. The present bill deals only with the situation now confronting the country and the wheat producer.
We have heard a great deal today and in recent days of what the opposition parties would do for the farmers were they in the position of the government. Well, now, there is a way of finding out what they would do. The surest way to find out what any man would do in a given situation is to find out what he did the last time he encountered this situation. We have a pattern set in the 1930's when the Conservative government came into office and encountered a similar surplus position. The government took office
Wheat
on the 7th of July, 1930. The price of wheat on that day was slightly over $1 a bushel-


Mr. Rowe:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister, was it not 92 cents?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, sir.


William Earl Rowe: It was within a week.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was one dollar and one-half cent on the Winnipeg grain exchange for No. 1 northern grain, Fort William, on July 7, 1930, and if the hon. member does not believe it he can look it up in the noon recess.


William Earl Rowe: I believe it because I was here. I would ask the minister, however, did it not drop to 55 cents before the end of that year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: Who was to blame for that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who was in
power?


William Earl Rowe: Just for a month or two.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You were in power from the 7th July-


William Earl Rowe: Until September-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The price of wheat dropped from the day this government took office.


William Earl Rowe: How much did it drop the year before, from 1929 until then?


John George Diefenbaker: The election was on July 28 so we were not in power on July 7.


William Earl Rowe: Wrong again.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should have said August 8.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am glad to be corrected.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Another inaccuracy.


William Earl Rowe: You were not here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There will be a correction tomorrow.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But I was interested in wheat.


William Earl Rowe: I will not interrupt you again.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You can speak later.


William Earl Rowe: I should not have interrupted; you are in enough trouble.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is getting close to one o'clock.


William Earl Rowe: I am sorry, go ahead.

Wheat


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I say, the price of wheat on the day the Conservative government took office, which I recalled was July 7 but have been informed was August 8,-it was the beginning of a new crop year in any event-was one dollar and one-half cent, No. 1 northern grain, Fort William. The average of that crop year was only about 66 cents per bushel. The price of grain declined steadily until, after the government had been in power for two and a half years, it touched the low price of 39 cents per bushel in storage at Fort William for No. 1 northern wheat.
Well, the government was active. We have heard a great deal about the Bennett government instituting the wheat board. The wheat board was not in action at that time but the government was in the futures market attempting to stabilize the price of wheat, and the prices grew lower day by day until wheat dropped to the lowest price in history. That was a serious surplus situation and not too attractive a price. What did the government do for the people in the west? That is a most interesting story. Did they guarantee bank loans? No, not even for $1,500 per loan. They did nothing of that kind. Did they help the farmer with his carrying charges? No. However, I would not say they did nothing because they did do something-


William Earl Rowe: Thanks.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was quite a surplus of cheese down in what was then Tory Ontario and the government bought that cheese. Of course, the Ontario farmers had to be taken care of and not having any other place to put it the government distributed the cheese to the farmers in the west. The same thing was true of apples. There was also a surplus of apples down in Tory Ontario-


An hon. Member:: What about cod fish?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I am coming to cod fish. There was a surplus of cod fish down in the maritime provinces and that surplus was bought up and distributed to the farmers in the west. So when we hear the opposition talk about aid to the farmers and say that this government is being niggardly in this present surplus situation it is interesting to remember that the total aid the Conservative government gave to the farmers consisted of a few pounds of cheese, a few apples and a few dead fish. That is the whole story wrapped up in a package. I ask you to call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman. 1 am not finished.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to ask the minister one question-


William Alfred Robinson: Order.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, before adjournment I had started to discuss the regime which was in power in this country from 1930 to 1935. There is much more I could say on that subject but as my time is limited I shall refer more particularly to Item No. 3. I may say that this method of assistance to farmers was decided upon only after I had attended the annual meetings of two of the three wheat pools, after I had discussed the situation with a great number of farmers, after I had attended a meeting of the farmers' union in Edmonton and after I had listened to a great number of proposals made by producers of wheat as to the best method of remedying a situation which was then and is now causing this government anxiety.
I have heard the suggestion that we should go on a two-price system, that we should charge the consumers of wheat in this country a higher price than we sell the same wheat for export. That proposal presents great difficulties. It would invite our customers abroad to ship their flour into this market and if we placed an embargo against their flour they would then say, "Why should we not put an embargo on against your wheat?" I should hate to make the decision that one section of the country should charge another section of the country a price which was higher than they would be willing to sell that wheat in any market except Canada.
Other proposals have been advanced from time to time, but after discussing the matter with the directors and senior men in the pools and a great number of members of the united farmers it was decided that the method of assistance provided in this bill would be the most appropriate and likely to be the most helpful that could be advanced for the purpose.
However, I think we should get back to business and I should like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this da3r.
Motion agreed to: Yeas, 109; nays, 11.
Progress reported.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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 shortterm 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.
William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before the committee is one of keen concern to everyone interested in agriculture in Canada, as well as those-and I know this would apply to all hon. members-who are interested in the economic prosperity of this dominion. I realize that there is some difference of opinion as to whether we should grant loans at 5 per cent to the farmers of western Canada or make cash advances on the wheat which they hold, wheat which the government in conjunction with the wheat board has failed to sell. I think that is quite a legitimate difference.
The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has made a strong argument in favour of guaranteeing the banks when making loans at 5 per cent, but it struck me as being rather odd that the farmers should have to pay 5 per cent when many others are able to borrow money for less. It is believed by all sides in parliament today that cash payments to farmers are necessary. The point is, why are they necessary?
For some considerable time I have listened to extensive debates on agriculture, and especially on wheat. Wheat production is an important branch of Canadian agriculture. We have been proud for many years of our No. 1 hard wheat. In fact I sometimes think we have been almost too proud; we thought that the world could not get along without it. I can remember discussions about its importance, and I think that is admitted by all.
Today we find our surpluses mounting until there are actually mountains of wheat in Canada remaining unsold. At no other time in our history have we known of surpluses of the size we have now except during 1930, when they were the largest in the 20th century up to that time. It is unique that as the great party which sits to your right were getting ready to leave office in 1930 they left
Grain
every elevator bursting with unsold wheat. Today at about the time they are getting ready to leave again, every elevator is filled with unsold wheat.
However, the minister has admitted that we have 100 million bushels of empty elevator space. As the hon. member for Prince Albert has pointed out, 100 million bushels of empty elevator space means that if that amount had been delivered to the elevators the farmers would have had $150 million more, and we would not need to be making either cash payments or loans at 5 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, I have listened in this house for a long time, for nearly as long as any other hon. member, and it is passing strange to find that even though we have a tremendous increase in the production of copper and all other primary products, the one primary product over the sale of which we have had difficulty down through the years with this government has been this golden asset of agriculture, Canadian No. 1 hard wheat. Perhaps there is a relationship, because I have not in all my time in this parliament ever seen a government so smugly satisfied with itself, so sure that there is some other reason that we are in difficulty rather than any shortcoming of the government.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, with his characteristic optimism, says there is nothing wrong. He is more bullish than the greatest bulls on the market these days. He says there is nothing wrong. In fact he says he is rather happy about the situation. If we have too much wheat he says the reason is that it rained too much. The Minister of Agriculture sings "It ain't gonna rain no more" and says there will be no butter surplus because there will be no rain nex.t year.
Mr. Chairman, I sometimes wonder how the farmers of Canada can get such satisfaction, comfort or hope when they observe the policies of this government. The Minister of Trade and Commerce told us the other day that we have been selling so much wheat that the transportation companies cannot get it away as fast as they are selling it. He has told us that we sold 90 million bushels more wheat a year in the last five years than we ever sold before. Yet on the other hand he says, "If the farmers want it we will give them something; we will make them pay 5 per cent on it, because they are so well off that otherwise they will buy victory bonds and we will have to pay interest ourselves." Is it any wonder that they are starting to shoot up the public monopoly of television?
The farmers of Canada are dissatisfied. They have been dissatisfied in the past, but they are more dissatisfied today. I could name

Grain
cabinet ministers who know very well that what I say is true, but I will not embarrass them because any row they have in their own constituencies is their own problem. We have been told that we have had many more shipments and that the shipments had been going out rapidly. The hon. member for Prince Albert this morning showed conclusively what has been happening in that regard in the last few years.
We listened to the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day. Experience must be the charm of the ages, because even with his short experience the Minister of Trade and Commerce almost made me feel that these mountains of wheat in western Canada were disappearing just like snowdrifts in a spring thaw. He said it might be an asset when we want it. I remember last year how he, speaking for the wheat board, said we might not have any bins full of wheat in Canada; we were to have it all sold, and probably there would be no wheat. What was a problem in January was likely to be an asset before July. Then the other day he said we sold 90 million bushels of wheat more each year for the last five years, and the only real handicap they had was the panic that was caused throughout the world by what the Leader of the Opposition had said about wheat.
I had realized previously that the words of the Leader of the Opposition are beginning to ring true. I realize that more people in this country are beginning to have confidence that we have a vigorous and forward-looking leader who will be the next prime minister of Canada. But I did not realize before that his voice was so strong that it would carry over into Europe and destroy the markets. As a colleague of his I am going to speak to him and tell him to be careful, because I am a farmer. I will try to get him not to say anything that might disturb the market for wheat. I agree with his policies in so many regards that I would not want him to upset the world wheat market by something he might say at this particular time.
The hon. member for Prince Albert this morning laid down in his characteristically clear style the true picture in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: The Minister of Trade and Commerce and the government have failed this house so often that I am not surprised that they now doubt themselves. If ever we saw a trail of contradictions, a trail of changes and signs of disunity, we saw it last week.
I am not surprised that we find that situation prevailing on this important question. Despite what has been said, we know that deliveries

from the farms in the 21 weeks from January 4 to January 16 were 65 per cent below what they were one year ago, and the deliveries or loadings overseas were 30 per cent less. How can the Minister of Trade and Commerce expect us or the wheat grower in western Canada to believe him when he builds up a picture, such as that which he built up the other day, when he says that the only trouble we have today is to find transportation to take the wheat away as fast as we are selling it, that we are selling more than we ever sold before. Then on the other side, on the same day we find him saying that we must find money to support these poor fellows in western Canada. We never before sold so much wheat for them, but they never needed money so badly.


An hon. Member:: No wonder they shoot grits on television.


William Earl Rowe: I am glad they killed two. If they had killed one there would still be another.


Mr. Harris:: And lots more, too.


William Earl Rowe: There will not be so many in your riding after the next election, despite your position down here. There is only one of you. You cannot afford to take that risk.


Walter Edward Harris: You can come over this year, as you did in former years.


William Earl Rowe: No. I never went there very much, because I had more important places to go. The Minister of Trade and Commerce tries to tell the house and the country that we have not a surplus that is at all dangerous. There is a great difference between the stocks in hand that the trader sees and the surplus that the politicians admit. Yet we have almost one billion bushels-almost one thousand million bushels-on hand and they tell us that is not dangerous.
If you are in power long enough to build a halo of smug complacency and optimism around you bigger than a balloon tire, then you can say that these little things like a billion bushels of wheat are of no more concern than "what's a million" in your financial statement. These are things that the people of this country are getting concerned about. These are the things that are disturbing the farmers across this dominion. Some of us do not grow as many acres of wheat, but we try to grow perhaps more bushels per acre. There is not a grain grower, a cattle feeder, a grain seller or a grain buyer in agriculture in Canada today who is satisfied with the way in which this government is bungling, befuddling and bewildering the whole picture. The Minister of Trade and Commerce suggests that the minister for Prince Albert-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: He will be a minister after the next election; don't worry about that. Maybe I am a little bit ahead of myself, but of one thing I am sure. When he is made a minister I hope he is ahead of the row I see in front of me now. He will stand out like a beacon light before these tired old men I see in front of me, these men who said we would not be able to find a cabinet or could not form a government. As was said two or three days ago, if I were to go out and shoot a gun down Sparks street, if I did not hit a television set I would still hit something that would match up well with the best you have in the front row. I have never seen a government so old and complacent, with such a lack of policy, so uncertain and indiscreet, as I see before me now. I do not want to embarrass them or I would ask some of them how they stand on certain issues. I would not want to embarrass the Minister of Justice but I could ask him some questions that would make him wish he were back in Minnedosa.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


William Earl Rowe: Oh, if we can only get the transportation and it does not rain too much we will solve the whole problem. It will be a great thing to have wheat. The Minister of Agriculture said a few years ago that we might have to eat it, and if we got into a desperate situation in a world conflict we could eat nothing but wheat and live on it for a time. In fact I have listened to very little else in parliament for 30 years.
But, Mr. Chairman, amidst all these blunders, bluffs and boasts these new apostles of trade experiments have created a halo of mythology among the farmers all across the dominion. If there is any compliment coming to them I compliment them on that halo around their heads which, as I have said, is bigger than a balloon tire. But what has it meant in reality? I have listened and I am convinced that they think that if you are in power long enough you cannot be wrong. In their opinion they exemplify democracy at its best. How they smugly smile and laugh, wisecrack at the opposition and say, "All is well because we did it."
Going back to the days of the past, by what yardstick do these giants measure their greatness? What yardstick are you using? Are you considering varying world conditions? Are you considering the changing times through which we have gone? Are you considering the increased world population? Are you considering the increased world production of wheat? Are you considering that last year the world consumed 117 million more bushels of wheat, yet Canada had very little more than half the proportion of that wheat
Grain
market that it had in the days of the Bennett government to which I belonged, and which the minister said sent abroad nothing but apples, cheese and so on.
I know what the western farmers will say today. They will say they have had nothing but applesauce for the last four years in western Canada. Yes, Mr. Chairman, where are these markets? What has this government done? I listened to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar this morning and I listened intently because, while I have not always been in full agreement with many of his policies, he is one of the outstanding debaters in the Canadian parliament. He put the matter so clearly that if you did not believe what he said all you had to do was to look at the Minister of Trade and Commerce and you would know it was true.
He remembers what happened in 1935. May I tell you, sir, that, coming from the same part of the country as you do, I remember distinctly what has happened since 1925. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar gave me a lead. I had not intended to do so today, but I should like to review some of our past history to see where the merit or demerit of these giants lies in retrospect and in relation to other governments that have gone before.


An hon. Member:: 1930 to 1935.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, 1930 to 1935. You were not here and you have never heard anything about it from your side since then. That is why the future of your party is so hopeless. These tired old men are disappearing and you ciphers in the back are not learning well enough to be able to form a government. I am not hesitant at all, Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Dickey:: No, you are not. That is right.


William Earl Rowe: -about reviewing the history of those years. No man knows better than the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Walter Edward Harris: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: -that I was in politics before he was. In fact I urged the people of Port Arthur to make him president of the Conservative association at that time. I know his friendship for the grain exchange. He was a Tory of the Tories in those days. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said, these people are not the champions of the wheat board, and why do they now try to parade themselves as such? Why, Mr. Chairman, it is utter nonsense. I can understand now why this mythology has grown. We are to blame because we have not told the people the truth enough. I am glad there are those still in parliament who can review the true history of what has gone on in this country.

Grain
I can well recall what Hon. Mr. Motherwell had to say, as was mentioned this morning. I can go back further than that, to 1927 and 1928, when I pointed out the dangers that were confronting us. I remember a member of the Liberal party telling me, "You know nothing about western Canada. I am telling you, Rowe, you will never see wheat below $2 a bushel again." I said that from what I could see of what was going on in the wheat business wheat would be selling at 75 cents a bushel before he ever returned to parliament. When he saw he was going to be defeated the Grits gave him a job in the civil service, and later when he was free from politics he admitted to me on Sparks street that I was right and he was wrong.
These, Mr. Chairman, are some of the things that have happened. At that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not exactly in love with the Tories but he had sufficient affection for them that he was well regarded by them. Yet, Mr. Chairman, he now has the temerity to tell us what we did, that all we sent was cheese. He did not tell you the kind of mess we found. He did hot tell you that we were made the honorary pallbearers of the worst political mess Canada had ever seen.
No, Mr. Chairman, these things are not revealed, and perhaps I should not go back to them because I know that you, sir, as a younger man, feel that we older men should not talk about the days that are past. The Minister of Trade and Commerce would rather look to the future. He is the wild optimist who always looks to the future. His twin brother, the Minister of Agriculture, is afraid to look back and he is too cautious to look ahead. Where are the facts? Let me remind hon. members that the party now in power have not justified this halo of perfection they have built around themselves in smug complacency. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that cloak of smug complacency will be their shroud after the next election. It is true that they have skilfully advertised. Can the minister rise today and tell me about conditions in 1930 and 1931 which, as far as we were concerned, were a lot more difficult than they are today?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Ha, ha, ha, ha.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, his answer is just what I expected. His answer is that smug complacency which feels that a laugh or a grin is better than a silly answer. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can take him and hon. members of the house back before 1930. I well recall what happened in 1925. Yes, I can remember when the wheat pool was organized. I can
TMr. Rowe.]
remember hearing Mr. Henry Wise Wood, and I remember the differences between him and A. J. MacPhail. I remember the speeches of Mr. A. J. MacPhail who, the minister will not deny, knew something about the picture and was very much concerned. Henry Wise Wood, who organized the pool, thought that wheat should never go below $2. What a lucky chance they had in 1924 and 1925. I remember distinctly being in western Canada when the billboards in support of Hon. Mr. Motherwell were as conspicuous to me as they were to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.
Where did those who were out to kill the wheat board get their lead? Whose baby was it? They never fathered it, they never mothered it, and they even hesitated to adopt it. Right Hon. Arthur Meighen suggested it and then Hon. Mr. Motherwell grabbed on to it, much to the disgust of many Liberals at that time. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said, he was elected by going contrary to his Liberal party. He knew more about agriculture than even the present Minister of Agriculture, for whom I have a great regard.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, let us face the facts. No one group in Canada, whether it is the wheat pool, the grain growers, the wheat board, the Conservative party or the Liberal party, has any monopoly on either the errors or the perfections of the past or present. We were told in those years that wheat would not drop below $2 a bushel. I can recall that there was a short crop in 1924 which allowed wheat to go up slightly to $1.96 per bushel. Then it was said the wheat pools had done a great job. They did not need the wheat board. They did not need very much help at that time.
Without reviewing too much of the past I want to come now to the 1930's and what happened. This government who now boast of what they have done about markets had practically lost the United Kingdom market for every important agricultural export we had at that time. I am not going to review the situation because the Minister of Agriculture knows better than the Minister of Trade and Commerce that we had lost our markets for dairy products, for meat and to a great extent for wheat. We found ourselves in 1930 faced with a smaller United Kingdom market than we had had for 75 years. When this government that sits to your right, Mr. Chairman, assumed office in 1935, we had the strongest British market, more stable markets, for products than we have had in 50 years.
Why had the earlier decline taken place? It was the result of the haphazard regard for agriculture that was clearly demonstrated here today when the government majority

was defeated by those who are concerned about agriculture. I am glad that the attendance is better this afternoon. I know hon. members are here because they do not want to be defeated, rather than hear me. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says he has tried to pick out the particular day when Right Hon. R. B. Bennett assumed office. At that time Mr. Bennett found this debacle: every elevator filled with wheat, every barnyard filled with cattle and every lumber yard filled with lumber. Canada was facing the greatest debacle it had ever known. Does anyone in this house think Mr. Bennett was powerful enough to create those conditions in three days? Why, three of these tired old gentlemen combined would not make a shadow of him.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce laughs, but he knows what I say is true because he was one of Mr. Bennett's work boys in those days. What did happen? Let me remind young hon. members who have listened to some of these hard-shelled old Grit campaigners tell about the squeak of Bennett buggies in western Canada, this mess was not created by R. B. Bennett. If we had not had as big a man as he was to clean up the mess, we would have been in a worse position.
What' did he do? He found this country full of unsold wheat. I know the minister was right this morning when he referred to the price of $1 per bushel. The average price of wheat was exactly the same the month Mr. Bennett left office as it was when he assumed office. I ask the minister, knowing all the bungling he has committed in times of prosperity, how he would have met these difficult problems in times of depression. During those years, between 1930 and 1935, when we were in power we had only 26 per cent of the world market. Yet when we went out' of power we had an average of 34 per cent. Today we have 5-5 per cent of the world's production and we are having more trouble than the Bennett government had with almost 9 per cent of the world's production.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, that not a bushel of wheat was sold below the world price. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce said we would sell wheat at less than the world price. Where did he get that idea? Where did he hear anybody say that? The Bennett government never sold a bushel of wheat or recommended that the wheat board sell a bushel of wheat for less than the world price. Yet this government has sold wheat to the extent of $4 million
Grain
or $5 million less than the farmers in western Canada should have had. If they had that money they would not need loans today.
We talk about the wheat board. It is not our purpose to kill the wheat board. We created it. You have messed it up with Liberal socialism until even the wheat board does not know where you are going. The board is afraid to move. If one tries to find out what is going on in this wheat business, one finds it is like trying to peek behind a socialistic bamboo curtain. We are told we do not sell wheat for less than the world price. When I ask how much we sold it for I am told it is not in the public interest to give an answer. I am told we are trying to destroy the wheat board. We do not want to destroy the board; we want it strengthened by young, expert salesmen rather than have old politicians mussing it up.
You have laboured hard and long to create this myth that only you can sell wheat. Well, there is more wheat unsold than at any time in our history. You have cost the taxpayers $120 million. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was not here, but when the Bennett government took office the average price of wheat that month was 92 cents. Later a floor price of 87J cents was established. When we came into another crisis the Liberal government reduced the floor price to 80 cents. Then they turned around the next day and said, if we have to dump wheat we will do it as cheaply as anybody else in the world. In 48 hours the price had dropped 32 cents and was 60 cents where it had been 92 cents. Those are the champions in trade.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but it is my duty to inform him his time has expired.


Mr. Philpoll:: Well, Mr. Chairman, we have had a most interesting lesson in ancient history. Now, I think we should take a look at some modern history. Before we take a look at some modern history I may say that I agree with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) on one point. I fully expect to live to see the day when the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) is the next Prime Minister of Canada, but I do not think that will be for another 20 or 25 years. I believe that once every 45 or 50 years the people of Canada should put in a Tory government for one term in order to be able to realize how good the Liberals were for the other 45.
Well, now, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe has pointed to the gentleman who is sitting next to him, my genial friend the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I will concede right now, Mr. Chairman, that

Grain
in my estimation the hon member for Prince Albert is one of the finest criminal lawyers- I hope the Leader of the Opposition will not go out too soon because I am coming to a speech of his in just a minute. The hon. member for Prince Albert, I am frank to say, is one of the finest criminal lawyers in Canada, and if I ever do lose my temper and take a shot not only at a television set but at something more alive than that, and do unfortunately bump off someone in the opposition, I think that my first choice of counsel to get me off at the subsequent trial would be my good friend, the hon. member for Prince Albert. But when the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe suggests that the hon. member for Prince Albert could sell more wheat than is being sold under the leadership of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, I think it is a good idea to take a look at the record of exactly how the hon. member for Prince Albert said he would go about selling the wheat if he had a chance to sit where the Minister of Trade and Commerce now sits.
On March 25, 1954, as recorded on page 3339 of Hansard, when speaking in the debate on external affairs as the official spokesman of the Conservative party of Canada, he said we should not get rid of our surpluses, including wheat surpluses and other commodities. I am now reading from his speech:
The people in the western provinces and farmers generally in this country are asking what are the possibilities for agricultural trade. Some argue trade with the U.S.S.R. would afford a means of getting rid of our surplus farm products. What Is the attitude of the government with regard to this question? Has the government ascertained through its representatives in the U.S.S.R. that while industrialization has proceeded apace under the five-year plans agriculture has proven to be a failure?
The man who tells us how the Conservative party is to sell the wheat of Canada if or when that parity ever assumes power proceeds to say over on the next page:
Agricultural production has fallen to a level below that of 1928.
Then, a little further down-and this is the important point, Mr. Chairman-the official spokesman of the Conservative party, the man who would sell the wheat, said this:
I hope and trust that in return for the benefits of the present that are apparent in finding markets for surpluses Canada will not rush into trade with the U.S.S.R. and will give every consideration to the perilous possibilities inherent in contributing in meeting ferment in the Soviet union to which the Kremlin has found no better answer than more repression and the tyranny of purges.
Then, further down:
As to the question of trade, I fear that the economic advantages of the present will lure many to believe in the necessity or at least in the

attractiveness of trade with the U.S.S.R. on the assumption that we can restrict the things in which we trade to non-strategic commodities. In my opinion there is no more strategic commodity in the world than the production of agriculture.
In other words, if the hon. member for Prince Albert had to do with the selling of the wheat of Canada, we would not have sold the 1,000 tons of wheat that we sold to Poland last week; we would not even be negotiating with the Russians down-town in Ottawa today to try to sell a very substantial quantity of wheat. If the hon. member for Prince Albert had his way as the official spokesman of the Conservative party and the salesman in waiting of the Conservative party of the wheat of Canada we would not sell a single bushel to Poland, we would not sell a single bushel of wheat to any part of the one-third of all the world that now is so unfortunate as to have a communist government. We would have no truck or trade with the communists, exactly as the Conservatives advocated in the election of 1911.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I say before we listen to any of the glib and shallow talk about the inefficiency of the present government in selling our wheat, or in not selling our wheat, we should look back to the clear-cut expression of policy on the part of the Conservative party which has until this day never once been disavowed as to how they would refuse to sell a single bushel of wheat, or of other surplus food, to any part of the communist one-third of the world.
Since we have listened so long and so generously at times in the past few weeks to how not to sell wheat, may I offer one constructive suggestion as to how I think we might sell it? I myself have travelled at different times for long periods in the countries of Asia. When I was in India in 1951 there was a near-famine there. Our trade commission was trying very hard to sell wheat in India. In my conversations with members of the Indian government I found them most reluctant to buy Canadian wheat if it meant the use of Colombo plan funds for that purpose. I also found that it is not just so simple as some members of the opposition sometimes suggest to dispose of wheat to two-thirds of the people who go to bed hungry every night. You must have some way of doing it. We had an instance of that in British Columbia not very many years ago. We wanted Canada to give some of our British customers apples. We actually offered them one million boxes of apples, but when it came to giving the one million boxes of apples to Britain we found there was no machinery to handle the gift. In the end the apples had to go to the people of Britain through the ordinary chan-

nels, of trade, and the only beneficiary, of course, was the treasury of the British government, which was all very well. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we must have some practical suggestions as to how we might dispose of some of our surpluses beyond those that have been forthcoming. I would like to make two practical suggestions.
First of all I believe this government should send the most intelligent and alert salesmen that they can employ to try to sell wheat to China. I for one believe that if the Minister of Fisheries had not had that unfortunate accident, which resulted in the cutting short of his visit to China, something might have come out of his visit that would have led to a trade deal before now.
The second constructive suggestion I should like to make is this. I find that the great countries of Asia, such as India and China, have always lived on the borderline of starvation. They always live on the raw edge of nothing. There is always a small margin between the bare sufficiency which they ordinarily have and outright starvation. The margin is so small because there is no reserve. I believe it would be in the interests of this country, and of other countries in the western democracy, even if we had to put up a large sum of money, to enable those great countries of Asia to build up a sufficient food reserve, including a wheat reserve. Thank you.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Mr. Chairman, the debate on this measure so far has more or less resolved itself into a question of whether this parliament should enact a bill which would be a guarantee to the chartered banks in the event that they should make some loans to farmers on farm-stored grain, or whether this parliament should move toward cash advances on grain. Up until this point we have heard a number of statements and speeches. Only this afternoon we heard speeches which reviewed the policies of previous governments, both Liberal and Conservative. It is not quite clear which party did more violence to the wheat board in its term of office, which did a poor job of selling wheat. I shall leave that to the people to decide. In the meantime, I intend to touch briefly on what I believe to be the opinion and attitude of the farmers in my own province of Manitoba. Manitoba seems to have crept into the picture rather dramatically in recent days. From what I hear, in that province those who view television really get a bang out of it. It brings back into the discussion the arguments that have been made by the hon. member for Rosthern in defence of the government's measure.
Grain
I think it can be summarized in this way. The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) in making what I would consider to be the main defence for the government in support of this bill made no attempt to argue that bank loans at 5 per cent were better, more sound or more realistic than cash advances. What he tried to argue was that what the government was doing represented cash advances and I think that is the main reason why his analysis of the situation and his argument in relation to it created so much heat amongst farmers on the prairies.
The farmers on the prairies, at least those in my province, do not mind being told by the government that in the government's opinion its considers bank loans at 5 per cent to be a better proposition than cash advances, and then proceed to argue from there. But when someone tries to shove down their throats something they know is not true it is an insult to their intelligence.
I am not surprised at the incident which took place the other day in Manitoba as reported in the press. A farmer on the prairies could read with some degree of equanimity the arguments presented by the hon. member for Rosthern and the other Liberal members as reported in Hansard. He might even be able to restrain himself when he listened to the voices of Liberal members over the radio. But when one of them intrudes not only his voice but his face right into the farmer's living room and argues in support of this resolution the farmer could only retaliate in a dramatic fashion.


An hon. Member:: And shoot the works.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am going to place on the record something which represents the attitude of the organized farmers in Manitoba. First of all a resolution was passed. As it happens, it was the first resolution to be considered by the annual meeting of the Manitoba farmers' union which was held in the city of Winnipeg on December 5, 6 and 7. This is the exact wording of this resolution which I think sets clearly before this committee what the attitude of that organization is. It makes no bones about it and it does not beat around the bush. The organization put it in plain language and I will put it on the record:
Cash Advances
Be it resolved that this fifth Annual Convention of the Manitoba Farmers' Union disapproves of the present system of bank loans to farmers on farm-stored grain, and
Be it further resolved that we request the Federal Government to make immediate provisions for cash advances to farmers on farm-stored grain on the following basis:
(a)	that these advances shall be the full initial payment
(b)	that these advances be paid on the basis of one-half of the deliverable grain
85B

Grain
(c)	that all administration and interest charges be borne by the Federal Government
(d)	that these advances shall be repayable on the basis of one-half the value of each delivery made by the farmer
(e)	that these advances be made through the facilities of the Canadian Wheat Board.
That resolution is very comprehensive and clear. It does not make any attempt to skirt the issue and it states exactly what the organized farmers, in the sense that they belong to that organization, are asking for so far as this parliament is concerned. For any member of the house from the prairie provinces, and more particularly from the province of Manitoba, to rise in this house and say that the farmers in Manitoba did not ask for cash advances or to say that what they are getting now can be considered as cash advances, is of course to argue against the membership of the whole of the Manitoba farmers' union which includes thirty to forty thousand farmers in that province.
I come now to the submission of the Manitoba federation of agriculture and co-operation. This was contained in a submission they made last December to all federal members from the province of Manitoba. I understand this same submission was made to hon. members of all the parties concerned. On page 7 of this submission, under the heading of "Cash Advances", we find the following:
Because of the current grain marketing congestion many farmers are in need of financial assistance. We most vigorously protest the payment of 5 per cent interest on loans against grain in store on the farm.
Now, that is perfectly clear. At best the government's measure provides temporary relief. The government of Canada has an obligation to the western grain producer. It should accept the greater risk in making interim payments on grain delivered. It should provide legislation for a long-term program for the financing of farm-stored grain.
The farmers who belong to this organization in many cases belong to both of these organizations because the federation includes all the co-operatives in the province. It is a well known fact that practically every farmer does business in one way or another with the co-operatives in Manitoba. Of course, it also includes a great many nonfarmers, those of us who are not engaged directly in agriculture but who do business with the co-operatives, and that probably includes a large percentage of the people in Manitoba. They are automatically members of the Manitoba federation of agriculture. Therefore these two organizations could be said to speak for practically the whole of the population of the province.

They have set themselves on the record very clearly on two points: first, they are opposed to the legislation which is now being proposed by the government, and secondly they are asking that cash advances be made. That is exactly what the members of this group have been fighting for ever since this session began.
As I said earlier, the hon. member for Rosthern and some of the other hon. members who are defending this legislation are attempting to draw a red herring across this whole argument by saying: After all, after the Saskatoon conference, the delegation that visited Ottawa and interviewed the cabinet or some part of the cabinet simply asked for cash advances and did not specify just how this should be done, leaving it to the government to decide this.
I am convinced, however, you cannot get away with that kind of technical weaseling out of the position the farm organizations whose resolutions I have quoted have requested as of December 1955. This can be backed by numerous other resolutions that have been passed in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. These groups have laid bare their attitude and opinions very clearly before the government and before this house.
Let us examine what the government is actually proposing. The resolution that is now before the committee has been described by hon. members of the government as a measure for providing for loans on grain to the farmers, but a careful reading of the resolution will reveal that it is nothing of the sort. Let me read it:
Resolved, That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide-
To provide what?
-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.
This resolution purports to provide for short-term credit to grain producers but it does nothing of the sort. It envisages a bill to guarantee to the bank any money which the banks happen to lend to farmers who have grain to deliver. It guarantees nothing whatsoever to the farmers. There is nothing in this proposed legislation to say that any farmer who requires a loan or is eligible for one will receive it; it is left entirely in the hands of the banks. Therefore this resolution and the arguments advanced in its support thus far in the debate have been perfectly misleading. They have tried to create the impression that something is being

Grain
done to ensure that farmers will obtain loans when nothing of the sort is guaranteed by this proposed legislation.
Of course, I am not in a position to know what the exact wording of the bill will be but I have projected my imagination a little and I have written down what I think the bill will be when it comes up. Perhaps there will be a different version when it is introduced, for we do get different versions of things in this house, the Currie report for example. This is the kind of bill which would logically be written on the basis of what the resolution actually provides for. I have numbered it Bill No. CD-I and it is entitled "An Act for the Relief of Chartered Banks". The preamble and the sections, of which there are three, would read as follows:
Any similarity between this measure and cash advances on farm-stored grain is purely coincidental and completely ridiculous.
1.	Nothing hereinafter contained in this act shall be construed as guaranteeing anything to farmers. Any benefit accidentally inuring to the benefit of grain producers under this act shall be promptly reported to the Minister of Justice, who will forthwith put a stop to such nonsense.
2.	Should any farmer manage to obtain a bank loan under this measure, this unusual event shall immediately be reported to the Minister of National Revenue because such farmer must have an excellent credit standing and is therefore a good prospect for income tax boys.
3.	Notwithstanding any opinions expressed by farmers or their organizations or representatives to the contrary, grain producers shall take this measure and like it. (This order is pursuant to a decree issued by the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, and shall apply mutatis mutandis to all future legislation decreed by radio and/or television.)
That is the only kind of bill that I can envisage that could logically be drawn up on the basis of this resolution. This resolution is not a measure to provide for loans to farmers; it is a measure to provide relief for the chartered banks of Canada, and any bank loans which might be made under it would of course be purely incidental.
One might think that I am expressing the opinions of the people of only one province, but I should like to add to what has been said about this whole matter what was contained in an editorial in the Star-Phoenix of November 10, 1955. Although I am not very familiar with this newspaper, I understand that it is not noted for being too unfriendly to the government. I hesitate to quote anything from the Winnipeg Free Press because recently the members of the government have become allergic to anything appearing in that newspaper. But I do understand that the Star-Phoenix has been fairly friendly to the Liberal party. Here is what they say:
Honesty and humility require us to admit that our comments on the federal government's emergency farm loan plan probably aren't nearly as
interesting as those made by certain politicians. But we take comfort in the thought that our arithmetic is less confusing.
Then it goes on to point out some of the arithmetic that has been bandied about in the province of Saskatchewan by some of the Liberal leaders. It continues:
For instance, Mr. A. H. McDonald was quoted as saying, at Moosomin on October 21, that a maximum loan of $1,000 per farmer at an interest rate of 5 per cent would be less effective than a stirrup pump at a forest fire. But on November 7, after the plan providing for a maximum loan of $1,500 per farmer had been officially announced. Mr. McDonald was interviewed in Saskatoon and expressed the view that the scheme would help the farmer who most needed assistance. Apparently $500 transformed a stirrup pump into a serviceable fire engine.
Meanwhile Rt. Hon. J. G. Gardiner has been arguing that, because the emergency loan is repayable on the basis of half the borrower's receipts from grain, as it is delivered,-
I want hon. members to note carefully the words from here on because they are in quotation marks:
-"by the time he has paid off the whole loan he has had $3,000 in cash to carry on with and has paid interest on half of it."
Those are truly wonderful mathematics. That is the end of the quotation marks and I hope that is not another one of those shameless misquotes. The editorial continues:
True, but he will still have borrowed only $1,500, at most-and if he hadn't taken advantage of the loan he would, by the same point in his grain deliveries, have had $3,000 cash with no interest to pay on it.
We don't think it helps anyone-least of all the politicians-to intimate that $1,500 is really $3,000, or that $500 makes a bad loan scheme into a good one. Whether the scheme is good or bad, the politicians are stuck with it. They ought to be devoting their attention now to the search for a more permanent solution to the farm problem.
I am glad that that last sentence was included in the editorial because that is exactly what the members of this group have been attempting to point out during this whole debate. Regardless of whether the government has its own way, which it appears to be determined to get now by pushing through this legislation in spite of general and I might say almost unanimous opposition by all farmers on the prairies, even if the government changed its mind and accepted the proposals made in this house by the C.C.F., and provided for cash benefits, even if they went that far, it would not provide a permanent solution to the grain problem.
We would still be in the position of having another crop coming along in 1956 and be faced with congested elevators, a shortage of box cars and all the things with which we are faced today. What is required is action on the part of the government in connection with selling grain and introducing marketing

Grain
policies which would be conducive to the sale of Canadian grain. Our tariff structure should be reduced in order to allow those nations which normally buy our grain to be able to send their goods to Canada and thus give the Canadian people the advantage of lower prices. That in itself would not only help our export markets but tend-this should interest the Minister of Justice-to reduce combines and monopolies in this country. The breaking down of trade barriers and the allowing of goods into this country would be the most effective way of doing away with monopoly and combines practices. It would keep our Canadian customers for Canadian grain and other agricultural products.
But if this government continues, as the Minister of Finance seems to be committed to continuing, a policy of restricting trade for the purpose of benefiting certain industries in this country rather than to allow trade to flow freely for the benefit of all Canadians, then we are going to continue to be faced with grain crisis after grain crisis. If the government has nothing better than this measly type of resolution to offer to the farmers of Canada they can expect greater and greater difficulties on the prairies.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, the speech delivered by the last speaker brings up one or two matters which I think require a statement by me as Minister of Agriculture, coming as I do from the province of Saskatchewan. The province of Saskatchewan produces considerably more than half of all the wheat we are talking about in discussing these questions and therefore those of us who represent that province, whether we sit on this side of the house or on the other side, are very much interested in the discussion which is taking place.
I am sure we all agree that this is no question about which we can indulge in too much humour. I am not given to indulging in humour while speaking although I enjoy it when others use it, but on an occasion of this kind it is somewhat different. Neither am I so much concerned at the moment as to what brought about the conditions facing the farmers of western Canada apart from the fact that it is a combination of good crops and difficulty in delivering wheat to markets, even to those markets which we have available.
There has also been some difficulty in finding markets at this time for all the wheat that is available. Those are the main factors in connection with the situation which has developed. I only wish to say with regard to that matter that as a farmer in western Canada I am always more satisfied when
FMr. Zaplitny.l
we have a good crop than I am when we have a poor one. I am always more satisfied when we have more wheat than we can sell than I am when we have very much less than we can sell. I have gone through both experiences.
Some suggestion was made that at one time I favoured the grain exchange method of marketing. That is perfectly true. There was a time when we really did not have any other system but the grain exchange system of marketing. We developed from one thing to another until we eventually obtained the pooling system of marketing in western Canada. I have never been in favour of any other system but that one since it was first brought into being. As a matter of fact, I had something to do with stumping sections of the western part of Canada in putting it into being. I have had no reason to object to it or to oppose it since then.
I come down to this particular question which was all confined to one particular fact that existed last summer and last fall. The businessmen in the small towns and in the cities as well had been doing what they have always done in western Canada. They carried the farmer from the spring to the fall without any question whatsoever. When a farmer walked into their place of business and asked for oil, they gave it to him; when he walked in and asked for groceries, he obtained them; when he walked in and asked for clothing, he obtained it simply because they have always been accustomed to having bills run by these farmers over the years; and even in the years when we had to give them relief in order to get them by, the businessmen went to the very limit in order to see that the farmers were supplied. They did that this last season. There was an additional reason why they did it this last season.
Last spring we started off with the idea that we were not going to have very much wheat because we were not going to be able to get it seeded. It was raining too much. Then when we did get it seeded, growing conditions were so good that, as the summer advanced, everyone was of the opinion that we were going to have a good crop but that we might not get it off because it was late. Then when we came into the middle of the month of July, we had weather which ripened our crops much more rapidly than we expected to have it ripened. We therefore harvested a very considerable crop; it was the eighth highest crop we have ever harvested in the province of Saskatchewan and over all of western Canada itself, in so far as wheat was concerned.
I say again that the businessmen did not hesitate to give credit; but it can be said of



195B

[Stage Direction]
the farmers who farm in western Canada, they did not use as much of that credit as they had been accustomed to use over the 10 years since the war, the reason being that they had themselves very well equipped with machinery. At the end of the war they had little if anything with which to carry on. That was bad for operation on the farm, because they could not buy equipment during the war. But during the years up until this last year they had been equipping their farms and had them very well equipped. They did not buy as much machinery during the last year as they had bought recently, the obvious reason being that they were being careful in financing their farms. In spite of all that, when we came up to the months of October and November, the businessmen were looking for the cash that they in turn had to pay to the wholesalers here and there and to those who had supplied them with equipment from the eastern part of Canada and elsewhere.
So the concern was not so much concern on the part of the farmer as it was concern on the part of the businessman. He said, "Look here; I must have cash". The farmer said, "I have not got it". There could not be any argument about that. Whatever the reasons were, whether it was on account of car shortage or whatever it was, wheat had not been moving and the farmer did not have the cash. It would have been quite easy for some farmers to say, "It is not so much my worry; as long as I can go back to the businessman in the small town or elsewhere and get credit as I have always had it, I shall be able to carry on." Not many of the farmers said that, but they might have been justified in saying it. Instead they said, "Look here; these people have always carried us. What is going to be done about it? How are we going to get cash into our hands as soon as possible in order to go in and pay these men and let these men pay the wholsalers and others across the country and thus be in a position to carry on?" There was no one who had any idea in mind-the farmer, the businessman or anyone else- that any policy brought in at this time was going to settle all those problems that have to do with the marketing of wheat.
There are in this chamber members who, every time a westerner gets up to speak with regard to wheat, recall all the things that have been said over the last 30 years with regard to marketing wheat and who express the hope that the discussion will not be along the same lines. That is all right. But we are not attempting to settle the problems that we have been discussing over the last 30 years or that we are going to be discussing over the next 10 years or even the next year.
Grain
Here at the moment we are discussing only the problem that was involved in getting enough cash into the hands of the farmers who could not raise it otherwise in order to make it possible for them to pay their accounts in town, get their line of credit again and go on doing business as they have always done. If we can keep our minds on that particular question and deal with it, then we can discuss intelligently ways and means by which that may be brought about.
One of the ways, it is quite true-and the farmers do not hesitate to say so-would have been to get some variation of the old system that used to prevail before we had the wheat board at all. The farmers know-as do I and as do any other people who ever delivered wheat in western Canada-that there were times when a farmer went to the grain dealer, the elevator company and said, "I have wheat but I do not want to draw it in at the present time; I do not want to pay storage costs on it because the highest storage costs in the world are those in elevators. I want to keep it out on the farm and I will deliver it in due course". In those days the elevator company advanced 60 per cent of the value of the grain on the basis of the price on that particular day, and the farmer carried on. That procedure applied only to a certain group of farmers, farmers whose credit was perfectly good and about which there was no question.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Who decided that?


James Garfield Gardiner: The elevator company decided that.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Did the
minister ever do that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; I have done it; but it is some time ago. I may say that anyone who could not do it was someone whose credit was not as good as mine, and mine was not as good as it is today. But we went along in that way. Some of us got help in that way. There are some people at the present time who can get help in that way. They do not need to go to the wheat board. They do not need to go to this government. They do not need to go anywhere except to the bank. When members on the other side of the house or on this side of the house say that there has been far more money lent outside of this plan than will be lent under it, they are only saying that the farmers of western Canada are in a little bit different position from that which they have been describing to this house.
A very considerable number of farmers in western Canada are able to go to the banks and get whatever money they require, a very considerable number of them have considerable wheat in their bins, and I am not going

Grain
to depart from the position I have always taken since I have been in the house and long before I came here that the best bank account any farmer in western Canada can have is a bin of wheat. That still remains the best bank account he can have. There have been no difficulties with farmers who, having bins of wheat on their farms, have gone to a bank and borrowed money, but every businessman in western Canada has had difficulties with people who were able to go to the bank and borrow money when they did not have wheat or did not have something else. They have had difficulties in those cases.
The situations of different people in the west have been described to the house a number of times. There is the young fellow, the chap who did not have any interest in land until a few years ago and then got it one way or another. One way was to go and buy land. Now he has payments to make. In other cases the father came to the time when he did not want to farm any more and he turned over his land to a son. When this occurs, nine times out of ten the young fellow makes an agreement with his father and sometimes with other members of the family that he will give them cash as a result of the crop he harvests. He will turn over cash to them. They usually make agreements based pretty much on everything that they are going to get or do. He will keep so much to run his own show. He will agree to pay so much to take care of his mother and father wherever they may be. He may agree to pay so much to keep a brother in university or someone else he is taking care of.
Then he comes to a fall like last fall and he is not able to market his wheat for the reasons that have been discussed here and he needs some cash. All this legislation says is that here we have a banking system set up in the country from one end to the other, a system that is looked upon as one of the best anywhere in the world and whose purpose is to serve the needs of a country like ours. That system is there. It is established. It is true that there is not a bank in every town but there is one in most towns and farmers who live near places where there is not a bank can go to a town where there is and get money by way of a loan.
That immediately suggested itself to everyone as the simplest way to arrange for the distribution of cash to the farmers. Other people came along and said, "Why not have the wheat board make advances?" A great many people who think there is some merit in that suggestion say that it could not be made to work so far as meeting this situation is concerned. It may be something you might

bring into effect at some particular time to deal with a situation that is there all the time but it is not the way in which to deal with this situation, and if you attempted to make it deal with it it would cost the farmers far more than 5 per cent in order to do it. I want to illustrate what I mean by that and the fact that this editorial was read a few moments ago gives me the idea that it should be said. When the farmers met and passed these resolutions at Saskatoon, in Manitoba and elsewhere they called attention to the fact that they thought half the money obtained from any wheat delivered during the winter months should be left in the hands of the farmer. It did not make any difference whether it was going to be advanced from the wheat board or where the advances came from. The indication was that half the money was to be left in the hands of the farmers.
In drafting this proposal the government said: All right, let us say a farmer wants $2,000. He has the wheat to use as security for the whole $2,000 and he wants the money over the next six or nine months until he gets into another crop year or until the wheat now in the elevators starts to move and he is able to deliver his wheat and get more money. Someone challenged us the other day to go out and have meetings in our constituencies. I had meetings in my constituency and I explained the matter to the farmers. What I said was this. I said, "If you want $1,200, go to the bank and ask for $600. If you want $2,000, go to the bank and ask for $1,000. If you want $3,000, go to the bank and ask for $1,500." That is what the editorial indicates I said. Then I said, "You can pretty well bank on being able in a few months to get some of your grain into the elevator and when you do put it in half of the money will go to pay off your loan and half will go into your own pocket to do whatever you wish with it."
I should emphasize here that with respect to these particular loans some of the things that have been said do not apply at all. The bank only has the government's guarantee provided they put the money in the hands of the individual and allow him to do what he wishes with it. You cannot get a guarantee any other way. To say he has got to do this, got to do that and got to do something else is all right if you are referring to ordinary banking but the banker cannot do it under this system. The farmer gets the money and the man who gets the money is told that he can go ahead and pay his accounts, take care of any indebtedness he has or use the money to live on during the period. But when he delivers wheat only half the money for that wheat goes on the loan and the other half is handed to him to do what he wishes with it.

How anybody can figure out anything else than that if the man gets a loan of $1,500 he is going to have the use of $3,000 over the period of the loan is more than I can understand. I should like to have it explained. He has got $3,000 in cash over the period to pay costs.
It is all very well to say that if he had not got it that way, if he could have got cash at the beginning of the season, he would have had the whole $3,000 and would not have had to pay 5 per cent interest, but I come back to what I said at the beginning. This was a set of circumstances that was there and had to be dealt with. It was not something about which you could theorize. The farmer needed the money, it was being provided to him and by next summer he will have had the amount of money I have indicated that is double what he borrowed.
I pleaded with them not to ask for too much in the way of loans because financing on loans has never been the best way for the farmers of western Canada. I have here the results of what happened at the two places where I addressed meetings and also at one place halfway between where a meeting was addressed by the hon. member for Assiniboia. In the first place where I addressed a meeting 61 of the farmers obtained loans under this plan in the first three weeks. I have not had the records since. They got $39,650. The average loan was $650 and there were four $1,500 loans.


An hon. Member:: How many were at the meeting?


James Garfield Gardiner: About 200.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Can the minister say where and when the meeting was?


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, you have all seen reports of it in the papers and probably you would ask a lot more questions if I told you where it was. It was in the west end of my constituency. Let me repeat that 61 loans have been made, four of them being $1,500 loans, and the average amount was $650. On the other side of the place where the hon. member for Assiniboia had a meeting I addressed another meeting. At this place there were 52 loans amounting to $44,190. The average amount was $850 and eight of the loans were for $1,500. 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 to bank loans 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.
In the one town there have been 61 loans from one bank and in the other town some
Grain
40 miles down the line there have been 52 loans, with the possibility of 20 more. Then at the town halfway in between where the hon. member for Assiniboia spoke and told them this was not any good at all, 27 of them went to the bank and got loans. The average there was $800 and there were no $1,500 loans. The total amount was $21,585.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Would the minister permit a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


William McLean Hamilton: 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.


William McLean Hamilton: Is
that information that is publicly available to all of us?


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be publicly available to all of you when I have finished. If my hon. friend wishes, I can give the town. Perhaps I should have given the names to the hon. member for Mackenzie, who suggested it a moment ago. The first town is Lipton; the second town is Lemberg and the third town is Balcarres, which is half way in between.


William McLean Hamilton: just thought our private business with the banks was safe from the prying eyes of ministers.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the hon. member for Assiniboia would say he was at Balcarres. I have the reports of all three meetings on my desk if it is necessary to give them.
What I want to point out is this. These loans do work. What is more, part of these loans has already been paid back by the very method I mentioned. Since that time, in accordance with one statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, cars have been finding their way into western Canada in greater numbers than before and wheat is being shipped out. As a result of wheat being shipped out, these 20 loans that have been referred to as being possible have not been required. The other loan^ have been partly paid off. All I want to say is that is exactly what the plan was set up to do, and that is exactly what it is doing.
The result has been that the businessmen in the towns of the Lipton-Dysart area had the benefit of $39,650 paid on accounts into their places of business, or if they did not have it paid on accounts that were running they are getting it paid into their business

Grain
places during the winter, which they otherwise would not have had. In the town of Lemberg the amount is $44,190 and in the town of Balcarres the amount is $21,585. I think if the hon. member for Assiniboia had never gone there it would have been just as high as the others. I have had sufficient experience with the farmers of western Canada to know they do not pass up these things. There were meetings held all over the province of Saskatchewan. There was this one at Balcarres and one at Neudorf, addressed by the same gentleman.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was not at Neudorf.


James Garfield Gardiner: You must be mistaken.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, I am not mistaken.


James Garfield Gardiner: Maybe you were at Dubuc.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, I was not there either.


James Garfield Gardiner: You must have been along there somewhere.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was in Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend was pretty well around in the province; put it that way. I venture to say that at every point he called the farmers got less service under this plan than did the farmers at any point he stayed away from. That is the thing the farmers are going to remember. They are not going to remember what he has to say on the floor of the house during this debate. They are going to remember the fact that he came there, told them certain things, and they did not take the money out of the bank. The businessmen are going to remember that he came there and told them certain things, and they did not get some of their accounts paid as early as could have happened.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend can laugh himself into good humour if he likes, but there will not be any good humour around when he goes back to these places. Now, that is what the system was intended to do. This system was intended to put cash into the hands of the farmers at the smallest cost to them as soon as possible. This would permit them to pay their accounts or arrange for a line of credit based upon the fact that they had 'cash and would enable them to do business until they got another crop or until they were able to put some of the grain they already had in the elevators.
This plan was never intended to do more than that. It was not intended to settle all the problems having to do with farming in western Canada. It was not intended to raise the income of farmers down in the province of Nova Scotia. Hon. members get
CMr. Gardiner.]
up and quote cash farm income in Canada or quote the net income in Canada and try to tell us this system does not correct that. It never was intended to correct that. It was intended to do exactly the job it is doing. There are many farmers in these areas who can go to the bank and get assistance without this scheme.
This bears out everything that has been said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, namely that there has been a lot of wheat grown in western Canada in the last five years and there has been a lot of wheat sold, but that does not eliminate the fact that farmers here and there require some kind of assistance to get cash in their hands in order to pay their accounts now rather than wait until next spring or next fall. The business of the country is continuing to be done.
Those are the facts. I do not think one needs to expand upon them very much in order to indicate that this measure ought to be allowed to go through just as rapidly as it can be got through. I do not say that because it is going to help anyone particularly now. The business is being carried on just the same as it would be if this were passed. I am not going to argue that it is otherwise. But I am going to tell my hon. friends that if they had got away with the snap vote they took this morning, and if it had had any effect whatever upon this matter so that in the end they had not had any legislation at all, they would be the sorriest group of people going back to western Canada of any who left this house at the end of the session. I am quite sure the people they represent are not going to lose sight of what might have happened to them if my hon. friends had been able to accomplish what they set out to accomplish this morning.
I am not going to take much more time, but I am going to say this. The last speaker from the official opposition did me the kindness of saying that he has some regard for some of the things I say. I just want to say this to him. I have been here quite a few years, but not as many as he has. I do not think that many sessions have gone by when I have not discussed wheat. I have been here just as long as I was in the legislature of Saskatchewan, and I discussed wheat there every year for about 20 years. In that time I, of course, have said a lot of things, many of them under circumstances entirely different from those which exist now. The remarks made then, therefore, cannot apply just in the same way as my remarks do now.
I am going to say to him that this story that has been told here by two or three with regard to the wheat board is not exactly

correct. The first wheat board we had was at the end of the first war, and that wheat board was done away with by the official opposition which became the government under Mr. Meighen. There was a very strong agitation in all the years from then until 1930 to get the wheat board back. In the meantime we had the wheat pools organized.
It is quite true that Mr. Bennett introduced a bill in 1935 to set up a wheat board. He had the greatest majority in this house that had ever been behind any government up to that time. He introduced a bill which provided for doing exactly what we are doing now. Well, Mr. Ralston, representing the Liberal party of that day in opposition, opposed it. He said we ought to set up a system under which we would have the right to deliver either to the wheat board or to the trade. Mr. Bennett could not get his bill through the house despite his large following. He withdrew the bill, appointed himself chairman of a committee, put Mr. Ralston on the committee with three others, and they drafted a new bill. The new bill was the one we had to put into effect when we came into office.
I quite agree that the Liberal party was responsible for that bill having been redrafted by putting up opposition to the former one; but I point out that the government could have put the first bill through if they had wished to. They did not wish to put it through. They had enough support on their own side of the house to put it through; but they put through a bill which gave a choice to the farmer either to deliver to the wheat board or to the trade.
It carried on in that way past the year 1938 to which my hon. friend from Rosetown-Biggar referred, when an amendment was moved and Mr. Motherwell rose in his place and opposed it, because it said that under certain circumstances the farmer could not deliver his wheat to the wheat board. But that is not the big question or the big point that we come to. The time of real choice was in 1943. In that year, in the middle of the war, every elevator company in Canada, including the wheat pools, came here and appeared before a committee of the cabinet, of which I was a member. In that committee they asked us to take over all the wheat that had been delivered to them and that had been paid for by them, and to take it over at the price of wheat that day, namely approximately $1.25 a bushel. We agreed to take it all over on one condition, that another pile of wheat would not be built up by the same elevator companies between then and the end of the war that we would have to compete with in selling our wheat.
Grain
That was the beginning of the compulsory board as it had been brought in first by Mr. Bennett, in 1935. The wheat board bought all the wheat; and having bought all the wheat we said that the farmer must now deliver all the wheat to the wheat board so that a second pile would not be built up to come in competition with the wheat that was being sold, and that system has been carried on since.
I just wish to say the farmers in western Canada are agreed that this is the best system they have had. What the Minister of Trade and Commerce said the other day was that some newspapers-one of them was read a few moments ago, published by exactly the same people who publish the Free Press, or which up to that time was published by the same people; now it is being published by another branch of the same family-were opposed to the wheat board. If anyone thinks they are not still opposed to it, all they need do is come to my office and I will show them a letter I received within the last few weeks in which they say they were always opposed to the wheat board, they are still opposed to it, and they will always be opposed to it.
Well, if anyone wants anything clearer than that, I do not know what it would be. What my friends have been doing during the last few days is this. They have been reading one editorial after another from those papers telling this house what the government ought to do. Well, if they can interpret that in any other way than that they are behind the strongest organization in this country that opposes the wheat board, I should like to have it interpreted for me, because I cannot understand it in any other way.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on this resolution before the debate closes. I listened very carefully to what the Minister of Agriculture had to say. He is always a very good debater. Unless you watch yourself very carefully he can almost make you believe that black is white. I admire him for that, and I always derive a great deal of pleasure from listening to him.
It seemed to me, Mr. Chairman, the minister overemphasized one point most clearly, namely that there was a great need throughout western Canada to have financial assistance rendered to farmers at the present time. The minister nods his head. But the other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that was not so. He said there were only comparatively few people who wanted this legislation. I think the two ministers should get together and come to some agreement.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member had better read our speeches again and we will not have to get together.

Grain


Charles Edward Johnston: I think the past has proven that you should sit a little closer together. Mind you, I think the Minister of Agriculture expresses the views of western agriculture a little bit more exactly than does the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It has always seemed to me that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not as closely associated with western agriculture as he might be.
The Minister of Agriculture did emphasize the dire necessity that agriculture finds itself in at this time. He says that the legislation which is now put forward is meant to meet that need. None of us in this house has argued against the fact that the farmers of western Canada are in need of assistance. One of our contentions has been that the way in which this assistance has been rendered is not the way in which it should have been given, and it is not the way in which the majority of the people in western Canada, farmers and other organizations as well, chambers of commerce and so on, want it to be done. They have all asked that it be done through advances.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, and apparently the Minister of Agriculture, say there is a great difference between advances and loans. The only difference I can see is that farmers would not be required to pay interest charges on advances, or at least they would not be required to pay the tremendous interest charge that is being asked here. On the other hand loans are to be advanced at the maximum rate of interest, namely 5 per cent.
I was happy to learn that the other day one of the outstanding spokesmen for the Liberal party, the one who was on television the other day-I was glad he was not fired at in person but just his image; therefore he is still in a position to know what the people of western Canada are thinking-had this to say. Let me quote his words. When he spoke on this very legislation the other day he talked about advances. To my way of thinking he was backing up the government's views in regard to this legislation. At that time I asked him if he would differentiate between loans and advances. This is what he said, as reported at page 629 of Hansard:


Charles Edward Johnston: Are you differentiating between advances and loans?


Mr. Tucker:: Advances are exactly the same as loans.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister does not agree with that. He says everybody who asks for advances is a saboteur of the wheat board.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am dealing with the question as I see it. The minister makes his own speeches. If my hon. friend thinks I have always got to agree with the minister, he is mistaken.

I am glad he put that on the record. I am glad he does not agree with the minister in this regard. I am glad he does not agree with the Minister of Agriculture, either. I noticed that in his argument a few minutes ago the Minister of Agriculture never said one word against advances.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, if I did not, I made it as plain as I could that an advance would cost the farmer two or three times as much as a loan from the bank. That is what I intended to say. I do not think there is anything particularly wrong with an advance, but I did say why it would cost the farmer more to do this job in that way than it would to do it as it is being done.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: I am sure this committee would be very interested to hear the minister explain that very point before this debate closes. How can he think for a moment that it would be more costly to issue advances than it would be to make loans at 5 per cent? I cannot understand it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I explained it. There is a system of banks built up right across this country that can do this at as low a cost as it can be done. If you started to build up another system just to take care of it for six months the cost would be so high that you could not possibly compare it with the 5 per cent. It would be nearer 20 per cent.


Charles Edward Johnston: I would not believe that for one moment, because I do not think it is the fact. When it comes to the banks lending money at 5 per cent you can be assured there is a good profit in it. The other day when I spoke, and also when the hon. member for Acadia spoke, we both indicated that we had borrowed money, and that he and I had borrowed money from the banks at less than 5 per cent interest on a government guarantee. Our government guarantee was a bond. Who is behind the bond if it is not the federal government? And when we come now to give the banks a government guarantee for these loans at 5 per cent they are getting one of the best guarantees that exist. If they could lend us money as individuals at less than 5 per cent on the backing of this federal government they could surely lend money to the farmers on a government guarantee. There are other arguments as well.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend paid for the bonds; he did not go to borrow money from the government.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: That does not make any difference. Let us not try to draw any red herrings across the road such as the Minister of Trade and Commerce was speaking of a while ago when he said they were

all dead. I was out in Saskatchewan and I saw one of the herrings the Minister of Trade and Commerce was speaking of printed on a sign nailed to a post. The sign read, "Vote for the Liberals and get hooked like we did". Let us not get these things confused.
I am saying that when I borrowed money I had a government guarantee. The guarantee I had was that the government of Canada was behind that bond. What is the difference between that and these loans made to the farmers, when the government say they are standing solidly behind them?
I was told just a while ago, Mr. Chairman, that one Alberta wheat pool is borrowing money from the chartered banks at less than 5 per cent interest, and they have not the guarantee of the Canadian government behind them. They have not as good a guarantee as that which we are talking about When the Minister of Agriculture stands up and says it would be more costly to make advances rather than loans I just cannot believe that for one moment-


James Garfield Gardiner: Do you want to hear what I really say about it?


Charles Edward Johnston: Are you asking me now to forget what you did say?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I am going to answer exactly what you are saying. You say the wheat pool can borrow money at 3i per cent-


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not say
that.


James Garfield Gardiner: You said something like that.


An hon. Member:: He said less than 5 per cent.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think 3J per cent was the rate, but I did not say that.


Hazen Robert Argue: Last year the rate was 3J per cent.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been said, too that you can borrow money for pipe lines at 3 or 3J per cent.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course, one is a loan to a farmer and one is a loan to the pools, and this rate can be charged because the loan to the pool is in millions of dollars at a time. It does not cost nearly as much to put out millions in a block as it does to put out $600 to each farmer across the country. The cost of putting out small loans is not comparable with the cost of making a loan amounting to millions of dollars to any organization whether it is for a railway or a pipe line or a farmers'
Grain
pool or whatever it might be. It is always cheaper to get money under those circumstances.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I just got through indicating to the minister that we as individuals got it for less than 5 per cent. It does not make any difference so far as the cost is concerned whether the transaction is written in the books of the bank as $50, $100 or $5,000; there is no more cost attached to it. I will admit immediately that there is a greater cost when there is a greater number of cases, but that cost is infinitesimal.
The other day I put on the record the profits of some of the banks, and of two of them in particular. According to their balance sheets they are not in as much need as the farmers who are suffering because of the policy of this government. The farmers are not to blame; it is the policy of this government.
Let us examine what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said the other day, when he implied that there was not too much need in Canada for this sort of thing, and that this resolution was designed to help only the few who are in need. I want to put on the record some statistics that will indicate the position of agriculture. I believe I should just speak for my own province of Alberta. The Albertan of Tuesday, October 18, 1955 carried an article entitled "Farm Income Drops", which says:
Edmonton-Farm income in Alberta was nearly $3,000,000 lower during the first eight months of this year than in the same period of 1954, the provincial bureau of statistics reported Monday.
I have just dealt with the province of Alberta, but we can see that a number of people in that province are in need of assistance. I believe we settled that once and for all when the Minister of Agriculture recently rose and said there was great need, and I suggest we can disregard what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said in that respect.
This same trend is indicated by the dominion bureau of statistics. According to the bureau the net farm income for agriculture in western Canada in 1951 was $1,127 million. In 1952 it was $1,082 million. In 1953 it was $884 million and in 1954 it was $376 million. That, Mr. Chairman, relates to the western provinces.
Let us now look at the farm income for all of Canada. In 1951 it was $2,154-5 million and in 1954 it was $1,125-6 million, representing a difference of about $1 billion. If we look at the figure for western Canada for 1951 we see that it was $1,127 million and for 1954 it was $376 million, which represents a difference of $751 million. This relates to
86S

Grain
the three western provinces. If we compare the two figures we find a difference of $249 million. The sum of $249 million would represent the loss in agricultural income in all the rest of Canada, seven provinces, while during the same period the three western provinces lost the sum of $751 million.
This, too, contradicts what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said the other day in regard to the income of western farmers. Therefore when we look at this problem squarely in the face we must recognize it as a situation requiring an emergency measure. The remarks of those hon. members who have endeavoured to belittle the fact that western agriculture is really in need should not be given too much consideration.
I wish to deal again with the question of advances and loans. The Minister of Trade and Commerce in his speech the other day is reported at page 127 of Hansard as having said the following, and I had better read his words because I do not want to misquote him:
Recently there has been a great drive for advances on farm-stored grain. The suggestion has been for three-quarters of the value of the grain to be advanced by the wheat board. Many hon. members may think that the inspiration for that suggestion came from the farms. I can assure you there has been nothing of the kind. It came from the cities. If I had time, I could quote chapter and verse to that effect. Who are its supporters? The supporters are the enemies of marketing through the wheat board.
I want you to notice, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is endeavouring to belittle all those organizations in western Canada which dared advocate advances. In a moment I shall read a list of some of those people who have advocated those things.
As I indicated when I was speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I attended a large number of meetings in my constituency before coming east last fall. These were not meetings which I called; I did not call one of them. They were called as protest meetings, not because the people of my constituency desired to call protest meetings but because those people were in dire need of assistance and something had to be done to help them. There were U.F.A. meetings called and there were meetings called by chambers of commerce. Those were not farmers' meetings, and those groups certainly could not be classed as saboteurs of the wheat board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, is my hon. friend aware that the chambers of commerce of Canada pass a resolution each year asking for the abolition of the wheat board?


Mr. Quelch:: Not in western Canada.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am speaking of western Canada. On October 11, 1955, a delegation was sent to the government of Canada concerning the urgent need for cash advances on farm-stored grain in western Canada. Let me read to you the names of those people whom the minister is now saying are saboteurs of the wheat board. As a matter of fact these are the very people who have advocated most strongly for the inception and the continuation of the Canadian wheat board. For anybody to stand up here in the house and say that most of the members from western Canada, and that all these organizations who have sent protests to the minister asking for cash advances and not for loans are saboteurs of the wheat board is stretching one's imagination pretty far. Even the Minister of Agriculture does not agree with his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Here are the organizations who signed this submission:
Alberta department of agriculture Manitoba department of agriculture Saskatchewan department of agriculture Saskatchewan wheat pool Manitoba farmers union United Grain Growers


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, no.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The United Grain Growers voted against advances through elevator agents.


Charles Edward Johnston: You just write to these people who sent the minister and the Prime Minister this submission. If I can read correctly it says:
Manitoba farmers union


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not the United Grain Growers.


Charles Edward Johnston: The United Grain Growers. Their name is right here.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: You will have to argue with the United Grain Growers, not with me. Here are the other names: Saskatchewan federation of agriculture Manitoba federation of agriculture and cooperation
Alberta federation of agriculture Saskatchewan farmers union Alberta wheat pool Interprovincial farm union council Alberta farmers union Manitoba wheat pool
It is said that all these are saboteurs of the wheat board. How ridiculous can we get in this house? I am not saying that in any disrespectful way, and I do not want the minister to think I am doing that. I am

simply pointing out how ridiculous it is to suggest, as the minister did the other day in this house, that those who are asking for advances are saboteurs of the wheat board. If the minister wants to say something I shall be glad to have him do so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I just want to know what document it is that these people signed.


Charles Edward Johnston: This is a submission to the government of Canada respecting the urgent need for cash advances on farm-stored grain in western Canada. It was presented by those whose names I read to you. I will send it over to the minister so he can have a look at it. It says "Respectfully submitted". Let me read the names of those who signed it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will accept that document. I take it that this is the brief submitted by the delegation that came to Ottawa to meet the cabinet, is that correct?


Charles Edward Johnston: It is dated October 11, 1955.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can tell you that several people in that delegation representing organizations you have referred to advised the government against the case you are advocating. You are misrepresenting what the document says.


Charles Edward Johnston: Are you implying that the people who submitted this to you spoke against it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Mr. Blackmore:: Double-crossed.


Charles Edward Johnston: I would say that in my judgment those are most respectable organizations.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was there and heard what was said. The reason they gave for bringing 20 delegates was that they could not bring a smaller number and represent the views of all.


Charles Edward Johnston: So they brought some who did not mean what they said?


James Garfield Gardiner: They brought 20 to express their views.


Charles Edward Johnston: I had better read the names of those who submitted this, just in case there should be any doubt about it. They say "Respectfully submitted" but it is doubtful whether it was received so respectfully, because the minister has indicated that some of those who submitted this told him afterward they did not believe what was in it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was not afterward.
67509-55J
Grain


James Garfield Gardiner: It was right at the time.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will read who submitted it respectfully:
Alberta department of agriculture Manitoba department of agriculture Saskatchewan department of agriculture Saskatchewan wheat pool Manitoba farmers' union United Grain Growers Saskatchewan federation of agriculture Manitoba federation of agriculture and cooperation
Alberta federation of agriculture Saskatchewan farmers' union Alberta wheat pool Interprovincial farm union council Alberta farmers' union Manitoba wheat pool
Let us see whether they meant it or not. I take it that they did. The minister will have to answer to them if he says that someone told him they did not really mean what was in this. This is what they asked; this is the resolution which was passed:
Be it resolved that the organizations participating in this conference urge the government of Canada to make immediate provision for advances to farmers on grain in store on the farm and further that these advances should be up to one-half the value of the normal delivery expected and should be repayable on the basis of one-half of the value of each delivery made by the farmer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is exactly what we did.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is exactly what you did not do. Had you done that there would not have been all this argument. There would not have been any difference between me and the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Has he read the report which Mr. Hanson, the president of the farmers' union of Saskatchewan, made when he got back to Saskatchewan?


Charles Edward Johnston: Is it different from that?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is certainly different from what you are saying.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am reading the resolution, and if you are contradicting that you will have to take it up with them. In the second paragraph of the resolution they say:
While the principle of cash advances-	?[DOT]
That is not loans. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said that is what the government did, that he has complied with the wishes of these people.


An hon. Member:: Does it say "not loans" there?


Charles Edward Johnston: I have not the time to go over and educate the hon. member as to the difference between loans and cash advances.

Grain


Mr. Byrne:: I am only asking you to read it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Go to the hon. member for Rosthern. I would advise the hon. member to get a television set; it might get a little bit more personal. Let me read the second paragraph of this, which says:
While the principle of cash advances on farm-stored grain was unanimously endorsed-
The United Grain Growers apparently did not disapprove of that.
-by the organizations present at the conference, various proposals were offered on the mechanics of making these advances.


Mr. Mang:: May I ask the hon. member a question? From the hon. member's reading of that resolution I did not hear that it specified advances through the wheat board or through the elevator companies. Did it specify them through those channels?


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not care how you make them. These people were not concerned with the details; what they wanted was the principle.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: What I am asking for is that advances be made. If they are made through the wheat board then the federal government must pay the interest charges. After all, the farmers complied with requests made by the government, particularly during wartime, to increase production. At that time the Minister of Agriculture promised that if the farmers would do that he would see to it that they would sustain no loss in the days to come. The fact is that they lost between $300 and $400 million, and then the Minister of Trade and Commerce reluctantly gave them $65 million in settlement of those losses. That is how this government has lived up to its obligations.
One of the main bones of contention in western Canada is the tremendous interest rate being charged. I submit that it is a tremendous interest rate. That is what is causing the uproar more than anything else. That is the great difference between making loans through the chartered banks and having advances made. There is no organization that I know of that came out and asked for 5 per cent interest rates, yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce says that he went to western Canada to see what the need was and after hearing all these representations he ^decided that they wanted loans at 5 per cent.
"Mr. Gardiner: Did I say that?
?Mr. Johnston (Bow River): I doubt if any organization ever asked the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce for loans at 5 per cent. Will the minister answer that question?
IMr. Johnston (Bow River).]


James Garfield Gardiner: I was just asking you when I said it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I said I doubted if ever anyone asked you for that. Of course you did not go out on those visits with the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


James Garfield Gardiner: I always live on my farm for two to two and a half months every summer, and I was out there from the middle of July to the end of September. I heard those discussions.


Charles Edward Johnston: You should get around and meet the people and not stay on your farm in between sessions. The rest of us try to get out and meet the people and find out what is going on.


James Garfield Gardiner: About the only place I stayed away from was the by-election in Alberta.


An hon. Member:: You lost out on that one.


Charles Edward Johnston: While we are speaking of this interest charge, Mr. Chairman, may I indicate to you what the Minister of Trade and Commerce had to say about this matter as reported at page 127 of Hansard, this is what he said:
It has been said that the interest rate is too high at 5 per cent. I have been a borrower from banks all my life, and I have never yet succeeded in borrowing money from a bank at less than 5 per cent ... I therefore cannot be too greatly concerned about objections-
So he did receive objections.


An hon. Member:: But he is not concerned.


Charles Edward Johnston: He said:
I therefore cannot be too greatly concerned about objections to guaranteed loans bearing an interest rate of 5 per cent.
Yet almost every organization in western Canada had sent a brief to the minister or had sent representations here, and protest meetings were held throughout the west by farmers' and other organizations. The minister disregards these things and he says, "I cannot be too greatly concerned about them".


James Garfield Gardiner: I was not listening. Is the hon. member quoting me?


Victor Quelch: No. He is quoting your colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Charles Edward Johnston: Does the minister object to that, too? I should not be surprised if the Minister of Agriculture objected to that because I would certainly object to it if I were he.


James Garfield Gardiner: I may answer your suggestion by saying this. In the 40 years I have been in politics I have listened to everything

Grain
that everybody has had to say and then I have tried to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to what ought to be done, using my own intelligence along with what they had to say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are the sum of all you have met.


Charles Edward Johnston: I wish the Minister of Agriculture could sit a little bit closer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce so he could inject some of those ideas into him. If he could succeed in doing that he might improve the situation a little bit. A while ago the Minister of Agriculture was pointing out that in western Canada there was a need for these loans. But as to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, while he admitted that there was a slight need and that we were putting this legislation through for those few who were in necessitous circumstances, this is exactly what he said as reported at page 129 of Hansard:
Apart from that,-
And "that" refers to the storage price.
-it did not seem to me that there was any particular burden on the farmer through this condition of plenty.
If I may interpret that statement, I would say this. Apart from that, it did not seem to him that there was any particular burden on the farmer through the condition of surplus. I think that would be a fair interpretation of that statement. Yet the Minister of Agriculture disagrees with him strongly, as does almost everyone in western Canada. They disagree with him so strongly that they have protested in every way possible. It seems to me that the minister should have been fair enough, after hearing all these representations almost without exception asking for advances interest free, or if there should happen to be an interest rate, that it should not be more than 2 per cent.
That could have been done, and the banks could have done it if he had wanted to do it through the banks. They could have done it for at least 2 per cent or 2J per cent or 3 per cent. As I pointed out the other day, the province of Alberta made loans to their municipalities at 2 per cent, and they did not have the guarantee of the dominion government behind them. They never lost one penny on the loans. Surely if the provincial government can do that with their limited means of getting money, then the federal government with almost unlimited means should be able to equal the provincial government in that regard.
I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that while we as Social Crediters strongly object to this legislation-and we have tried our
best and in no uncertain terms to convince the government that it is wrong and that it should change its policy-we realize the necessity, as does the Minister of Agriculture and as do the farmers in western Canada who need some assistance. We therefore intend to support this legislation, knowing at the same time that it falls far short of meeting the requirements or what was asked for by the farmers of western Canada and the various organizations there.
Just let me close by saying that I believe the federal government never intended that these loans would be of much use. The minister said he was basing his calculations on the 1951 loan, and in 1951 only 1,500 farmers accepted that assistance and there was a total lending of $625,000. That was because the interest rate was too high. Now over 2,000 farmers have asked for loans and they have borrowed over $2 million. In conclusion let me draw this inference. I believe that the minister never intended these loans to be used except in dire necessity, for this is what he had to say in Calgary on November 28:
It is my hope and belief that comparatively limited use will be made of the lending facilities, that most farmers are either in a position to carry on without borrowing, or are in a position to. finance in the ordinary way.
He never intended that they should use this legislation.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: I have a question that 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?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can answer that question. The government, being guarantor of the loans, is entitled to know the amount of its liability. That information is furnished to us. I can say that at the end of the year about 8,000 farmers had borrowed about $7 million, an average of about $800 a loan. The names are not given and they are not requested.


Colin Cameron: 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.


Charles Edward Johnston: What is that slip?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was supplied from the community where the discussion took place.

Grain
But in fairness to the individual I think I should ask permission of the committee to strike the name out of Hansard if it appears.


Colin Cameron: I am not satisfied with that answer. There is a serious principle involved here. Apparently the banks, in certain instances, are revealing to the agents of the minister the names of those who are borrowing under this act. Otherwise there is no way in which he could have known who had obtained the first loan.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. It was a matter of discussion at a public meeting before 200 people.
I had a discussion with this gentleman there. The first day loans were available he went in to get the loan. He told us he could not get it. He appealed to me to help him get it. I advised him to apply later when the regulations were adjusted. It was stated at the meeting by an official of the farmers union he would likely get the loan. It was stated later that he got it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: How do you know he was the first?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for
Macleod.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to make an extended speech, but I should like to ask the minister a question. Did he receive representations from any other lending institutions asking the same guarantees as this legislation is going to give the banks? If so, what was the particular reason for refusing to grant that same protection?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes', there was a request from-is it the credit unions of Alberta?


Ernest George Hansell: If I may help the minister, it was from the government of Alberta through its treasury branch.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The difficulty was that we wanted the protection of the federal Bank Act. We could not obtain that if we used any institution other than the chartered banks. We were advised by our legal staff that the loans should be confined to chartered banks, and that course was followed.


Ernest George Hansell: I should like the minister to explain what he means by saying that they wanted the protection of the Bank Act. Does he mean the present government wanted the protection of the Bank Act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Ernest George Hansell: I wish he would elaborate on that a bit, because I do not understand how the government could have the protection of the Bank Act. As I see it, the position is this. The Alberta government asked for the

same guarantees that were given to the chartered banks. Whether there is any legal complication involved I do not know, but I would suggest that the refusal to grant the Alberta government the same guarantees would indicate that the chartered banks are in a better position than the Alberta government, and I do not believe that is so.
Then there is a further remark I wish to make. I do not know whether or not the Alberta government through its treasury branches would have lent money at a rate of interest less than 5 per cent. However, it is conceivable that they could have done so, and it is conceivable that other lending institutions might have been able to lend money to the farmers in this emergency period for less than 5 per cent. I cannot bring myself to believe that the minister and the government were not aware of that, and I do not understand why they insisted that guarantees be given to the chartered banks at 5 per cent whether or not the farmer could get money at a lower rate of interest from other reputable institutions. I doubt whether there is an institution in a sounder financial position than the government of Alberta.
These are the observations I wish to make. If there was another way of granting loans to the farmers at less than 5 per cent, why did the government not seek that way and attempt to alleviate the condition of the farmers to the extent of a reduced interest charge?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The guaranteed loans represent a comparatively small part of the loans that have been made against farmers' wheat. I understand that about $7 million has been lent under guarantees, and that close to $70 million has been lent by the chartered banks in western Canada. What interest they have charged on loans that are not guaranteed I do not know. I am perfectly sure that the government of Alberta is also lending money to farmers, and it is quite possible that my hon. friend is correct in saying that they lend at less than 5 per cent. I hope so. If that is the case, the farmers of the province of Alberta have the benefit.
However, the Bank Act is an act passed by this parliament. The guarantee is a guarantee given by this parliament. Therefore it was felt that the guarantee could only be given for loans through banks operating under the legislation of this parliament.


Mr. Casileden:: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is a very fine thing that the debate on this issue has stirred the house to the extent it has today. I think it emphasizes the fact that serious injustice is being suffered by the people of the prairie provinces, and that the

members representing those areas are energetic, emphatic and determined in their efforts to bring this matter to the attention of the house in the hope that the government will do something about it.
Dealing with the situation in the few minutes I have left, I should like to start by saying we should all realize that the people of the prairie provinces, who form the backbone of the economy of those provinces, have suffered very severely not just this year but for a number of years. Some very excellent figures are available from the dominion bureau of statistics which show the terrific decline in net farm income. In 1952 net farm income in the province of Saskatchewan was approximately $565 million. In 1954, two years later, it had dropped to $126 million, a decrease of about $440 million. That is not gross but net income, and is a drop of about 77 per cent. As far as the farmers of Alberta are concerned, the drop there was about 50 per cent, and in Manitoba it was about 54 per cent. In the other provinces of Canada the worst decline was about 15 per cent.
I maintain that the position of the western farm producer is not understood. In fact it is misrepresented not only by the press of the country but sometimes even in the house. Hon. members should be made aware of the actual situation, which has not been presented properly. I was interested to hear the Minister of Agriculture say this afternoon that he was quite satisfied with what the present bank loan legislation had done. In the light of the position of the producers of the west the provision made does not amount to 10 per cent of what is needed. I would say that it only meets about 5 per cent of the actual and immediate need from which everyone in the west is suffering, not only the agricultural producers but the whole economy.
When these producers found themselves in an almost impossible position, tied hand and foot so they were almost unable to continue in operation, constantly harassed by debt, they needed something more than this and they asked the government for help. They said: We have the assets and we do not ask for a handout. Make it possible for us to realize some cash on the assets we have. We have just harvested one of the largest crops of the best quality grain. You have failed to give us box cars whereby we can deliver it. Our bins are overloaded. For heaven's sake give us advances on grain properly stored in our bins. If that is made possible then we can carry on. Every delegation from the western prairies and every representation made has made it known to the government that this is the minimum required to meet their need.
I should like to call it five o'clock.
Grain


William Alfred Robinson: I wonder whether I might crave the indulgence of the committee before rising to make a few remarks with regard to the votes that took place in committee today. This morning several members to my right entered the house while I was reading the question. In the vote in committee this afternoon several members to my left entered the house, I believe, while the count was going on. I do not wish to criticize those members in any way because there was considerable obscurity under the old rule as to the position with regard to entering the house or the committee during a vote. The old rule, as hon. members know, read as follows. It is rule 12 (2):
When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no member shall walk out of or across the house, or make any noise or disturbance.
I must admit there was some obscurity in my own mind as well, because this morning I had forgotten that the rules committee and the house had changed rule 12 (2) to include the word "enter", so that the new rule now reads as follows:
When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no member shall enter, walk out of or across the house, or make any noise or disturbance.
I was, therefore, inaccurate this morning when I said that while I was reading the question any hon. members who wished might have the right to enter the house. Under these circumstances I intend to say no more about the votes, and I think it might be fair and impartial to allow them to stand as previously recorded.
I have this suggestion to make, however, which would be, I think, of guidance to members and would certainly be of assistance to the deputy chairman and myself. It is this. When putting a vote in committee, just before the question I think I might say, "The question is the following", and at that juncture hon. members might kindly take it that the question is being put and refrain from entering the house. If this suggestion meets with favour, I think it would guide all hon. members and give us, shall I call it, a cut-off point at which hon. members would feel free to enter the committee or feel that they must remain behind the curtain.
I will say nothing more about it at this time, but I do feel that suggestion might prove of assistance in the future.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Applewhaite of the committee of the whole reports that the committee has considered a certain resolution, has been directed to report progress, and

Income Tax Act
asks leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INCOME TAX ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Income Tax Act (corporation appeals).
He said: This bill, Mr. Speaker, is a companion one to the bill which was debated and voted upon in the house yesterday. The arguments for and against Bill No. 9 of yesterday are substantially the same arguments that would be used for or against Bill No. 10 which is now before the house. It is not my intention, therefore, to speak more than a moment or two in presenting this bill to the house. I present it despite yesterday's defeat of Bill No. 9 in order to give hon. members who may have repented of their action of yesterday an opportunity to redeem themselves by voting today for the lifting of the iron curtain of secrecy with respect to corporation income tax matters, at least to some extent.
Whereas yesterday's bill dealt generally with corporation income tax returns, today's bill deals only with the hearing of corporation appeals before the income tax appeal board. At the present time there is a subsection in the Income Tax Act, subsection 2 of section 92, which reads as follows:
An appeal may, in the discretion of the board, the chairman, the assistant chairman or hearing officer, as the case may be, be heard in camera or in public unless the appellant requests that it be heard in camera in which case it shall be so heard.
My amendment would simply add these words, "provided that if the appellant is a corporation the appeal shall be heard in public." In other words, just as yesterday we in this group took the view that corporation income tax matters are of public concern, and that the information in corporation income tax returns should be available to parliament, so today we take the view that corporation appeals to the income tax appeal board should be heard in public and not in camera.
As was the case yesterday, this bill leaves the matter of personal income tax appeals as they have been in the legislation. I remind hon. members, particularly those to my right in the Progressive Conservative party, of how anxious they were last year to get information as to who was the appellant in case No. 227 which was heard before the income

tax appeal board. The question in that hearing revolved around the desire of a corporation to get income tax deductibility for money which it had spent entertaining certain government people-we do not know what government-in an attempt to win contracts from that particular government. I remind my friends to my right that they were just as annoyed as we were that the information as to who that appellant was could not be obtained. This is their opportunity to say that hearings of that kind should not be held in camera but would have to be held in public.
So, Mr. Speaker, rather than give the house again all the arguments for this bill, since they were given yesterday in support of Bill No. 9, I rest the case on the basis of yesterday's arguments and the additional remarks I have just made. I urge hon. members to take this opportunity to vote for a lifting, in part, of the iron curtain of secrecy with respect to corporation income tax matters.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not going to make a speech at all, Mr. Speaker, I am just rising to say that the same arguments which were used against favouring the bill yesterday are the ones we use today. The principle of this bill is the same as the principle involved in the bill that was before the house yesterday. I need say no more. The same arguments apply to this bill that applied to the other one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't you believe in repentance?


Ernest George Hansell: Not in this respect.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I might say just a word. As the sponsor of this bill has stated, we had a rather extensive debate yesterday on something very close in principle to the principle related to this bill, and I think the house expressed itself yesterday. I assume that it will express itself in the same way today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?
The house	divided on the	motion	(Mr. Knowles)	which was	negatived	on the following division:
YEAS Messrs:
Argue	Bryson
Barnett	Cameron	(Nanaimo)
Bryce	Campbell

Castleden Cold well Ellis
Herridge
Johnson (Kindersley)
Jones
Knight
Knowles
Maclnnis
McCullough (Moose Mountain) Nicholson Regier
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Zaplitny-20.
++NAYS
Small Loans Act



SMALL LOANS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Argue for the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Small Loans Act.
Messrs:
Anderson
Applewhaite
Ashbourne
Batten
Beaudry
Bell
Bennett
Bennett, Miss
Blackmore
Boucher
Brisson
Bruneau
Byrne
Cardiff
Carrick
Carter
Churchill
Dechene
Decore
Deschatelets
Deslieres
Dickey
Diefenbaker
Drew
Enfield
Eyre
Fairclough, Mrs.
Fairey
Forgie
Fulton
Gagnon
Gardiner
Garland
Garson
Gauthier (Lake St. John) Gauthier (Portneuf) Goode
Gourd (Chapleau)
Green
Gregg
Habel
Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace)
Hanna
Hansell
Hardie
Harkness
Harris
Harrison
Hellyer
Henderson
Henry
Hodgson
Holowach
Houck
Howe (Port Arthur)
Jutras
Kickham
Kirk (Antigonish-Guys-borough)
Kirk (Shelburne-Yar-mouth-Clare) Lafontaine 67509-56
Lapointe
Lavigne
Leboe
Lennard
Lesage
MacDougall
MacKenzie
MacLean
MacNaught
McCann
McCulloch (Pictou)
McDonald
Mcllraith
Melvor
Me William
Mang
Masse
Matheson
Menard
Michaud
Mitchell (Sudbury)
Monteith
Montgomery
Murphy (Lambton West)
Murphy (Westmorland)
Nixon
Nowlan
Patterson
Pearkes
Philpott
Pinard
Pommer
Power (St. John's West)
Proudfoot
Prudham
Purdy
Quelch
Richardson
Roberge
Robertson
Robinson (Bruce)
Robinson (Simcoe East)
Rouleau
Rowe
Shipley, Mrs.
Simmons
Smith (Battle River-Camrose)
Stanton
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Studer
Thatcher
Thibault
Thomas
Tustin
Viau
Villeneuve Weaver Weselak Wylie Yuill-122.
Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of days we have had a great many debates on what we might call these hardy perennials which seem to spring up year after year from the opposition benches. I must say, however, that I am doubly astonished that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) should have raised this particular question again this year. What do they want, jam on it?


An hon. Member:: Sure.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget the cream.


Elmore Philpott: When we talk about the welfare state we can go right down the list of welfare provisions which have been enacted by this government; old age pensions, unemployment insurance and the best system of family allowances in the whole world. This year, if you please, we have the announcement of national health insurance which is going to cost the taxpayers of this country plenty of money.
Just on this point, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that every hon. member from British Columbia, regardless of his party, will be extremely pleased that our province of British Columbia, by the announcement of the government today, has the honour of being the first province to announce its intention to come into the national health insurance scheme. Once again British Columbia lives up to its reputation.
I want to say to my friend the hon. member for Assiniboia, has he really no sense of responsibility-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. MacDougall:: None.


Elmore Philpott: Is it possible, Mr. Speaker, to suggest increases in these allowances year after year without regard to the kind of taxation that will be required to pay for them and without regard to who is going to pay the extra taxes?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I ask the hon. member what he thinks he is speaking to, if he knows?


Major James William Coldwell: I think the hon. gentleman is speaking on the wrong bill.


An hon. Member:: You are doing a good job; keep going.

Small Loans Act


An hon. Member:: There is no difference.


Mr. Churchill:: This has been a bad week.


Elmore Philpott: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that in this particular case I am perhaps one jump ahead of the hon. member for Assiniboia, because I thought we were on the resolution for an increase in family allowances.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Put him in the Senate.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Walter Edward Harris: Please proceed.


George Alexander Drew: Go on.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain the Leader of the Opposition will regret his generosity in a moment, but if he will not take my courtesy in the way I mean it I have to do what I intended to do; namely, point out again to the house that a year ago in response to a motion of this kind we did say that we would introduce legislation with respect to the Small Loans Act. We said that in the speech from the throne, and the bill has been presented to the Clerk of the house this afternoon.
Under these circumstances, and having in mind the rules of the house which prevent us from coming to an affirmative decision one way or another on this bill, or if we do, preclude us from considering the other, I therefore move the adjournment of this debate.
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Harris) which was agreed to on the following
division:	
	YEAS
	Messrs:
Anderson	Gardiner
Applewhaite	Garland
Ashbourne	Garson
Batten	Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Beaudry	Gauthier (Portneuf)
Benidickson	Goode
Bennett	Gourd (Chapleau)
Boucher	Gregg
Brisson	Habel
Bruneau	Hanna
Byrne	Hardie
Caron	Harris
Carrick	Harrison
Carter	Hellyer
Dechene	Henderson
Decore	Henry
Deschatelets	Houck
Deslieres	Howe (Port Arthur)
Dickey	Jutras
Enfield	Kickham
Eyre	Kirk (Antigonish-
Fairey	Guysborough)
	
Kirk (Shelbume-Yarmouth-Clare) Lafontaine Lapointe Lavigne Lesage MacDougall MacEachen MacKenzie MacNaught McCann
McCulloch (Pictou)
McDonald
Mcllraith
Mclvor
McWilliam
Mang
Masse
Matheson
Menard
Michaud
Mitchell (Sudbury) Murphy (Westmorland) Nixon
Philpott
Pinard
Pommer
Power (St. John's West)
Proudfoot
Prudham
Purdy
Richardson
Roberge
Robertson
Robinson (Simcoe East)
Rouleau
Shipley, Mrs.
Simmons
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Studer
Thibault
Viau
Villeneuve
Weaver
Weir
Weselak-89.
NAYS Messrs:
Argue
Barnett
Bell
Bennett, Miss Blaekmore Bryce Bryson
Cameron (Nanaimo)
Campbell
Cardiff
Castleden
Churchill
Coldwell
Diefenbaker
Drew
Ellis
Fairclough, Mrs.
Fulton
Gagnon
Green
Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace)
Hansell
Harkness
Herridge
Hodgson
Holowach
Johnson (Kindersley)
Jones
Knight
Knowles
Leboe
Lennard
Maclnnis
MacLean
McCullough (Moose Mountain)
Monteith
Montgomery
Murphy (Lambton West)
Nicholson
Patterson
Pearkes
Quelch
Regier
Robinson (Bruce)
Rowe
Smith (Battle River-Camrose)
Stanton
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Thatcher
Thomas
Tustin
Wylie
Yuill
Zaplitny-54.


Mr. Speaker:: The business reserved for this hour having been disposed of, the house will now revert to the business which was under consideration prior to five o'clock.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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 shortterm credit to grain producers in the prairie
[Stage Direction]
Grain
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.
George Hugh Castleden: Before time was called at five o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I was referring to the matter before the house under this resolution, and I was outlining why we were opposing this resolution, what the position of the producer was, what his requests were, why they were made, the government's offer, and what we think should be done.
This being assistance to the western grain producer, an opportunity to borrow money from the banks with the government guaranteeing those loans, people will wonder why it should not be considered as something of value. It is admitted that perhaps it is of a little bit of value. A 5 per cent loan may be a little bit better than a 6 per cent loan. We protest that the whole thing is inadequate and that even the loans, such as they are, will not take care of the situation which exists with respect to the producers there at the present time.
We are opposed to this measure because we think it is impracticable as a means of dealing with the situation. We think it is unjust. We oppose it because we believe it is wrong in principle to ask these people, who are in the position in which they now find themselves because of the actions of this government and the administration of this government-they are tied hand and foot and are unable to move-to go to the banks and make these loans and pay interest at 5 per cent on the money they borrow. This provision is niggardly and completely inadequate in the face of the need that exists, and it is not going to help those who need it most.
The farmers have asked for cash advances. Every organization has let the government know that cash advances are what the farmers need. The farmer with thousands of bushels of good grain in the bins on his farm has an asset. He should be allowed to deliver it. He is not allowed to deliver it because box cars are not available. There is some space in the elevators but there is not sufficient space to take care of the whole crop. But he says; I will hold this grain. You can, if you wish, come and inspect it, grade it in the bins, arrange to have a padlock placed on the bins if you like, as is done in the United States where similar loans are made. Enter it in my permit book against any deliveries which might be made in future; let them know that you have allowed me to have the money in advance for the assets which I have. As soon as I am permitted to 67509-56i
deliver, you can deduct from my deliveries those advances which you have made. Surely such a request is not out of line with what should be granted. It is a relief to the farmer. It would be a relief to the whole economy.
If the government is responsible for the condition which exists, surely the government should be willing to pay the interest cost. They can get the money much more cheaply than can the farmer. Certainly the farmer does not feel it is right that he should be asked to pay 5 per cent on these advances. I will tell the government this. If they will let the farmer deliver his grain; if they will open the delivery points and get box cars so the farmer can deliver his grain, the farmer will be satisfied. That is all he is asking. Let him deliver. Then there will not be any demand for this kind of legislation. The whole economy is tied up because of lack of cash. Under the circumstances the farmer is surely not asking for something that is not right.
I find it difficult to convince people in this part of Canada of the situation that exists. I am surprised at the lack of knowledge on the part of people in the east with respect to the actual situation. The misunderstanding of the farmers' plight in the west, in my opinion, often stems from reports that appear in the papers about the condition of the farmers in the west.
I should like to give an indication of the kind of thing that I find in newspapers in the east which is a misrepresentation of the case. The other day I ran across an article in the Hamilton Spectator by H. M. Halliwell entitled "Prairie Letter". This is what this person has to say about the case of the western farmer:
Just who is this fellow, the wheat farmer and what Is his case against the rest of the country that he feels he should be helped? Well, he's a man of many parts. He's a big operator on, say, two sections of land or more, all paid for. He has a full line of implements, probably a house in the nearest town or city where he spends part of the winter if he doesn't go south or west, and he probably has 20, 30 or 40 thousand bushels of wheat in his bins to borrow money on if he can't sell it or protect him against crop failure.
This portrayal of the situation is entirely wrong. I remember a cartoon in one of the Ontario papers last year at the time we were suggesting that the situation of the prairie farmer was getting desperate because of the drop in net farm income and the constantly increasing cost of operation. We said that the first thing the government knew the farmers of the west would be marching on Ottawa. The cartoon that appeared in the paper showed the western farmers marching on Ottawa with the parliament buildings in the

Grain
background and a wide roadway in front. The roadway was lined with Cadillac cars and the western farmer was depicted with a ten gallon hat and a big cigar in his mouth. On the side of the cars were signs saying that on his way back from Florida he was marching on Ottawa to ask for help.
These are the kind of things that give an entirely wrong impression of the actual situation. Do the people of the east realize that the net income of farmers in the province of Saskatchewan alone has dropped by 77 per cent since 1952? It is true that in odd cases money was made in some areas of the province a few years ago when farmers picked up tracts of land cheaply and planted a crop, but that does not represent the average position. That is not the condition of the farmers today. With that kind of drop in their income something must be done. Surely any fair-minded person in the house will realize that a situation exists which requires action, and that is what we are asking now.
The request of the farmers was for cash advances. The misunderstanding of the farmers' position is, unfortunately, aggravated sometimes by statements made by cabinet ministers and sometimes by people representing the west who came down here. You will see reports in the newspapers that the farmers of the west were never so well off in their lives and never had it so good. That condition may have existed three years ago. Today the average farmer on the prairies is in desperate circumstances, and that is why he is protesting.
The reason the farmers of the west are opposed to the proposal of bank loans at 5 per cent is that such a provision is inadequate. When loans were first proposed he was told that this was a great solution, and that he was going to be allowed to borrow money from the bank. Some farmers have to travel 40, 50 or even 60 miles to get to a bank. I talked to one farmer who went to the bank. A number of people were lined up ahead of him and he had to wait for three hours in the bankers' outer office before he could see him.
When he did get in he had to fill out a loan application form. The name of the bank has to be filled in and the farmer has to give a complete report almost the same as in his permit book. He has to give particulars of land owned and land rented from others. He has to estimate the quantity of grain that will be available. At the bottom of the form there is this provision:
In order to qualify for guarantee the amount of the loan must not exceed one-half the dollar amount inserted in paragraph 5 or $1,500, whichever is less . . .
He has to make all these entries that are made in his permit book. Then he has to make an estimate of his financial worth in accordance with the statement of affairs on the bank's form, and then fill in particulars of all liens or other claims. The bank manager tells me that after an application for a loan is received he has to sign the following certificate at the bottom of the application:
I hereby certify that I have scrutinized and checked the foregoing application with the care required of me by the bank in the conduct of its ordinary business, and that at the time the loan was made the borrower produced to the bank the above-mentioned permit book for the farm described above and endorsed therein a direction as in form "GB" that one-half of all moneys payable in respect of grain delivered by him or on his behalf under the permit book be paid to the bank until the loan is repaid in full, and that to the best of my knowledge the terms of and conditions in accordance with which the loan was made are such as to qualify it for guarantee by the Minister of Finance.
The bank manager has to sign that certificate. He also informed me that his instructions required him to write to the secretary of the rural municipality in which the producer lived to find out whether there were any tax liens against the property or the grain held there by the farmer. He also had to write to the court house and have a search made to find out whether there was any other lien against the property or the grain. He also had to write to the Bank of Canada branch in Regina to find out whether there were any other encumberances against the farm. He said that it took weeks sometimes to do all this, and that there was great delay.
Not only was the value of the grain held by the farmer reduced by one-half, but the value of any grain which the farmer might have delivered was deducted from the amount of the loan that could be granted. Any arrears of taxes also had to be deducted, as well as any other encumbrances. The result was that the loan a man could receive from the bank amounted to very little. This extra security was required, but the only farmers who could get a sufficient amount to be of any help had to have such an amount of assets in the form of cattle, acreage and so on that they could get a loan from a bank anyway without all this trouble.
I should like to call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February G, 1956