1956-02-15

Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present on the behalf of the people of Burnaby, British Columbia, a petition of 13,333 names which prays this house to allow a private television station in the municipality of Burnaby, British Columbia.*
See also page 1231.



TRANSPORT ACT


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 107, to amend the Transport Act.


Mr. Green:: May we have an explanation?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to bring the public carriers by water in the province of British Columbia under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DIVORCE JURISDICTION


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 108, respecting the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to rid parliament of the divorce business. It does so without placing divorce courts in any province where the majority does not wish to have them.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
67509-76i



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. McCullough (Moose: Mountain):
1.	At what marketing points are floor prices established for hogs?
2.	Under what authority and on what date were these floor prices established?
3.	What grades of hogs are included under the established floor prices?
4.	What, if any. legal authority establishes the variation in prices as between grades?
5.	Is a farmer automatically guaranteed these floors at Regina, Winnipeg. Toronto or Montreal?
6.	If not, what procedure must be followed to obtain floor prices?


Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer the first two parts of this question in the one answer.	i
1 and 2. Under the authority of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, P.C. 4141, dated September 24, 1952, authorizes the agricultural prices support board to offer to purchase hogs and pork in whichever form is considered preferable on the basis of a price equivalent to $23 per 100 pounds, warm dressed weight from grade A carcasses, basis Toronto and Montreal, with appropriate differentials for other principal public stockyards throughout Canada.
The agricultural prices support board has established the following prices for grade A carcasses at the named public stockyards under this authority:
Montreal and Toronto	$23.00 per 100 pounds
Winnipeg	 $20.00 per 100 pounds
Regina, Moose Jaw, Prince
Albert and Saskatoon....$19.00 per 100 pounds
Calgary and Edmonton	$18.50 per 100 pounds
Lethbridge	$18.25 per 100 pounds
The Montreal and Toronto price was set by P.C. 4141 dated September 24, 1952. The remainder of the prices as indicated, with the exception of the Lethbridge price, were originally set by the board on October 8, 1954. Periodic reviews have been made by officials of the department and the agricultural prices support board since that time and the Lethbridge price as indicated was set on January 6, 1956, after a special review of the Alberta and Saskatchewan situations.
3.	Support prices have been established on grade A carcasses.
4.	The federal government has no legal authority to establish differentials in prices

Questions
between grades except if price support becomes operative the agricultural prices support board may offer to purchase hogs or pork on the basis of appropriate differentials between grades by prescribing prices therefor equivalent to $23 for grade A carcasses, basis Toronto and Montreal.
5.	The farmer does not need to accept less than the established prices at the named public stockyards.
6.	Advise the agricultural prices support board.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Bryson:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of his rather lengthy oral statement a moment ago relating to floor prices. If, as the minister suggested, the support price for hogs is based on the warm dressed weight,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, my question is: How can he expect the producer to be paid for hogs delivered to a stockyard?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, we have some very clever individuals in the Department of Agriculture who do this work for me.


TJ.S. AIR FORCE-ROUTINE FLIGHTS WITH ATOMIC WEAPONS
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Is the government aware of reports credited to the United States continental air defence command that United States air force planes will shortly be carrying atomic weapons on routine defence flights?
2.	If so, will any of such flights be over Canadian territory and by what authority?
3.	Is it intended that any Royal Canadian Air Force planes will carry atomic weapons? If so, under what circumstances?


Mr. Campney:: Mr. Speaker, this question is in three parts.
The answer to the first part of the question is yes.
With respect to the second part of the question, any such flights over Canadian territory would require prior arrangements with the Canadian government and no request looking to such arrangements has been received.
As to the third question, the R.C.A.F. is watching very carefully the development of all types of air defence weapons, but as to the intentions of the air force in this matter, I am sure the house will appreciate that I cannot properly discuss them at this time.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. J.4-Mr. Knowles:
1.	During the period from October 2, 1955, to January 25, 1958, how many persons, by provinces

or by regions, were refused unemployment insurance benefits by reason of their inability to meet the requirements of section 45 (2) of the Unemployment Insurance Act?
2.	By provinces or by regions, how many of these cases have been reviewed?
3.	By provinces or by regions, how many of these persons have been put on unemployment insurance benefits as a result of the re-interpretation of section 119(b) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, announced by the Minister of Labour on January 25, 1956?
Mr. Gregg:: Mr. Speaker, the review of the claims to which I referred on January 25 is going steadily forward in sipite of the fact that our unemployment insurance offices are very busy at this time of year.
There has not been enough information obtained to answer in any kind of a satisfactory manner the questions which are here asked by my hon. friend. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) and a number of other hon. members have given evidence of keen interest in this matter, if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will take this as acknowledgment of his question I will undertake at the first opportunity to make a statement on this matter in which I will include, as far as I can, the answers to these questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.
C.B.C. "radio times"


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Under whose auspices is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Radio Times published?
2.	Did it in a recent listing of prospective programs on both radio and T.V. include as a program a discussion of Ferns and Ostry's, "The Age of Mackenzie King"?
3.	If so, on what date or dates was the said discussion to take place and on whose authority was such listing given or advertised?
4.	Did such program take place at the time or times advertised or at any time since? If not, for what reason?
5.	Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or any of its officials exercise any censorship (other than on grounds of decency) of programs on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
6.	What is the recognized policy followed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation respecting censorship?


Mr. McCann:: The corporation advises:
1.	The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
2.	It did not carry a listing of presentation of a television program on the book "The Age of Mackenzie King", but did carry a listing of a radio program bringing a discussion of the book.
3.	The answer is: According to the listing, the radio program was to be December 20. The listings in the C.B.C. Times are given on the authority of the C.B.C.

4.	The answer is: Some consideration was given earlier to the book "The Age of Mackenzie King" as a possible subject for a national television network program with the idea that the sound part could be carried later on a radio program anthology, but on consideration the book was not judged to be a good basis for such a discussion or to merit this special broadcasting attention. The listing mentioned above was carried in error in the C.B.C. Times since there would be no sound recording available as a television program was not being proceeded with.
5 and 6. The answer to both questions is as follows: The corporation carries full responsibility for deciding on programs. It has to try to see that any material broadcast conforms with laws or regulations applying and also that commercial or other general material is acceptable under its policies. In any programs dealing with opinions it exercises no censorship on the expression of opinions.



&quot;STATEMENTS AND SPEECHES&quot;


Mr. Fulton: 1.	What is the present total of names on the distribution list for "Statements and Speeches" distributed by the information division of the Department of External Affairs?
2.	Of this total, how many are in Canada?
3.	Of this total, how many are newspapers in Canada?


Mr. Pearson:: The answer to the first part of this question is that 2,014 copies, 1762 in English and 252 in French, of issues of the external affairs statements and speeches series are distributed on regular mailing lists, which include only names which are there on request of the person receiving the material. In addition copies of specific issues are mailed out in response to requests for such issues.
The answer to the second question is that 872 copies, 746 in English and 126 in French, are distributed regularly in Canada and 1,142 copies, 1,016 in English and 126 in French, are distributed abroad.
The answer to the third question is that about 100 copies of each issue are distributed to newspapers and newspapermen in Canada.
[Later: ]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Fulion:: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question arising out of the oral answer he gave to question 16 a few moments ago, that is, whether he considers it appropriate that copies of the speeches made by the minister in controversial debates in this house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member for Kamloops that this is not the type of question such as is contemplated by the standing order. It is one that he may
Questions
pursue when the estimates of the department are before the house in committee of supply.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My understanding is that on the orders of the day one is permitted to ask questions relating to government policy. I am seeking to ascertain the policy of the department in connection with the question I am asking.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member and I do not understand the rules in the same fashion, I am sorry to say. It is quite true that, since I am in the position in which I am with respect to these questions of which I receive no notice, there are many that are put and answered without any intervention on my part, but it is permissible to ask information from the minister with respect to any matters coming under his jurisdiction as minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This does.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, but at this moment he is asking if he thinks it appropriate that a certain thing be done. If the minister says that it is not, we can immediately have other supplementary questions on that very subject which make a debate out of the question. I think the hon. member will realize that. I do not want to make too fine a distinction on these questions. I have just glanced through various rulings that have been made in the past, and I have not time to go through the whole list, but I see one here that may not cover exactly the point, but I am sure it is applicable. This is in citation 295, page 120, of Beauchesne's third edition:
. . . raise a matter of policy too large to be dealt with in the limits of an answer to a question.
We must also ask ourselves whether it is fair at this moment to ask a question which the minister might feel he might deal with at greater length than is usually expected of him at this time. We must also keep in mind that, whatever question is being asked, if the answer is to be lengthy it postpones further the asking of questions by other hon. members who are ready to ask questions at this time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I could ask my question in short form and perhaps use other words. Is it the policy of the department to distribute to the list of names outlined a moment ago, including the 100 newspapermen in Canada, statements made in controversial debates reflecting only the views of the minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I should deal with this question now, though it could of course more effectively be discussed when the estimates were before the committee or in

Questions
the committee on external affairs, because the hon. member for Eglinton asked a similar question the other day.


Mr. Fleming:: On February 9.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was ready to answer on Monday. At that time it was indicated on this side that an answer was being prepared. So under the circumstances I think I should give the answer now to the hon. member for Eglinton, though this matter could be discussed at greater length in the committee on external affairs.
The hon. member asked if I considered it a proper use of public funds for the Department of External Affairs to publish statements I made in the house on January 24 and January 31, but not those of other hon. members. I believe it is quite proper that in the fulfilment of its obligations to inform the public of the government's external policies that the government should make public statements of government policy. It is not, of course, a function of the department to defend the government's policies, nor to present alternative ones.
The department makes public these policy statements in different ways. There is, for instance, the "Canadian Weekly Bulletin", which is not circulated in Canada but goes to all Canadian posts abroad and on request to individuals residing in other countries. Perhaps the hon. member, however, had in mind the extracts from my two recent statements in the house which were reprinted by the department in a series of papers called "Statements and Speeches", and to which reference was made this afternoon. This series is distributed only to persons within and without Canada who have requested that they be placed on the mailing list. The list is reviewed periodically and only those who indicate a definite desire to continue receiving these papers are kept on the list.
The hon. member for Eglinton might note that in making public parts of my statement of January 24 on policy regarding the export of military equipment to the Middle East, the department as is its practice omitted certain sections which were of a debating character.



BRENT CASE


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo): What was the total cost to the crown of the appeal taken to Supreme Court of Canada from ;he judgment of the Ontario court of appeal of April 5, 1955, in the case of Shirley Kathleen Brent?


Mr. Garson:: Mr. Speaker, this appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Canada on February 8 and 9, 1956. Judgment was given from the bench

on February 9 dismissing the appeal with costs. The costs have not as yet been taxed; therefore, until such time as they are taxed, it is not possible to answer this question.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Hodgson: 1.	How many post offices in Canada have telephones?
2.	How many have burglar alarm systems installed?
3.	How many were burglarized or broken into during 1955?
4.	What was the estimated damage in each case?
5.	What value in money, stamps and money orders disappeared or were destroyed in each case?


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Goode: What is the itemized amount of moneys expended by the federal government in the province of British Columbia for the fiscal years 1953-54 and 1945-55, including veterans' pensions, war veterans' allowances, federal share of old age pensions, family allowances, hospital and scientific grants, trans-Canada highway, capital construction, etc.?


AMALGAMATION OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Mr. Thatcher: 1.	How many people across Canada are employed in: (a) the Canadian farm loan board; (b) the administration of the Farm Improvement Loans Act; (c) the administration of the Veterans Land Act?
2.	What liaison exists between these three federal agencies?
3.	Has consideration been given to the amalgamation of these three agencies into one over-all farm credit organization?
4.	Are there major reasons which would make such an amalgamation impractical?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue who in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation made the decision that the program on "The Age of Mackenzie King" by Ferns and Ostry should not proceed?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to that question inasmuch as I cannot give the exact name, but the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation takes full responsibility for such action as they took.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I realize that, but I ask the minister, if he has not information as to who

made the decision, will he be prepared to obtain it and give it to the house?


Some hon. Members:: No.


James Joseph McCann: In answer to that question, I shall take the matter up with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What basis of fact is there in the report that French authorities have taken some Canadian rifles from Algerian rebels?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman was good enough to give me notice yesterday of his intention to ask this question and also to indicate the magazine from which his information was received. I wish to thank him for that notice because it has given us time to get in touch with the government concerned in order to ascertain whether or not this report is accurate.
We have not yet received that report, and therefore I cannot answer his question definitively. The article in question includes information which the writer received from a French official in Algeria to the effect-and this is the information he gave the writer- that out of every ten rifles taken perhaps eight are British and the others Canadian or Belgian. I do know that an examination of the trade statistics going back to 1946 reveals no shipments of rifles from Canada to Spanish Morocco, French Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia or Egypt during that period, but, as I have stated, I cannot give a final reply until I have heard from the government concerned with this matter.

On the orders of the day:


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am now in a position to give a final reply-or I hope it will be final-to the question asked by my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North in regard to the report about Canadian rifles in Algeria. This is the reply which has just been received by telegram from Paris.
Authorities said that in the area with which the report was concerned-and this is from French official sources-the French had captured to date from rebels 66 rifles of British origin marked "B.S.A. .303", of which five had apparently once belonged to
Inquiries of the Ministry Canadian military forces. All these rifles were described as old weapons presumably abandoned during the last war in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.
The French authorities have no evidence that the rebels are using Canadian rifles of recent origin.


PIPE LINES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of yesterday's Canadian Press dispatch from Washington outlining the mounting and serious opposition building up in the United States against the application of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The moment the hon. member began saying, "in view of", he imported into his question more information than the house should care to receive at this moment. The hon. member should be seeking information from the cabinet, not giving it to the house. When it comes to dispatches from newspapers, I am not very much impressed by all these questions which seem to assume that cabinet ministers should have had time to read all the newspaper dispatches published throughout the country in the few hours that they have between the time of publication and entering this house.
It has been ruled on several occasions that it is not in order to inquire-I am referring now to citation 295, paragraph (e):
-inquire whether statements made in a newspaper are true.
If the hon. member is ready to put his question without any preamble, we will see what his question is. If it is to have certain facts which appear in the press verified, I will ask him not to pursue his point.


George Harris Hees: In view of the opposition building up against the application of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited before the federal power commission in the United States, can the minister inform the house what chances he believes there are of the application being approved by the federal power commission before the target date of March 1?


Mr. Speaker:: Now the hon. member is asking from the minister an opinion on a matter which is not within his own sphere of activities. How can he give an opinion to the house on what a board in the United States may do?


George Harris Hees: I am asking the minister if he believes that the application before the federal power commission will be passed. I am asking for his opinion.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want the minister to give it because it is seeking for an opinion. At this moment the purpose of question time is to seek information.
LLater :1
On the orders of the day:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister any information ito give the house concerning the status of the application of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited before the federal power commission?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there is no application by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited before the federal power commission and, as far as I know, there never will be such an application.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited made no application to the federal power commission of the United States for permission to sell power in the United States?


An hon. Member:: Gas.


George Harris Hees: I mean to sell gas in the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Your statement is absolutely correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? Will the minister give us any information he has regarding the status of the application of the Tennessee company to import gas into the United States from Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not greatly interested in that application. I have not been following the matter and I have no information to give.
[Later:!
On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether any organization has made application to the federal power commission in connection with the export of gas with which we are all familiar. If so, what is the name of the organization?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Frankly, I do not know the name of the organization, Mr. Speaker. It is a subsidiary of Tennessee Gas Transmission. I shall endeavour to write and get the name of the organization and give it to my hon. friend.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We are coming up; we are getting hot.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries or, in his absence, I will direct it to his parliamentary assistant. Does the minister agree with the view expressed by Representative Henry Reuss, Wisconsin, in connection with combating the lamprey eel menace in lake Huron at the same time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a question that should be asked at this time.


LAMPREY EELS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Andrew Ernest Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries. Will the minister consider placing appropriations in the supplementary estimates to cover lamprey eel extermination work in lake Huron and Georgian bay this year?


Mr. J. Watson MacNaught (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question of policy which will have to be dealt with later. I would point out to the hon. member for Bruce that at the last session of this parliament legislation was passed setting up the great lakes fisheries commission. That legislation provided for six commissioners, three from Canada and three from the United States. The three Canadian commissioners have been appointed. As yet, the United States has not appointed its commissioners, so we have not yet received any scientific program from the commission; consequently, until that program is received, it would be almost impossible to make any answer to the hon. member.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: I
should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It refers back to an answer I received to a question asked on January 26. The question is this. Has the cabinet now considered the shipment

of some $30,000 worth of 25-pounder shells to Israel and has this shipment been authorized?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the question deals with a small order for about 1,750 25-pounder shells. As has been stated in the house this matter has been before the cabinet for consideration, whether they should be shipped to their destination, which is Israel. The decision which has been taken by cabinet is to suspend any action with regard to delivery of these shells pending conversations which are now going on in Washington between representatives of the French, British and United States governments with which we are in close contact as to policy in the Middle East.


WEST GERMANY-MAINTENANCE OF CANADIAN TROOPS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last the hon, member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) asked whether I had been advised of any change in policy by the government of the federal republic of west Germany regarding that government's contribution toward the maintenance of Canadian troops in Europe.
The short answer to this question is that the government of the federal republic of west Germany has at no time contributed toward the maintenance of Canadian troops in that country. Canadian forces were not sent to Germany as occupying forces but as a part of Canada's contribution to the defence forces of the North Atlantic alliance. It has always been the government's policy to pay the cost of maintaining these forces. The only financial support that has been received from the government of the federal republic of west Germany has been in respect of capital expenditures such as the construction of barracks and airfields. The major construction program for the Canadian defence forces in Germany has now been mainly completed and no major additional projects are contemplated in the near future.
No official confirmation has been received of the reports appearing in the press to the effect that the German finance minister has stated that it is not the intention of the federal republic to continue to contribute to the financial support of such forces, and it is not clear from the present press reports whether the financial support extends to capital expenditures such as barracks and airfields which are, of course, of some interest to Canada.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXERCISE "CRACKERJACK"-PARTICIPATION BY AUXILIARY PERSONNEL
On the orders of the day:


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the question asked by the hon. member for York West on February 9, as to whether Royal Canadian Air Force auxiliary squadrons or auxiliary personnel forces took part in the test of our northern defences in exercise "Crackerjack". The answer is no.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Will he inform the house why the R.C.A.F. auxiliary squadrons or personnel did not take part in the exercise referred to?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This exercise was for the purpose of testing the air defence system. It was to be a surprise exercise and the alert extended for a period of three months. At any time in that period this system might be tested, and it was not practicable to keep the auxiliary air force standing by for three months.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplilny (Dauphin):: May I direct to the Minister of Agriculture a question arising out of the answers he tabled just a few minutes ago with respect to the floor price under hogs. What action does the agricultural prices support board take when they are notified by a producer that he has not been offered the floor price established under hogs?
High! Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture): They immediately discuss the matter with all parties concerned and make a report.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In his absence, perhaps his parliamentary assistant can deal with it.
Has the minister received a request for the installation of a fog alarm at Horse Islands, Newfoundland? If so, what action has been taken on this request?

Grain


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to send me notice of his intention to ask this question, but unfortunately it reached me a few minutes before I left my office to come to the house at 2.30. I have therefore been unable to secure the information sought. I shall endeavour to answer the question tomorrow.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, will the Postmaster General confirm the recent statement of an official of his department that extension of post office delivery services can be expected in the not too distant future because of the surplus arising from the increase in the postage rates?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I have not seen the statement allegedly made by an officer of the department. If my hon. friend wishes to refer it to me I shall check it.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 82, to provide for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver all their grain, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Johnson (Kin-dersley).
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
is overlooking the fact that we are not dealing with cash advances. What we are dealing with is another matter altogether.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I shall follow your ruling no matter where it takes me, but with all due deference to you, cash advances is our policy in lieu of what the government proposes in this bill. We are prepared to send this bill to the agriculture and colonization committee. However, Mr. Speaker, if you prefer it I shall not pursue it except to say in conclusion that we are in a difficult position. As I mentioned last night, even the bread-and-butter twins are not altogether in agreement on their policies. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is seeking to sell wheat behind the iron curtain. The Minister of Agriculture is selling butter behind the iron curtain at a premium. Now he proposes, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press, to trade wheat for immigrants. An hon. member asked whether it would be on a pound for pound basis. I hope they are weighty immigrants if it is. The Prime Minister says he has not heard anything about it. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) says he discussed it with other cabinet ministers. If I was in your cabinet I would discuss it with your Prime Minister as quickly as I would with your Minister of Trade and Commerce.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I did not say any such thing at any time.


William Earl Rowe: The Winnipeg Free Press report said you discussed it with Sir Anthony Eden and Sir Winston Churchill-


James Garfield Gardiner: Then I do not agree with the Winnipeg Free Press.


William Earl Rowe: And it does not agree with you. The Minister of Agriculture said he discussed it with Sir Anthony Eden and also with Sir Winston Churchill when they were here-


James Garfield Gardiner: No, sir, I did not say any such thing at any time.


William Earl Rowe: You are the most misquoted quoter in Canada. The press gallery must have a real problem in quoting you properly because you have been misquoted more times in the last 30 years in Canadian politics than any other hon. member of this house.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will permit me, I did make certain statements-


William Earl Rowe: I am sure you must have!


James Garfield Gardiner: -to a reporter for the Free Press and the radio station phoned me up and asked me for a statement on it, and indicated just what my hon. friend is saying, and I told them definitely that I had not discussed trading wheat for immigrants with either of the ministers who were here from Britain.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, this is a very strange thing, and I have to take the word of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture because I have followed his debating tactics in this house for so long that I would not even want to misquote him on any of his famous quotations. It is a strange thing, however, that the Winnipeg Free Press quotes how he discussed this with Selwyn Lloyd, Sir Anthony Eden and the Right Hon. Winston Churchill-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has got even farther away from the principle of the bill. I did not want to give him the bad news I have in my hands while he was exchanging words with the Minister of Agriculture and I took into account the fact that there were interruptions and I do believe I reimbursed the hon. member for that time. Even with that I must come to the conclusion that the hon. gentleman has exhausted his time.


An hon. Member:: He is all washed up.


Mr. Speaker:: Now, if the hon. member wishes to conclude very briefly I think the house will allow him to do so.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.
67509-77*
Grain


James Garfield Gardiner: He has had a lot of time.


William Earl Rowe: I do not want to infringe on the courtesy and privileges of the house. Between your interruptions and the interruptions of the Minister of Agriculture I presume my time is exhausted.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not going to let that inference remain on the record. Just before I called the orders of the day the hon. member sent me a note to ask me precisely how much time he had left and I sent him the note I received from the Clerk. The hon. member knew at the time he began speaking that he had only four minutes left at his disposal-


William Earl Rowe: And I just used five and you interrupted me for one.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knew from the note he received that he commenced speaking at 3.08 and his time would expire at 3.12. It is now 3.15 and I leave it to hon. members to decide for themselves whether I have made allowance for the time I have taken and the time consumed by the minister in interrupting him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest if the hon. member wants to rise now to correct Hansard that it is not the proper time to do so-


An hon. Member:: That is it.


Mr. Speaker:: -the time to do so is just before the orders of the day are called. I recognize the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken once during the resolution stage of this question and regardless of what stage it is at I feel that after the events that have taken place-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: -and the comments of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I possibly owe him an apology for rising at this stage. I apologize for my audacity. When I recall, of course, that the minister has risen and made approximately five speeches to date dealing with this question, that fact does temper my feeling of guilt to some extent.
I believe that yesterday the minister got up and said he felt the debate was starting to degenerate and I was a little puzzled as to what he had in mind, but when we had three Liberal speakers from Saskatchewan rise immediately after the minister concluded

Grain
his remarks I am sure that all of us agree the minister's fears were well founded.
When I recall the great many accusations and threats the minister has made because hon. members of the opposition have attempted in an extremely modest way to exercise and discharge their duties as opposition members in this house, when I recall that we had been accused of being obstructionists-


An hon. Member:: You are.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: -who are purposely obstructing the passage of this legislation, I cannot help but wonder just what value the Minister of Trade and Commerce places on democratic procedures and on freedom. I confess the only conclusion I can arrive at is that possibly the only concern the minister has or the only interest in freedom he has is, as someone said, if I might paraphrase it "the pursuit of other people's freedom".
I am sure that the continuation of this debate has been more than worth while in spite of the criticisms levelled at us by the minister, because in criticizing this measure and by keeping this debate going I think it is pretty obvious that we have shown to the Conservative party and the Social Credit party the folly of their original decision in going along with this legislation. I am glad that because of our efforts to keep this debate going they are now to make an opposite decision. I am glad they see they made a mistake in the first instance; and, who knows, if this debate is carried on we may even have a reconsideration of the legislation from the government side. Therefore I think the fact that we have carried on the debate until today has had merit.
I am sure, too, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce failed completely in his attempt to intimidate anyone on this side of the house. I am also convinced that he failed equally in the effort he put forth by shedding buckets full of crocodile tears which he spilled all over the house in an effort to convince us that the banks were going to suffer because we were opposed to this piece of legislation. I do not think he fooled anyone on this side of the house and I do not think he fooled anyone in the country.
I should like now to quote from an editorial Which appeared in the Star-Phoenix following the remarks made in this connection by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Star-Phoenix cannot by any stretch of the imagination be referred to as being notorious for its allegiance to the C.C.F. party:
The Right Hon. C. D. Howe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the article in ques-CMr. Bryson.]
tion reflects upon anything said by an hon. member in this house it cannot be read in debate. I have had occasion to quote the citation that refers to that on many occasions and I referred to it at great length in a statement I had printed in the Votes and Proceedings with the approval of the house not very long ago on the question of reading of speeches. I am trying to put my finger on the citation at the moment that refers to the question. If hon members will just be patient with me, I am getting a great deal of assistance from my associates. There is further confirmation that the rule does exist since so many hon. members know about it. Citation 265 reads:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to. or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling whatever it may be, but I should like to say that the article to which I referred goes on to say that they doubted if anyone in Canada was worried about the intimidating remarks which had been made to opposition members in the House of Commons, and that if the minister had tried to bluff anyone his bluff could very well be called. I think that points up the thinking of most people who are any way concerned.
I am sure that if there had been any danger that this milk and water legislation would be defeated during this session the government would have called a session of parliament last fall. I do not think anyone has been too much impressed by the minister's tactics. As a matter of fact I do not think even the bankers were unduly concerned as to whether this legislation passed or not, because at a meeting in Saskatoon several bankers were present as well as many officials of agricultural organizations, and business people. That meeting was held some weeks ago and one of the bankers was asked for his opinion and he told the meeting that if a farmer could not get a bank loan under ordinary circumstances with his credit rating he was not likely to get one under the government plan.
I think that is fairly significant of the attitude the banks have taken. Another matter in which we are going a little bit offside is that too many people think that $1,500 is involved in these loans. The bankers are not going to take any chances in connection with the security for the loans they make. This banker went on to say that the applicant would have to list all his debts, including chattel mortgages, and disclose his net worth. The items to be disclosed would be whether

or not his land taxes were unpaid. If so, the applicant would have to obtain a clearance. Some of the municipalities are allowing exemptions of from $1.50 to $2.50 per acre. The banker summed it all up by saying that all this information would have to be given to become eligible for a loan of something less than $100.
I do not think the bankers are unduly concerned about these loans at all in so far as getting this legislation through the house is concerned.
I should like to deal for one moment with another matter which I think has been overlooked. A great many speakers on the government side of the house as well as the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) have tried to get the idea across that it is the small farmer who is going to be assisted by this legislation. I do not know what is the minister's interpretation of "small farmer", but I think it would be fair to say that anyone farming less than three-quarters of a section could be considered a comparatively small operator in the prairies provinces. As I say, it has been argued that it is that type of farmer who is going to benefit under this legislation.
This whole question came up at a meeting in Saskatoon where farm union officials gathered to discuss this whole question, and some very revealing figures came out which I should like to quote. It was stated that a quarter section farmer with 155 acres under cultivation would be able to deliver 1,085 bushels of wheat. Based on a 7-bushel quota the value of that wheat as No. 2 would be $1.18 per bushel at the local elevator, or a total of $1,280. Assuming a loan on the basis of 50 per cent would give you $640. But the value of 300 bushels already delivered would be $354, and 320 bushels under an additional 2-bushel quota would be $365. When those amounts are deducted you have a maximum loan of $21. This is one of the farmers the Minister of Trade and Commerce says he is really concerned about, says he is really going to help. That takes care of the quarter section farmer.
What about the half section farmer?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to appear too restrictive but citation 265 which I read a moment ago applies to newspapers, letters and communications emanating from persons outside the house. The hon. member should not import opinions on this bill which have been expressed outside. An hon. member must speak in his own words, express his own views, and not carry on the debate by proxy. I will read the citation again, which is as follows:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons
Grain
outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
That restricts very seriously what an hon. member may say. An hon. member should express his own opinions in his own words. There is a temptation for an hon. member to read a letter he may have received or a resolution which has been adopted by an association of some kind and one in my position feels that he should not stand up too often to intervene. But it is the hon. member who does not break the rules who must suffer when this is done by other hon. members.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: The only reason I was quoting these figures was to discredit the argument of the minister who is trying to sell this legislation to the house on the basis that it is going to benefit the small farmer. I am simply trying to prove that it is not going to benefit the small farmer. I am using these figures to counter the argument put forward by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member's position. If he were before a court of law pleading a case he could submit evidence and it would be all right, but we are debating a matter and he must express his own views by virtue of rules which were adopted long before I ever came to this house. I do hope that he will observe those rules.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I shall refrain from reading anything further. I could have made up figures of my own had I thought that you would object to what I am trying to do now.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I rise to clarify the point of order. Perhaps I did not quite get the point, but am I to understand that the objection is to the hon. member quoting figures which had been given in a publication?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member is quoting from an analysis which was made of this legislation in a publication put out by an association of farmers, first dealing with the one-quarter section farmer and then with another category. If a chamber of commerce, for instance, would analyse the bill which is before the house and would sort of refute some of the remarks made by the minister in introducing his legislation, and if the member would import that argumentation into this house and quote from it, he would certainly be violating citation 265, because he would be reading from a communication emanating from persons outside the house referring to, commenting on or denying something said by a member in this house. In other words, the chamber

Grain
of commerce or the association the hon. member referred to are not members of the house. In the words of a former prime minister, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, when he was in this house, whenever a member quotes a newspaper or someone who has spoken outside the house on the subject that is under debate, he is introducing a two hundred and sixty-sixth member into this house.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, I understand that, but the point I was getting at is this. Is the hon. member precluded from quoting these figures, provided that he puts them before the house as his figures and does not refer to the authority that produced the figures? It seems to me that he could do that without infringing upon the rule. I quite agree that lengthy quotations, and so on, are not compatible-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar is quite right, providing the hon. member does not give the credit to the association that has produced the figures. If he wants to incorporate them as being his own and take full responsibility for them, then I have nothing to say. He is using his own words.


Mr. Harris:: He has already done that, unfortunately; he has already cited his authority.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: The figures I was quoting were not the compilation of figures made up after the legislation was introduced. This was a survey that was made in anticipation of what the legislation, if and when it appeared, was going to do. So I shall refrain from reading from that particular article. I have other figures I shall use, and I shall accept responsibility for them.
I pointed out what this legislation is going to do for the quarter-section farmer. He is not going to be able to borrow any money. As a matter of fact, he has $21 too much to start with. In the case of the half-section farmer, his maximum borrowing power would be $1,280, but if he had deliveries of 300 bushels under the initial quota he would then be eligible for a loan not exceeding $194.70. Again, this is the type of farmer the Minister of Trade and Commerce is so much concerned about. He is going to suffer if this legislation does not pass post-haste. Now let us turn to the three-quarter-section farmer, and I feel that is the ceiling when we are speaking about small holdings. We find that he is in an even worse position than the other two. Because of added expenses and his capital investment, he of necessity would need to get a considerably greater amount than either of the two I mentioned earlier, but under this legislation this farmer

will receive only $84. When we consider that all of the grain we have been able to market on the prairies to date represents a complete and dismal crop failure, anything a farmer has been able to deliver above 15 bushels an acre he can consider a little better than a complete crop failure. So it is not hard to point out that this legislation, in so far as helping the small prairie producer is concerned, falls far short of anything that he had expected.
Now I should like to deal for a moment with another aspect of this legislation, and here, I feel, is the nub of the whole question. I believe that the best arguments as to why this legislation should not be passed are to be found in the very arguments put up by the government as to why it should be passed.
I should like to deal with that aspect for a few moments. I hope you will not rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, when I quote the minister himself in this connection. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, speaking in this debate, had this to say, as recorded on page 602 of Hansard:
The present legislation is designed to deal with a different problem, a problem which arises from the superabundant production of grain on the prairies during recent years.
Then he goes on to quote figures to prove that there has been superabundant production. He gives figures showing that in the years 1947 to 1950 the average yearly production on the prairies was 361 million bushels, in that five-year period. He then points out that in the last five years, from 1951 to the present time, production has averaged 515 million bushels. In other words, the average production increased during those five years by 154 million bushels. Further on he said that we have had increased marketing as well. He went on to quote figures showing that in the five-year period prior to 1951 the average marketings were 223 million bushels per year, and from 1951 to the present time he said our marketings have averaged 312 million bushels per year. In other words, the average yearly marketings during the past five years have been 89 million bushels greater per year than in the previous five years.
What exactly is the minister saying? I think it is quite an amazing revelation, because in effect this is what the minister is saying. Farmers will become bankrupts when
(a)	they produce better than average crops,
(b)	they are able to market better than average marketings. This is an amazing statement. If there was ever a greater indictment of the agricultural policies of this government, I have never heard it. I think it is a serious matter when we have the



FEBRUAHY 15. 1956

[Stage Direction]
Minister of Trade and Commerce saying that farmers are in a very difficult economic position because they have grown and marketed too much grain. He admits there is a serious situation; otherwise we would not be dealing with this piece of legislation at the moment.
I am not disputing his figures. I am not disputing the fact that we have had the equivalent of five very large crops in 3 years, but it is very serious that in the face of that the farmers' economic position is steadily but surely deteriorating. I do not know why the government does not face up to the realities of the situation, because after all it is an entirely different matter, to say we are producing more and we are marketing more than it is to say the farmers' net position is such and such.
What is the farmers' actual economic position? I should like to quote figures published by the research section of the Department of Agriculture. For the year 1953 the cash income-not the net income, because we are unable to get the net figures-of prairie farmers was $1,448,749,000, but in 1955 the cash income of prairie farmers had fallen to $961,518,000, a drop of $487,231,000 in two years.
Yesterday I received a publication from the dominion bureau of statistics which verified the figures I have quoted. It is a serious matter when in two years you have a drop in the farmer's cash income of 66-5 per cent. In addition to that, in the same period, costs have risen by 66 per cent. It is difficult to say what the farmer's net position would be if we had those figures. I am amazed at the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), although in some respects I am not because we have known him to do things like this before in order to prove a point. I am sure that if the story were made known to Liberal members opposite they would take a different view of their position. In order to suppress any fears some Liberal members might have as to what the exact position of the western farmer is, he quoted precisely the same figures as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) quoted in this house to prove that the farmer has never been as well off in his life before. In order to spike it, he quotes the pool. I refer to Hansard, of February 10. After he had quoted all of those figures on incomes of all kinds to show that the farmer has so much money he does not know what to do with it, then he has this to say for the benefit of the members of the government as reported at page 1060 of Hansard of that date:
And so, as the wheat pool says In Regina there has not been any going down of farm income on farms in general across Canada: the farm income has been higher year by year.
I think that is a serious accusation in the face of the figures produced by the minister's own department. The three prairie pools have completely repudiated the minister in this respect. Recently they published a memorandum indicating that the income of Canadian farmers had dropped for the third successive year. They go on to say that all across Canada farm income has dropped by some 2 [DOT] 1 per cent, but in the prairie provinces this drop has been to the extent of nearly 28 per cent. It is obvious that in trying to make a case for this legislation the government is using every method at their disposal to discourage any fears that might arise in the minds of their own supporters.
I should like to deal for a moment with some of the other arguments, some of the other alibis that have been used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to why we should support this milk and water legislation. I am not going to delay the house with a long dissertation on parity prices or cash advances, but I should like to say this. There was a great deal of misinformation given to the house when we were discussing cash advances. It was said that could not be done; it was not feasible. In order to support his argument against cash advances, the minister went to some length to cite the United States support program as it applied to cash advances on farm-stored grain. He said that the government of the United States would not accept ownership of the grain until it was stored in government storage. Well, of course, that is completely fantastic. They do nothing of the kind. They pay the farmer up to a certain percentage on grain stored in government approved storage on the farm. All these arguments are nothing but red herrings drawn across the trail in an attempt to prove this cash advance proposition is completely unworkable.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we are still going to be faced with an acute economic problem on the prairies regardless of whether or not this legislation is passed. I would even go farther and say that even if this legislation were going to help or even if bank loans were rejected and cash advances were made, it would still not solve tfie agriculture crisis which we have been facing in western Canada for a good many years and which we will be facing for a good many years to come. This crisis will not be solved unless this government is prepared to completely overhaul its agriculture policy. Cash advances, bank loans, all of these things are only bits and pieces and by themselves mean absolutely nothing in so far as stabilizing agriculture is concerned. Only when all of these things
[Stage Direction]
Grain
are welded together in a comprehensive agriculture policy will these bits and pieces really mean anything. I am convinced that in the very near future the government will be forced to undertake the implementation of a complete agriculture policy to stabilize the farm industry in this country. I might say also that one of the planks of that policy will be the acceptance of the principle of cash advances on farm-stored grain without interest and administered through the wheat board.
Before I move on, I should like to mention the argument that those who are opposing bank loans are in effect trying to undermine the wheat board. I am very much surprised that the government is making such a case for the wheat board. If they were as interested in the maintenance of the wheat hoard as they are trying to make out, why do they not put that board on a permanent basis? Why do they not put all grains grown in western Canada under the wheat board? If they would do that, then they would be proving that they are interested in the wheat board. We would not have today the spectacle out in southern Manitoba of United States farmers coming across the border, without any restrictions, and delivering flax into the elevators' or loading it into box cars that are badly needed for grain grown in that area. Now, that is the situation we have today because the government has not seen fit to place flax and rye under the jurisdiction of the wheat board. I think it is a deplorable situation when box cars are so scarce and elevator space is so badly needed.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would just conclude by saying that this legislation is not going to benefit the people the Minister of Trade and Commerce is telling us it is intended to help. It is not going to help anyone. It did not do the job before and it will not do the job now. It is wrong in principle. It is wrong in practice, and for that reason we cannot accept it.
Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: I did speak a couple of times at the resolution stage, but on both occasions I spoke for less than half an hour and therefore I make no apology for speaking at this time. I rise mainly for the purpose of clarifying the stand of this group on this bill and on the amendment.
Whilst the question of advances against grain held on the farm is an important one, it is not the farmers' No. 1 headache today. The No. 1 headache from which the farmers are suffering today is the fact that they are in a price-cost squeeze. Lack of advances to farmers in many cases merely aggravates that situation. It does so in varying degrees. In so far as the farmer who is in a fairly strong position is concerned, it is merely

an inconvenience. Unfortunately there are not many farmers in that happy position. The majority of the farmers have no large reserves upon which to fall back. It is not merely the small farmer who is handicapped. There are today many large farmers with large holdings of land who have heavy obligations, who are in the process of paying for machinery and for their land. Even though they are large farmers, these farmers today are suffering under a severe handicap.
I would say that the failure of the government to take action today to halt the fall in farm income and the failure to support farm prices at an adequate level constitutes a flagrant breach of faith with the farmers of this country. It is breaking a definite pledge that was made by the government in the latter years of the war; it was a pledge that was made by the prime minister of this country to the people of Canada. I think the farmers of this country have the right to expect something better than that from this government when the pledge was made by the prime minister at that time. The pledge was in words to this effect: In view of the fact that the farmers during the latter years of the war were having to take for their commodities prices that were less than the world market price, the government would after the war stabilize farm prices to compensate them for that loss. On wheat alone that loss amounted to half a billion dollars. If you take into consideration the losses as a result of selling all farm produce at less than world market prices in the latter years of the war and in the early post-war years, there would be several more hundreds of millions of dollars to add to that loss of $500 million. I therefore say that the failure of the government today to maintain farm prices at a level that bears a fair relationship to the price of other commodities constitutes a flagrant breach of faith having regard to the promise they made to the farmers in the latter years of the war.
It is no wonder that some time ago we heard that farmers in Saskatchewan had suggested that, if there was another war, they might not be quite so co-operative with the government as they had been in the last war. You cannot blame them for feeling that way. Time and again when I travelled in my constituency and when I was explaining to the farmers the British wheat agreement and other agreements and the fact that they were taking at that time less than they could have obtained if it had not been for government policy, I explained to them that the government had given a pledge that they would stabilize prices after the war, that they would support prices after the war. When I told them that,

many farmers said, "Do you think we can trust the government?" I said, "Yes; in this case I think you can; I think the government will stand by their promise". It is not a very happy situation in which I find myself when I am obliged to go back and face those farmers when they ask, "Do you still believe that the government are going to stand by their promise?" The government cannot expect me to defend them in that regard.
The government at the present time is showing little concern over the plight of the farmers. They apparently realize that the farmers are short of money. I think the government realizes that fact quite well and I think the Liberal members on the other side of the house realize it. But the strange thing is this. Instead of taking action to support the farmers, to help them, what do they do? They support the money lenders to help the farmers go further into debt. Practically all the legislation that is being brought down at the present time is designed not to support the farmers but to support the money lenders, to guarantee them against losses. The government bring down a farm loan bill to expand the amount of capital, to expand the amount of money that may be lent to farmers. It almost looks as though some people are rejoicing in the fact that at last the farmers are in a position where they will have to borrow more money.
It is true that during the war and in the early years after the war the farmers were able to pay off many of their mortgages. That fact was quoted time and again as proof of the fact that the farmers were doing well. But in the five years from 1948 to 1952, farm debt increased by 25 per cent. If farm debt increased by 25 per cent from 1948 to 1952, what has happened from 1952 to 1955? I am satisfied that farm debt has increased even more in that period of time. What has the government done to help that situation? It merely guarantees the banks. If the banks make loans to the farmers, the government will guarantee them against loss. Is it not about time the government started to guarantee the farmers instead of the financial institutions that are making these loans?
What is the situation with regard to the banks? After all, this is a bank bill. Would the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) suggest that the banks are in fairly bad shape today, that their reserves are disappearing and that their profits are falling? I think the Minister of Finance will agree that the banks are in an extremely healthy condition today and that they have substantial profits. Their reserves have been steadily expanding ever since the end of the war. Not only is that true of their
Grain
general reserves but in addition to their general reserves they have a secret reserve and they do not pay any income tax on- that inner reserve. I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that if the farmers were treated in that same way, were put in that preferred position, and were allowed to establish a secret reserve so that when their assets started to fall they could use that secret reserve to make up the losses of assets, and with no income tax charged them on that reserve, they probably would have been in a position today to meet their losses and to make up the loss of income resulting from the low prices today.
I do not know who drafted this bill. I should imagine that bankers drafted it because it is weighted so heavily in favour of the banks. The Minister of Finance shakes his head, but certainly I cannot imagine even bankers drafting a bill more advantageous to themselves than is this one. It is hedged with penalties from beginning to end. It is well to remember that the banks today are the only institutions in Canada that are in the preferred position of being able to monetize somebody else's wealth and then lend the proceeds to somebody at interest. That is a highly profitable business. But nobody else is in that happy position. I suggest that the farmers are in far greater need of assistance or support from the government than are the banks of this country. The government should attack vigorously the cause of the farmers* shortage of money which is, to a large extent, low prices.
At this point perhaps it is well to remind the house that this legislation is largely for the purpose of dealing with the question of wheat. What is the price of wheat today? The price of wheat today is just about half of parity price and by parity price I mean a price that bears a fair relationship to the price of other commodities. According to the dominion bureau of statistics, if the price of wheat today bore the same relationship to the price of other commodities as that which existed in the three base years used by the Agricultural Prices Support Act, namely 1943, 1944 and 1945, the price of wheat today would be $2.27 a bushel. What price are the farmers receiving? By the time you knock off freight charges, few farmers are getting more than about $1.25 a bushel under the initial payment.
I want to refer to the point that some hon. members have made. They have said, "You supported the bill at the resolution stage. We presume you are supporting the bill at this stage, in order to be consistent". May I say that we supported the resolution at the resolution stage after having bitterly criticized the measure. We voted in favour of the

Grain
resolution for the one purpose of allowing the government to bring in the bill. That is the purpose of the resolution. The bill is before us at the present time. Let me frankly admit there are many features of this bill, which we have now seen for the first time, which we heartily dislike. We dislike the section regarding penalties; we dislike the section regarding interest; and we dislike the section regarding storage, especially the section regarding storage. I cannot imagine why that section was ever put in the bill.
I am not permitted at this time to deal with any of those points, therefore I should like the minister-I see he is not in his seat; perhaps the Minister of Finance can give us assurance on this point-I should like the government to announce their intention to refer this bill to the standing committee on agriculture as soon as it receives second reading. Is the Minister of Finance prepared to say that when this bill receives second reading the government -will be prepared to refer it to the standing committee on agriculture so that it may call representatives from the various farm organizations to find out at first hand what these farm organizations really think about this bill?
We have heard hon. members from all sides of the house give different interpretations of how the farmers really feel about this matter. I suggest that instead of having to get this secondhand, we should get it firsthand. Let us refer this bill-


Walter Edward Harris: If my hon. friend would permit me to answer his question, the answer is no.


Victor Quelch: I thought that is what the government would say, and I am sorry to hear it, because it does not look as though the government really wants to get the advice of farm organizations on this matter. They do not really want to find out what the farm organizations think about this matter. It would be much easier for them to misquote the farm organizations at this time and try to give the impression that they are strongly in favour of loans at 5 per cent interest. I doubt very much whether there is any farmer in favour of that. They want advances.
If the government were prepared to send this bill to the agriculture committee upon second reading we would support the second reading; but if the government are not going to allow this bill to be sent to the agriculture committee, then they leave us no alternative but to support the C.C.F. amendment to refer the subject matter of the bill to the agriculture committee.


Mr. Argue:: Another conversion.


Victor Quelch: It is not a question of conversion; it is a question of analysing the bill

before us and realizing that it does not meet the situation. At the resolution stage we had no bill; we had no details; we just had a resolution. We wanted to see the bill, and therefore we voted in favour of letting the bill be introduced in order to have the bill brought before the house. We do not like the bill; we do not like the way it deals with penalties, with interest and with the question of storage.


Hazen Robert Argue: How are you going to vote on second reading?


Victor Quelch: Very definitely against second reading and in support of the amendment, in view of the minister's answer. We would have been prepared to support second reading provided that the government had been willing to allow the bill to go before the agriculture committee, but apparently the government does not want the farm organizations of this country to have the opportunity to tell the members of this parliament what they really feel about the bill. In other words, I smell a rat.


Hazen Robert Argue: One hundred and seventy of them.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, I was not really making that allusion.


Hazen Robert Argue: We will withdraw it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The bill is still odoriferous.


Victor Quelch: In dealing with the matter at the resolution stage the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that this measure was the same as the resolution submitted by the western conference to the government on October 11, 1955. I do not know how the minister could possibly come to that conclusion. He did not merely say it is the same, he said "exactly the same". Perhaps I had better quote his words. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) quoted the resolution and then the Minister of Trade and Commerce said: "That is exactly what we did". How he could possibly say that this bill is exactly what the western conference asked for I do not know. Just take the amount of the loan, $1,500. That is the limit of the loan. What was the limit asked for in the resolution of the western conference? They asked for an advance up to 50 per cent of the normal delivery. What would be the normal delivery? We might say 8 bushels to the acre. That was the amount of the quota last year, so we might say the normal delivery might be about 8 bushels to the acre. Just how would that work out, and what amount of loan would it provide? It all depends on the size of the farm, of course.


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


Victor Quelch: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Has he any complaints from the big farmers about their inability to borrow money on their wheat?


Victor Quelch: I did not get the question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I asked the hon. member whether he had heard any complaints from farmers farming a section or more of land about their inability to borrow from the banks without guarantees?


Victor Quelch: It all depends on the circumstances of the farmer. If a farmer is farming one or two sections and is buying that land on crop-share payments he is having one heck of a time to borrow money. It all depends on the circumstances; it all depends on the size of the farm. As I mentioned a while ago, it all depends on the financial standing of the farmer and how great reserves he has. That would determine whether or not the banks would lend him money and, of course, the character of the man. As I pointed out, there are many large farmers today who are in the unfortunate position of trying to pay for machinery and land, and they are having a great deal of difficulty. Take the size of the farm. Let us take what might be called an efficient unit. Professor Hope said that the most efficient unit to farm was two sections. An average man with the aid of a full line of machinery can handle two sections of fairly good land, but if you are farming gumbo land a section of land could use practically the same machinery as two sections of average land. Let us say that the amount of cultivated land would be 600 acres. Well, if a man had 600 acres, then 50 per cent of that, at 8 bushels to the acre, would amount to 2,400 bushels. The initial price of $1.25-that is about what the farmer would get-would give him $3,000. Therefore, taking that as the efficient unit of land, under the recommendation of the western farm unions, the amount of the advance would be about $3,000 instead of $1,500 provided in this bill.
So far as interest is concerned, while interest was not mentioned, the resolution referred to advances. There is no doubt that many of those representatives were talking about interest-free advances. However, some talked about a loan, really, rather than an advance, at a certain rate of interest, and apparently different rates of interest were mentioned. But I do not think anybody mentioned a rate of interest as high as 5 per cent. Three per cent was mentioned. In view of the fact
Grain
that the wheat board borrows money at 3 per cent, I cannot see why farmers-guaranteed by the government-have to pay 5 per cent.
The minister sometimes seems to think that 5 per cent is the normal rate of interest. There are many institutions borrowing money today at less than 5 per cent. Some of them are borrowing it at 3 per cent. When the loan is guaranteed by the government the banks certainly should be able to make loans at 3 per cent, even if for no other reason than to perform a public service. Therefore, the bill falls far short of the request made by the western conference, both in regard to the amount of the loan and the rate of interest.
The minister said that he cannot withdraw this bill; that if he withdrew it he would not be able to introduce another one this session. Of course, that all depends upon the bill. If he withdrew this bill, which is a loan bill, and introduced a bill to make payments to the farmers on wheat on the farm, he could no doubt introduce it because it would be another type of bill entirely. That is the type of bill the farmers want. They do not want loans, they want payments on the wheat in storage on the farms and if the government introduced a bill of that kind it would receive the wholehearted support of all the members on this side and I believe of all the farm organizations. If the government is not prepared to do that and is not prepared to refer this bill to the agricultural committee so the farm organizations may be called together to send representatives down here and tell us just what they think about the bill, the only alternative we have left is to support the C.C.F. amendment to send the subject matter of this bill to the agricultural committee and then we would have to vote against the bill as it is upon second reading.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This
is the first time that I have participated in this debate at its various stages. I do so because I regard the problem which confronts the wheat growers of western Canada as a problem that is national in its effects and as one in which the principle of government responsibility is directly involved.
The western wheat farmer has one marketing agency and one only. It is a government monopoly and the responsibility of the government in the face of the kind of situation that exists today in western Canada is therefore inescapable.
At this point, sir, may I say a word by way of review of the situation and concerning what it seems to me is the issue involved at this time. The government brought forward two resolutions both of which were

Crain
favourably reported by the committee of the whole. The first provided for the introduction of the bill that is now under debate, Bill No. 82, which was debated in committee for several days. The other resolution which was passed after only a cursory debate paved the way for the introduction of Bill No. 83.
The question has been raised about the position of parties in this house on these measures and in relation to the problem of the marketing of the wheat surplus in general. I wish to state briefly, and I trust succinctly, the position that we of the official opposition have taken in our approach to this problem.
First of all, we supported the resolution at that stage because, of course, as was stated then by our leader, we wished to see the measure advanced and no matter how far short it fell from our conception of what is needed in the way of policy and legislation to meet the problem we were not prepared to deny to the wheat farmer of the west anything that might offer even some slight advantage to him, so great is his need of cash at the present time.
When this bill was called for second reading yesterday we sought to express our views and our policy in regard to it in an amendment which, although it was ruled out of order, I just wish to mention in this connection. It reads:
That Bill No. 82 be not now read the second [DOT]ime, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the introduction of legislation which will provide for cash payments on farm-stored grain.
Mr. Speaker ruled that amendment out of order, but the amendment stands as the expression of the view of this party as to the proper policy to be followed. In other words, it is a policy of cash advances on farm-stored grain. That is the position which this party has consistently taken in relation to this problem, and the gyrations and distortions which fell from the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) yesterday in regard to what is meant by cash advances will not change the fact or the policy.
The use of the expression "cash advances" has never signified the payment of interest. The hon. member yesterday brought in a weird suggestion that the use of the word "advance" connotes a loan on which interest will be paid. I do not think so weird a suggestion deserves even to have time spent upon it.
The position of this party has been made abundantly clear, for all who wish to understand it clearly, by the leader of this party when he said there was no thought whatever

of the imposition of interest on any payment that should be made to a farmer on account of farm-stored grain. That is the position this party has taken consistently. It is the position this party has taken for years in relation to this whole subject. It was enunciated by my leader in this house in debate in December 1952, and that was not the first time it had been put forward. Consistently we have advocated the policy of cash advances against farm-stored grain and that is still our policy.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member introduced his remarks on this subject by referring to the amendment which had been ruled out of order yesterday. He has continued at some length along tiffs line and I am just asking myself whether he is in order in doing so. May I draw his attention to citation 245, which reads in part as follows:
It is a wholesome restraint upon members that they cannot revive a debate already concluded . . .
There was some discussion of this matter yesterday and the amendment was ruled out of order. Therefore I should think that the hon. member should refrain from reviving that part of the debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Sir, I was not discussing the amendment but I was discussing the policy, and the policy is necessarily relevant to the debate on second reading of this bill because it is the proper alternative to the kind of policy that is embodied in the bill. The fact that the amendment was ruled out of order does not preclude a proper discussion of policy in relation to the problem that this bill seeks-


Walter Edward Harris: Which policy has already been rejected by the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Walter Edward Harris: Oh, quite.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No sir, the policy has not been rejected by the house. The amendment was ruled out of order and the minister went on yesterday after that at page 1177-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. One of the
reasons, as I understand it, that Mr. Speaker ruled the amendment out of order was that the house expressed its opinion on that very point on a previous amendment and therefore I do not see that the hon. gentleman is on sound ground.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to prolong that part of my remarks, but I do wish to state that at page 1177 of yesterday's Hansard, after this matter had)

been dealt with by Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce took it upon himself to say:
We all know that the Conservative party has no policy.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am stating that the policy of the Conservative party has been and is the policy of cash advances on farm-stored grain. We sought to give expression to that policy in the amendment yesterday. The amendment was ruled out of order, and 1 regret that the house did not have an opportunity to deal specifically with that policy.
On the other hand, what does the bill provide for? It proposes to empower the government to guarantee loans up to $1,500 in each case made by banks to farmers as against grain, such loans to bear interest at the rate of 5 per cent. The minister says that since the banks embarked upon these loans several months ago on the strength of a promise by the government to ask parliament to pass legislation such as we understand to be embodied in Bill 82, about 8,000 loans have been made. We are told that this bill to provide for government guarantees on individual loans and the associated measure to provide for payment by the government of storage charges on wheat are all the government proposes to do. This is the sum total of the government's legislative program in answer to this problem.
What then is the principle of this bill? On the resolution stage we said, and we say it now with emphasis, that we deplore the utter inadequacy of the government's program to meet the need. An inadequacy so patent has been accompanied on the part of the government by taunts and expressions of contempt for parliament; the use by the Minister of Trade and Commerce of such expressions as "bunkum" applied to serious arguments put forward by opposition members who spoke with responsibility and a knowledge of the feelings of western Canada.
It is quite obvious that the western wheat farmer sought justice. He did not come on bended knee. What he sought was a proper loaf; but, as has been said on behalf of this party from the outset, it is quite clear that this measure is not even half a loaf. In relation to the need of the kind of policy I have described, it is at best not more than a crust.
There are times when a vote in the house on an issue when taken alone and apart from statements which precede it is not an adequate expression of the feelings of a party on that issue. We of the official opposition desire to express our indignation at the utter inadequacy of this measure to meet the need. At the same time we have no wish, in the
Grain
face of the patent inadequacy of the government's program, to deny to the necessitous wheat farmers of western Canada even the paltry crust which this measure offers to 8,000 of them. We have considered ourselves as being under an obligation as a party to make every determined effort to obtain for the western wheat farmers something adequate, something much better than this inadequate measure. If a proper policy of cash advances, such as has been advocated, were adopted it would be a simple matter to take care of the 8,000 loans which have been made by the banks in western Canada in anticipation of the enactment of such a bill as this. The farmers would then be in position to repay those loans to the banks out of the cash advances.
Not having had an opportunity to vote upon our amendment I come now to the amendment introduced yesterday by the C.C.F. It has already been made clear that it is our purpose to support that amendment and I wish to give one or two reasons for our views in that regard. The amendment is in these terms:
That Bill No. 82 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
From the Social Credit party the house heard today a proposal that in the event of the bill receiving second reading the government should at that stage permit the bill to be sent to the committee on agriculture and colonization so that representations could be heard from the farm organizations of western Canada. One would have thought that that was a reasonable, indeed a modest proposal; but this arrogant government has rejected that proposal out of hand. It had hardly left the lips of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) before the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), as government leader, rose and rejected it out of hand. So we are then faced with the situation where the government will have nothing to do with any suggestion that this measure go to a committee, whether before second reading or after.


Walter Edward Harris: Oh, no, it is going to the committee of the whole.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why does the minister
quibble? Who does he think is going to yield to nonsense of that kind?


Walter Edward Harris: That is not nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of course it will go to the committee of the whole. Every measure goes to the committee of the whole, but the whole purpose of referring a measure of this kind to a select standing committee is to provide opportunity for intimate discussion and the

Grain
hearing of representations by those whose representations in connection with the matter this government ought to welcome. But they do not wish even the farm organizations of western Canada to be heard here on Parliament Hill. It is much better for their purposes that they go forward garbling what has been said elsewhere on behalf of the farm organizations in western Canada.
There have been statements made in the course of this debate as to the position of the farm organizations. There have been contradictory statements by the minister as to what the farm organizations had conveyed to the government. Surely in the face of this situation the fair way of handling it would be to invite those organizations to speak with authority before a select standing committee of the house.
It was not always so. The government when faced with such a situation has not always taken upon itself to reject such a proposal out of hand. Not always when a proposal was made by the opposition that the subject matter of a bill be referred to one of the select standing committees for consideration has the government risen in its wrath and said that it would kill the bill.
If there were on the part of the government a sincere desire to understand the problems of the west and to offer effective measures within the scope of parliamentary responsibility to meet the need of western Canada, then the government would surely welcome a proposal that would place this matter before a committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might say that representatives of the most powerful agricultural organization in western Canada were here not later than yesterday to meet the government and in the course of an hour and a half did not once mention the subject matter of this bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wonder if they were given a chance.


William Earl Rowe: That is pretty complete proof that they did not like it very well or they would not have mentioned it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would indeed be interesting if the government would permit such an opportunity to be shared with a select standing committee of the house where we could elicit the facts.
As I have said, the government did not always take this attitude. There was a time when the government did not say that the adoption of an amendment like the one now under discussion would kill the bill and therefore it must not be entertained. On May 14, 1946, there was before the house-I refer to this as a precedent in relation to

proper procedure in connection with this matter-Bill No. 54, to amend the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1942. That was a government measure and the then minister of labour, the late Humphrey Mitchell, moved the second reading. An extended discussion followed and strong criticism was levelled at the bill by the opposition. But, if you please, not only did the government accept an amendment that the bill should not be read a second time but that its subject matter be referred to a committee of the house, but a minister offered that amendment. At page 1533 of Hansard of May 14, 1946, it will be found that at the conclusion of the debate on the second reading of that bill Hon. Ian A. Mackenzie proposed the following amendment to what was a government bill:
That the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the select committee on veterans affairs with instructions that they shall consider the same and report thereon to the house.


Walter Edward Harris: What happened then?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It went to the committee, and the committee made its report and recommendations to the house. The house dealt with the bill in the light of the recommendations of the committee.


Walter Edward Harris: A new bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. What was wrong with that?


Walter Edward Harris: I am not arguing; I am merely telling you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The result was a very much improved bill, but apparently the government does not want an improved bill in this case. There was no difference in principle between the situation that then confronted the house on May 14, 1946, and the one that confronts the house today, February 15, 1956. There was no difference in principle, but there was this difference in fact. The government then had a narrow majority and it was not dominated by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce. Today the government has a swollen, silent, supine majority, and the government is dominated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That is the difference.
As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment that is now under debate is to give an effective opportunity for reviewing the problem and trying to bring forward some more effective measure to deal with it, and at least trying to clear up all the contradictions as to the attitudes of those principally concerned as expressed through the farm organizations.
Is there a problem confronting the wheat farmer of western Canada, and if so, is it

a problem that is national in its effects and dangers? I say, "yes". To listen to the government talk, and particularly the familiar optimistic tones of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, one would just think there is no problem at all. On January 16 of this year the Minister of Trade and Commerce, after making some sarcastic references to the opposition, said:
Shortages are wonderful, to be solved by simply denying their existence.
What is the government's attitude here? If I might paraphrase the remarks of the minister, it would be this: problems arising out of surpluses are wonderful, to be solved by the government by simply denying their existence. So far as the government is concerned, everything is perfect. Wheat is moving; sales are running up; prices are good; there is no question of unused farm storage. Everything is perfect, nothing is wrong, and a surplus is a good thing. That seems to be the government's position. The government, having no solution to this problem, is content to deny the existence of the problem. Baron Munchausen at his best could not have done better.


William Earl Rowe: He never met the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As to the worth of the minister's statements, it would be well for us to recall this glowing statement made by the minister in this house on February 18, 1955- this is almost the anniversary of these remarks he made in the house at that time- as recorded on page 1312 of Hansard:
However, as I say, our sales are very good. I can assure hon. members, I think with certainty, that before the crop year ends on July 31 any producer who has grain of any kind that he wishes to market will have had an opportunity of marketing it. The suggestion of storage on the farm, I feel, is one that will not help very much, considering the short period that should ensue between now and the day the wheat grower will be able to market all the grain he has to market.
Again, as recorded on page 1313, he said:
We will have a substantial carryover of wheat, but that wheat will all be in public storage. Storage on the farm will no longer be a problem to western Canada.
What a travesty of the facts! What a prophecy! When we hear the minister indulging in his prophecies again, the easy optimism, the denial of the existence of the problem, I ask the house to weigh the worth of the minister's statements of that kind against the equally worthless statements that he was asking this house to accept one year ago.


William Earl Rowe: It is getting worse all the time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The problem is one of lack of cash income to the western farmer, arising
Grain
from the failure of this monopolistic government agency to market his grain. The government refuses to deal with the situation in a way that would meet the needs.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I thought you invented the monopoly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have demonstrated that not only does the government not wish a better measure, but they do not wish to treat parliament as parliament ought to be treated in these matters. What is the hallmark of a free parliament? It seems to me there are two tests. The first is that parliament, by its very name, is a place to talk. That is the democratic method. No matter how the talk may try the patience of some, it has still been proven in the long run, over the long years and centuries of testing, to be the best method. We have tried to persuade by the method of talking.
That is not the method that was practised in Hitlerite Germany. That is not the method of Russia; there, when the masters of the Kremlin choose to address the presidium, they simply call the presidium together and make their statements. It is a sort of counterpart, I suppose, of the speech from the throne, a review of the things the government has done, and the assembled legislators hear these declarations. There are perhaps two or three speeches by members selected for the purpose. The members simply hold up their hands to pass whatever is required by way of legislation, and then they go home.
The other hallmark of a free parliament is the right to criticize, and criticize freely. Another hon. member of this house, the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) and I were two of a group of half a dozen Canadians who in the fall of 1948 visited Greece and were received in the Greek assembly during the course of a debate. The debate was interrupted for the purpose of having tributes paid to Canada, particularly in the light of what Canada had done through the Red Cross and Canadian aid to Greece through the allied war relief fund. I recall how heated was the debate before we came in, and with what heat an opposition member was criticizing the government.
When I came back home and was addressing a meeting at a Canadian university and relating this incident, which happened at a time when the communists were seeking to overrun Greece and there was great distress, warfare and bloodshed in that country, a communist stood up at the back of the hall and asked, "How can you pretend that the Greek parliament is a free parliament?" My answer to him was this: "The test of a free parliament is the right to criticize, and I heard pungent criticism of the government

Grain
being offered in that house by an opposition member." That to me was proof enough of the existence of freedom in the Greek parliament.
So I say there are two hallmarks of a free parliament. One is talk; it is a place to talk. The other is the right to criticize freely. Here in this debate we have had further, and indeed unnecessary, proofs of the fact that this government does not want a free parliament.


Walter Edward Harris: Oh, now, just a moment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government regulates the business that comes before the house-


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. Nothing whatever that has ever been said in my time in this house would justify a remark like that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Edward Harris: A free parliament is something that all of us seek to uphold and maintain, and I suggest that hon. members are not in order to say otherwise.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Sir, with-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I must agree with the minister on this point of order. I am sure that on reflection, the hon. member for Eglinton will also agree and will revise his remarks accordingly. While I am on my feet, may I also remind the hon. member for Eglinton that for some time he has been directing his remarks to what I might call a philosophic discussion of parliament. We are actually dealing with the second reading of a bill dealing with a very particular subject.
I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is just what I am proposing to do. You will see the relevance of these remarks. This government has sought to stifle debate on this measure.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I indicated that the minister's point of order was well taken, and I thought the hon. member for Eglinton would commence his remarks by revising his previous remark in that connection.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that this government has sought to stifle debate on this measure.


An hon. Member:: At no time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let me get on with my
evidence.


Walter Edward Harris: I have no objection to my hon. friend making a statement of opinion of that kind, but the question of whether or not one

is attempting to stifle parliament is a different matter. This matter of opinion can be argued in debate between us, but saying we are seeking to change a free parliament is a different matter.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you whether or not you, at the request of the minister, are not seeking to stifle opinion. This is a question of opinion, and you are seeking to stifle it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hope the hon. member for Greenwood is not attempting to suggest that the Minister of Finance is putting words in my mouth. That implication will not be allowed to remain. I did agree that the point of order raised by the minister was well taken when the hon. member for Eglinton had said that the government was attempting to stifle a free parliament, or words to that effect; I will get the exact words in Hansard tomorrow. That was a statement of fact, and I think that implication should be withdrawn by the hon. member.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If it will meet the situation, sir, I will say that in my opinion this government is trying to stifle a free parliament. They have tried to stifle debate on this measure. It started on January 27, the very first day of the debate, when the minister, in the course of his remarks, tried to frighten members of this house into refraining from making remarks critical of government policy. He proceeded to say there was no occasion for a prolonged debate on this measure. We had a short day on Friday, January 27 and a short day on Friday, February 3. Wednesday, February 8 was a half day, and at that time the minister rose and made some very inaccurate remarks. His patience was exhausted, because he has no patience for debate and no patience for criticism. He said then, when this measure had been debated for only part of two days, that we had been a long time on this debate.
Then he went on to say that it seemed to him no more repetitive speeches were needed, and that some members of the opposition had spoken twice while one was about to speak for the third time. It was proven that was not a fact, and no member of the group to which he referred had spoken more than once. Then he said there was no need for debate on the principle of this bill. Is that not an attempt to stifle parliament? He said he was willing to drop the measure until June and charged that those who were critical of the government's policy were simply seeking to block and obstruct. Yesterday we had the minister making the extraordinary statement in this house that, after all, he is too busy to sit in the house and listen to a debate of

this kind. At page 1177 of Hansard for February 14, 1956, the minister said:
I do not know why you have to again listen to the speeches we have just heard. We have already heard the same men making the same speeches.
Then he goes on:
I really begrudge the time. Her Majesty pays me tor doing something useful and I do not think I am earning my pay when I have to sit here in the house and listen to the kind of blather we have been having on this particular bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that the speech of a sincere believer in democracy? I say that kind of speech would better belong to the other kind of assembly to which I referred in other countries rather than in a free parliament. Neither that attitude nor that kind of speech has any place in a free parliament. The attitude exposed is not the attitude of anyone who has any knowledge of or sympathy with the proper functions of a free parliament. When the hon. member for Rosthern was speaking the minister interrupted him to say that he would soon be turning this discussion into a debate, and naturally he does not want a debate.
So we are left with this situation. First, there has been in fact no obstruction. The charge the minister has made in that respect is entirely lacking in truth. Second, the minister has been very angry. He objects to listening to criticism. He does not want debate. He does not want reply to the wild accusations he has made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What are you reading from?


Donald Methuen Fleming: He just does not belong in a free parliament with an approach like that. He just does not feel at home and therefore it is natural he should not wish to sit here; he would prefer to spend his time outside. If it is such a bother to him to spend his time in parliament, there is nothing to prevent him from leaving this parliament. Third, he has indulged in threats to the members to frighten them into silence. He threatened dissolution yesterday; that was intended to frighten Liberal members of this house. I am sure it had no effect on anybody else. These threats make a mockery of parliamentary process.
Fourth, I say the Liberals in this house are on trial. If you believe in a free parliament, then for pity's sake express yourself and do not sit in this house like mummies. Do not allow the minister to tell you, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce told you on January 18, that from now on you must toe the party line. When members of a free parliament are told by one of the ministers that from now on they must toe the party
Grain
line I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it puts every Liberal member in this house on trial. If he toes the line, then of course he will be a good boy. If he wishes to preserve a free parliament, then let him assert his independence and refuse to be told how to think about this great national problem.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a point of order, what is all this harangue about? It does not have anything to do with this bill or this amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has a great deal to do with the supine and submissive Liberals in this house in relation to this measure and in the face of the needs of western Canada that are not being met by this inadequate measure.


Mr. Elmore Philpotl (Vancouver South):: may say that I have no wish to hold up this debate, but I want to take two or three minutes to deal with some of the remarkable points raised by members of Her Majesty's official opposition. In the amusing talk we heard last night from the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), which I think certainly put the house in good humour, there was one serious point which even in my humble capacity I would not like to allow to go unchallenged. The hon. member suggested that there was something wrong in this government holding out a helping hand to Britain in a time of great need when she stood entirely alone against the whole forces of fascism in Europe, and when this country held out a helping hand by giving Britain a long-guaranteed supply of wheat at a fair price.
There was another remarkable point, Mr. Speaker, raised by-


William Earl Rowe: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow the hon. member's statement to pass because at no time in this house, during wartime or peacetime, have I ever suggested we should not give a helping hand to Britain. On different occasions I have urged that we give them more. It was in relation to the British agreement deal that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made that I was speaking, and to twist it the way the hon. member has is to misinterpret it in unfairness to me.


Elmore Philpott: If I have misinterpreted the hon. member, I am sorry, but when I read his remarks in Hansard he was objecting to the fact that we sold Britain a supply of wheat at much less than world prices, and especially to selling Britain wheat for about a dollar a bushel less than otherwise she would have had to pay.
I now want to deal with the other rather remarkable point made by my good and genial

Grain
friend the hon. member tor Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) who, I note, has just .stepped behind the curtain, when he suggests the Minister of Trade and Commerce should follow the example of the great Conservative leader Disraeli in the year 1867 and when he found there was opposition to a certain resolution which he proposed, he should withdraw the resolution gracefully. I have been looking up the book to which the hon. gentleman referred. Jennings' "Parliamentary Reform", page 243, gives the incident to which my hon. friend refers. The incident would certainly interest the old professor of history, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). It was when the great Conservative leader was trying to put through his reform bill to give the franchise to more of the voters of Britain and to abolish the rotten borough principle. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the members of Her Majesty's opposition are certainly on extremely weak ground-


An hon. Member:: This has nothing to do with the bill.


Elmore Philpott: -when they have to thresh over old straw not only once but twice and three times, and when they go all the way back to Disraeli and then, by implication at least, criticize that great Conservative leader for having tried to put through the second reform bill.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, by trying to hold up the passage of this bill and by making the same speeches not once but twice, three times, four times, five times and six times, not only reviving the debate on the speech from the throne but debate at the various stages of this bill, members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition are doing exactly the same thing today to which they violently objected when the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggested last week that we might be obliged to postpone this bill. By suggesting that this bill should be sent to the committee on agriculture and colonization they are in fact saying that the western farmers are in no hurry for cash advances of any kind and can afford to wait for months and months.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is twisting the record.


William Earl Rowe: You had better get back to family allowances.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I might remind him that three months have passed since the Minister of Trade and Commerce made his announcement. If parliament has been able to wait for three months, I see no reason *why we should not wait long enough to act

on the suggestion made by my colleague the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Johnson). The amendment before us is that Bill 82 be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce is old enough and has been here long enough to know that if he will only say the word, this reasonable request can be granted. When the minister was leading the house some years ago I had the honour of presenting an amendment asking that the question of milk subsidies be reconsidered, and the minister turned around and suggested there should be a free vote on that subject. There was such a vote and the amendment carried, and the government was not defeated. I suggest that all that needs to be done now is for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to say that this is a question that deserves the impartial consideration of all members of the house and that there will be a free vote.
The fate of the government will not depend on the outcome of that vote. If a majority is of the opinion that this bill should not now be read the second time but that the subject matter should be referred to the standing committee so that witnesses can be called, in the light of the discussion and the decision, the government can then decide whether or not it wishes to bring in additional legislation.
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has used a good deal of material that I planned on using. I want to thank him for that.


An hon. Member:: Do it again.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I resent the suggestion of filibuster and delay.


An hon. Member:: That is what you are doing.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If there is anyone on the government side of the house who feels that this matter is being delayed, all you have to do is bring in a motion of closure and with your government majority the motion will carry.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is what you want.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: When you were in the chair yesterday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) was speaking, you were surprised-as was I-to have the Minister of Trade and Commerce say this, as reported at page 1161 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, are we having a debate on second reading or-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I did not hear the point of order raised by the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On second reading I do not think that this speech should be allowed to degenerate into a debate.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one who is getting so old and tired as to make that sort of interjection in this sort of debate must be causing a good deal of embarrassment to his younger colleagues-


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


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -when he suggests later on, as reported at page 1177 of Hansard:
I do not know why we have to again listen to the speeches we have just heard.
Mr. Speaker, you are following closely what is being said, as are other members and I am sure that if anyone on the opposition side was attempting to make a speech that had already been made since that controversial subject arose, you would have been quick to draw attention to the fact that at page so and so of Hansard the speech was to be found. But these speeches are not speeches which have been given. The minister said:
I have other things to do. I really begrudge the time. Her Majesty pays me for doing something useful and I do not think I am earning my pay when I have to sit here in the house and listen to the kind of blather we have been having on this particular bill.


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Those are the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Hazen Robert Argue: It could not be anybody else.


An hon. Member:: Read it again.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, those words are a reflection on parliament. As the hon. member for Eglinton has suggested, if the minister is too busy or too tired to hear what is being said on this particular subject, let him do what he suggested he would like to do. Let him go away or do whatever he likes.


An hon. Member:: Go Ashing.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes; go fishing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If he does not think he is earning his pay, he does not need to take it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: When the minister spoke on this subject some little time ago he cited the case of the meeting he attended when there was someone who was critical, I presume, of government policy on agriculture. After the meeting was over the gentleman who was so vocal gave the Minister of Trade and Commerce a lift and the conversation is alleged to have run something like this: "After all, conditions are not as tough as I indicated". The minister said, "This is a nice car you are
Grain
driving." "Of course; it is a new car and I like it." The farmer said, "It has been the goal of my lifetime to be in a position where I was free of debt, with a crop in the bins and was sitting pretty; and I am happy to be in that position now". Then the minister concluded by saying, "That is the position of the western farmer".


Mr. Blackmore:: A scandalous remark.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: After hearing him, Mr. Speaker, I could not let the resolution pass without challenging the fairness of that sort of statement. I was reminded of the report of a speech which his colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) delivered in New York.


Mr. Studer:: We heard it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No, you did not hear this speech; I did not have it. This is what the Minister of Finance said on November 2 last when he was speaking as the guest of the Canadian Club in New York. I suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should read this speech; it is excellent. After giving a review of the Canadian scene, the Minister of Finance had this to say:
The wheat problem, as it exists today is not just a product of the temporary generosity of nature. The roots of the problem go much deeper than this. They lie in the national policies of a number of countries. Basically, the large stocks of wheat have arisen because of world acreage expansion. This acreage expansion has been the result of national policies of subsidies and tariff protection. The consequence of acreage expansion has been higher production. The estimated production for 1955 is not far short of 71 billion bushels compared with about 6 billion bushels for the average of 1935 to 1939.
United States wheat production has increased proportionately over pre-war figures considerably more than world production; and the building up of very substantial unsold surplus has resulted. The ways and means by which the United States reduces these surpluses is of serious, indeed, vital interest to us.
In Canada we have a central selling agency for wheat, the Canadian wheat board, but we do not subsidize the wheat producer. The wheat grower in Canada receives an initial price on delivery and eventually a final payment which represents the net price received by the wheat board after meeting all costs of storing, handling, transporting and selling the crop.
The Canadian wheat producer is fully prepared to compete on equal terms in the world wheat market. He has confidence in the quality of his product and his technical efficiency in producing it. However, it is quite another thing to compete with wheat grown in other countries where it is heavily protected by either high tariffs or high subsidies, or both. The problem of the Canadian wheat producer will only be solved with the removal of these high artificial barriers which now restrict, directly and indirectly, our access to the world wheat market. But I can only repeat-wheat production is the principal source of cash income of the great majority of our western

Grain
farmers and we, as a government, are bound to be greatly influenced by anything so vital to them and to our national economy.


Walter Edward Harris: Am I expected to applaud?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No, but I would expect the minister's colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to do him the courtesy of at least reading this speech and learning of the views the Minister of Finance made known at the meeting in New York city when he was invited to address the Canadian Club. If this matter was of such importance, and it was, for the Minister of Finance, in the middle of a very interesting and accurate review of the whole Canadian economy, to take time to point it up, then I suggest, that the two eldest and senior members of the cabinet, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture, are doing a great disservice to their colleagues, to parliament, and to the people of Canada in suggesting that there is no problem; that it is a situation that is not to be worried about.
When speaking at another place the Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
The Prime Minister lays down the party line. Once that line is laid down, I don't care whether you are a member of the House of Commons or the Senate, that line should be adhered to. We stand or fall together.


Mr. Habel:: What has that to do with this debate?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I suggest there is an amendment before the house, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that if the backbenchers cannot support it the government will fall.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Who said so?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister has said it is a want of confidence motion. The Minister of Agriculture said:
When the majority of the Liberal party agrees that a thing should be done I am going to work to see that it is done.
Whether it is right or wrong, so long as it is the party line. Not so Senator Power-


Mr. Dickey:: Watch your desk.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Senator Power said:
It has not been many generations since men struggled to destroy forever the doctrine of the divine right of kings.
Cherishing these traditions and honouring those proponents of a free parliament I cannot bring myself to believe-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: have, perhaps incorrectly, allowed references to pronouncements by the minister who sponsors the bill and by the minister responsible for the Department of Agriculture because they might conceivably have some bearing upon the questions before us. But I must

express the definite opinion that expressions of political philosophy by someone in another place, not dealing with the question of guaranteed bank loans to farmers, is not in order in the present debate.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. But, as the Minister of Finance pointed out so correctly in New York city, the Canadian farmer cannot compete in the world with producers in other countries who are subsidized or where there are tariffs. In Chile the farmers receive the equivalent of $4.50 a bushel; Switzerland, $4.19; Norway, $3.43; Sweden, $2.35; Argentina, $2.72; and the United States, $2.24. So long as wheat is coming from countries that have these large subsidies, while we are trying to compete with wheat without any assistance, we shall be in a hopeless position.
Last night the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. White) spoke, and I was glad to have him take part in the debate. I am aware of the fact that those of us from the wheat-producing area have taken considerable time of parliament this session.


John Horne Blackmore: Not nearly enough.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sure in our remarks we have not suggested that there are no problems in other parts of Canada. I am sure that the hon. member for Waterloo South is a reasonable person and that on reflection he will not support what he said last night, which is as follows, as reported at page 1183 of Hansard:
The more I listen to the C.C.F. representatives from western Canada the more I am convinced that they are not concerned with the welfare of the western wheat farmers as much as they are with political expediency.
Well, I think that was not a useful contribution to make to this debate. The Toronto Star, which supports the present government very faithfully, considered this question important enough to send one of their ablest reporters, Robert Nielson, to Saskatchewan to find out from the grass roots, if there is a problem, and Mr. Nielson has an article in the last issue of the Kelvington Radio that just reached me. He has had interviews with farmers on their farms. On the train coming out from Saskatoon he met a farmer by the name of Mr. Rediger who told him about the conditions on his farm. He called on several farmers who gave figures with regard to their expenses and incomes for the year.
Part of the report reads:
Rediger broached a theme that was to be stated, politely but firmly, by nearly every westerner I talked with. He contrasted the position of the prairie farmer at the mercy of the world market for his income, with the happy state of workers and managers in eastern industry, sheltered by tariffs (which jack up the farmers' living and operating expense).

The report mentioned a hardware store in the town of Wadena, with a stock of $40,000 to $50,000, I would say. The hardware merchant said that one day the previous week he had sold 10 cents worth of goods'.
Here is a significant pargraph near the end, of the report:
Nowhere on the farms or at the elevators did I hear a kind word said of the federal government's plan for 5 per cent loans through banks on farm-stored grain, up to a maximum of $1,500. A farce-said Harmsworth. Why should we pay interest on our own money? The farmers hereabouts take the view that they have done their work, harvested the crop, and should be paid for it-not asked to go deeper in debt.
I have here returns from some of the municipalities in my constituency. These municipalities are run by reeves and councillors who were elected on their merits. If he were here I believe the Minister of Agriculture would support me in saying that the provincial rural municipal organization is still under the influence of the Gardiner machine out there but be that as it may.
I shall read the tax returns as at the end of December, 1954, and 1955 for the following rural municipalities:
Dec. 31,1955 Dec. 31,1954
Arborfield 			$ 110,000
Bjorkdale 			109,000
Buchanan 			61,000
Clayton 			89,000
Invermay 			23,000
Kelvington 			99,000
Keys 			62,000
Livingstone 			49,000
Moose Range 			 334,000	210,000
Porcupine 			124,000
St. Phillips 			39,000
Sasman 			111,000
	$1,526,000	$1,086,000
In all parts of Canada citizens want to make payments on taxes the main responsibility, and the citizens in these areas realize that unless their taxes are paid they cannot have the customary services in their roads and schools.
What is the direct result of these municipalities being unable to collect their taxes? I have another return which gives the amount of money that these school units which cover all of my area borrowed from the banks and on which they were paying high rates of interest:
School Unit Bank Loans as at December 31, 1955
Canora	 $180,000
Hudson Bay	 210,000
Kamsack	 107,000
Nipawin	 233,000
Sturgis	 209,000
Tisdale	 130,000
Wadena	 267,000

The above school units owed the banks a total of $1,336,000 because they had been unable to collect their taxes.
The secretary for the municipality of Hazel Dell wrote saying how much their tax arrears have increased. The reeve of this municipality is Tommy Miller, who happens to be a very good supporter of the Minister of Agriculture. Although Mr. Miller has always voted Liberal I should pay him the honour of saying he is a very good reeve and I think he does a very good job. He is doing everything within his power to see that the taxes are collected.
Here is a situation the Toronto Star considers a matter of national concern and on which it sends one of its top reporters to Saskatchewan by aeroplane. He sees the people in their farm homes and in town. The secretaries of the municipalities point out that without exception every municipality in my constituency has reported tax arrears are away up from a year ago.
As Mr. Rediger pointed out, the thing which annoys the farm people is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce can correctly say that business is booming. International Nickel in 1954 had a net profit after taxes of $65 million; Imperial Oil, $49 million; Distillers Corporation, $35 million; Aluminium Limited, $33 million; Bell Telephone, $28 million. Every other sector of our economy is prosperous; yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce refuses to consider his own statistical information.
The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) took part in the debate. I am sorry that an hon. member from an industrial riding should have tried to create the impression that the farmers in Saskatchewan are in high income tax brackets, and that when the war was on they purchased victory bonds as soon as they were issued while industrial workers were unable to do so.
I am happy to note that in a publication of the bureau of statistics which came to me it was pointed out that labour income from January to October of last year indicated an increase of 7 per cent. Wages were up 7 per cent; they reached an all-time high, and that is as it should be. I think if the labourer receives a good pay cheque he is going to be able to buy more food, and food of better quality.
I might say that the attitude of the hon. member for Kootenay East, who said in effect that we are misrepresenting the plight of the farmer and that after all the farmer is getting more than he deserves, is different from the attitude presented by most industrial organizations. It is typical of the trade union

Grain
movement on the whole to recognize that this is one of the problems in Canada, that farm people are not getting their fair share of the national income. Some bon. members have gone into the farming areas and suggested that the farmer's trouble is caused by the fact that the industrial worker is getting such high wages.
In the United States the U.A.W. recently made a study when steel prices went up in that country. In a circular issued by the U.A.W. in Washington I note on page 9 it is pointed out that the corporation profits before taxes went up 65 per cent and corporation profits after taxes went up 41 per cent; dividends paid by corporations were up 73 per cent but the farmers' net income was down 28 per cent.
The U.A.W. realize that when this happens they cannot sell automobiles and farmers cannot buy farm machinery. They point out that when the price of steel went up $7.50 a ton that year-


John Horne Blackmore: The price of what?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: When the price of steel went up. This sort of increase creates some resentment for labour. The automobile workers had an increase of 21 cents an hour, and this increase would have warranted an increase in G.M. labour costs to the extent of $49 million. Instead of increasing by $49 million, they increased by $570 million. In the farm implement industry it should be pointed out that when Deere and Company gave an extra dollar to their workers, they collected $1.96 from their customers, and when the Oliver Corporation gave an extra dollar they charged $2.05. Allis-Chalmers-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: It
is with no pleasure that I interrupt the hon. gentleman. I am sure that the hon. member for Mackenzie will agree with me that the relationship between wage increases and the cost to the consumer of manufactured goods is so far from the question as to whether or not the particular bill should be referred to the committee on agriculture that it cannot be regarded as being in order in this debate.
I have no desire to interfere with the hon. gentleman and I do not like these interruptions because they always break into the train of thought of the hon. member who has the floor and make it difficult for him. But I think I am fully entitled to ask the hon. member to bring his argument much closer to the subject matter before us than he has been doing during the last four or five minutes.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your point and it is very well taken, but unfortunately government members who 
have taken part in this debate, particularly the hon. member for Waterloo South, who was permitted to discuss butter last night during this debate, have been allowed to wander. If hon. members on the other side are to be permitted to discuss everything under the sun, then I think hon. members on this side should be able to do likewise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: am going to take it upon myself this time to interrupt the hon. gentleman and indicate that I interrupted the hon. member for Waterloo South yesterday of my own volition.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I shall not pursue that matter any further, as I want to leave some time in which to say something about the Minister of Agriculture. The minister should know better than to come to parliament and present the proposition that the farmers have never been as prosperous. The minister would be quite right in saying that the farmers of Canada are much better off than the farmers of India, the farmers of Pakistan or the farmers of a great many other countries, but that is not the point. The farmers of Canada are receiving a diminishing share of the national income as their costs are going up.
No one knows this better than the Minister of Agriculture. The other day he started to give us some figures on farm net income, and pointed out that the net income picture was pretty serious in the prairie provinces, but that taking a five-year period the situation was quite different.
On checking the Parliamentary Guide I find that the Minister of Agriculture was first elected to represent the people in 1914, 42 years ago. No wonder he is getting old and tired. I find that 34 years ago he was given cabinet responsibility, and that for the last 34 years he has been either a cabinet minister or the leader of an opposition. With that sort of record he should be in a position to speak with some authority over a long period. But when he suggests that the farmers in the west are in a very favourable position, or if they are not it is their own fault, he is doing a great disservice. The Minister of Agriculture gets the equivalent of $500 every Saturday night.


John Horne Blackmore: He does not have to borrow.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: He does not have to worry about a bank loan. If farming is as prosperous as he has indicated he should be able to make enough on his farm to pay his income tax. Any farmer who could count on $500 a week would not be worrying about a bank loan. I think the figures I have given with reference to arrears of taxes in northeastern Saskatchewan suggest that there are

very few people who have the good fortune the Minister of Agriculture has had in having such good health and a guaranteed income over such a long period. He is performing no service for agriculture by making that sort of suggestion.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has just handed me a little circular which I presume all hon. members have received, which indicates that the C.C.F. members here are backed by a considerable claque of wheat pool interests. Claque is defined as being a body of ap-plauders, or hired applause. It points out that fortunately the government is not going to yield to our pressure and that the Canadian government has rightly refused to lick the boots of pressure groups whose main objective is to soak the Canadian taxpayer.
Before I conclude may I say that I wish the backbenchers would reconsider this matter and decide whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce was speaking for them when he suggested that they follow the party line. I should like to extend an invitation to the committee to meet in northeastern Saskatchewan. The accommodation there may not be quite as good as at the Chateau or in this building, but the best accommodation available in my constituency would be forthcoming for a meeting of a special committee to hear witnesses.
I think it is significant that the Minister of Justice has not made the same sort of mistake as was made by his colleagues, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture. I would be surprised if the Minister of Justice suggested at his Minnedosa meeting that the farmers of Canada are as prosperous as the Minister of Trade and Commerce said they were or as his colleague the Minister of Agriculture indicated. I hope serious consideration will be given to having this matter referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization in order to give the delegation which met the cabinet yesterday a chance to put their cards on the table and tell all Canada that we are wrong, that the farmers they represent are enjoying an era of prosperity seldom experienced in Canada.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I did not speak during the resolution stage nor on the second reading, and I perhaps should not be speaking now as the position of the Social Credit group has been placed on the record more than once, but I rise to speak because of one word emphatically expressed by the Minister of Finance, when he said "no". I listened to the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) with great interest as I always do. We regard him as one of our
Gram
exceptionally expert men when it comes to' matters of finance and trade and agriculture.


Walter Edward Harris: I agree wholly with that; do not dissociate me from that.


Ernest George Hansell: I was not connecting the "no" with what I am saying now. I listened to the hon. member's speech, and as usual it was sensible, it was most reasonable, it was logical and, as all his speeches are, it was filled with sound judgment. His speeches are very seldom destructive, and in this instance he did not tear down anything. The speech he made this afternoon, I thought, was exceptionally constructive. His request was most reasonable. He stood here as a sort of peacemaker between the government, which is asking the confidence of this house, and a number of members on the opposition side who do not wish to vote confidence on this bill.
The suggestion he made was that we in this group should vote confidence on second reading, provided the government were a little more reasonable. He did not even ask the government to change its position. All he wanted was that the government would be more reasonable and on its own initiative send the bill to the committee without a vote on the amendment. It is going to be voted upon, but as far as our group are concerned we would vote against the amendment if the minister would send the bill on second reading to the committee on agriculture and colonization. But the minister interrupted my hon. friend and said, "The answer is no." It was a very emphatic no, and we all know that no meant no. Sometimes I wonder whether the government knows exactly its constitutional position.


An hon. Member:: No.


Ernest George Hansell: I have my ideas about it. The government assumes it was elected to bring some bills down. The government of this country is never elected. It is members of parliament who are elected, and they as individuals were elected by their constituents. Of course if they represent the party with the biggest majority, their leader is asked to form a government, and able men of the party are called in to form that government. But they assume that they speak for parliament. I might ask boldly, "Who do they think they are? Do they think they represent the people?"
The fact of the matter is that their actions would indicate that they have no regard for the people's wishes. The proposal that was made by the hon. member for Acadia on behalf of his group was a very reasonable one: "The bill is not all we want, but we

Grain
will vote for it, if he will send it to the committee on second reading, so that representatives can come and express their views." There are people representing various organizations who could appear before the committee and make their views known.
Now, let me ask what are standing committees for if they are not to look into the details of bills and hear representations from groups of interested people in this country?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Members of parliament are elected to represent the people.


Ernest George Hansell: I recognize that, but what my hon. friend over here is saying is that therefore we do not need any standing committee.


George James McIlraith: No, he was careful not to say that. He was trying to put you right on law.


Ernest George Hansell: He said it by inference. We have our standing committees for a purpose. Those standing committees are to hear representations on various bills and other matters.


George James McIlraith: No, they are not. They are to consider matters which are referred to them. That is their function.


Ernest George Hansell: I did not say anything different from that. That is what we are asking. We are asking that the matter be referred to the standing committee. That is what they are for. Another thing is this. Should the government decide to refer this matter to the committee, these organizations would have the opportunity of coming before the committee and there presenting their submissions.
It must not be considered that only the farm organizations would come. They would come, naturally, but there are other interests which might oppose the bill and would be welcome to present their submissions. Other organizations, such as industrial organizations, may oppose the bill. I do not know of any that do, but there may be some. Even the banks could make representations. Even other lending institutions could make representations.
So the standing committee, which according to the ratio of members in this house would have a majority of supporters of the government party of this house anyway, could hear all those submissions. Indeed, there could have been an expression of the opinions of the people of Canada who are interested in this measure. But the government says no.
When the hon. member for Acadia made the suggestion, which was most reasonable, the Minister of . Finance leaned over and 
spoke to the parliamentary assistant, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce walked in and sat with them. The three of them got into a little huddle. I have that in my notes here, because I drew three little heads with some hair on. After the huddle the minister rose and interrupted my hon. friend without even hearing the rest of his arguments, and said simply that the answer was no.
When I was a boy I went to Sunday school. As a teenager I was in a young lads' glee club. The director of that glee club taught us many songs, one of which-rather a unique one, but a good one, and we sang it with great gusto-was entitled "Have courage, my boy, to say no."


Hazen Robert Argue: Walter was in the same club.


Ernest George Hansell: The verses were all about the wiles of the devil and the sins that beset young men. Each verse ended-and my, how we sang it-with the words, "Have courage, my boy, to say no."


Walter Edward Harris: On a question of privilege, I insist that the hon. member should not refer to one of his party as a devil.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not want to imply that one of my party is a devil but, frankly, I must admit that sometimes I think I have a little trace of him myself. However, I think the minister must have gone to Sunday school and learned that song, "Have courage, my boy, to say no." I should have imagined, with the minister sponsoring the bill, the government would be the first body that would want to hear representations from various organizations. I should have imagined they would be in a stronger position if they could say, "Yes, we shall send this bill to the committee and we shall hear what the various interested people have to say about it." I do not know why they do not say that.
The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) spoke yesterday. I have a high regard for the hon. member. I do not laugh as much as some do when the hon. member speaks. He has a case to present, and his position over the years has been most difficult.
I say with all sincerity that I have a high regard for the hon. member for Rosthern. Yesterday he rose and spoke to this motion. He read from documents signed by various organizations and attempted to prove that the measure that is before the house is the very thing these organizations wanted. I am not saying whether or not it is, but if that is so then why not send the bill to the committee? Then we would find out whether or not that is exactly what these organizations want.
I am afraid, and I rather suspect, one reason the minister will not allow this bill to

go to the committee is that he knows these organizations will come down and say, "No, the interpretation the hon. member for Rosthern is putting forward is not the right interpretation." I have a suspicion that is exactly what the organizations would do, and of course the government would not want that to happen.
We would have voted for the bill. We voted for the resolution. When the bill was introduced it was a lot harsher than we ever expected it would be. We felt determined to vote against it. Yet we have said no; it might be well for the farmers to be able to get their loans and to have the banks guaranteed against loss, so perhaps we had better vote for the measure. Then came the amendment presented by our C.C.F. friends. Well, that posed a question for us. We had to make a decision. Were we going to vote for this amendment? We said it was a technical want of confidence motion, but there is a middle of the road proposition we can make so that we do not have to vote for that technical want of confidence motion. We said we would act as mediators. We would propose that the government itself send the bill to the committee, so we can vote confidence in the government and in the bill.
That was most reasonable, was it not? The minister rose and had the courage to say no. Now what faces us? We are faced with a decision now, as the hon. member for Acadia has said. Are we going to vote confidence in a measure and in a government that refuses to hear the representations of the people who would have been permitted to come before a proper standing committee, set up for that purpose, and present their wishes? The government can make their decision. They will still have a majority of members on the committee. They could make their decision on the basis of the evidence submitted. We feel that is a most reasonable request.
Now the picture has changed. Can we have confidence in a measure and in a government that does not want to hear the representations of these people on this measure? Any government that does not want to let the light shine in on its administration does not deserve a confidence vote of this house. I am afraid, therefore, as the hon. member for Acadia has said, that we will have to vote for this technical non-confidence motion and vote against the bill on second reading.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I do not like this Bill No. 82, Mr. Speaker, any more than 67509-78
Grain
other hon. members, but I do not like it for different reasons. This bill is entitled:
An act to provide for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver all their grain.
That is not the problem in my constituency. We have not any grain to deliver. Here we have the government going out to help people who have grain and forgetting about the people who have had no crop for two years. I think that is disgraceful. I appealed to the government last year, and I appeal this year, to do something for these people.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What you want is advances on grain.


William Scottie Bryce: We could not get advances on grain because we have no grain, but you could do something for us. Help is needed in the interlake country. It is really bad there. I have tried to tell the government and the ministers what the situation is, but they think my language is too strong. They think I am exaggerating. These people in the interlake country are suffering. They are leaving their farms, and where are they going? They are going into the cities to compete with the men who are working there. That is a bad situation. If you lose a crop one year that is a calamity, but when you lose crops for two years that is a disaster. Certainly some of the people in the interlake country have a crop, but there are people there who will not be able to pay their taxes this year who have paid their taxes consistently for over 40 years.
I suggested that something should be done to bring in feed and seed to these people. I do not want to be told I am out of order, Mr. Speaker, but this is a serious matter and something ought to be done about it. I know I cannot move an amendment because it would call for the expenditure of money. It is going to cost money. There is more grain in the west than you know what to do with, and surely you could send some of that to the interlake country so some of these people will remain on their farms. An amendment of some kind could be introduced.
I could talk about this until tomorrow morning. I rose at this time to draw your attention to the serious situation there. Do not fail the people in the interlake country. They need help and need it badly. The unfortunate thing is that when I meet some of the cabinet ministers in the Manitoba government they say, "Well, what is the federal government doing?" Then when I speak to some of you gentlemen here you say, "Well what is the premier of Manitoba doing about it?" You are passing the buck. Don't do that. Don't do that to good citizens of Manitoba.

Grain
I am not going to say any more. I appeal to you as I have never appealed before. These people are in desperate circumstances. Do something for them.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The motion before the house is very simple, Mr. Speaker. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Kindersley requests that instead of giving this bill second reading the subject matter thereof be submitted to the committee on agriculture and colonization. One would have expected that the government would have been very anxious to accept that motion, because it provides them with an excellent opportunity to get off the hook.
As the debate has proceeded on this bill it has become evident that the members of the government and the private members supporting the government who come from the prairie provinces have been becoming more restless and resentful as time went on. It is not altogether because of what has been said on this side of the house but because I suspect they are beginning to hear from back home. They are beginning to find that the assumption with which they started out, namely that they could present this half-baked measure as a substitute for cash advances and get away with it, was wrong. They are beginning to find that the farmers in the prairie provinces are simply not going to take this matter lying down. Hence the desire seems to be there to hurry it through, rush it through the house without too much comment, in the hope that it will be a forgotten matter before very long.
Recent events here have shown that they are not getting away with that idea. I want to say that we certainly welcome the change of attitude on the part of our Progressive Conservative friends to the right and of our Social Credit friends to the left.


John Horne Blackmore: There is no change in attitude; merely clarification.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I will explain that remark in a moment. I refer to the fact that, on the part of both of those parties, those who spoke for them had announced that they were going to vote for second reading of this bill. They have now both announced that they are going to oppose the second reading of this bill and vote for the amendment to refer this matter to a committee. That is a change of attitude.


John Horne Blackmore: No; merely clarification.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The change is perfectly justified, and I say that not in any criticism. I say it rather as a compliment to their good judgment in having at last swung in behind the C.C.F. on this question.

What are some of the reasons why we have asked that the subject matter of this bill should be referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization? Perhaps the main reason is the fact that the hon. member for Rosthern, on two occasions at least and perhaps three in this debate, has risen in this house and attempted to put his own interpretation on what happened at the Saskatoon grain conference. As one of those who were present at that conference, I am quite satisfied that the interpretation he seeks to place upon the desire of the delegates who attended that conference is not the correct one.
Naturally I do not expect him to agree with me but certainly he can go along this far. If he contends that what the delegates at the Saskatoon conference-and consequently the smaller delegation which was sent by this conference to interview the government- asked for is what is now contained in the bill, whereas of course we argue that it is not, then would it not be the wisest course for the sake of his own argument to submit this matter to the committee on agriculture and colonization and invite these various farm organizations which composed this conference to send their delegates again to Ottawa and have them place their wishes before that committee? Surely that would settle the argument as to what they asked for.
We contend that they did not ask for bank loans at 5 per cent, and voluminous evidence has been placed on the record to prove our contention. All that the hon. member for Rosthern has had to go on so far has been a set of resolutions passed at the Saskatoon grain conference which, because of the fact that they were not too specific in every respect, gave him just enough elbow room to place his own interpretation on them. We are willing to place our argument before that committee, and we are willing to hear the representations of these various farm organizations before that committee. Nothing could be more reasonable than that.
When one looks at this bill and hears the speeches of the members supporting it, one begins to wonder whether they are talking about the bill because, according to some of the speeches that have been made in support of this legislation, one would get the impression that the government is acceding to the request of the farm organizations for cash advances and that proposition, of course, is what the hon. member for Rosthern continues to argue. But what does this bill do? It does not provide for cash advances to the farmers. All it does is provide a guarantee to the banks in the event that they should make some loans. Not only does it do that; it also

Grain
provides for penalties to farmers in case they should misunderstand the legislation.
I think that is one of the features of the bill that would come as rather a surprise to a good many farmers. I think they will be surprised when they read the bill and find that if they happen to fill out the form which is supplied to them through the banks in the wrong way, or if they happen to make a mistake-and that would not be too hard, considering the fact that the government has set up regulations even before the legislation is passed-they are liable to a fine of $500. That is a far different thing from cash advances. It is an attempt to shift from the government to the banks the responsibility for the financing of agriculture in this crisis. It is also an attempt to shift the cost of that operation from the government to the shoulders of the farmers themselves.
In view of all that, it is rather strange to hear the word "misrepresentation" used by the hon. member for Rosthern and others. The bill itself is a complete misrepresentation of what the Saskatoon grain conference asked for and of what was asked for by every farm organization and every chamber of commerce plus the retail merchants plus anybody else who has had anything to say about it living in western Canada. It misses the point completely. It does not fulfil the functions for which cash advances were intended.
It does more than that. This attempt by the government to get out from under, to shift the responsibility for a crisis which is of their own making on to the banking system of this country, is doing more damage to the
whole philosophy of the principles of orderly marketing than anything I can remember that has been done in this house previously.
Let us consider the situation. In 1946 the farmers were told that in order to enter into an agreement for the sale of grain under which Canada could guarantee a supply of grain to our customers, two things were needed. One was that the farmers would have to agree to a ceiling price, and it was set at $1.55. The second was that all the grain must be handled through the wheat board in order that there might be stability of price and stability of supply. The grain producers in this country were quite conscious of the fact that the market price at that time was higher than the amount provided in the agreement with Britain. However, they went along with the government on the understanding that the government was assuming the responsibility for the marketing of that grain. Today the government is denying that responsibility.


John Horne Blackmore: Six o'clock.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I move the adjournment of this debate?
On motion of Mr. Zaplitny the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we shall continue with this debate tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
67509-78J
[Stage Direction]
Questions