1956-02-09

TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What will be the effect on Canadian great lakes shipping of the order of the United States maritime administration announced today making United States ship operators on the great lakes eligible for government subsidies?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have only to serve as the basis of an opinion the account which appeared in the Montreal Gazette this morning. I have not seen the text of the announcement made yesterday by the United States maritime administration but I understand from the press dispatch that the administration has declared the ocean route between United States lake ports and western Europe to be essential to United States trade and economy so that, I understand, they could make subsidies available to operators over that route.
However, I should like to point out to the hon. member that this seems to apply only to ocean shipping covering the route between United States lake ports and, I think, western Atlantic ports in Europe. I do not think one may infer from the communique that it is intended to subsidize operations within the great lakes themselves.


Howard Charles Green: Will Canadian shipping be given any assistance of this kind?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, at the moment there is no Canadian shipping that is using this particular route because, as my hon. friend knows, the canals limit the oceangoing vessels to those having a draught of 14 feet or less. As the vessels on Canadian register and vessels on United Kingdom register owned by Canadian interests are all of greater draught, the question of subsidy to them does not arise at the present time.
67509-63J



CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM    INQUIRY AS TO PLANS MADE AT CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister what plans, if any, were made at the recent conference with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of that country with reference to trade between Canada and the United Kingdom?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman realizes, as we realized before, during and after our conversations with the Prime Minister and minister of foreign affairs of the United Kingdom, that they are as anxious as we are to increase the volume of trade between our two countries. However, that has to be a two-way traffic, and we discussed various ways in which that was being encouraged and the fact that those steps were developing at the present time an increase in that trade.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Could the Prime Minister be specific as to what particular means are in contemplation in relation to that trade?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman knows that they are both free enterprise countries and that it is the individual traders in those countries who make their own investigations and try to serve in the best way they can their own individual interests.
We were informed that there would be substantial advantage to the United Kingdom and to ourselves if more special industrial groups could visit the United Kingdom, because it was pointed out to us that it was only the very largest of their trading firms who could come here and seek markets for the commodities they have available. It was also pointed out that two or three of these groups had visited the United Kingdom and as a result of their visits there had already been a noticeable improvement in the quantity of exports they found it was possible for them to absorb from that source.

Inquiries of the Ministry
We are as much concerned as the hon. member is with the imbalance in our trade with the United Kingdom, and to the extent to which we can influence those events we would like to see as much of the needs of our economy as can be absorbed supplied from an area which would in return be only too happy to purchase more of our products.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister's attention been drawn to an alleged and widely publicized statement of Sir Archibald Nye that "western powers who did not recognize the new Chinese government made a great mistake"? If so, has the minister any comment to make?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of his question. My only comment is to regret press reports which appeared in certain Montreal papers, where Sir Archibald was speaking, which by taking a paragraph out of context gave a wrong impression of what he said. The full text of his speech, which I have before me and which I have read, makes it quite clear that in the paragraph in question he was talking about the Asian attitude toward China whereas the report, by producing one paragraph in isolation, gives the impression that it was the United Kingdom and western attitude generally that he was discussing.
As a result of these reports there have been some regrettable speculations regarding the position of the United Kingdom high commissioner. I can only repeat what I said to the press the other day, that our relations with Sir Archibald remain very friendly and co-operative, and we have a high regard for the work he has been doing here as the representative of the United Kingdom.



SHIPMENT OF ARMS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the widespread or so-called widespread apprehension regarding the shipment of arms, when the United Kingdom Prime Minister was here did he raise any objection to Canada's policy respecting the shipment of arms to non-NATO countries? Yes or no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, no
objection was raised, and we are happy to find ourselves in substantial agreement with the policy of the United Kingdom in this matter.



USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS TO PUBLISH SPEECH BY MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he considers it a proper use of public funds for the information division of his department to publish the speech he made in the house on January 24 on the subject of arms shipments abroad, but no speeches by any other members of the house including members of the opposition?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have to look into that matter to see if my speech was worthy of that kind of publicity.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it a proper use of public funds?



REPORTED DELIVERY OF ARMS BY RUSSIA IN RETURN FOR SLAVES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to answer a question addressed to me the other day by the Leader of the Opposition when he asked:
Can he enlighten us further or indicate the position taken by this government in regard to the shocking facts disclosed in a report to Dag Hammarskjold referred yesterday to the United Nations in connection with the reported purchase of arms from Russia by the delivery of 1,500,000 Chinese slaves.
The allegations to which reference is made are to be found in the joint report on forced labour submitted to the economic and social council by the Secretary General of the United Nations and the director general of the international labour office. This document- a voluminous one-records new information on systems of forced labour submitted by member states and non-governmental organizations in accordance with a resolution of the council. It includes a report from the Chinese nationalist government entitled "Information on Forced Labour in Communist China".
This report-that is, the report from the nationalist Chinese government-is based on statements in Chinese communist newspapers of individual prisoners who had got out of China, and on Chinese communist laws and regulations. The particular reference of

my hon. friend to the purchase of arms by China to be paid for by the forced labour of Chinese is from a Hong Kong newspaper which published a letter from a Chinese in Thailand who had escaped from a prison camp in China where he had heard that this arrangement had been made.
Canada has already made its position clear at the United Nations with respect to forced labour. We have fully endorsed the condemnations by the economic and social council and the general assembly of the United Nations of the existence of systems of forced labour; we have also expressed support for the adoption of a convention on the abolition of forced labour as a means of political coercion or economic development.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received from the Fraser valley small fruits emergency committee a letter requesting an interview for the purpose of discussing with him the serious situation resulting from the severe frosts of last fall? If so, is it the intention of the minister to grant such an interview?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to send me notice of his question. I have a letter from the Pacific co-operative union-I presume that is the organization to which he refers-suggesting that they would like to have a delegation come down here and discuss the matter with us. I also have a communication from the government of British Columbia with regard to the same matter. The questions involved are under consideration. I have not yet had time to answer this particular letter.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was written on that stationery, but that at the end of the letter it was stated that it was from the emergency committee to which I have referred.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member therefore knew that the letter had been received. He was not seeking information.


Mr.   Paiterson@: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General?


An hon. Member:: Do you know the answer?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Has it ever happened that a letter that has been posted has not been delivered to its destination?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: I understand it has happened in the past, Mr. Speaker.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention two matters. One is this. Might I be permitted to welcome my colleague the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin) back to the house? I want to direct the question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or the Minister of Finance. Would either minister indicate what decision has been made on the application of the Thames valley authority for federal assistance in the project outlined by the authority in a brief presented about one year ago?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: It is still under consideration, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO BANK LOANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is he prepared to table the regulations in force concerning bank loans and any adjustments thereto?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: To what bank loans is the hon. member referring?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The bank loans under the legislation we are now discussing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The requirement is that the bank must be satisfied that the grain which is to be security for the loan is in the possession of the farmer. The bank must be satisfied that the same grain is not pledged to another bank under section 88 of the Bank Act. If it is pledged to the same bank, that is not necessarily a bar to another loan. Those two questions are the only questions that are asked of the potential borrower.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Are those the regulations in their entirety, or have there been any adjustments with respect to them?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not that I
know of.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Knowles:: How can there be regulations until the legislation has been passed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister answer the question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Through instructions from the head offices of the banks to their branches; and these instructions are issued by agreement with the government. We believe that eventually, after some weeks, we shall get authority to guarantee the loans, in accordance with our undertaking to the banks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? Are we then to understand that regulations have been made based on legislation which has not yet been passed?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: May I answer this question, Mr. Speaker? It was I who wrote the letter to the banks undertaking with them that if they would proceed with these loans in the early fall we would eventually pass legislation such as is now before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You meant you would introduce it.


Walter Edward Harris: I beg your pardon; we would introduce it. As part of the obligation I thought I owed to the Canadian taxpayer, we did draw up some understanding with the banks as to the precautionary things they would do in dealing with an application. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre chooses to call them regulations, I have no objection to them being called by that name.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speak to the Minister of Agriculture.


Walter Edward Harris: That may be. Those would no doubt become regulations if the legislation were passed and we adopted them as regulations. In the meantime they are working arrangements with the banks, but you can call them whatever you like.


Mr. Fulion:: Would the minister be willing to table the letter or a copy of it?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest that perhaps the hon. member could deal with this when we reach committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect, sir, the Minister of Finance has told us he wrote the letter but he is not the responsible minister when it comes to the legislation. I think it is a proper question to ask at the moment.


Walter Edward Harris: I think you will understand that the Minister of Finance is the one who can guarantee to the banks a charge on the public treasury. That is why he wrote it.


Nevertheless, it deals with a subject with which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is far more competent to deal than I am.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not his letter; it is the Minister of Finance's letter.


Some hon. Members:: Order; sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: If the document is required to be tabled, and if the hon. member asks for it in the course of debate in the committee and the minister undertakes to table the document, he will do so at the first opportunity when the Speaker is in the chair. If that is not done, the hon. member may put a motion for the production of papers on the order paper.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resiigouche-Madawaslca):: Would the Minister of Agriculture state what action, if any, has been taken to implement the recommendations of the New Brunswick federation of potato growers to relieve the very serious and alarming situation, other than the present unsatisfactory diversion program?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that the authorities in New Brunswick who are concerned with the matter have been in communication with the officials of my department, and have suggested they come to Ottawa, I think on the 16th of this month. If they come the whole matter will then be discussed.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Did any of the R.C.A.F. auxiliary squadrons, or any of the auxiliary personnel forces, take part in the test of our northern defences in exercise "Crackerjack"?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I think the hon. member asked me a question about exercise "Crackerjack" last week and I told him I could not give him an answer until I had time to digest the report. I have not yet had time to do so.


John Borden Hamilton: 

INQUIRY AS TO IMPROVEMENT OF ACOUSTICS

Mr. Hector Dupuis (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make concerning the acoustics in this chamber. There has certainly been an improvement, but I do think that the loudspeakers should be shifted to different locations. In the galleries the loudspeakers are behind the listeners, and visitors there hear far better than we do down here where we have to lean forward on our desks to hear what is being said. I think that would be a good suggestion in the circumstances. If you would be so kind as to look into the matter yourself, you will find that audibility down here is rather poor, while excellent up in the galleries.
(Text) :


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Mary has asked that the loudspeaker system be looked into so as to perhaps find ways of improving audibility in the house, especially in the far corner where the hon. member is sitting at the moment. I shall have the technical advisers of the company look into the matter, and no doubt the Sergeant-at-Arms will ask the Department of Public Works to inquire further into it.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I put in a petition in respect of this area, too?


Mr. Speaker:: I think we all agree that nothing much can be done with respect to raising the voices of hon. members, but we shall do all we can to improve the system.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 8, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide, by way of a guarantee for bank loans made on or after the 15th day of November, 1955, and before the 1st day of June, 1956, for shortterm credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver their grain; to provide also that the governor in council may extend the application of the act to cover loans made before the 1st day of June, 1957; and to provide further that any amount paid to a bank under the act be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Chairman, as a representative in this house from a constituency located in the heart of the world's finest wheat growing area, I feel it my duty to place before the
Grain
committee some of the reasons I am opposing the legislation presently under consideration.
In opposing this measure I do so first of all because I feel it fails to meet the legitimate requests of the preponderance of spokesmen for western agriculture, who have on many occasions indicated their insistence on cash advances rather than bank loans. I think the excuse offered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that there was not perhaps complete unanimity when the delegation recently made certain proposals to the cabinet is a mighty poor excuse for the government's refusal to meet the requests of the vast majority of the spokesmen for western agriculture.
On this point, I have been somewhat surprised at the silence of private members on the government side of the house, and I was particularly surprised at the failure of private members from the province of Saskatchewan on the government side of the house to put forth their reasons for supporting this resolution.
On occasions we in this section of the house have been asked by some of the hon. members from Saskatchewan on the government side who asked us to take a particular stand and who asked us to vote against a particular measure. I should like to ask them this question. Whom are they representing in this house when they support a proposition which has not met with the approval of a single agricultural group in the province of Saskatchewan? We are on record as being opposed to this proposal, and have asked for something worth while. The silence of private members from Saskatchewan on the Liberal side of the house in relation to this matter reveals only too clearly that they are aware of the situation, and they dare not stand up in the house and state their reasons for supporting this resolution.


Mr. Harrison:: Are you going to send this speech home?


Alfred Claude Ellis: I think it is quite obvious that the resolution envisages legislation which will be totally inadequate to meet the requirements occasioned by the present serious shortage of cash on the prairies. I believe the whole question was very neatly summed up by the leader of the Liberal party in the province of Saskatchewan a few months ago when speaking at a public meeting in a town in the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture, when he referred to this as being as effective as a stirrup pump in a forest fire.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to say that when the provincial leader first made the statement he was not speaking in my constituency. I should like to say

Grain
further that three out of five Liberal members from Saskatchewan have spoken on this resolution.


Mr. Nicholson:: No.


Alfred Claude Ellis: No. You are wrong again. I should like to know the names of the three hon. members. I do not recall the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek speaking on this resolution. I do not recall the hon. member for Qu'Appelle having spoken nor do I recall the hon. member for Meadow Lake having spoken. Who are the Liberal members from Saskatchewan who have spoken, if that is the case?


An hon. Member:: Mr. Tucker.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The only private member who has spoken is the hon. member for Rosthern.


An hon. Member:: That's two.


Alfred Claude Ellis: One of my colleagues says that is two. I do not know whether the fact that the Winnipeg Free Press has referred to the hon. member for Rosthern as having a dual personality, with one voice in the west and another in the east, has influenced the thinking of the Minister of Agriculture to the point where the minister regards the hon. member for Rosthern as two private members in this house, but in any event, if I may continue-


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. gentleman says he would like me to name the hon. members who have spoken. Mr. Tucker spoke on this resolution and I spoke on this resolution. Mr. Mang spoke on the address and I understand expressed himself on it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Oh, no. I hope the Minister of Agriculture does not think he can get away with having made an incorrect statement a few minutes ago by weaseling out of it in this fashion-


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not weaseling out of it. I am making a correction.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The minister made a statement to the effect that certain hon. members had spoken on this resolution. I was speaking about private members and was not referring to the minister-


James Garfield Gardiner: I was talking about the Saskatchewan Liberal members-


Alfred Claude Ellis: You said five. I made the statement that only one had spoken. The fact that one hon. member spoke in the throne speech debate is not pertinent to the statement made a few moments ago. I am talking about the debate on this resolution and not the throne speech debate. The hon. member could have spoken about a great many things.
fMr. Gardiner.]
We are concerned about the attitude of those hon. members in relation to this specific resolution.
The Minister of Agriculture referred to the fact that the meeting at which the Liberal leader in Saskatchewan made this statement was not held in his constituency. I was under the impression that meeting had been held in Langenburg which I understood to be in the constituency of Melville. As I was saying when I was interrupted by the minister, the Liberal leader in Saskatchewan apparently recanted, and we have heard very little from him on this score.
This would lead us to believe that not only did our Liberal members in this house toe the line but that the Liberal party, as it has in the past, still exercises dominant control over the Liberal party in the province of Saskatchewan. When the Liberal leader makes a statement that is found unpalatable to his colleagues in Ottawa he is told to keep quiet and say no more about it. I do not think anyone in the province has summed up the situation more ably than the Liberal leader. It is too bad he could not have stuck to his guns and defied the powers in Ottawa.
One of the chief objections to this legislation is that it locks the door to worth-while legislation. We had this type of legislation in 1951, and it failed to satisfy the needs at that time. We are trying to establish a principle of cash advances. Members of the C.C.F. group have been talking about cash advances for over 10 years. We want that principle definitely established. The idea of treating the farmers in the manner outlined in this resolution is far from satisfactory, and we feel that the withdrawal of this legislation would enable the government to bring in legislation more in keeping with the needs of western agriculture.
I suggest that the legislation is only as good as the excuses offered on its behalf by its apologists. I have been trying to find out the reasons behind the government's insistence on this legislation. We have been told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that delegations from western Canada have asked for it. That is not true. In order to save the Liberal government some embarrassment an individual might have taken a position contrary to the vast majority of the spokemen for western agriculture, but surely the minister cannot insist on complete unanimity. Surely he will accept the wishes of at least 95 per cent of the spokesmen. I would say that as far as the grass roots are concerned it is 100 per cent. If you can find among the vast number of spokesmen representing agricultural groups in the west one or two who, to save the

government some embarrassment might be prepared to support bank loans, that is a far cry from saying there is support for this legislation on the prairies.
We even had the hon. member for Rosthern reading into the record a resolution passed at a Saskatchewan conference, completely twisting the meaning of that resolution beyond recognition in a vague and clumsy effort to prove that black is white or that white is black. When they ask for cash advances, he interprets that to mean bank loans.
Then, of course the more tortuous argument is put forth that the government are out to protect the wheat board, that somehow or other those advocating cash advances are in some way undermining the position of the wheat board. The whole validity, or lack of it, of this argument will depend upon the Liberal record with regard to that board. It seems passing strange that at this time the Liberals should be proclaiming themselves as champions of the wheat board. I suggest that one look at the record.
It is well known, as far as the C.C.F. is concerned, that long before the C.C.F. was formed the forerunners of the C.C.F., the men and women who worked in the farm movements on the prairies and who brought forth the C.C.F., these spokesmen for the farmers and workers throughout Canada were the people who gave the impetus and leadership to the creation of the wheat board. The demand was there.
As far as the Liberals are concerned, the wheat board as we know it came into being in 1935 and was brought in by the Bennett government. At the time that legislation was brought in the Liberal party fought it tooth and nail, and the leading opponent of it at that time was the late Hon. J. L. Ralston, in an eleventh hour effort to weaken, if not destroy, the wheat board. Amendments were brought in which would have the effect of placing the wheat board in operation for one year, to be extended only under certain circumstances, whereas the act brought in the wheat board on a permanent basis.
After the Liberal party had fought a losing battle to prevent the creation of the wheat board, and had used every method in its power to weaken it in order to destroy it later, it had the temerity in western Canada in 1935 to go around the country professing to be the friend of the wheat board. The late Mr. King went out to western Canada and referred to the wheat board as the brain child of the Liberal party, after his colleagues had bitterly opposed it just a few months previously. Western Liberals were elected by paying lip service to the wheat board.
Grain
What is the sorry record? We know the first step, of course, was to dismiss Mr. McFarland and the advisory committee of the wheat board, thus destroying the one vestige of producer representation on the board. I should mention in passing that later on, at a byelection in which the present Minister of Agriculture entered this house as Minister of Agriculture, the C.C.F. opposed him-unsuccessfully, of course. We opposed him because we had every reason to believe that from his record the Minister of Agriculture was opposed to the wheat board in principle, and opposed to the whole question of setting an initial price. He was opposed to the whole idea of orderly marketing. We were afraid that once in office he would join with his colleagues in Ottawa in a systematic effort to sabotage the wheat board, and that is precisely what they did.
My leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, referred to a speech made in this house by the late Mr. Motherwell, who at that time was the member for Melville, in which Mr. Motherwell denounced the Liberal government and denounced his own colleagues for seeking to destroy the wheat board. It appeared quite definite that among the vast number of Liberals who sought election in 1935 and were elected by paying lip service to the wheat board, there was at least one Liberal who stood by his convictions, and that man was the late Mr. Motherwell.
Not only did he indict the government for its attitude toward the wheat board, but he had some caustic comments to make with regard to their government by order in council. I believe he suggested that they might just as well have Mussolini take over the house, when they were governing by order in council. They had an act of parliament set forth certain procedures by which farmers could deliver their grain to the wheat board, and the government of the day-a Liberal government-sought to destroy the wheat board through underhand methods by order in council. We know that during those years of 1936-37 and 1937-38, at the time the order in council was passed to the effect that the wheat board was only to accept delivery of wheat if the price of wheat dropped below 90 cents, farmers were denied the right to deliver their wheat to the wheat board. They delivered their wheat to the elevators at prices ranging between 90 cents and $1.
Later in the same year they saw the price of wheat go up to $1.43. If the wheat board had been in operation, if the farmers had been permitted to deliver their wheat to the wheat board, they would have shared in that price through participation certificates, but the


The Chairman:: Order. I was glad to hear the hon. member say he was not going to pursue this subject. I have just been trying to refresh my memory on the debate, and I do not recall that there was any extended debate with regard to the wheat board on this resolution. I stand subject to correction, but if the hon. member will also refresh his memory I think he will find that the extended remarks with regard to the wheat board took place in the debate on the address, and in this debate we have been keeping more strictly to the subject under consideration.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce introduced the resolution he wandered far afield. He dealt with the question of cash advances. He dealt with the whole question of wheat marketing. I agree that the government does not want to go into the matter too deeply. They just want to get across the insinuation that opposition members are doing something which can hurt the wheat board. They do not go into it too deeply and I do not blame them; but the fact is that this matter has been raised by a number of hon. members.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I had occasion, reluctantly, to interrupt the hon. member for Mackenzie yesterday, and at that time I pointed out that several hon. members had mentioned in this debate the question of exports and similar general matters and that there had been no attempt whatsoever to curtail discussion along those lines. However, I feel that this particular discussion of the pros and cons, if I may call them such, of the wheat board is perhaps not in order on this resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I respectfully submit that the whole basis of this legislation arises from certain words that are right in the resolution, "to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver their grain." It seems to me it is that difficulty in connection with the delivering of grain that made it proper for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture and others to talk about the wheat board and other methods of delivering or disposing of grain. I submit with all respect that Your Honour is being unduly critical of members when you suggest that they cannot also discuss whatever is involved in the inability to deliver grain.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. It was not my intention to limit the discussion in such a manner at all. I see, for instance, that previously in this debate there has been a discussion of the possibility of the wheat board handling these advances, and also certain allied subjects. What I meant to do when I interrupted the hon. member for Regina City was merely to state that in my opinion this prolonged discussion of the history of the wheat board and the pros and cons of the wheat board is not in order under this resolution. A discussion of the wheat board in so far as it affects this resolution is of course in order. It was the somewhat extended and particular remarks of the hon. member which I thought were perhaps not in order.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I must say that my treatment of this subject was occasioned by the fact, as I pointed out, that the whole basis of the argument made by some of the apologists for the resolution was their supposed concern for the wheat board. Therefore I think the validity of this argument will hinge to a very large extent upon the government's handling of the matter throughout the years, because after all the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce are two of the men who were vitally concerned with this matter at the time the wheat board was dealt with in the manner I have just been describing.
However, I will hurry on and dispose of the subject by making one further reference. Notwithstanding the indirect pressure against the wheat board in 1939, on February 16, 1939, the Minister of Agriculture announced a new wheat policy at the time the estimates of the Department of Agriculture were before the house. The pertinent point in the new policy enunciated by the government was as follows:
That the government should remain out of the grain trade and our wheat should be marketed by means of the futures market system.

Certainly under those circumstances it is quite easy to assess the validity of the arguments these hon. members have been making. Under these circumstances you may say, why have we a wheat board today? That is a proper question. It was not because of the Liberal party but in spite of them. It was because of the wave of protest that spread throughout western Canada. The United farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section; the Saskatchewan wheat pool; the Manitoba pool; the Alberta pool, all the farm organizations joined together to protest the onslaught on the wheat board. A petition was circulated throughout my province and I believe there were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 160,000 signatures on it.
At that time the Liberal government were a little more sensitive to public opinion. They had only been in office for about three years. Now they have been in office so long that they just do not care about public opinion and are prepared to ram this thing through regardless of what the people back home think. It indicates the change in the attitude of the government in recent years. At least at that time they were sensitive enough to public opinion that they made up their minds that if you could not beat it you might as well join it. The Liberal protestations of devotion to the wheat board today bear all the earmarks of a shotgun marriage, because nothing in their past has indicated that their concern about the wheat board is their real reason for bringing forward this legislation at the present time.
I have been quite interested, Mr. Chairman, in the attitude taken by other opposition groups with regard to this resolution, particularly the attitude of the Progressive Conservative party. In spite of the critical comments they have made about the measure they have announced through their leader that they intend to support the government. The same applies to the spokesman for the Social Credit group, who announced the support of his group for the legislation introduced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I had hoped that as a result of this discussion we might persuade the other opposition groups to join us in presenting the attitude of western agriculturists toward the resolution now before the house.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is my duty to advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, there is something that seems a little curious to me. When a farmer in the west is hard up and wants to get some cash he does not have to go to a small loan company in this case and pay *'7509-64i
Grain
12 per cent, 24 per cent or a lot more. I was just wondering what these people represented by the hon. member for Assiniboia-the thousands of them who had to borrow money and pay 12 per cent or more-would think if they were able to borrow money from the government at 5 per cent. This is a contest that I should like to see cleared up. These farmers in the west are not all hard up. I know some of them who are not even going to borrow.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: As to what the hon. member for Fort William has said, I see no reason-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


William Alfred Robinson: I understand the hon. member for Kootenay East is rising on a point of order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Or a question of privilege. The opposition, particularly the C.C.F. opposition, have been complaining that members from this side of the house are not speaking. I wonder whether it would not be proper for them to relinquish their place and allow a member from this side of the house to speak.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I think you know as well as I do that this is not a point of order or a point of privilege. You have the right to recognize whomever you like in this chamber, and you are the one who decides the matter.
As to the statement by the hon. member for Fort William, perhaps he did not hear the remarks made by our leader the other day in the house when he pointed out that this government is quite content to lend money to foreigners at 3 per cent but to Canadians at 5 per cent. We do not like that sort, of thing. If we can lend money to United States corporations at a rate of 3 per cent, then if we are going to lend money to Canadians let it at least be at 3 per cent. Apart from that aspect, we in the C.C.F. still do not like the legislation.
What I want to deal with for the next few minutes are some of the illogicalities and absurdities given us by the Minister of Agriculture in the last few days in the course of what he has had to say. The right hon. gentleman is sometimes extremely loquacious, but on these occasions he either spoke far too much or else far too little. As reported at page 861 of Hansard he said:
. . . financing on loans has never been the best way for the farmers of western Canada.
We who come from western Canada know that it is not a good way for farmers to finance. But if that is so, and if my hon. friend knows it is so, why is he supporting

Grain
this legislation the purpose of which is financing farmers by means of loans? My right hon. friend has told the house that he has been through Saskatchewan talking at meetings here and there; but apparently he is not yet convinced that the great majority of the farmers are opposed to this legislation.
I do not know what sort of farm groups he was speaking to. I know that I met with some in Manitoba who were strongly opposed to this legislation. Perhaps the minister never came across those farmers. But he told us- or one member of the government did so- that only 4 per cent of the farmers of western Canada have taken advantage of loans under this scheme. That means that 96 per cent either have not taken advantage of them or have been denied the opportunity to take advantage of them. The minister tells us that financing by loans by western agriculture is bad. If he believes it is as bad as all that, why does he not talk to his colleagues on this matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask the hon. member a question? How many farmers has he in his riding?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I come from an urban constituency; and coming as I do from an urban constituency I know that the welfare of my constituency depends upon the welfare of the farmers, and that what is good for the farmers is good for my constituency and for Canada. Members of parliament from eastern Canada also ought to realize that fact, especially those from industrial areas where farm implements have been sold in the past to western Canada. They know the unemployment which prevails in these industries because the farmers have no cash with which to buy implements. We have to get cash into the hands of the farmers, and this legislation is not designed to do it. The Minister of Agriculture must know it is not designed to do that. Yet despite the fact that he says that the financing of farmers by loans is a bad thing, apparently he still intends in this house to support it.
But let us consider some other things he said. He was at a public meeting in Saskatchewan and at this public meeting he had a discussion with one whom I shall call Mr. X. We do not need to know the name of the individual at all. Mr. X applied for a loan under this scheme. Mr. X could not get it. Mr. X thereupon appealed to the minister, and the minister advised him to apply later when the regulations were adjusted. I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce today to table the regulations. I hope he will still do that. He told us what the regulations were in a couple of brief sentences. I asked him

what adjustments had been made and I was told there were none. But his colleague sitting next to him says that adjustments were made and that after they were made this farmer would probably get a loan. Then, according to the Minister of Agriculture, it was stated at the meeting that the farmer likely would get the loan. Who would be in a position to know if Mr. X got a loan?


James Garfield Gardiner: Would you like to know?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I certainly would; but I do not want a speech, I just want the name.


James Garfield Gardiner: The fact is that in Saskatchewan the provincial government have passed a law that, as to anyone who has not paid his taxes, his name must be posted in the elevator and the elevator operator must deliver the money to the municipality in which the taxes are payable. That is what we were discussing. This man said he could not get the money with which to pay his taxes until he got the loan. I certainly indicated to him that the matter was under consideration at a meeting in Winnipeg, and it was adjusted.


Major James William Coldwell: When was that legislation passed?


James Garfield Gardiner: The regulation about paying taxes?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some time ago. It is maintained by the present government, whether passed originally by them or not.


An hon. Member:: It was passed back in the Liberal days.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just a minute. It was the position taken by the 'attorney general in the present government that arrears of taxes and other charges against the wheat had to be paid before the farmers could get a loan.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be interrupted. The right hon. gentleman can take any one point which is a fact and twist it, turn it and distort it faster than anybody else in this house. Apparently what was said at this meeting was that it was likely this farmer would get a loan. The only two people who actually knew that he would get a loan were either the minister, who has some influence over the bank, or the bank manager himself. The minister could not know what the manager was going to do, surely. Only the bank manager must have known. So the bank manager said this man likely would get a loan after these adjustments were made which the minister indicated were going to be made and which the Minister of Trade and Commerce denies were made.

It is hard to get some sort of semblance of sense out of this whole story. As I said, the Minister of Agriculture has either spoken too much or too little; and I do not want any more interruptions in my speech. After I am finished he can get up on every point of order or question of privilege he can think of and make a speech, but I do not want to be disturbed.


An hon. Member:: Then stop asking
questions.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: As reported at page 861 of Hansard, the minister told us he was given a note saying, "Tell Mr. Gardiner so and so got the first loan". My colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo yesterday said that the operative word there was the word "first". Who knew that Mr. X. got the first loan? Only one person really could have known, and I maintain that was the bank manager.
I have heard the Minister of Agriculture complain bitterly time after time that he has been misquoted, that he has been misrepresented. He has blamed the press for misrepresenting him all over this country. Yet he misquotes himself. He cannot even accurately quote a sentence of his own. He tells us as reported at page 861 of Hansard that the minister was given a note saying, "Tell Mr. Gardiner so and so got the first loan". Then he tells us, as reported at page 984 of Hansard: "Tell Mr. Gardiner he got the loan". That is a vastly different thing from that about which my colleague was complaining yesterday.
Then we find out eventually who sent this note. A banker sent the note to the minister saying that Mr. so and so got the first loan. There is only one inference one can draw from this information. The minister in attempting to save himself can perhaps consign this banker to limbo for all I care, but a banker has no right to divulge in a Liberal meeting or in a Liberal caucus or anywhere else the financial details of the business of his customers and his clients. If this banker did so, as the minister alleges he did, then I think he ought to be disciplined by his own particular head office.
But the minister was not content to stop there. As reported at page 862 of Hansard, he goes into certain fantasies of which only he is capable. He told us that in the town of Lemberg the amount of loans is $44,190, and that in the town of Balcarres the amount is $21,585. Less than half has been lent in Balcarres as compared with Lemberg. Then
Grain
he goes on in his inimitable Liberal, with a capital "L", style to say:
I think if the hon. member for Assiniboia had never gone there it would have been just as high as the others.


James Garfield Gardiner: Hear, hear.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The minister says hear, hear. What is the inference in that? Is the government lending the money or the bank? Is he saying that because the hon. member for Assiniboia went there the banks are going to cut the loans in half? What the minister is arguing is that there is collusion between the banks and the government as to who is or who is not going to get a loan. The minister cannot wriggle away from that. He has told us that if we go into a constituency in Saskatchewan and speak against this pernicious legislation the farmers are not going to get loans because the banks will turn them down. On whose instructions?


James Garfield Gardiner: What I am saying is that the farmers did not ask for loans.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am not
going to be interrupted by the minister. 1 have the floor and I am going down the line so far as he is concerned. If he wants to object afterwards, let him object; I do not care. He has told in these words that wherever opposition members go and speak, the loans are going to be cut down.
He went further on the same page and said:
They-	[DOT]
Being the farmers.
-are going to remember the fact that he-
Being the hon. member for Assiniboia.
-came there, told them certain things, and they did not take the money out of the bank.
Because the hon. member for Assiniboia went there, the farmers did not get loans. Does the Minister of Agriculture think the hon. member is the Minister of Trade and Commerce? The hon. member for Assiniboia has not the power of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, so why does he ascribe to him the power of being able to stop these loans?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has asked me a question. What is the question?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am not
asking the minister a question at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend is asking about me, what is he asking?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am not
asking the minister a question at all. Wait until I get started on him, and then he can rise on points of privilege, points of order or anything else.

Grain
I want to turn again to the very illogical statements of the Minister of Agriculture. He told us the hon. member for Assiniboia stopped the farmers from getting loans. A couple of minutes before that the minister had said:
I have had sufficient experience with the farmers of western Canada to know they do not pass up these things.
Let the minister make up his mind what position he wants to take. Let him not go off in all directions at once and be equally wrong in all directions.
I am coming now to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. After one member of this party had spoken in the house the minister said, as reported at page 789 of Hansard for February 2, 1956:
I now understand that the bill is to be filibustered.
After one speaker from this party-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member for Assiniboia made that statement before he left western Canada, and all the newspapers have made the same statement.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I cannot help what the newspapers have done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Despite this claque over there, the hon. member did not say that. The minister is looking into his crystal ball and it is cracked. Yesterday the minister got up in this house and, in effect, tried to blackjack the opposition into silence. We will not be silenced.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend would be silent on occasion and talk less he would know more.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: There is a tendency in all governments when they have been in power for so many years to become corrupt. There is corruption mentally as well as corruption otherwise. There is a basic mental corruption here when there is the tacit assumption that the minister is there by some divine right of Providence. He is not. If the minister is going to present legislation to this house, he must be prepared to take the consequences of that legislation. Even his own colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, does not like what he is doing.
The minister himself does not like it, either; otherwise why would he threaten to withdraw it because a few C.C.F. speakers had rebuked him and said this measure was not good enough? The minister is afraid of it. He is going to withdraw it because he is afraid; he is hurt; he is piqued. He is going out; now I feel a lot better, having driven the minister out of the house. There are some things I want to say to him and I am sorry he is not

going to stay to hear them. He is going to get them rammed down his throat just the way he would like to ram this legislation down our throats.
Yesterday the minister said, as recorded at page 990 of Hansard for February 8, 1956:
Well, we have been a long time on this debate.
How long was that time; how many days, how many weeks? It amounts to three days, two and a half days to be exact but we will say three days. We are now on the fourth day, and that is 33 per cent more. No wonder the minister feels so badly that he has left the house. I do not blame him. I continue quoting:
I think most members in the C.C.F. party from the prairies have now spoken twice.
His thinking is as faulty as his understanding of this whole subject. It was pointed out to him yesterday that each speaker had spoken once only, but if we all want to speak twice we will speak twice. We will speak as often as we want. If we feel we are representing our constituency by coming down here and fighting the foolishness of this government, we will do it. We know what we are paid to do and what we are expected to do. Then the minister said graciously:
I am willing to delay this matter.
He will delay it as long as we wish. We are going to battle it until we are satisfied we cannot get any more out of the government. Then and only then will we let it go through. The minister continued:
We will have to tell the banks we cannot carry out our undertaking now.
Can this be a surprise to the banks? The Liberal government cannot carry out its undertaking. In 1919 the Liberals promised health insurance, and they have never carried out that undertaking yet. Year after year they make promises, they give undertakings, and they forget about them. Their memories get very hazy. Why should the banks be worried? I am pretty certain that any farmers who can take advantage of this legislation have now taken advantage of it, and not many more farmers are going to get much help from it. Then the minister said:
I am willing to drop it until June . . .
Why does he mention June? We are willing to be here in June, July, August, September, October, November and December. We are paid to be here, so why should we not be here? If the minister wants to bring it up in June, well and good. If he wants to bring it up in December, all the better, because the longer we are here discussing these other matters which the government has given us, the more chance we have to see the mistakes,

the bungling, the errors and the confusion which permeates this whole administration.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say-


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister were here he would ask how many farmers you had in your constituency.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Keep quiet.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: During the question period this afternoon there was some indication that the C.C.F. party raised some objection to the regulations having been based on legislation that had not the authority of this house. I cannot conceive any possible means for the government to have provided cash for the farmers on the western prairies without having used some such method as an order in council. If legislation such as the opposition is requesting had been anticipated, certainly that also would have had to have the legislative authority of this house.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Can parliament not meet in the fall?


Mr. Gauihier (Portneuf):: You are never
satisfied anyway.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Unless the C.C.F. opposition particularly wish to keep cash entirely out of the hands of the farmers they could not have raised a more serious question. We have heard some strong words used in this debate such as phony, pernicious, weasel-ing-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mistakes, bungling, confusion, error-I could give you a lot more.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Perhaps I may be pardoned some indiscretion, Mr. Chairman. I am going to look up the actual meaning of pernicious. I find that it is "destructive, ruinous"-well, it applies to anaemia, too.
Since the debate began we have heard that the average loan to the farmers in the prairie provinces has amounted to $800. I understand that wheat deliveries provide that these loans from the banks shall be repaid in about 6 months. I hear no objection to that; therefore I presume that is a possibility. If so, then 2-J per cent of $800 would amount to approximately $20 in interest. The farmers on the western prairies must be in a much worse condition than I have ever imagined in travelling through the area if $20 is the difference between ruination and prosperity.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: You must have gone through at night.
Grain


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Since I am speaking of the
actual financial position of the western farmer, I do not want the impression to go out that I have no sympathy for him. Certainly I have had close relationships with western farmers, as my father raised wheat for a great many years. On my return to Ottawa this year I stopped off and had a discussion with him. He reminded me of the days when he sold wheat for 18 cents a bushel. Those were tough times. However, he recalled other days when there was no wheat to be sold, and he had to ask for assistance to get seed to put into the ground in the spring. He certainly has seen very difficult conditions.
For that reason I have every sympathy for the farmer. The C.C.F. and the Conservative opposition would seek to create the impression that the Liberal party has no feeling whatsoever for the farm population of this country. Nothing could be further from the truth. To use language corresponding to what we have heard today, it is a downright lie.
I looked over the agricultural estimates and found that the total vote for agriculture this year is $77,716,091. A very large percentage of that amount is to go to the very areas and districts that my hon. friends represent at the present time. We have the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and many other pieces of legislation which are for the benefit of the western farmer.
I have not been a member of the house long enough to know what the arguments were or who established the wheat board; but the fact remains that it has been operating for the last 20 years while the Liberal party has been in power, and it would seem to me they have done less to destroy it than the arguments that my hon. friends are presenting in this debate.
The wheat farmer is not entirely disregarded by the taxpayers generally across Canada. We have to remember that some few years ago, I believe it was in 1950, an appropriation of $65 million was taken from the general revenue of the country and given directly to the wheat farmers.
I come from a riding which is mainly industrial. It is not entirely industrial; there are a large number of farmers in that riding and for that matter some very large wheat farmers. As the representative of that riding in Ottawa I say that I did not go uncriticized by many of my constituents for having agreed without protest to the $65 million subsidy to the wheat farmers. I know we should hear all kinds of arguments to the effect that it was not a subsidy; it was a mishandling by the wheat board or the government through their inability to sell the wheat. The fact remains

Grain
that the wheat was being sold by the board under the agreement which my hon. friends opposite have supported in the past, and I am sure they have given every indication that they intend to support it in the future. They have asked for these things, but we gave in addition the $65 million without objection from members from all other parts of Canada.
This little group that has been isolated in a small part of Canada are putting up the last great stand, and they would have all the rest of Canada believe that we are down on the western farmers. That is the attitude of that little bastion of socialism. I am sure they would like very much to see the Liberals in this house join unanimously to oppose this legislation and oppose the legislation that is to be introduced later on in the session to give an additional $30 million to the farm population in payment of storage charges on their grain.
Let me compare the estimates of this year, and this year only-and of course every year it is much the same, except when such grants as $65 million are made at one time-and see what I find. There is a similarity. As I have said, agriculture is to receive $77 million this year. The appropriation for the Department of Labour is $73 million. This of course includes $35 million which is paid in a lump sum to the unemployment insurance fund. The unemployment insurance fund is financed by the employer, the employee and the government. The labour force in Canada today is something in excess of 5 million people. While I do not know the actual numbers, I would suggest that the heads of families being supported by farm operations number around 300,000. I am hazarding a guess, but I believe that figure is somewhere near the actual number.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Are
you discussing bank loans?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am amazed at the audacity of the hon. member, Mr. Chairman. He has gone back at least 30 years in this debate, and he seeks to project himself into the future, even into the next general election. That seems to be his aim. I am simply pointing these things out for comparison purposes, and not in opposition to the legislation. I know the C.C.F. party is going to oppose it. That party is going to vote against it; I am not.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Are you
going to the Senate?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I have pointed out some of the things the general taxpayer is doing. He feels

it is justifiable in an attempt to level out the gross national product of Canada. It is not objected to seriously. But what one does object to is this continual carping criticism and biting of the hand. That is the experience we have had in this house on this measure that proposes to do something more.
I might point out further that in the general economy of Canada the wheat farmer on the western prairies is also receiving substantial assistance through the maintenance of the Crowsnest freight rates.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: You really are against the farmers, are you not?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member says X am really against the farmers. My humble and honest opinion is that the hon. member and those of his party on that side of the house would see the farmers go down to ruin just as long as they could be returned to this house. They know their party is going to ruin, and they would like to drag the western farmers down with them. I am not saying the Crowsnest freight rates should not be maintained-


An hon. Member:: The railways have not lost any money.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I know I have expressed some impatience, but if you will just have patience I will deal with that. British Columbia particularly has shared the brunt of this-


William Alfred Robinson: I hope that on this resolution we will not embark on a discussion of freight rates.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I think I have seen the debate range far afield so I shall simply confine this portion of my argument to a few brief words-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -and I will say that it costs one-third as much to ship wheat in Canada as it does in the United States. The loss must be made up by other freight rates and in other respects, and British Columbia and other parts of Canada are making that up in paying higher rates because of the inability of the railways to obtain compensating rates under the Crowsnest agreement.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Has he read the agreement under which the Crowsnest rates were set up?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I know all about the Crowsnest agreement.


Major James William Coldwell: If you do-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If you, Mr. Chairman, will permit me, I will-


Major James William Coldwell: Just a minute. Does the hon. member know the Crowsnest rate was granted on account of a large subsidy which was given to the railway at that time?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I know the amount of the subsidy and what they received, and if you wish me to continue debating it I shall be happy to do so.


Major James William Coldwell: You can do so on another occasion when there is an opportunity for such a debate.


William Alfred Robinson: I see that I was probably well advised to indicate to the committee a few minutes ago that we could not embark on a discussion of freight rates under the terms of this resolution.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have not left my subject entirely unstudied, and if the hon. member wishes to debate that question later on I shall be only too pleased to do so.
I simply want to let him know that I have already asked this house to agree to the recommendation of Chief Justice Sloan to have these things adjusted-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: He had better consult his own colleagues.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The opposition seems to-


An hon. Member:: The C.C.F. party, at any rate.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes, we have heard more from the C.C.F. party than from any other party in the house. Some hon. members in that party seem to think the only place that any suffering has ever been experienced in Canada is within the province of Saskatchewan-


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, nonsense.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I know; I have suffered there too.


An hon. Member:: We think of your people, too.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: But it has not all been suffering; they have had some fairly good times. It has been shown by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce that they have had good years, and they are continuing to sell wheat at the same rate they have sold it in the past five years.
I grant that one hon. member said yesterday that one of his constituents wrote and told him he had been unable to deliver any grain since the fall of 1954. At the same time he went on to say it was because he could not deliver to the elevator of his choice. Well, if the constituent is so independent as to insist on the elevator of his choice, then he
Grain
cannot be as badly in need of cash as the hon. member would seek to establish.


Major James William Coldwell: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Is the hon. member a trade unionist?


Mr. Martin:: No.


An hon. Member:: He certainly is.


Major James William Coldwell: Would you do something with which your organization did not agree, if you could help it? That is the position the farmer is in with the pool.


An hon. Member:: You might as well sit down.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, I suppose you could say that is an irrelevant question, but I certainly believe that if the farmer's principles are as strong regarding the question of delivery of wheat to an elevator of his choice as they are regarding this particular question as to whether the loan should be obtained from the bank or whether it should be obtained through the wheat board, then I think he has every justification for remaining away from it. But it has been shown here in the house and in the agriculture committee that this is not a principle over which the farmer would persist to the length of going hungry.


An hon. Member:: They do not want to pay interest on their own money.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I was saying before I was interrupted that the comparative wealth in the prairie provinces and those areas of industrial development might be further referred to in relation to the question of income tax.
The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance told us the other day that during the war years a man earning $3,000 a year in industry was paying $884 income tax. I experienced this myself but I had not entirely remembered it. If we go through the tax records of the western prairies for those years we will find that the income tax paid there was very low. On the other hand, we know that when bonds were issued and the campaigns began, in many of those prairie regions the bonds were sold out before the issue actually opened. But in the industrial areas and in the mines where I worked we campaigned for two or three weeks and finallj had to ask the companies to come along anc finish it off, because we just did not have cash available with which to buy victory bonds.
I want to reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that w< have every sympathy for the western farmers and we intend to put through this legislatior that will be helpful to them. It is my intention, and I am sure it is the intention of th<

Grain
rest of the so-called quiet backbenchers, to vote for an additional $30 million a year to pay farm storage. At the same time I want them to know that although we will have to face criticism, and we are prepared to face it, I do not think that calumny should be heaped upon us by the hon. members sitting opposite.


Mr. Quelch:: I did not intend to speak again, but one or two statements have been made that I think should be corrected. I can assure the minister I am not speaking for the purpose of holding up this legislation, and I am not even suggesting that anybody else is; but a statement was made by the hon. member for Rosthern concerning a statement by myself, which I think should be corrected. I quote from page 628 of Hansard:
The hon. member for Acadia indicated that in his area there were charges against the grain to the extent of in some cases perhaps 60 per cent of the value. If what is advocated by the opposition were done, and if advances were made against that farm-stored grain by the elevator company on behalf of the wheat board, what you would have would be this situation. When the time came to deliver the grain, the charges would have to be paid to the extent of 60 per cent and those loans would have to be paid to the extent of 50 per cent. There would not be enough to pay actually what was owing on the grain, Who would go short? Obviously the person who would go short would be the wheat board. As no statutory priority could be given to the wheat board, before any cheque could be issued to the wheat board all these prior liens would have to be met.
I was not in the house at the time, but the hon. member for Bow River interjected:
The hon. member for Acadia never said there were liens on it.


Mr. Tucker:: I heard what he said.
I must say to the hon. member that if he heard, or if he thought he heard me say "liens", his hearing must have been affected by the gunshot, because I never used that word in my whole speech. Let me quote to him what I did say from page 616 of Hansard:
As I say, a very large percentage of wheat is already pledged. Take the Morrin district, probably one of the best wheat districts to be found in western Canada. It is on the gumbo plains.
1 was told at that meeting that in that district 30 per cent of the wheat on the farm is already pledged.
I went on:
The reason such a large percentage of that wheat has already been pledged is that heavy costs were incurred in the production of the wheat. Farmers were obliged to get bank loans to meet those costs, md they were obliged to charge bills with machine companies, stores and oil companies, and those pills exist at the present time.
I am talking about bills owing at stores.
: am certainly not talking about liens. The ion. member for Rosthern knows the pract-ce in the west as well as I do. He knows

it is the practice during the summer, when the farmer is short of cash, for him to go to the local storekeeper or the local machine man, or to the oil dealer, and point out to the merchant that he has not enough money to pay for his stores or his supplies, and he asks the storekeeper to advance him these goods on credit and promises- here is where the pledge comes in-that when he threshes his crop he will pay that bill. There is no legal document of any kind signed; there is no lien signed; there is nothing transacted legally that compels that farmer to pay that bill when he sells his wheat. It is merely a promise he makes to the storekeeper, and the storekeeper knows from experience that the majority of farmers who make a promise of that kind will honour it.
Therefore, if the farmer received an advance on his wheat, what would he do? As soon as he got an advance he would immediately go around town and to the best of his ability pay the storekeepers the amounts he owed them. If the advance had been made at 50 per cent of the delivery, then half of the advance would be repaid and the other half would be used by the farmer to pay off any further bills he had not been able to pay when he first got the advance.
That is what I meant by the pledge. It is exactly the same as the Minister of Agriculture meant when he said the farmers would get an advance of credit from storekeepers, that in many cases the storekeepers were actually acting as the farmers' bankers. I was not suggesting that the farmer signs any note or legal contract which would have priority on an advance or a loan made by the wheat board or by the government.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer, and that is the statement made by the hon. member for Regina City. He referred to the fact that the members of the Conservative and Social Credit parties were supporting this legislation, and he implied that we were not acting in the interests of the farmers by so voting. Personally I feel that when we vote we are not voting in the interests of the C.C.F. party; we are voting that way because we believe it will be in the interests of the farmers to support this resolution.
If we had the alternative of voting either for this legislation or advances, unquestionably we would vote for advances, but we have not that chance. There is only one piece of legislation before us. We have no assurance whatsoever that if this legislation is turned down other legislation granting advances to farmers will be passed. We have

no reason to believe that, and so we are bound to ask ourselves this question. Would it be in the interests of the farmers today for the government to withdraw the legislation now before us? Would it be in the interests of the farmers for the government or the banks to stop making loans to the farmers? I am satisfied the farmers would not want that done at the present time. True, they would prefer advances, but if they cannot get advances they want loans.
I am not in any doubt about the attitude of the farmers in my constituency toward this question, because that whole matter was threshed out for a number of hours at meetings I attended last fall. At the largest meeting, held at Morrin, a meeting attended by farmers from Drumheller to Stettler and from Three Hills to Hanna, this question of government policy which had been brought to their attention at that time came up for discussion. Most of the farmers spoke quite bitterly against it.
Then the proposition was raised as to whether they should vote against the proposal and take a definite stand that they would not accept it. Much consideration was given to that question. The decision arrived at by those farmers was that they would like advances but if they could not get advances then they wanted bank loans. I was present at that meeting, and I was instructed by the farmers at that meeting to support this legislation if there was no other alternative. As I say, there is no other alternative at the present time.
What has been the attitude of the Alberta wheat pool on this question? At the last annual convention it adopted a 12-point program. In that whole program there was no mention of advances or loans. But during the conference there was mention of this question. The official wheat pool budget has this to say:
Delegates felt that advances on grain, whether interest free or otherwise, were only an emergency measure and would offer no solution to marketing problems. They believe that farmers who find it necessary to borrow should get as favourable interest rates as possible, but they did not ask that the wheat board become involved in the loaning business for fear of jeopardizing its usefulness as a merchandising agency.
They have not much faith in loans or advances as a solution to their problems, but they feel that if loans are made they should be secured at the lowest interest rate possible. That has been our main criticism of the bank loan, namely that the rate of interest is too high and should be 3J per cent. We have felt that instead of the government bringing down a policy under which the farmers can get bank loans, they should have brought down a policy under which advances
Grain
could be made to the farmers who have grain in storage by the government itself without any interest, in other words a prepayment. The government could take ownership of the wheat. It could make an initial payment, and the balance could be paid when the wheat is sold. That is the policy the farmers believe in, but the government refuses to bring down that policy. The farmers say that if they cannot get that they would be glad to get the bank loans.
Many farmers today need help of some kind or another. We in this group make no apology for supporting this legislation. We are sorry we have to support it rather than advances, but the government controls the matter. They refuse to bring down advances, and we are certainly not going to vote against the farmers receiving this small help.
I received two petitions yesterday sent by farmers in my constituency. One is from the farmers' union and contains this clause:
That while the present restricted delivery situation exists, provision be made for cash advances against grain stored on the farm, such advances to be equal to 50 per cent of the initial payment on an 8 bushel quota, and to be issued through the elevator system at not over 31 per cent interest.
There they are talking about interest being charged at 3J per cent. I say the government should reconsider the rate of interest and make it 3J per cent instead of 5 per cent. Notice that they are talking about loans. I was surprised that they would do so in a petition, but that is the petition I received yesterday. Therefore we in this group would be in a very funny position if, when the government has told us, as they have told us, that they are not prepared to support advances but are at least prepared to let the farmers have loans, we should say that we were not going to allow the farmers to have loans That is why we will vote for the legislation


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, there has beer some discussion here about who has spoken or the resolution and who has not, and that sori of thing, but I want it to be clear that I arr speaking on the resolution because I believt the people whom I represent in p'arliamen' would wish me to do so. My genial frienc from Westmorland dragged me into tin debate yesterday by referring to me in th( early part of his speech. I could not dis cover what his object was. He complainec because I had said that I thought our Libera friends from Saskatchewan might get up an< say what the farmers in their part of thi country think about this matter, and he tool me to task for that. I presume he thought i was too much to expect of any member o the Liberal party.


Mr. Sluder:: It will not be a socialist speech You only represent the socialist farmers.

Grain


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Of course when I hear remarks from the barn I like them to come out the front door.


Irvin William Studer: Come out from behind your socialist shell and learn something.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I was going to say that perhaps the hon. member for Westmorland should stick to marsh hay. It is a bit salty-


Irvin William Studer: I think you should stick to chickens.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -but it might be more palatable to him on that account. This, I think, has been a strange comedy of errors on the part of the government during the last week. After all, I have been here since 1945 and although I have seen isolated instances I have never in any week seen such a complete display of weakening, irresolution and indecision on the part of the government. I say that in complete sincerity, because I believe it.
I do not want to say too much about this matter today. The arguments have been pretty well covered, but I think there are two or three things that should be said by way of rebuttal to what has been said by some hon. members. I listened to the hon. member for Kootenay East. I realize that he is a labour man, and probably a good one.
I say more power to him for that, but I assure him the attitude he has taken is not the attitude of labour generally across the country. That applies not only to the smaller unions in the west but to the larger unions in other parts of the country.
I am not going to take the trouble to put on record a letter I have here from the president of the Saskatoon and district labour council, but it is in full sympathy with the desires of the farmers in this regard. I may say to the hon. member for Kootenay East that the labour organizations were represented by their leaders at the Saskatoon conference which passed the resolutions about which he knows.
I am not going to enumerate the errors in this comedy of errors. One was made this morning by the Minister of Agriculture, when he pulled his latest boner without respect of sven commas or periods. He stated that three Liberal members who represent farmers in the province of Saskatchewan had spoken in this debate, but only the hon. member for Rosthern spoke.


Irvin William Studer: You just represent the socialist part.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek is noted for nothing in

this house but rude interjections and interruptions. Let him get up and make a speech. He knows what would happen to him at the next election if he did.


An hon. Member:: He would make his own speech.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Let me come back to the Minister of Agriculture and deal with the climax of this comedy of errors which occurred the other day when my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, moved that we should leave this silly piece of legislation and go on with something that was important for the farmers of western Canada. There were only 36 Liberals here, including western members. That is all who were interested in getting on with this legislation that is supposed to do some good. The Minister of Agriculture was proven wrong this morning, for only one private Liberal member has spoken on this particular legislation, the hon. member for Rosthern. If the minister was here the other day, and I do not know whether or not he was-


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes, I was here.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -and if he had looked around when the vote was taken he would have found that the only Liberal member present from the province of Saskatchewan was the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.


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


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Here we were discussing a subject that is on every tongue in western Canada-


James Garfield Gardiner: In spite of the fact that I am a member of the government I am still a Liberal member from Saskatchewan.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -and the only private Liberal member here was the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I do not propose to rise to my feet any more often than I have to, but I must request that members take their seats when I do rise. If the Minister of Agriculture has a question of privilege to raise, which frankly I cannot see at the moment, we of course will hear it, but if not the hon. member for Saskatoon will continue.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman-


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, the hon. member stated that I made a mistake this morning. In the first place, the house was not sitting this morning so he made a mistake this afternoon. Then he goes on to say that I referred to three Liberal members from Saskatchewan as having

Grain
spoken, and he says that is not correct. Then he proceeds to try to argue that there was only one.
All I want to say is that is not a correct representation of the position. I am a member from Saskatchewan. Two members from Saskatchewan have spoken in this debate, and I corrected the statement there were three later on the suggestion of the hon. member for Regina City.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that was a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Donald MacInnis: Keep quiet. I have kept quiet for you. That is not a question of privilege while the house is in committee. If the Minister of Agriculture or any other member-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald MacInnis: -wants to make a statement or a speech such as the minister just made-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald MacInnis: -he is entitled to make it, but he is not entitled on a question of privilege to interfere with another speaker. I think, Mr. Chairman, that phony questions of privilege should be discouraged.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not have the rules before me at the moment, but I have been working under them for a long time. My understanding of the matter is that if one wants to raise a question of privilege he has to raise it at the time the mistake is made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it has to be a real question of privilege.


James Garfield Gardiner: When the hon. gentleman gets up and refers to a statement I made as being wrong, if I do not raise the question then I have not much opportunity to raise it at any other time. There is a question of privilege when a member makes a wrong statement about another member.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Perhaps for the edification of the committee, though I doubt whether they will remember it very long, I might point out that the Minister of Agriculture is perfectly right in saying that he should raise a question of privilege the moment it arises. I should also point out that a question of fact, a debatable point, is not a question of privilege. It is a matter of personal explanation which, even with Mr. Speaker in the chair, it is usual to allow the member to correct at the conclusion of the speech of the member who has the floor.
I think it also fair to point out, and hon. members know this of course as well as I do, that when a matter of fact which particularly affects the statements or actions of one member is contested on the floor it is quite the usual thing for the member who has the floor to yield for a moment in order to allow the correction to be made, but he does not have to do so. That procedure can, I think, be described as a courtesy which members usually afford to one another, rather than a rule which the Chair can enforce.
Having disposed of the question of privilege-which was hardly a question of privilege-perhaps the hon. member for Saskatoon will continue.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman, in so far as I have shown any discourtesy to the Chair or, in fact, to anyone else, I apologize. I was perhaps speaking in the heat of debate. I must say I did not notice that you, Mr. Chairman, were on your feet.
I think I had made the point sufficiently clear that when that particular vote was called the other day, there was in the house only one private Liberal member representing the people of Saskatchewan. If any Liberal member wishes to get to his feet and deny that statement he will have the opportunity to do so.
I had said that the Minister of Agriculture erred this morning. That word "morning" was a slip of the tongue. I have heard the minister himself make one or two of those slips. As to his knowledge of what is or is not a question of privilege, may I say this. I think he has been in the House of Commons about 30 years, and if he does not know-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Only 20 years. It may seem like 30 years but it is only 20.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Twenty-one years.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: In any event, he was in another important legislative body prior to that.
To get back to the topic under discussion, I also want to say a word or two about what my friend the hon. member for Kootenay East said about the $65 million grant. I take it that he looks upon it as a matter of charity to the western farmers. I want to point out to him that this grant of $65 million was given to the farmers of western Canada for the reason that all during the war they had subsidized the price of bread to the consumer in Canada. That grant was an adjustment. It was not a complete adjustment, but it was at least a partial adjustment for their sacrifices during those days.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Will the hon. member permit a question?

Grain


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: No, not at the moment. I have had enough of them. There is another statement I want to find fault with in what he said. He stated that as this measure was for the benefit of the farmers, for that reason we ought to be prepared to support it. I am not prepared to admit that it is a measure for the benefit of the farmers at all. I say it is a measure for the benefit of the banks, or better still a measure for the guarantee of the banks.
I think this measure should be opposed. I think probably our group are not going to have any more members speak

although I do not know-on this measure in its first stage. It is true that this legislation is not vicious but it is harmful in this respect, that it is taking the place-and probably permanently-of some measure which might have been more useful. I think such a measure would have been one to provide advance payments through the wheat board.
There are one or two other matters I should like to clear up. I was talking about odd statements. I note that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has returned to the chamber. I am afraid we shall have to list him as one of those who were in error last evening. The minister made some remarkable statements. I am quoting directly from Hansard at page 990 where he says:
I think most members in the C.C.F. party from the prairies have now spoken twice.
As a matter of fact I had not spoken at all. No member of this party had spoken more than once on this particular resolution. Again the minister said:
We have had the same speeches made twice now, I think, by all the members from the prairies.
Again the minister was wrong. Even the minister can be wrong. He said further:
I now see-
And he looked at the hon. member for Regina City.
-a member getting up to speak for the third time.
Again the minister was wrong. Then he said:
. . . we are now down to the point of obstruction.
In my experience in this chamber, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that ever before has a debate lasting a couple of days been described as obstruction.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How many days?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: 
Mr. Blackmore:: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I will just finish my sentence.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member put in my mouth a word I did not use. I said, "approving of it".


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Let me read it again.


John Horne Blackmore: Get it out of Hansard.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: We will get it out of Hansard. Let me read the words again, Mr. Chairman. I am quoting from the hon. member for Lethbridge at page 983, at the bottom of column 1. This is what he said:
Let no one suppose that in supporting this measure we are in any way whatsoever-
And since there has been talk of operative words, let me suggest that the operative word here is "whatsoever".


John Horne Blackmore: Continue with the quotation.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The quotation is this:
Let no one suppose that in supporting this measure we are in any way whatsoever approving of it.


John Horne Blackmore: All right; that is what I said. There is a great difference.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Again I must apologize. I shall soon be in the class of the Minister of Agriculture.
My suggestion was simply this. We are opposing the thing and we are going to fight against it, as is our privilege. I know quite well we are not likely to win.
I just wish to say another word or two and then I am finished. I want to mention the treatment this matter has received from the hon. member for Rosthern. The hon. member mentioned two main points with which I take issue. In the first place, he made the statement that this legislation is in fact what the farmers requested. After all that has been put on Hansard in the last few days I do not think I need to say much about that. I have the resolutions here. I attended the Saskatoon conference for three full days; except for my meals I was never out of the room. I know what went on there. I know not only the letter of what happened at that Saskatoon conference, but I know the spirit. I know what the people meant. I know them personally. I know what they were thinking. There is not much good going into that. If
anyone wants me to do so, I can read resolutions here by the dozen. They mention advance payments, and advance payments through the wheat board. They do not mention advance loans guaranteed by the banks or by the government.
You know, the hon. member for Rosthern is not the only one who has adopted that argument. It has been adopted by the Liberals in Saskatchewan who are trying to cover up the pussy-footing on this particular legislation. One of them, the leader, stated this very thing that the hon. member for Rosthern stated. He stated that the wheat pools were backing this loan business guaranteed by the banks. He was publicly rebuked, I take it, by the wheat pools themselves. I will just quote one line or two:
The policy of the Saskatchewan wheat pools-
They tell Mr. McDonald.
-as approved by its delegates in annual meetings is clear-cut. It does not favour the government's proposal for bank loans.
There it is. There is not much use talking about it any further. If the hon. member for Rosthern talked until he was blue in the face, it would not make any difference.
The next thing he tried to argue is that this particular legislation satisfies the demands made at the Saskatoon conference. Well, I have already said a word or two in regard to that, and I do not think I shall repeat it. I believe that is largely the story, and I just wanted to reiterate what I had said the other day about it. I cannot see how anyone can strenuously oppose this legislation and then vote for it. If I could paraphrase what the hon. member for Lethbridge has said again, that this business of support is in no way whatever to be taken as approving; well, I say again that is a problem in semantics. Does a vote in favour of the legislation not in some way or other approve of it? I leave that question to my hon. friends to the left and I also address it to my hon. friends to the right. I challenge them to say if they can continuously get up and condemn this legislation and then support it by a vote.
I should like to say a word about the statement made by the hon. member for Acadia. The hon. member would defend the action his party members are about to take because he says that this is better than nothing. I believe the hon. member for Lethbridge used somewhat the same expression, that half a loaf was better than no bread.


John Horne Blackmore: No, a morsel of a slice, not half a loaf; be sure you get these things right.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I say that I was paraphrasing what the hon. member said.

Crain


John Horne Blackmore: Then get my words right; they are good words.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: If the hon. member insists I will take the extra time to read it again.


John Horne Blackmore: Go ahead and read it, but do not state what is not true.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The point is this. Our claim is that in most cases the people who are going to get these bank loans and have them guaranteed by the government are the people who would have obtained loans in any case. We feel that most of those loans that are going to be taken out have already been granted. We do not believe this will be permanent legislation on the statute books, and we think, that being the case, that to put it on the books now would stand in the way of better legislation, legislation which the farmers want, namely a system of advance payments on stored grain and not loans.


Mr. Leboe:: I only rise to ask a question arising out of the minister's statement concerning section 88 of the Bank Act. Do I understand from the minister that the banks can take section 88 security on wheat on the farms, and then under this legislation the farmer can borrow again from the same bank on that wheat? That is the question I would really like to have answered because it seems to me if they have it once they cannot get it twice.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It depends on whether in this transaction section 88 covers a sufficiently large stock of the grain to make some room for a second loan. The section 88 security on the old loan may not require the full quantity of wheat, and if there is a surplus it is quite possible to get a loan on that surplus wheat even though section 88 applies against it, provided the section 88 coverage is held by the same bank.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, would that include livestock as well as the first security that is taken in section 88 or is it just the wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is just wheat.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister, is there to be any limitation on the use a farmer may make of the funds he receives from the loan?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, sir, it is his money. The understanding is he will receive the money from the bank and do what he likes with it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There will be no strings attached to the use he may make of it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.
(Mr. Knight.)


Mr. Drew:: I am not going to make any remark except to indicate the position our party takes and why it has taken it. Since reference has been made by an hon. member of the C.C.F. party who just spoke a few minutes ago about the position of our party in this matter, I think I should make it quite clear.
We indicated at the outset that we did not believe this legislation is legislation which will meet the very urgent situation with which the farmers are confronted. We have put forward arguments which we hoped would still, at this stage, convince the government that they should adopt a system of cash payments on farm-stored grain with payments on the quota book. We have emphasized that position and we repeat it now. Nevertheless, following well established traditions, we say we will vote for a measure which certainly does not carry out what we would like to see carried out, but which at least does offer some assistance.
We still urge the government, independently of this legislation, to adopt the proposal we have made for cash payments on farm-stored grain. We have made it clear that this is a straight cash payment on the quota book, just as though the grain were delivered. We have made it clear that this is a payment without interest, because it is cash being given to the farmer for his grain, which is only being held up because it cannot be taken by the elevators.
This measure is separate and independent of that proposal. By supporting this legislation, inadequate though it may be, unsatisfactory in many respects though it may be, there will be placed on the statute books a provision under which farmers can obtain some money, if they see fit to do it in this way.
The fact that we are prepared to vote for this measure in principle, although we do not agree with the details, follows the perfectly proper and usual course. We wish to make it quite clear that we are continuing to place our urgent request before the government that they recognize the need for something quite separate from this, something much more flexible, and something which will make cash readily available to the farmers by payments in cash on their quota books for farm-stored grain.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to ask a supplementary question of the minister. In answer to the hon. member for Eglinton the minister said that the money borrowed would be free from any condition of any kind. Does that mean it would not be competent for the bank and the borrower to enter into any arrangement they might see fit between them specifying the use of the money?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, we are talking about money that is borrowed under government guarantee. Much more money has been borrowed without the government guarantee than with it. I think the total loans granted on the prairies outside the government guarantee are about $70 million, and under the guarantee about $7 million. These guaranteed loans are intended to make provision for the man who has not established a credit at the bank, and whose resources are not such as to warrant the bank in giving him a loan without some endorsement. There are about 8,000 farmers who have borrowed under the guaranteed provisions as at the end of December, and they have borrowed about $7 million. These farmers are entitled to the money, to obtain the cash, and we presume they use it for a useful purpose; but the banks have no instructions from the government that the money is to be applied in any particular way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What limit, if any, is the bill going to put upon the amount available?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The amount is $1,500 per individual loan, and a total of $50 million.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say one word, since the position of the other two parties on this side of the house has been placed before you. We intend to vote against this measure, not because we wish to deny to the farmers of the west any small amount that they may get under this legislation. I recommend this consideration to my hon. friends of the other two parties in the house because, if this house votes in favour of the legislation, it will have placed its approval on all that the government intends to do. That is the reason we are voting against it. We are not going to vote for a measure which is inadequate, insufficient, and which means that the government proposes to do nothing more in this important matter than this particular resolution indicates.
We are making our protest in the only way in which members of parliament can make their protest. We are making a protest by our vote.
I should like to say one further word. My colleagues have endeavoured to discuss this measure, not with an idea of obstruction. May I say to my hon. friends on the opposite side of the house that the government makes its decisions. We are sent here to discuss the decisions of the government when those decisions are placed before us from time to time. We have no control over preparing anything to bring into this house. All we can do when it gets here is to express our opinions regarding the legislation before us
Grain
without any thought of obstruction. Indeed, if the government considers that any group in this house is obstructing the progress of legislation in this house, then, under the rules of the house, it has the means to stop it. It can move closure. Therefore, when a minister rises in his place and says, "If you do not agree to this by six o'clock this afternoon, we are going to withdraw the legislation", that surely is not the way in which this house should be treated.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say that.


Major James William Coldwell: I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, no matter whether he or I may think that a debate has been exhausted by six o'clock, it is up to hon. members to decide whether they want to continue to discuss the measure before the house. Consequently, I say that the government always has in its hands the power to stop what it considers to be obstructionist tactics by moving closure. That power is in the rules of the house. We were not obstructing the legislation.


Mr. Follwell:: Has the minister had any representations from the western wheat growers indicating they would prefer to market their own wheat rather than through the wheat board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, there are all sorts of opinions amongst the wheat growers, and I have heard that opinion expressed by certain wheat growers; but I am perfectly certain that the great preponderance of feeling in western Canada among the producers particularly is, that they desire to continue to market their wheat through the Canadian wheat board.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Motion (Mr. Howe, Port Arthur) agreed to: Yeas, 130; nays, 18.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Howe (Pori Arlhur) thereupon moved for leave to introduce 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.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
1018	HOUSE OF
Wheat



PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF CARRYING COSTS OF TEMPORARY EXCESS RESERVES

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February S, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) - Mr. Applewhaite in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure for the payment of carrying costs of temporary wheat reserves owned by the Canadian wheat board in respect of board stocks of wheat in excess of one hundred and seventy-eight million bushels at the commencement of a crop year, such payment to be made to the board by the Minister of Finance out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I recognize the hon. member for Dauphin.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Hon. members of this group approve of the resolution and for that reason it will not be necessary to spend too much time in discussion so far as we are concerned.
As a matter of fact, we showed our approval of the resolution rather more dramatically a few days ago when a motion of the leader of this group was instrumental in bringing this resolution before the committee ahead of the one upon which we have just had a decision; however, it was not the desire of the government to have it otherwise and we had to wait until this moment.
The decision of the government, which will I think meet with unanimous approval, to provide a part of the storage costs on the carry-over of grain, that part which is considered to be over the normal carry-over, is something which will be welcomed by grain growers across the prairies. It is expressing a reply to the demands made by the various farm organizations and by various hon. members of this house in previous times.
I can recall that in many previous debates hon. members of this group have strongly advocated action in this direction, and I particularly recall the hon. member for Moose Mountain doing so in one of his speeches as far back as 1946.
And while we approve of the immediate abjective of this resolution, which we feel will be of some help at this time, I should [ike to say that there is a need for some long-:erm planning on this whole question of =rain carry-over. I do not feel that this is i one-time proposition; I feel that we are loing to be faced with grain carry-overs for nany years to come.
Various hon. members, including the Minis-;er of Agriculture, have stated in this house hat it is a good thing on any farm to have i carry-over of grain from one year to an-)ther because it indicates a form of stability 

and an insurance against crop failure. I tend to agree with the minister that it is good to have stocks of grain on any farm, and if this is true of the individual farm then it is certainly true of the nation as a whole.
We are a trading nation; we are a big exporter of grain. Many of the traditional customers of Canada for grain will be looking to Canada for many years to come for a steady and reliable supply of the various grains they require. Therefore it is a good thing for Canada to have available in stock a reasonable volume of grain for quick shipment whenever and wherever it is required. However, if the nation as a whole is going to carry stocks of grain, then I think this resolution in itself is an admission of the fact that it should not be carried at the expense of the grain producer.
Even after this proposed legislation is put into effect the farmers will, of course, still be carrying a large part of the cost of storing grain in the elevators and all the cost so far as storing it on their farms is concerned. But this is a step in the right direction in that it introduces a new principle. It introduces an admission by this parliament that at least part of the responsibility should be borne by the national treasury. I believe there is a need for some long-term planning in that direction.
We have heard a great deal about the various ways of financing agriculture, particularly grain. I believe that much of the discussion we have had in the last few days could have been avoided if more careful planning had been entered into some years ago. I believe the best form of cash for grain in the farmer's hands is that form whereby the wheat board is able to accept delivery of grain and pay the farmer his money and take full possession and responsibility for that grain. That is the ideal situation.
When we get to the point where we will not have restricted quotas) when we achieve a situation wherein there is no congestion of box car and elevator space and we are still able to produce and move large volumes of grain in this country, then we can say we have reached a stage of orderly marketing. Until we have planning which will result in such a situation, we can hardly say that we have reached a stage of orderly marketing in the full sense of the word.
I am not going into any detail at this time because the consensus of the committee is that we want to carry this as quickly as possible, but I do want to express the hope that this government or any future government will take into consideration plans under which the wheat board itself may have at its

disposal greater storage facilities; not necessarily terminal facilities only, although those are important, but there could also be off-terminal facilities apart altogether from the country elevator system.
I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce and any hon. member from the western provinces will agree with me when I say that country elevators were never intended to be a place to store grain. Primarily elevators were places where grain could be handled and delivered and where cars could be loaded, in order to get the grain moving as quickly as possible. It was for this reason they were designed. But in the last ten years or so they have been attempting to perform a double function. While trying to handle the grain as expeditiously as possible the elevators have also been faced with the responsibility of storing grain. We have seen annexes built to the various grain elevators all across the prairies and we have seen what the results have been. There has been deterioration of grain and congestion due to the storage of grain in the elevators which has created a bottleneck in the system of orderly marketing.
I therefore hope that at some time the government will give some consideration to longterm planning in order to provide well constructed storage facilities so that grain can be kept for a considerable length of time without deterioration, so that we shall have an ample supply of grain in storage, storage for which would become the responsibility of the nation so that as a nation we will be in a position at all times to serve our customers quickly and expeditiously when orders arrive. In this way the bottlenecks and congestion which have bedevilled the whole system of orderly marketing in the last ten-year period will be removed.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the occasions when we can all be in agreement, in so far as the principle of this resolution is concerned. It has been supported by this party for a very considerable time and, indeed, a very strong campaign was raised in behalf of a measure such as is contemplated in this resolution by the farmers' union in ,the prairie provinces. The achievement of this resolution represents the carrying into effect by the government of the desires of all the farming community that to a great extent produces wheat.
One of the situations consequent on the tremendous amount of wheat in storage in this country in recent years has been the fact that the return to the farmer is reduced by approximately $144,000 a day, which represents the storage charges paid to the elevator and storage companies on the amount
Wheat
now in storage in the elevators. Indeed, the storage and elevator companies are securing returns today far greater than was the case before the wheat board was established. The figure of $144,000 a day is a tremendous one, and farmers generally have felt, having regard to the fact that the government has assumed the responsibility for marketing their wheat, they should not be required to pay the storage over and above a normal amount of carry-over.
Whilst we support this resolution, I wish to point out one thing. It does not, however, while meeting the long-term needs of the farmer, do what is so necessary today, namely, immediately place cash in the pockets of the farmer. When one considers the immense increase in wheat production in recent years in the world, one begins to wonder how this problem will be finally met. The average wheat production among the wheat producing countries of the world, up till 1951 from the end of the war, was about six billion bushels a year. That amount was increased during the three succeeding years to about seven billion bushels.
With the new economic offensive of the U.S.S.R., which in part comprehends the adding of many tens of millions of acres to the production of wheat, one begins to wonder how this problem will be met in the years ahead. For certainly, if the U.S.S.R. carries into effect in the next five years its threatened policy to increase production of wheat and field crops by some 75 million acres, the surpluses that will be piled up in the U.S.S.R. and those countries that are joined with the U.S.S.R. under the Warsaw pact will bring about even more serious problems in respect to surpluses in the years ahead.
However, as far as this resolution is concerned, it is a step in the right direction. It is generally approved by all farm organizations. It represents an attempt on the part of the government to meet a problem which has become increasingly more serious year by year as the extent of the surplus of wheat has increased. Knowing that it is desired, representing as it does the implementation of the view that we on this side of the house have expressed on many occasions, we are going to support the resolution.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, we in this group support the general principle of the resolution. On the other hand, we believe that the storage and disposal of surpluses can be dealt with satisfactorily only on an international basis. Unfortunately, in the past, nations have refused to co-operate to the degree necessary to make this possible, and attempts that have been made by the food and agriculture

Wheat
organization to set up a world food board and an international commodity clearing house were blocked by the member nations of that organization. So internationally we have failed to deal with the question of surpluses, and today we find surpluses are still on the doorsteps of the nations that produce them.
One cannot help wondering what has happened to the ideals we heard so much about in the early post-war days. It was said that we should abolish want and poverty from the world and that never again should we agree to a policy of reducing and destroying production in the face of want. There is no question that farmers have made an excellent job of meeting the challenge of production. They have expanded their production to a point where there is today a very substantial reserve of wheat. However, at the same time, while those large reserves of food exist, 50 per cent of the population of the world is still hungry. One may well ask what is being done at the present time to get these large surpluses of food to the people who need them so badly. Internationally, as I say, we have done very little. What has been accomplished in that direction may be called a drop in the bucket. Today the United States is reducing its production and taking steps to bring about a reduction in wheat acreage. In Canada we are depending very largely upon crop failure to solve this problem. By that I mean this. To a very large extent the government is depending upon the normal channels of trade to sell the wheat. Therefore they would be able to sell only what is equivalent to a normal crop which, of course, will not reduce the surplus we have on hand. Therefore I say the success of the government's policy in reducing these surpluses will to a very large extent depend upon short crops or actual crop failure.
Of course, on the other hand, a change in trade policy would bring about a very substantial expansion of markets. I could not help noticing what the press reported Sir Anthony Eden as having said when he was in Ottawa a few days ago. I quote the report in the Ottawa Journal of February 7, 1956, headed, "Canada Must Buy More From U.K." It states:
At a time when Canada is anxious to sell more goods, especially surpluses of wheat and other foods, Sir Anthony gave a plain warning that this country must expect to buy more as well as sell more in the British market.
Further on Sir Anthony is reported as saying:
"Canada last year exported to Britain about twice as much as we sent you. We want trade to keep on growing but it is most important this unbalance is rectified." iMr. Quelch.]
I would especially draw that to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce because in the past, when I have time and again insisted upon the need to try to bring about a balance of trade between Canada and Great Britain, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said, "That is nonsense. We cannot balance trade unilaterally; it has to be done on a multilateral basis". Here is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom telling Canada in no uncertain way that if we want to sell more to Britain we have to be prepared to buy more from that country. We have suggested that as a sign of good faith we could very well accept sterling from Britain under the definite understanding that that sterling would be' used for the purchase of British goods. The minister has stated in the past that if we accept sterling under the understanding it will be spent in Britain there is no difference between that and accepting dollars. Let me point out there is all the difference in the world. When you accept sterling under the definite pledge that that sterling will be used to buy British goods it assures Britain a market for her goods. When you insist upon payment in dollars and then use those dollars to try to offset the imbalance in trade with the United States you are not expanding the sale of goods from Britain and you are not helping them in any way to balance their trade.
I think there is a mutual obligation between countries to do everything they can to bring about a greater balance of trade. Therefore I am suggesting that instead of depending so much upon short crops or crop failures to bring about a reduction of our surpluses we should take steps to try to bring about a better balance between the dollar area and the sterling area. In that way and that way alone can we hope to expand our sales to the sterling area.
I was very interested to note a press comment to the effect that the Minister of Agriculture was going to try very hard to sell more agricultural products to Britain. I hope he succeeds, but certainly in view of the statement made by the prime minister of England it does look as though he considers it is an obligation on the part of Canada to find ways and means first of all to expand Canada's imports from Great Britain, and until we are prepared to do that there seems to be little likelihood of our expanding our sales to Great Britain.
Therefore until we find ways and means of expanding our exports of farm products it looks as though further heavy crops will continue to expand our surpluses. Normal crops will in all probability leave the surpluses as they are. Crop failures alone will reduce

Wheat
the surpluses. I am wondering whether the government is justified in believing that short crops will come about and reduce the surpluses. I believe that in the future crops in Canada will in all probability stay above the long-term average.
Let me briefly refer to the history of farm production for the past 40 years or so. It will be recalled that some 30 or 40 years ago most of our agricultural cultivation was done by the horse and the plough. It used to be the common practice to start breaking the prairie in early June and then later to start summer fallowing, probably in the latter part of June or in July. By that time the weeds would have grown fairly high and the soil would have started to dry out. In many cases the weeds would have gone to seed. In that situation the only likelihood of getting a good crop was in the event of excessive rainfall the following year. If you had a normal crop year you would get a poor crop. If you had a dry year you would have a complete crop failure.
That was the situation we were faced with in those years. But since then the majority of farmers have bought tractors. The farms are now highly mechanized, so we find the majority of farmers are able to get over all their land by machine in the first week of June. Using the tiller, the cultivator, the rod weeder and the one-way discer, they are now able to cover 20 feet in a swath instead of the old practice of 3 or 4 feet with a plow. As I say, as a result of that practice they are able today to cultivate all their land by the end of the first week in June, and land cultivated in that way and kept under proper cultivation throughout the year has an excellent chance of raising a good crop in just a normal year, of raising an excellent crop if you have a good crop year, and of raising a fair crop even in the event of a very dry year.
In my part of the country even when we have a very dry year we expect to get around 15 bushels to the acre and yet in the past, in the days when we had to use the horse and plow, we were very lucky indeed in a dry year to get our seed back. Now we use combines and they are a great improvement in harvesting methods. A combine leaves a trash cover on top of the soil which helps to prevent soil drifting so there is not nearly the danger of having a crop blown out by wind that there was in the days when we used threshing machines.
Some members will say that a combine makes the land weedy, but we now have sprayers which make it possible for farmers to spray the crops while they are growing even though the land does become infested with weeds. By the use of the sprayer the
weeds can be destroyed while the crop is growing and weeds now are nothing like the menace they used to be in the old days.
Then there is a tremendous improvement in the varieties of wheat. We can greatly reduce the hazard from frost by using the early varieties that have been introduced^ We can greatly reduce the hazard of rust by using rust resistant varieties. We can greatly reduce the damage by sawfly by using varieties that are resistant to sawfly.
Some members will say: Yes, but you have forgotten the fact that the soil is becoming depleted and is not nearly as fertile as it used to be. Of course there is widespread use of fertilizers in the west so even though the land is becoming less productive that can be taken care of by the use of fertilizer. I know that some members may say: Well, if all you say is true the farmer should be able to produce wheat much more cheaply today than in the past, but every single thing I have mentioned means a cost to the farmer. Mechanization has been a heavy cost. The use of fertilizer is a heavy cost. The price of ,a combine is a heavy cost. Therefore, while it is true that the farmers have been able to reduce the danger of crop failure to a very large extent, the measures they have had to adopt have been costly measures and do not permit them to produce wheat at a lesser cost.
So I would say that if the government is going to depend upon short crops or crop failures to reduce the surplus of wheat they may very well be disappointed unless, of course, the crop failures are on a worldwide scale. One thing, however, is very certain. The farmers themselves will do everything in their power to prevent a crop failure. They want a federal farm policy that will encourage efficiency rather than having to depend upon short crops to remove the surpluses.
I was very glad that the Minister of Trade and Commerce emphasized the importance of building up a substantial reserve of wheat and, furthermore, has acknowledged the responsibility of the nation to pay part of the carrying costs of that surplus. The need of a reserve is obvious when 50 per cent of the population of the world are hungry, but the surplus is due not only to heavy crops but to the failure to make wheat available to nations unable to procure their supplies through the normal channels of trade. Instead of depending upon crop failures to remove the surplus, we believe that we should bend our energies towards ways and means by which these surpluses may be made available to nations that are not able to obtain the food they desire through the normal channels of trade.

Wheat
The farm organizations have made a number of requests to the government regarding payment of storage and carrying charges. I think the majority of the farm organizations have asked the government to pay the storage and carrying charges on all wheat in storage in the elevators at the end of the crop year. This resolution does not go as far as that. It leaves the responsibility for 178 million bushels with the farmers, and the minister assumes that the cost of the carrying charges will not go much beyond $32 million owing to lack of storage facilities, he says. If, however, the crop continues to be heavy, is the government prepared to see that additional storage facilities are provided to take care of the increase in the surplus?
As reported at page 847 of Hansard the minister had this to say:
Therefore, the cost to the treasury this crop year will he about $32 million. What it will be in subsequent years will depend upon the level of board stocks, but it cannot go much above $32 million in any event because of the physical limits on storage capacity.
The question that immediately comes to my mind is this. What is going to happen if we do not have crop failures? If these heavy crops continue,-something which is quite a possibility-what is going to happen? When we had the second heavy crop we thought the third year would be sure to bring a short crop but we had another heavy crop. We have now had about four heavy crops. There is no assurance that we shall have a crop failure next year. As a matter of fact, conditions out west right now look to be quite encouraging. I think we all hope there will be another good crop. But if these good crops continue, what is going to happen to that wheat?
The minister says there is likely to be a limit of about $32 million on the cost of storage because there are not the storage facilities available to take more wheat. Then v/hat is going to happen to that wheat? It appears to me that there are two alternatives. Either we shall have to build more terminal elevators and country elevators-and I understand there is a real need for the rebuilding of some of the existing elevators-or on the other hand I think the government should take steps to encourage farmers to build more granaries on the farm by allowing them accelerated depreciation, then-and I think this is an important point-include the farm-stored wheat that is in excess of a normal carry-over along with the wheat in the elevators at the time the government pays the storage charge, and then deduct 178 million bushels from that amount. It seems to me

that that is quite a reasonable suggestion. I think the minister's suggestion that the farmers should be prepared to carry 178 million bushels in the country elevators and the terminal elevators is a reasonable one. Provided that the surplus wheat can be stored in the terminal elevators, that procedure would fairly well look after the situation. But from what the minister says I gather that there is no intention to increase the storage space in the elevators because he says that the charge to the government will not go much above $32 million. If large crops continue, that will mean that the farmers will be obliged to put the increased surplus in granaries on their farms. Hence, instead of having a normal carry-over, you will have far more than a normal carry-over on the farms. It therefore seems to me that a reasonable suggestion is to say that the excess carry-over on the farm should be added to the amount of wheat in storage at the end of the crop year and then 178 million should be deducted from that amount. Before the resolution carries I should like the minister to say whether he does not think that is a reasonable suggestion.
There is no question that this legislation is definitely a step in the right direction. However, it seems to me it has three main weaknesses. First of all, it ignores the heavy storage charges of two years ago. I think it was in 1953-54 that we had heavy storage charges. We feel that that matter should be brought into the operation of this act. I understand that the year 1954-55 is covered under this act. If I am wrong in that statement, perhaps the minister would correct me.
In the second place, we feel that this legislation ignores the abnormal carry-over on farms about which I have just been speaking. I think that excess carry-over should always be taken care of so that the excess carry-over on the farm can be added to the general carry-over and then 178 million bushels deducted from the total of those two.
In the third place, it ignores the fact that many farmers are obliged to hold the current quotas on the farm owing to the unsatisfactory distribution of box cars which in some localities results in the farmers not being able to deliver any wheat at all on the quota, others being able to deliver one bushel, others two bushels and others three. Just yesterday I received a letter saying that even up to then the farmers in a certain district have not been able to deliver any wheat on the one-bushel quota. All they have been able to deliver is the original three hundred bushels but so far they have not been able to deliver any more. But the minister states that at some points they have a three-bushel

quota. That seems to be an unfair situation. I am not suggesting that it is an easy one to govern. It is not an easy thing to have a fair allocation of box cars. I think the minister will agree that steps should be taken to remove that injustice by bringing back into operation the policy we had some years ago-I believe it was about 1948-under which the price of wheat was raised by one cent a month on the quota. That one cent a month would take care of the interest charges and would compensate those farmers who had not been able to deliver their wheat as compared with the farmers who were able to deliver a three-bushel quota. If that was done I believe much of the criticism would be removed as to the injustice that exists as between the farmer who has not been able to deliver any wheat and the farmer who can deliver three bushels because the farmer who was not able to deliver any wheat at all would be receiving one cent a bushel on each bushel that he should be able to deliver. In any event, I think a great deal of the inequity of the present situation would be removed. As I say, we are greatly pleased that this legislation is being introduced and we will support it. Before the resolution carries, however, I hope the minister will indicate what his reaction is to the idea that the excess carry-over of the farmers should be added to the general carry-over in the elevators and then 178 million deducted from that amount.


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise at this time to support the resolution that is before the committee. In my opinion this is an extremely important resolution. By this resolution the government is taking a long step forward in its current wheat policy. I am sure the minister realizes the length of the steps he is taking or the distance he is going. I do not think that the $32 million- important as is that sum in this resolution- actually demonstrates the extent to which the government is going forward in its wheat policy. By accepting the principle that excess storage and carrying charges over a certain quantity of grain shall be paid by the national treasury, by continuing as I am hopeful it will the current initial price for wheat, the government is in fact accepting important responsibility for this large quantity of grain.
The minister has said that the existing storage facilities will limit the amount of the government's commitment in the future to something in the neighbourhood of $32 million. I do not think that statement is likely to be borne out. Certainly it will not be borne out unless there is a substantial change in wheat board policy and government policy as far as storing grain is concerned. I was pleased that the Canadian wheat board and
Wheat
the board of grain commissioners this last fall made it possible for many communities throughout the prairies to build large storage facilities, usually in the form of a quonset hut that, when emptied at some point in the future, could be used as a skating and curling rink. These quonset buildings, or rinks, are going up in one community after another. They will hold anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 bushels of wheat.
The policy of the government as it is now before the house means this: It means that these buildings are leased to the elevator companies, the elevator companies pay storage that is paid for by the government through this policy to the community that owns the rink. The farmers in that area will be able to deliver from 100,000 to 200,000 additional bushels of grain, place it in the rink building and receive the initial payment with the government bearing the excess inventory and carrying charges when the crop year ends. That is one way of placing not just $32 million in the pockets of the farmers of the west, but a much larger sum of money because of the payment of the initial price by the wheat board and the expansion of storage facilities.
I should like to see this resolution extended. I see no reason why it should be confined to wheat only. We have large quantities of barley and oats in inventory at the end of the crop year. I can see no good reason why the provisions of this resolution, applying as they do now to wheat, should not be extended to cover oats and barley. I should like to see the 178 million bushel floor raised, and the provisions of this proposed bill extended, so that the grain in storage on farms may be covered by it. If the government would amend this resolution to allow storage and carrying charges to be made on off-site storage in excess of 178 million bushels, the government would be putting large sums of money in the pockets of the producers. It would not be difficult for the title to the grain in storage on the farms to be transferred to the elevator companies, the farmer to receive the initial price and the government to accept the cost of the carrying and storage charges.
If this legislation could be expanded at this session or at a later session it would remove, to a large extent, the need to discuss the subject that we were discussing in the previous debate for many days. I am underlining this provision to point out that the government, by this action, is taking a very important step forward in its wheat policy.
I want to associate myself with many of the remarks of the hon. member for Acadia, particularly those remarks having to do with the disposal of wheat in international markets.

Wheat
I agree with him that so long as the majority of the people in the world are hungry, at least nutritionally hungry, it should be possible for governments in this day and age to see that the surplus food in certain countries is moved to deficit countries so that the people needing that food can have it available.
I am sorry that over the years Canada has not supported the idea of an international commodity clearing house or the idea of an international food pool, but rather has said through the Minister of Agriculture at the United Nations that Canada, as well as other nations, should handle the disposal of surplus products on a national rather than an international basis. Some fantastic suggestions can be made following that line of argument. I feel that if the member nations of the United Nations would endeavour once again to form an international food pool and an international commodity clearing house, call it what you like, we would be able to obtain a solution to our surplus problem.
I see the Prime Minister in the house, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and other members of the cabinet. The members of the cabinet appear to be in good attendance at this time. The Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat, but I am sure he is away on important business. Tonight's Ottawa Journal has a report of an interview with the Minister of Agriculture and the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom, Selwyn Lloyd, which has to do with the disposal of Canadian wheat. It says:
The Canadian minister had assured a Windsor meeting recently that he would discuss possible further sale of Canadian food products with Prime Minister Anthony Eden and Mr. Lloyd during their visit to Ottawa.
It was learned today that he had raised with Mr. Lloyd, as he had done once before with Sir Winston Churchill, the possibility of Canada encouraging immigration from the United Kingdom by giving some compensation.
This time, Mr. Gardiner suggested, that the valuation might be 1,000 bushels of Canadian wheat for each immigrant. When the wheat was sent to the United Kingdom, the federal treasury would pay the Canadian wheat board which supplied the grain an amount which would be approximately $1,500 at present wheat prices.
Mr. Gardiner's plan, not offered as a government proposal, is designed to achieve two purposes- adjust the imbalance of trade now running two to one in favour of Canada and increase the number of United Kingdom immigrants to Canada, 30,150 in 1955 compared to 44,593 in 1954.
Let no one think that this is not a very extensive suggestion because at $1,500 per immigrant in 1955 the wheat board would have received from the national treasury $45 million. I am all for more immigrants coming to Canada. I am all for more immigrants coming here from the United Kingdom. I do not see why the Minister of Agriculture

should confine his suggestion, as apparently he has done, to persons coming to Canada from the United Kingdom. He might have extended it perhaps to France. They may not need wheat, but they may have taken some surplus butter, pork or something else. Perhaps the policy might have been extended to Germany or to Italy. I should like to know from the government whether or not this policy has ever been discussed in the cabinet, whether the government is giving it serious consideration or whether it is just another figment of the very fertile imagination of the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Pearkes:: How many bushels will the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration require for a Canadian baby?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a very good question. We might like to hear him comment about it. If this policy could be extended to other nations, I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture is going to pay 1,000 bushels of wheat for each immigrant from each nation or is he going to vary the amount? I wonder what immigrants from France might be paid, or from West Germany or Italy. I think that shows just how bankrupt the Minister of Agriculture and the government are when it comes to dealing with this important question of the disposal of wheat.
Other suggestions have been made that the government might pay a good deal more attention to. I hold in my hand a publication issued by the Saskatchewan wheat pool. It is entitled "Wheat Policy for 1956". At this point I wish to congratulate the Saskatchewan wheat pool board of directors and all of those people who had anything to do with drawing up the Saskatchewan wheat pool's 1956 policy. As far as farm policy is concerned, this is an indication of new and forward thinking in the farm organizations. I want to read the program because I think it is of great importance. The first plank is: "Maintenance of the wheat board for grain marketing". I think that will assure the Minister of Trade and Commerce that in spite of the Saskatchewan wheat pool's advocacy of cash advances its No. 1 plank, its 1956 wheat policy, is maintenance of the wheat board for grain marketing. I might say I am sure the Saskatchewan wheat pool would be glad to see the wheat board legislation expanded to include all grains, to include rye and flax.
There may be some who think that because it has been difficult for farmers to market wheat during the last few months it is the fault of the wheat board, it is the fault of the system of orderly marketing. I do not think that is so at all. I have had criticism to make



195B

[Stage Direction]
of the wheat policy that is followed. No doubt I shall have criticism to make in the future, and I shall have criticism to make in this statement. But I do not think the difficulty in the selling of Canadian wheat is in any way the fault of the wheat board system of marketing grain or of the personnel of the wheat board. On the contrary, it can be attributed to international difficulties, currency difficulties and certain aspects of the government's trade policy.
It is true that farmers have been able to get rid of a substantial quantity of flax on the open market. Some may think that because they have been able to get rid of a substantial quantity of flax, by using the open market facilities, the open market is a superior method of marketing grain. Ask the prairie producers today who sold all their flax last fall before the large price increase what they think of the speculative market in flax, and they will tell you they do not like it. They would far rather have the wheat board handling flax so that the producers of flax, if they had the right, could deliver it to the wheat board and get in any crop year the same price for flax as other producers.
Mr. Trainor:: The price would be less.


Hazen Robert Argue: The wheat board comes before the agricultural committee every year and demonstrates the efficiency of the wheat board method of marketing grain. I should like to see the hon. member for Winnipeg South on the agricultural committee to advance his ideas, whatever they might be, and I am sure they would be properly dealt with by the wheat board officials.
The wheat board system should be extended to the marketing of rye and flax. I go one step farther. I see no good reason why the wheat board should be using the facilities of the grain exchange in selling oats and barley.
The second plank is: "Renewal and expansion of the international wheat agreement." That is a further projection of orderly marketing, or of government responsibility in the marketing of wheat. The reason we are having difficulty in the marketing of grain today, in my opinion, is not the fact that we have orderly marketing, with the government taking some responsibility at home, but the fact that the government's responsibility very largely ceases to exist the moment the wheat board has control and ownership of the wheat. If we can obtain an international wheat agreement, with the United Kingdom in that agreement, then this further extension of government responsibility in the marketing of grain may make it possible for producers in Canada to sell larger quantities of grain at satisfactory prices.
Wheat
I should like to see the government do something more. I am hoping, as I say, that a new international wheat agreement, with satisfactory prices and satisfactory quantities, may be signed; but I wonder why the Canadian government itself should not sit down with the governments of other nations and enter into contracts for the sale of Canadian grain over a period of years. Why should not the Canadian government, through the wheat board, attempt to sell substantial quantities of Canadian wheat to importing nations at agreed-to prices over a period of years? Perhaps the government would be prepared to do that; but in order to make such a policy feasible and practical something else has to be done. Our government should stand prepared to enter into contracts, with nations that would take our wheat, for the purchase of the goods that those nations can produce and wish to sell.
The government prides itself on believing in the capitalist system, and so do the members of the Conservative party. As I have sat in this house over the years and have seen legislation promoted by the government, it has seemed essential and necessary for the government to accept ever greater and greater responsibilities for the welfare of the people of the nation. I expect that, in the future, governments of the world must of necessity accept greater and greater responsibility for the marketing of grain. In my opinion, the days of free trade in grain are over and done with. If we continue to tie our wheat policies to a so-called system of free trade on the international markets it will probably be as unsuccessful as tying our domestic sales of grain to the so-called free market at home, which, of course, is the Winnipeg grain exchange. We shall obtain a solution to our wheat problems and to our marketing problems when this government accepts a greater measure of responsibility for the marketing of such grain.
I know the government criticizes the policy adopted by the United States government. Even though we may criticize their policy, the United States government is able to sell larger quantities of food products on the markets of the world, and we would be selling less and less wheat if the Canadian government was not able at this time-and I am very pleased that it is able at this time-to enter into contracts for the sale of grain to countries behind the iron curtain. Because the United States government, under public law 480, stipulated that they could not sell food products to communist countries, Canada has been able to increase sales of Canadian wheat, butter and other commodities to those countries.

Wheat
In his message to congress President Eisenhower asked the United States congress to delete from public law 480, section 304. Section 304 is the section which makes it impossible for the United States government to sell food products to iron curtain countries. Therefore, the time remaining for the Canadian government to increase its sales to such countries may be growing shorter and shorter.
The attitude of the United States government, a republican government, is not to get out of sales of wheat on the international markets, but rather to increase the scope of such sales.
The third policy outlined by the Saskatchewan wheat pool is: "An initial price of $1.40 for the 1956-57 crop year". The fourth statement in its wheat policy:	The national
treasury to make up any difference between the final realized price on the sale of the present year's crop and the I.W.A. minimum of $1.55 per bushel. In my opinion that too is an extremely important plank in wheat pool policy. It is saying to the Canadian government that it is no longer prepared to accept a continuing drop in wheat prices paid to Canadian farmers but is asking the government to put under prices a floor that will be received by the producers although to obtain such a floor money may have to be paid from the national treasury.
Five: The government of Canada to assume the carrying charges on all grain in store in Canada at the end of each crop year. That plank is being implemented to some extent at this time.
Six: A price of $2.05 a bushel on wheat used for human consumption in Canada. If that were adopted it might have resulted in an increase of one cent per loaf in the price of bread and it may not have resulted even in that small increase.
Seven: Maintenance of an aggressive sales policy including the arrangements by the Canadian government of suitable credits for wheat buyers, the acceptance of sterling and other currencies and the participation in famine relief programs and the economic development of backward countries as a means of increasing potential markets for Canadian wheat.
The measure before the house this afternoon has a great deal to do with the size of the final payment for the 1954-55 wheat pool. When I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce recently when a final payment might be made, he said, "I cannot say anything about it; I cannot say anything about an interim and final payment until the grain storage bill has been approved." Well, we have the grain storage resolution before us

at the present time and we have already had the announcement that an interim payment of ten cents a bushel is to be paid on the higher grades of wheat. I have welcomed that announcement but I do believe that the time is here when the government should announce not just the interim payment but also the final payment, the total payment to be made on the 1954-55 wheat pool.
It used to be the policy that when a farmer delivered a load of grain in the fall he obtained his initial price. He could look for an interim payment the following February, about mid-winter, and a few months after the close of the crop year, and usually before Christmas, he could look for a final payment. This was a highly satisfactory operation as far as the producer was concerned.
However, in the last two or three years the interim and final payments have been delayed for longer and longer periods. The interim payment that was announced the other day is one year late; ordinarily, as I say, it is made in February of the current crop year. On this occasion it is announced in February of the year following the end of the crop year. If the final payment should be made as late as the interim payment, then the final payment will not be made for many months to come. I hope that is not the case. I hope the government will announce the final payment now.
The only argument against making these payments at regular times so the farmer can plan his business is the statement that we do not know when we will be able to sell the carry-over or whether the international price will go up or down and to state a final payment and to close out the crop year may mean that we are making a final payment that is too high or too low depending on the prices for which we are able to sell our grain in the next crop year.
I would suggest that when wheat is grown in a good year it is ordinarily to be marketed in the coming crop year and that the greatest amount of fairness and equity can be obtained if the crop year in which the grain is marketed is closed out; in other words, if the wheat pool is closed out at an early date, shortly after the end of the crop year, July 31, and it is closed out on the basis of the current price for wheat at that time. If the price of wheat should go down, then of course the payments for the next crop year will go down, but that will be on the current crop. I do not think a good argument can be made in favour of such long and continuous delays in making these final payments.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I have a few suggestions that I wish to repeat. I should

like to see this legislation made permanent. I should like to see it extended to barley and oats and to cover larger quantities of grain, and I should like to see it extended to grain on the farms. I should particularly like to see the government establish a floor price of $1.55 for wheat as was suggested by the Saskatchewan wheat pool. I do not think that is a sufficiently high price but certainly it is a minimum price. I believe the government should have the wheat pool accounts closed out at regular times and regular amounts of money should be paid based on the floor price I have suggested.
The government should continue to support the establishment of a new international wheat agreement and there should be an expansion of sales in the international markets in the way I have suggested.


William Alfred Robinson: I understand that the Prime Minister has a statement to make. I wonder if I might rise and report progress and request leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



THE MINISTRY


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If I might have the permission of the house to revert to motions, I might announce for the information of the house the appointment of the following parliamentary assistants: Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Compton-Frontenac), until now parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney), to be parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg); Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Ver-cheres) to be parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson); and Mr. Paul Hellyer (Davenport) to be parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence.
I shall now table copies of the order in council relating to these appointments.



PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT

Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house has appointed Miss Bennett. Messrs. Buchanan, Caron, Ferguson, Gauthier (Nickel Belt), Gingues, Gour (Russell)] Hardie, Harkness, Herridge, MacNaught, Mang, Masse, McGregor, Michaud, Monette, Pommer' Richard (Ottawa East), Mrs. Shipley, Messrs] Simmons, Stewart (Winnipeg North), Stick, White (Hastings-Frontenac), Yuill, to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the parliamentary restaurant so far as the interests of the House of 67509-65J
Wheat
Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure for the payment of carrying cost of temporary wheat reserves owned by the Canadian wheat board in respect of board stocks of wheat in excess of one hundred and seventy-eight million bushels at the commencement of a crop year, such payment to be made to the board by the Minister of Finance out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Edward George McCullough: May I
call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, the house has before it at the present time a resolution to bring in a bill that will provide for storage of wheat in Canada at the end of the crop year. This will in effect provide for storage costs on 178 million bushels of wheat.
I am sure all hon. members of this house will in a degree be happy that the government has at least awakened to the seriousness of the marketing situation in Canada. Personally, I feel that the provision for the storage of grain in Canada to be paid for out of the federal treasury is a matter which should have had attention by this house and by the government of Canada at a much earlier date.
Whilst we are very happy that the government is now bringing in this legislation, I do not feel for one minute that it meets the situation confronting Canadian agriculture. I might say that since 1945, when I first came to this house, I have advocated a policy which would embrace the principle of the ever-normal granary. Before I came to this house and since, I know many members of this party have endeavoured to convince the government that it had not launched an aggressive policy to meet the needs of Canadian agriculture. So this evening I desire to treat the problem from two points of view, namely the economic viewpoint as it affects Canada, and, rather briefly, the effect which

Wheat
aur own program may have on world politics and, indeed, on the whole free world.
It seems to me that the federal governments we have had in this country have never ;ome to grips with the problem of conservation. I feel that this measure may be perhaps, to some extent, an awakening to the need for conservation of our soil in this country because, in effect, it will make it possible for the people in the hazardous occupation af agriculture to have a small degree of assistance in respect to their occupation.
Agriculture, of course, is a very hazardous accupation. When the farmer sows his grain, be has no way of being assured that he will reap a harvest. He has to take the chance on all the hazards in connection with the growing of that crop. Anyone connected with agriculture will realize that these are varied and many. He has to depend upon good weather, the vagaries of nature, rust, insects, pests and weeds and everything connected with the growing of wheat. To date the agriculturists and the people who are producing wheat in this country have to a great measure met the challenge of modern methods of production. Today western agriculture is highly mechanized and highly scientific. We have found ways and means of producing targer crops. In order to grow bigger crops, we have also learnt how to cultivate new strains of grain, how to spray our crops in arder to eliminate weeds and, of course, with new varieties and new techniques of production, I think we have met the production problem.
The greatest problem facing the agricul-;urists and the farmers of the west is one af price. I feel that agriculture is in a pre-larious position. If any hon. member of this louse feels that the whole economy of this country is not closely dependent on the prosperity and the health of agriculture, he has aeen very badly misled. If we do not have i prosperous agricultural economy, or the 10 or 12 per cent of the people engaged in agriculture are not in a prosperous condition, It will affect the whole Canadian economy. Indeed, I recall that in 1945, when I came to this house, we saw a delegation come to this parliament building and meet some of the cabinet ministers. It was a labour delegation interested in the welfare of over 6,000 workers who were unemployed in the farm machinery industry.
So it is that we welcome this resolution today which proposes to pay storage on 178 million bushels of wheat at the end of the crop year. I would like to see this legislation made a permanent piece of legislation and a permanent policy for this country. I would like to see it extended so that it would
[Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain) .1
include a greater amount of wheat and so that we would have a proper vision of the picture, so that, instead of a nominal 178 million bushels, all wheat in Canada would become the property of the people of Canada and be stored at the expense of the federal treasury. What I have in mind is the picture of an ever-normal granary where we would store, having produced the wheat, not only enough for our domestic consumption, which is around 70 million bushels per annum, but also sufficient to meet all the sales we can achieve and, indeed, in the years of plenty, so that we would store for the years of scarcity. This government is rather shortsighted when it cannot even read the biblical treatment of this subject, in which we are told that in Egypt in the years of plenty they stored for the years of scarcity. So I think we should ask this government at this time to take a second look at this legislation and include in the bill means by which this government would take over all the farm grain and, as the hon. member for Assini-boia indicated this afternoon, take over also coarse grains and barley that farmers may wish to deliver to the wheat board.
As I have already indicated, this is a step in the right direction. I welcome it on that basis, but I feel that some responsibility for this problem has been accepted at long last by the government simply because the government knows that agriculture today, in every phase, is in a precarious position-our livestock marketing, our hogs, our beef and our grain as well. I wish to speak particularly about the grain situation because that is what this measure deals with. I asked this government for a return showing the number of trade commissioners the government had sent to posts in various parts of the world. The return indicated that there were 85 trade commissioners at 54 posts abroad. I asked how many of these commissioners were appointed with exclusive instructions to sell Canadian wheat and I was astounded to learn that not one single trade commissioner had been posted for the express purpose of selling Canadian wheat. When agriculture is our primary industry I think there should be at least some trade commissioners posted abroad whose explicit and sole duty will be to sell Canadian wheat. If that had been done it is my opinion we would not need to be worrying today about how our farmers are going to get some cash in their pockets in order to carry on their business and pay their debts.
I have said something about the government waking up to the problem confronting agriculture in this country. I know now that in some measure the government is waking up to the depletion of our forest resources and is at long last realizing that we need

conservation in that regard, but very little, if anything, has been done with respect to soil conservation. In the last few years the farmer's income has been going down and his costs going up. He has been caught in a price squeeze. Because of this fact, the hit-or-miss policy applicable to agriculture and the vagaries of a system whereby he cannot tell from year to year what his income is going to be, he cannot launch upon a proper and wise soil conservation program in his farming operations. Neither can he follow proper land utilization. If a farmer is going to do these two things, namely, conserve the nutrient content of the soil and practise soil conservation measures so as to have the ultimate use of his land, he must know whether he is going to get a fair return when he engages in one type of production or another.
If we are fighting to try to preserve freedom, if we are trying to preserve those things in our democracy in which most of us believe, then I feel that this measure does not meet that need. Therefore I hope the government will reconsider it. If they do not do so at this session I hope that when they have made this first halting step they will see fit subsequently to bring in more adequate legislation to establish the ever-normal granary. For the benefit of the people of Canada and, indeed, to feed hungry people throughout the world, an ever-normal granary policy should be established in this country.
I should like to deal briefly with the effect that I think the program outlined in the resolution will have on the world picture. We are, I am sure, all interested in orderly marketing. The farmers of western Canada have endorsed such a policy and supported the Canadian wheat board for many years. We believe that the old type of marketing under the Winnipeg grain exchange was not in the interests of the western farmers and, indeed, was not in the interests of the Canadian people. When the members of the C.C.F. party come to this house and try to express the opinions of the western farmers I think we are doing a service to everyone in Canada regardless of their occupation. Whether a person lives in British Columbia or Nova Scotia their income and standard of living will be affected unless a fair deal is given to the people who work in that great breadbasket of western Canada to produce wheat to feed our people and for export. The government must wake up and see that from the point of view of trading our wheat and engaging in international commerce we should establish in this country a stock of grain on the basis of which we can enter into longterm agreements with other nations. I feel
Wheat
it is rather presumptuous on the part of the government to expect importing countries to enter into agreements with us on a long-term basis if the government and the country are not prepared to guarantee delivery of grain to these countries under such an agreement.
That has been the situation in the past. We have had no program. The onus and responsibility for growing the wheat and storing it has been placed entirely on the backs of the western farmers. I am happy that the government has seen fit to go at least this far. I think each and every one of us realizes that a tremendous fight is going on throughout the world. It is a fight of ideologies, a fight where the ideology that will catch the imagination of men's minds will be successful in the end. If we join with other countries to bring about an international food bank out of which we can help to feed hungry people throughout the world we will have done more for democracy and the freedom of the world than all the munitions of war we can ever hope to produce. I am very happy that here at least is the first faint beginning of that sort of thing.
I realize that in the international field you have to have international co-operation, but perhaps one reason why we have not been successful in that regard to date is that we have never been prepared to do it at home. I sometimes think that the government is more interested in trying to maintain something which is as dead as the dodo, namely, the capitalist system, the free enterprise system. There is very little free enterprise of any sort left. I could have brought into the house a whole stack of reports of investigations under the Combines Investigation Act which would have shown clearly that there is very little free enterprise left and that on the other hand there is collusion and price fixing so that free enterprise is pretty well removed from our country.
Getting back to the international picture and a world food bank, in the final analysis I believe food may well be the deciding factor with respect to whether we shall have a free world or a world enslaved. I am very happy to support the resolution.


Mr. Decore:: Mr. Chairman, before I say a word or two in connection with the resolution I should like to refer to the announcement made by the Prime Minister before six o'clock and take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Davenport and the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres on their elevation to the post of parliamentary assistant. I am sure I express the sentiments of all in the house when I say that the Prime Minister's choice was not only

Wheat
wise but meets with the approval of members on both sides of the house. I wish these two young members every success in their new and added responsibilities.
With respect to the resolution before us, I think it is certainly most gratifying, after what we have heard about wheat in the last few days, to hear such hon. members as the hon. member for Prince Albert and the hon. member for Assiniboia say that the government has taken the right step in the right direction. The fact is that the government has been in power for the last 20 years, and the reason it has been in power that long and the reason it has the confidence of the people of Canada from coast to coast is that it has the knack and ability to take the right step in the right direction.
Everybody knows, including hon. members of the opposition, that Canada is fortunate to have a man of the calibre of the Minister of Trade and Commerce dealing with the wheat problem at this time, a problem that is international in scope and similar to the one we had in the early thirties. We find that the wheat board has been successful in selling better than average crops in the last few years and at the same time maintaining a fairly high price level. As I say, when you compare that with the situation in the early thirties we find that in my part of the country the farmer was getting a price as low as 19 cents a bushel for his wheat. What the farmer wants is to have this type of policy pursued. He would sooner sell one bushel instead of two bushels for the same price, and keep the other bushel at home.
The wheat surplus problem is one which affects not only the western producer but the whole economy of Canada. The Minister of Trade and Commerce recognized this fact when he made this statement as reported at page 846 of Hansard:
At the present time, however, I think there is a broad measure of agreement that it is in the interests not only of wheat producers, but of the country as a whole, that the wheat board should follow an orderly policy in disposing of its large holdings and not resort to panic methods of selling or giving-away. The experience of the 1930's is too fresh in the memories of all of us for anyone o suggest that attempts should be made to clear the shelves at any price.
Then he goes on further and makes this statement:
This proposal may, therefore, be regarded as a contribution, and an essential contribution, to the stability of the wheat economy of the prairie provinces and an indirect contribution to the stability of the whole Canadian economy.
We find that to the farmer this means a matter of 15 cents a bushel on the surplus that is under consideration or a total of some $32 million which represents purchasing power

in the hands of the buyer. It is something which not only will help the western producer but will benefit our national economy as a whole.
The important point to remember about this proposed measure is that it is retroactive. However, I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It could easily happen-and we hope it will-that we have another bumper crop in western Canada this year. Of course, if we have another bumper crop we shall naturally be confronted with acute storage problems. I should like to offer this suggestion. While I do not think it will cope with the problem completely I think it will probably go a long way toward covering the situation.
During the last 2J years I believe storage facilities have been increased substantially, to the extent of some 40 million bushels. One of the reasons why that was done was the accelerated depreciation which has been offered to grain companies whereby they would be able to write off for income tax purposes in three years, I think it is,-I do not know whether it is three years or five years-the buildings they put up for the storage of grain. If we should be confronted with another bumper crop, I would suggest that possibly the same privilege could be granted to the farmer; that is, if the farmer had approved storage buildings, he also would be granted this accelerated depreciation whereby, for income tax purposes, he would be able to write off those buildings in a matter of three or five years. That is a suggestion which I humbly submit to the minister and which I would ask him to take into consideration.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I rise purely to correct what I think is a misunderstanding which at present stands on the record. The hon. member for Acadia this afternoon repeated what has often been said in this chamber, namely that we could greatly increase our sales to Britain if we were prepared to do what is called "taking sterling". My belief is that that is a complete misunderstanding. My belief is that the people of Britain will have no part of it. It is in fact, of course, nothing more or less than our lending the money to Britain. I believe they have made it perfectly clear that they do not want to do business in that way. I believe they have made it officially clear. If that is true, I think it is a pity to leave the record as it is. If I am correct, I should like the minister to confirm it. We have so many difficulties with regard to so many things that are uncertain and perplexing in the matter of international finance that it seems to me a great pity to add to them by using this phrase

"taking sterling" which, so far as I can make out, really means nothing at all. If that is so, then I think it would be desirable to have it on the record.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I have been asked to touch on one or two points referred to by other speakers, so perhaps I might make a few remarks to close this debate. I would call your attention to the fact that over the last several days we have been discussing the government's program for assisting the farmer to meet an unusual situation. We have been told that part of the program is terrible, unbelievable and names have been applied to it that are startling; and it has been said that the other part is wonderful. It is rather remarkable that someone would not have had wit enough to add them up, strike an average and say that perhaps between the two resolutions they are not too bad.


Edward George McCullough: Who
used the word "wonderful"?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend did not. My hon. friend's picture of the prairie farmer is of a man with a tin cup looking for handouts. I think that is a most atrocious picture of western Canada. I may say that I went out there in 1913 and have been there a great deal in the ensuing 42 years. I think I know as much about western Canada as does my hon. friend.
However, these two complementary pieces of legislation were arranged to meet the particular needs of the farmers. The first piece of legislation was designed to give the farmer immediate cash. This year, for the first time, we encountered a situation where all grain elevators were filled to capacity, country elevators were filled and the movement from farms was extremely slow. There is no doubt in the world that buyers of wheat held off as long as they dared in the hope that our price would break just as prices in other countries were breaking. Finally they decided that ours would not break, and so the normal wheat movement commenced. But there has been a period when it was important for many farmers to get bank accommodation. The larger farmers had no great trouble, of course. They were accustomed to using the banks. They had ample collateral. They needed no help from the government in order to obtain the cash they required. However, there is the half-section farmer to be considered, or the three-quarter section farmer or the young man who is just starting and who has never had a bank connection. These men, in the judgment of the government,
Wheat
needed help. We arranged that help by making an agreement with the banks that banks would issue loans up to $1,500 on the security of the farm-stored grain, with the proviso that, as soon as parliament would meet, the government would undertake to see that its guarantee was given to the banks for repayment of those loans. A great deal has been made of the rate of bank interest. According to what we have heard, that apparently is a back-breaker for the farmer. But what does it amount to? The average loan to date has been $800. I would think that the average period could not possibly exceed six months.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman,-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just sit down, will you?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I rise on a point of order and ask what the minister is discussing. He seems to be discussing the bank loan legislation which is not now before the committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All right. It will be before the house within the next day or two.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the minister sometimes says: You are wrong but go ahead.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are talking about interest on a much greater quantity of grain than-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. If the minister is going to revive this discussion that we have had for two or three days, you will have to give the rest of us an opportunity to enter the debate again to go over the ground.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If there is anything my hon. friend has not covered that has happened over the last five years, I cannot tell him what it was. However, the total payment of interest by the farmer on the average loan is about $20 and that, of course, is a crime. However, the resolution on the order paper immediately below the bank loan resolution meant at least 10 cents a bushel to the farmer on all the grain he will market in this crop year. Surely, there must be a balance struck and a sense of proportion kept in mind, when hon. members say that one is a calamity and the other is a very good idea.
Now, I have mentioned the reason for the first piece of legislation, so we go on to the second piece of legislation. Over the years the accumulated overages have put a burden on the farmer to the extent that he has been required to pay the carrying charges, which

Wheat
are made up of storage and interest, on a larger amount of grain than is normal, and that grain is held in government storage over a much longer period than normally. In normal times the carrying charges on wheat amount to about 7-5 to 10 cents a bushel, depending on the size of the crop. Last year they amounted to 16 cents a bushel, and this year they could amount to more than that.
Well, the government said, what can we do to restore that situation to normal? We tried to find a period that could be considered normal before the period when the surpluses began to accumulate. We took the 15 years prior to the big crop of 1951 and found the average of the carry-over in each of those years. We found that it worked out to 178 million bushels on the average, averaging good years and bad years. We said that that is normal for the farmer. If the farmer is only dealing with a carry-over of that amount he has a normal situation. But the carry-over this year was about 215 million bushels larger than that, so we said the government will take the 215 million bushels and assume the carrying charges on that amount of grain for the full year. This amounts to about $32 million dollars, which is a contribution by all the taxpayers of Canada to those producers who have an equity in that prairie grain.
When we speak of the government advances we must remember that the government has no money. It is the taxpayers of Canada who have the money. When we say the government is paying these carrying charges, it means that the taxpayers of Canada are relieving the owners of the grain of carrying charges to that extent.
There has been a great deal of talk about payment for storage on farms. Questions are asked as to why the government cannot pay carrying charges on grain stored on farms. Grain stored on farms does not belong to the government. The government takes the grain into storage and acquires ownership by paying an advance of $1.40 per bushel on that grain when it is delivered to a country elevator; it then becomes the government's grain. The grain on the farms belongs to the farmer, just as the cattle on the farms belong to the farmer. If there is open storage space, the farmer will deliver the grain and get his payment. Then, that grain belongs to the government. If he has cattle on his farm he can market them, provided the stockyards are not congested and are able to take his cattle. There is no difference between the two. While they are on the farm they belong to the farmer. There is no way in which the government can properly pay any charges on grain that does not belong to the government.

It has been said frequently here that in the United States grain in the farmer's bin is paid for by the government, but that is not true. I have the rules here, and they are rather long. I can assure hon. members that the government of the United States does not have anything to do with grain until it is delivered into the government's approved storage. We, in Canada, cannot have anything to do with the grain until it is delivered into the government's licensed storage. The two are practically the same.


Hazen Robert Argue: They are approved on the farm in the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government of the United States devised a scheme involving steel tanks which they put on a man's farm, and under inspection the grain is delivered into these tanks for government account. It is measured, graded and becomes the property of the government in the government's own bin. Well, that is no different from putting it in a skating rink that has been licensed by the board of grain commissioners as a government granary. It is exactly the same principle. Some people assume that everything in the United States is free. Perhaps hon. members would be interested in seeing the charges that the farmer pays for putting the grain into approved storage on his own farm, the inspection fees and charges of that kind. Sometime later in the debate perhaps I can put on Hansard an outline of the United States system, and thus disabuse the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite who have been making statements about how it is done south of the border.


John Horne Blackmore: Do it now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not got the
document here.


Hazen Robert Argue: They get $2.08 per bushel.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, $1.81.


Hazen Robert Argue: Plus protein bonus, storage charges and so on, making $2.08.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Why don't you move over there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A great deal has been said about selling wheat. We believe in the wheat board system of marketing. Unfortunately, the whole wheat board does not know how to sell wheat. George Mclvor has only been selling wheat for the government since 1931, and the other members of the board have only been at it 10 to 15 years. They have been in every market in the world. They know ever buyer in the world. Nevertheless there are people opposite who can tell

them a great deal about how to market wheat; and what they should take in payment. We have heard the cliches such as the ever-normal granary and the world food bank. I should like to have someone get up and tell me how each of these works in practice.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Agriculture spoke against them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps he did not know what they mean either. I am sure I do not. It is about as nebulous a subject as I have ever encountered. However, that is the great solution. We should be taking some kind of money that is not our own and not convertible into our own, and because there is a barter deal we would not look at if it were a money deal we should make a barter deal. We have heard all these things. Nevertheless, the wheat board marketing policy does not change. That is the one great value of the Canadian system. The wheat board goes on year after year doing business with the same customers in the same way. The customers know they can rely on the wheat board. They know a bargain made by the Canadian wheat board will be carried out and carried out exactly in the terms of the contract.
I feel, therefore, a great deal of the time of this chamber could be saved by people who theorize about how grain should be marketed in foreign capitals. I would not venture myself to advise the wheat board. I have only been associated with the grain trade for 42 years. I have worked for customers who deal in every grain exchange in the world, and I think I have been in most grain exchanges in the world. I believe I have some idea how wheat is sold in foreign markets.
We are told our trade commissioners do not deal exclusively in wheat. Well, as long as they deal with wheat and give it the time required, I do not know why they cannot spend a few hours selling some other Canadian product without great detriment to wheat selling.
We have said nothing about the agents of the board who are the wheat marketing agencies of the world. Every Canadian exporter is an authorized agent of the board, and all of the great international firms are also agents of the board. These firms have offices in every country that is a buyer of wheat. And yet we are told that we ought to hire bright young men from industry and send them out to sell wheat. That is very amusing indeed. I am afraid some people do not appreciate the humour of it.
I do not know that I need say any more. 1 think the government have put forward an attractive and realistic program for the
Wheat
western farmer. We have taken steps to restore the abnormal situation in this year back to normal. We have made bank funds immediately available where required, and we have relieved the farmers of the carrying charges that may be regarded as abnormal. I think the farmer believes that we have done a job for him, and I am not prepared to take the chit-chat which comes from the far corner about a situation of the farmer in western Canada; I know too many of them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are treating us with a smile tonight; that is better.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes.
I was in a meeting a while ago, and there was a good deal of complaint from one man. He was taking a rather bitter view of things. I happened to come out of the meeting with him. I had a few blocks to go and he had a car. He asked me whether he could give me a lift and I said "yes". I said: "This is a good car you have". He said: "Yes, I just bought it this year; I like it very much". He said: "You know, I am doing rather better than I said I was in that meeting. All my life I have looked forward to the day when I would have my farm clear of debt and one crop in the bins ahead of the current market". He said: "For the first time in my life I have that, and no man can tell me 1 am in very bad shape". I think that is the true picture of western agriculture as it is today for the real western farmer.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I have just one comment to make in this discussion tonight. I have listened very carefully to the speakers who have spoken since eight o'clock, and I have been rather impressed with the tone and the amiability that have emerged from the last two previous speakers. Unfortunately, I cannot concur in the opinion that has been expressed by my worthy friend, the hon. member for Vegreville. He indicated that because some complimentary remarks had been made in reference to the resolution before the house, it was suggested that the farmers of western Canada were giving universal approval to everything that the government of Canada has done in regard to the present crisis in the marketing of our grain. I will say at least this much for the resolution before the house. It at last is a recognition by the government that the farm population is faced with a real emergency and a real financial crisis at this time.
In his remarks just concluded, the Minister of Trade and Commerce also suggested that notwithstanding the fact it has become necessary to take emergency action, as indicated in this resolution, namely, paying storage

Wheat
on wheat in surplus above 178 million bushels, everything in the farm economy is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
I said I had just one comment to make. That comment arises from the direct contact I have had with a part of the agricultural district of western Canada. I refer to the southwestern part of Manitoba. It was my privilege on Tuesday evening to attend a widely representative gathering, and from comments I heard from farmers gathered together at that time, I can say that they would not at all concur in the optimistic note that has been struck by the two previous speakers in this discussion.
As a matter of fact, on Tuesday evening at the hour of ten o'clock, the television program that has become rather famous in Canada during the past two weeks was broadcast over the CKX television station in Brandon. As a result of the impact of that Citizen's Forum discussion, which dealt largely with the present crisis in our grain-marketing situation, I was approached by a representative group of citizens who voluntarily, on their own initiative, had subscribed a substantial sum of money to replace the television set that had been blasted in another incident that has become well known in this chamber, I believe. The earlier presentation of that program over the Winnipeg station had resulted in the reaction of a certain Manitoba farmer, which led him to try to shoot one of the characters on the television screen. Mr. Chairman, I am in the possession of a sum of money for a fund, if such a fund exists, to replace the television set of this noteworthy citizen. I understand the suggestion emanated from the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort that the opposition combine in an effort of this kind. If such an effort is already taking shape, I want to assure hon. members that I have a substantial donation voluntarily contributed as a part of the protest of the citizens of western Manitoba.
I support this resolution mainly because it is the first recognition by the government that a real problem faces our grain producers on the prairies; but as the Winnipeg Free Press said in a recent editorial:
_ The hard fact remains that the government intends to do no more than the absolute minimum to help prairie farmers.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I thought this resolution was going to be through by six o'clock, but after listening to the Minister of Trade and Commerce I cannot allow it to pass.
I think the suggestion that the gentleman whom the Minister of Trade and Commerce happened to meet sometime ago, who was in
fMr. Dinsdale.l
the position of having his farm paid for, having a substantial amount of money, and driving a very good car, was a typical farmer, does a great injustice to the farmers of this country. I am not suggesting that what the minister said is not true. It would seem strange that if among the 600,000 farmers in Canada there would not be a few who drive good ears. I want ito tell the minister that his own department, in co-operation with the Department of National Revenue, presents figures that show that around 10 per cent of the farmers in Canada receive enough income to pay income tax, and roughly half of all the income taxes which are paid by all farmers in Canada are paid in Saskatchewan.
I hope you will not come to the conclusion that because half of the taxes paid by the farmers in Canada come from Saskatchewan we are rolling in wealth. It happens that the percentage of the farmers in Saskatchewan who pay taxes is higher than it is for the whole of Canada but when you consider that 80 per cent in Saskatchewan and 90 per cent in Canada are not getting enough money to pay taxes, I think it points up the minister's conclusion as being quite unfair. It is small wonder that the farmers in the prairie provinces are up in arms when responsible ministers like the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture give the impression that the prairie farmers are in the position of the gentleman who is driving a new car and has all this money put by.
I might say that I had four years farming while I was away from here. I was fortunate enough to belong to the group which is able to pay income tax. However, I want to warn the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of National Revenue that a great many farmers who have been paying income taxes are going to be claiming refunds on the income tax they have paid when you come to average out the amount for five years.
I could cite case after case of farmers who were in the position two or three years ago of being able to have new cars, with all their debts paid, money in the bank and victory bonds but who are now in the position of having had to dispose of their victory bonds and their visible assets are rapidly disappearing. The minister fails to tell the people of Canada that 96 per cent of the world's wheat is handled by organizations similar to the wheat board and that while Canada is one of the big exporters in the world it is the only major country which till today has not provided some sort of subsidy.
Although it is one-sided, the minister has information from the United States and he



103S

[Stage Direction]
will admit that substantial amounts have been taken from the treasury there to subsidize this product. I suggest to the minister that he read the speech which his colleague, the Minister of Finance, delivered in New York on November 1. I am sorry 1 do not have a copy with me but the Minister of Finance while in New York pointed out that the Canadian farmers are producing the best quality of wheat in the world, and that they are prepared to sell it in competition with any other wheat in the world; but they cannot be expected to sell in competition with heavily subsidized wheat or in the face of tariffs. An example would be France. I am sure I am quoting the minister correctly but I will have a copy of the speech here tomorrow and I shall deal with this subject at greater length, but that is roughly the point the minister was trying to make-
An hon. Member:: Don't tell me you are going to speak again tomorrow.


Hazen Robert Argue: Another wheat expert.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -that many of the people in Canada are in the position where they cannot do anything but produce wheat and it is unfair for them to have to try to compete in world markets with other producers whose vheat is subsidized.
The last time I discussed the matter I had on my desk some information regarding Uruguay. If I remember correctly, since embarking on a subsidy program, Uruguay has increased exports tenfold; and the minister says we cannot pay farmers for storing on the farm. In Uruguay the government subsidizes the difference between what they pay the farmers and the price at which they sell the wheat in the world market. The price at the beginning of the crop year is $2.51 a bushel and it goes up each month until it reaches $2.72, a difference of over 20 cents. Therefore the farmers are paid over 20 cents a bushel for keeping the grain on their farms from the time they harvest it until-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend is speaking of Uruguay. Could he give me the total export of Uruguayan wheat?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If I remember correctly, Uruguay increased its exports from 6 million to 60 million; I think it is around 60 million bushels. I said to begin with it is not a large amount compared with the Canadian export. But sixty million bushels is ten times six million and Uruguay is coming into markets that have been ours, and I do not see how the Canadian farmer who has been forced to produce without any subsidy is going to be in a position to compete with farmers from the United States, Uruguay, Great Britain and 67509-66i
Wheat
Sweden and from every major wheat-producing country in the world with their large subsidies.
As I mentioned yesterday, France has recently completed a sale to Poland of some 12 million bushels. The French treasury pays $1.01 a bushel and the farmers through contributions to their funds put up over 50 cents a bushel; and $1.61 a bushel is what the subsidy amounts to on every bushel of wheat from France that went into the world market last year. How can the Minister of Trade and Commerce go into the markets of Europe and sell Canadian wheat in competition with high quality wheat from France that carries a subsidy of $1.61 a bushel? I think the minister is doing a real disservice in not bringing to the attention of his colleagues in the cabinet the fact that we are in a new situation where 96 per cent of the world's wheat, as I have said, is being marketed by boards such as ours, and we have been trying to compete without some form of a support price.
The minister made some critical remarks regarding the suggestions which have come from this side of the house concerning the accepting of a partial payment in soft currency and accepting barter. The minister is very slow to move, but he is gradually accepting some suggestions. A year ago he did recommend to his cabinet that wheat be sold to Poland on time and that the government underwrite the insurance. That has been well received across the country and Poland has been well pleased with Canadian wheat according to the information we received from them. However, when Poland wanted to buy 200,000 tons recently the minister said, we will give them 100,000 tons. I submit we cannot increase our sales with that sort of public relations policy when France is prepared to take a chance on selling 200,000 tons of flour and 100,000 tons of wheat.
I think it is as plain as A.B.C. that if we are going to continue sales in the new markets we have to be prepared to accept goods from these markets. I hope the minister's department, in addition to having a staff to sell Canadian goods abroad, will be prepared to take the initiative and give leadership in Canada to find a means whereby we can get some Polish goods into the Canadian market. Saskatchewan farmers last year bought United States and British cement at high prices. Boats were coming into Churchill for grain and I think it would have been an easy matter to have arranged to have some cement come into Churchill for the prairie market when the boats were going to take out wheat.
Apparently Poland expects to buy from 40 million to 60 million bushels of wheat each

Wheat
year for the next ten years. They think that of the 4,000 million dollars' worth of imports we bring into Canada each year they might expect to have four or five million dollars' worth of their goods come in. If we will take four or five million dollars' worth of goods from them they are prepared to take fifteen million dollars' worth of wheat from us. These deals are not going to come about by chance. The minister's agents have had long experience in selling wheat, but up to this moment we have not had people going into our potential markets in an effort to find out what goods can be brought from those countries into our country. How can they be sold in Canada without disrupting our automobile industry, our textile industry and our other industries? Believe me, unless we are going to face this problem very soon we are going to lose out in some of the potential markets we have.
Now there is a final word I feel obliged to say. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture particularly deserve the criticism from the farm members of this house for their failure to present the plight of agriculture in all of Canada in its proper light. It is a great misfortune, when corporation profits are at an all-time high and when every sector of our economy is prosperous, that the minister refuses to recognize this. Consider the job he did during the war as minister of munitions, when a million dollars did not mean a thing to him, when $50 million to develop the synthetic rubber plant at Sarnia was provided with a snap of the fingers, when it was apparent that probably it would be a dead loss but the minister was not afraid to risk $50 million because we had lost our supply of natural rubber. But, when it comes to providing some sort of security for the 600,000 farm families in Canada, that is a different matter. When it comes to giving them some assurance for providing food for our own people and our neighbours in other parts of the world, then we get the sort of performance we have had tonight. He gives the impression that the wheat farmers are driving new automobiles, that they have money in the bank, that their land is free from debt, or if not it is their own fault. I could not allow this debate to end without challenging that incorrect picture of western agriculture.


Mr. Hahn:: It is only through the chance remarks-or possibly the quite deliberate remarks-of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that I rise to take part in this debate. If I heard his words properly, he said that the reason for not paying storage on farm-stored grain was that it does not belong to elevators. Later on he went on to explain
tMr. Nicholson.]
that paying for cattle in advance would be the same as paying for farm-stored grain. I am not going to take any exception to what he had to say in that respect. I leave that to the farmers in the house or those who represent farming communities to explain their particular point of view with respect to that question.
However, the part that did intrigue me was the fact that the grain stored on farms does not belong to the elevators. I would say that is probably perfectly right. However, how does that tie in with the question that was asked by the hon. member for Cariboo on January 20 of the Prime Minister? He asked:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, in view of the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce yesterday that ships are awaiting rail shipments of wheat, owing to shortage of box cars. Will the government reconsider the offer of assistance in the building of the Pacific Great Eastern railway, in view of the fact that this railway will shorten the haul from the Peace river area to tide water by half the distance, in other words, that one box car on the short haul will do the work of two?
That statement is possibly very true-I might say it is completely true-that with the building of the Pacific Great Eastern railway the farmers will require one box car instead of two to transport their grain to a Pacific coast terminal. The difference is caused by the fact that the haul is shorter. Knowing full well that the Pacific Great Eastern railway is going into the Peace river area and that its terminal in the north Vancouver area is practically complete at this time, I would urge very strongly that the government consider building a terminal elevator at the terminus of the Pacific Great Eastern railway in North Vancouver.
Further, may I point out to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the annual report of the port of New Westminster for the year 1953 indicates that in the year 1952 the number of bushels of grain sent out of that port was 9,633,733. That is practically 10 million bushels of grain. In 1953 that figure dropped to 8,571,058, according to the following year's report, and in 1954 it dropped to 5,448,714 bushels. We have there a terminal elevator that will house some 800,000 bushels of grain. We have all the facilities that are required. We have, as the Minister of Transport will recognize, one of the finest ports on the Pacific coast. We have all the rail lines leading into the area, and we could use more grain storage facilities for the very purpose of assisting those farmers in the west.
I am satisfied, as other members of this house must be, that the crops of today are not just an accident. They are not just bumper crops that occur from time to time,

as we are led to believe. Certainly it should be recognized by this time that whilst the crops have been somewhat above what we would ordinarily call normal for the past several years, there have been many extenuating circumstances in the past few years that have helped to make these crops continue to be well over the national average over the past 30 years. For that reason we shall require more storage space at all times. Therefore I would once again urge the government to examine the possibility of building a terminal elevator at the port of New Westminster and one at the terminus of the Pacific Great Eastern railway.


Mr. Thatcher:: I have only one point to make before this resolution passes. This bill is going to cost the taxpayers of Canada $32 million. I know there are many hon. members from eastern Canada and the west who are not too enthusiastic about it. This is a good deal of money, and so I suppose they cannot be blamed. However, as a western prairie member, I find this legislation, which is going to give the western farmers $32 million, pretty easy to take. As a matter of fact, I think it can be justified because, certainly, the west is in very serious difficulties at the moment. So I appreciate the fact that the rest of Canada is going to give the west a helping hand at this time. Perhaps later on we can reciprocate.
The hon. member for Moose Mountain said this was only a "halting step". It is a $32 million halting step, and I think it is one that will be welcomed by most prairie farmers. I know there are many hon. members in this house from other parts of the nation who think that Saskatchewan members are always complaining and are never satisfied. Well, sometimes I wonder whether we do not tend to paint a picture which is perhaps too gloomy. Frequently I wonder whether too much complaining by prairie representatives, may not mean in the long run, that the province's well-being is harmed.
In any event, I want to assure the Minister of Trade and Commerce and members from the rest of Canada that most Saskatchewan farmers are independent, self-reliant, aggressive and like to stand on their own feet. They do want the opportunity of course to earn a decent living on their farms. I do not think the resolution is going to solve the farm crisis, but I do think that 99 [DOT] 9 per cent of the farmers in the three prairie provinces will welcome it.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I only rise to make one comment with respect to a matter raised by the hon. member for New Westminster who referred to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce had said respecting
Wheat
the farmer's wheat on the farm being in exactly the same position as his cattle. He owns the cattle; they are on his farm. He owns the wheat; it is on his farm. I am sure that analysis will not go down with the farmers of western Canada, and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows that is not the whole truth.
It is true that the western farmer owns the wheat on his farm and owns the cattle on his farm but there is a difference between the two. The difference is just this, that he can go out and sell his cattle wherever he can get a buyer to buy them. He can go to the local packer. He can go to the city where there may be several packing houses. He can sell to other people and other interests if he wishes. But there is only one channel through which he can sell his wheat and that is the wheat board, which is going to take the wheat eventually anyway. That is where the difference lies. So the farmer says: Well, if the wheat board is going to take my wheat anyway why not give me a loan on it or why not even give me an advance payment? That will tide me over. They will have the wheat even though it is stored on my farm. That is the difference. I believe my point is well taken and I think the farmers will know that the minister has slightly erred in his analysis of the situation.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has prompted me to make some comment. He referred to members-I think he was addressing this group particularly-who have made a strong fight against bank loans and the resolution preceding the bill which will force farmers to pay interest to the banks if they want to get some money on their farm-stored grain. He says he feels that members should have a sense of proportion and I think admitted in his statement that it was a rather bad piece of legislation. I agree with him. It is very bad and it is repugnant to the western farmers. He goes on to say that in view of that bad piece of legislation he is now bringing in a good piece of legislation which we should be happy about and accept. Therefore I suppose he feels we should start patting the government on the back. To me, Mr. Chairman, it is just like taking a good egg and a bad egg, trying to make an omelet out of them and saying that you have a pretty fair omelet. I do not think it would be a very good omelet. I do not think we should necessarily accept a bad piece of legislation just because the government is proposing to bring in something that may be a little more acceptable to us.

Wheat
Certain members of the house, particularly on the Liberal side, have tried to indicate that this measure is going to be of some considerable aid to the western farmer. I would not have been prompted to rise if that had been true, but nothing could be further from the truth. The $30 million that is going to be spent will be spent in the interests of everybody in Canada. Members on the government side of the house are prone to get up and try to indicate that the farmers ask for handouts. I remember quite well the U.K. agreement under which the government shipped to Great Britain over a four-year period 160 million bushels of wheat for the first two years and 140 million bushels for the subsequent years at a price of $1.55 a bushel when the world price was much higher.
I quite agree that we had price controls in Canada, and no group in the country was more ready to accept price controls than Canadian farmers. Under the agreement with Great Britain there was a have-regard clause stating that the British government would have regard for the prevailing world price which would have some bearing on the settlement at the end of the four-year period. According to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and other government spokesmen the British government met every responsibility under the have-regard clause. But what did this government do? They had $65 million in the kitty left over from a loan arrangement with Great Britain so they said: We will give this to the western farmers and maybe they will be content. There was no sense of justice or proportion as to what would have been fair recompense having regard to the position of the farmers during that period.
The minister says that this is not the government's money but is the people's money. Of course it is the people's money and it is the farmer's money too. During the war 60 million or 70 million bushels of wheat were consumed annually in Canada and under the policy that prevailed at that time the farmer only received $1.25 a bushel. In addition, he subsidized the Canadian consumer to the extent of over 70 cents a bushel on every bushel of wheat going into the making of bread in Canada. Therefore I say that if anyone has lost his sense of proportion it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That is all I intend to say now other than to say that I do not agree with the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre when he tries to say that this is giving the farmer something. That is the word he used, "giving". This is not a handout to the farmer. This is a policy of good government for all the Canadian people.

Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 83, respecting the payment of carrying costs of temporary wheat reserves owned by the Canadian wheat board.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act to provide for a number of administrative changes under the act; inter alia; to reorganize the capital structure of the board by cancelling existing share stock and issuing new stock up to a par value of three million dollars; to allow loans to be made up to sixty-five per cent of the value of the lands with a maximum loan of fifteen thousand dollars; that there be only one reserve fund not exceeding an amount equal to the capital stock of the board;
And to provide further for the repayment of the capital advanced by the government to the board with respect to its operation under the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act, less the deficit of the board on its operation under the act and the amount of outstanding loans.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Chairman, hon. members will find that the bill to follow this resolution will have two chief aspects. I refer first to the aspect of financial opportunities for farmers in borrowing under the act. The bill will provide that the maximum loan opportunities will be increased from $10,000 on first mortgage plus $2,000 on second mortgage to a maximum over-all of $15,000.
Hon. members will also find that lending value will have an increase from 60 per cent to 65 per cent. The bill will also provide simplification by the elimination of the second mortgage procedure now in part II of the bill. In the second aspect there will be simplification of the balance sheet and the capital structure. In so far as this part of the proposals are concerned, I think that hon. members will like to see the bill before they go into too much detail over the balance sheet and capital structure. In addition, there will be some minor and technical changes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, ithis act has now been in operation for many years. I think the sense of the committee is that it has well served the purpose for which it was intended. Although many conditions have

conspired to reduce the percentage of the population which is taking part in farming, nevertheless I think we all recognize the fact that agriculture is doubly important, first of all because of its material contribution-and I shall come back to that matter in a moment- and second, because of the fact that those who live on the land, those who have that steady and steadying influence in their lives, form an extremely important part of the population. I think it is undesirable when they shrink to a small percentage. As time goes on I hope there will be offsetting considerations. Of course, we cannot overlook the fact that a great deal of work that was formerly done on the farm is now done in the factory and that one man can now raise the food that it formerly took ten men to raise. Nevertheless I think a measure like this one, which is designed to assist those who are now in farming and, perhaps even more important, to induce other people to take to that profession, is an extremely important measure indeed.
The board has carried on in a sensible way. 1 think they have won confidence. Their losses have been small. When we are asked to extend their powers, to extend the amount of the loan and to extend the percentage which may be loaned, I think we may feel that we are giving these powers to men who over a period of many years, have shown that they are responsible and that they are entitled to be entrusted with these powers. There are certain questions of detail which one will wish to ask with regard to the administrative changes, changes in capitalization-there are special points with regard to fishermen's loans-and others. But as there will probably be other members of the committee who would like to make some general observations-some of them who are closer to the industry than I am personally-I shall content myself now with saying just what I have said, namely that I feel that this is a matter of great importance; that for nearly 30 years we have had experience with those who are managing it; and that the results are such as to make us wish to continue the powers so that in the future the act may, if possible, serve a more useful purpose than it has served in the past.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I have had a lifelong interest in agricultural credit because I am a great believer in agricultural development, particularly at this time in the still pioneer sections of our country. I think experience proves the historic necessity for agricultural credit by means of low-interest, long-term loans if you are going to establish a sound agriculture in any country.
Canadian Farm Loan Act
I am particularly interested in this resolution because I notice that there is provision for an increase in the amount of loans, up to a maximum of $15,000, and that the resolution suggests that loans can be up to 65 per cent of the value of the farm concerned, However, I wish to offer a few suggestions, as a result of experience, and to make a few criticisms.
I quite agree with the hon. member whc spoke previously that during the past 30 years the record of the board has been good and that it has served a useful purpose so far as agricultural development in Canada is concerned. Before proceeding further, Mr. Chairman, I must make it clear that I represent a particular breed of farmers who are obliged to work 12 months a year, from 12 to 16 hours a day in order to make a modest living anc who are more acquainted with the axe, ths crosscut saw and the grub hoe than they art with the rubbertired tractor or the combine It is on behalf of that particular group ol farmers that I am speaking this evening.
My first criticism and suggestion with respect to the administration of the act woulc be that, as far as British Columbia is concerned-particularly owing to development! in the last 10 or 15 years-the administratior is somewhat centralized. We have a brand office in New Westminster. To this offici everyone is obliged to write and from thi; office all the officials are obliged to trave to all parts of British Columbia. I sugges that the board would be wise to consider thi establishment even on a modest scale, of oni or two branch offices in the interior am northern sections of the province. I think thi experience of the Veterans Land Act admini stration indicated that, for efficient service that procedure was necessary.
I think the present rather centralized ad ministration, having just one office in NeM Westminster in British Columbia, at time creates inconvenience to the applicants a well as unnecessary delay. On account of th fact that the staff are obliged to make thei headquarters at New Westminster-and I ar not blaming the staff-there is a tendency t lose contact with local conditions in variou parts of the province, and with farmers an' farmers' organizations directly interested i: the administration of this act. I also thin' there is a tendency on the part of those wh have to deal with the larger farms-such a those in the Fraser valley and other parts-because of their lack of local contact wit local conditions, to underestimate the oppor tunities that are provided for pioneer devel opment. Those opportunities abound in th
1040	HOUSE OF
Canadian Farm Loan Act constituency which I have the honour to represent. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I think you are also acquainted with the conditions of which I am speaking this evening. While you remain silent, I am sure that at heart you will be sympathetic with what I have to say.
In the West Kootenay district we have at the present time between 14,000 and 15,000 acres of undeveloped agricultural land which up until recent years could be reached only by steamer, primitive roads and trails. But as a result of road development within the last five or six years, large areas of this land are becoming accessible. Schools are being built and the sick can be taken to hospital. Several times during the last 50 years much of this land was considered for agricultural development, but it was not developed because of the lack of access to schools, hospitals and communications generally.
Now I am confident, Mr. Chairman, that if ;he board had their administration decentra-ized, if they had a branch office in the southern interior and one in the northern interior, ;he officials would get a better appreciation ind understanding of the opportunities that ixist for sound agricultural development mder pioneer conditions. Now, to demon-itrate the opportunities for development vhich exist as a result of the availability of ong-term low interest agricultural credit, l want to quote briefly from the Nelson Daily News. Here is a large heading across t, "West Kootenay Fills Only 16 per cent of Dwn Food Needs." The article says:
West Kootenay in 1951 required food valued at j55,293,888 in order to satisfy the appetites of its population of 54,737 persons. A little better than iO per cent of this value was made up of goods brought into the area and 16 per cent was of local brigin.
These facts are brought out in a report on the narket for farm products in the 13,000 square-mile jrea of West Kootenay, written by W. C. Shipley and I. F. Furniss of the federal Department of Agriculture.
We have the land and we have exception-;lly good markets, Mr. Chairman. We have he young people who desire to settle on that and. In some cases the young people wish to ake over the farms and orchards that their larents have operated for many years, but here are others who are willing to go on the 'irgin land that is available.
I suggest also that under certain circum-tances the regulations are too rigid. I read a the 1954 report of the Canadian farm loan ioard, page 16, this one paragraph which is aarked, "Who may qualify?"
Any person whose principal occupation is farm-ng and who owns or proposes to purchase a farm ind who is actually engaged in or about to become ingaged in farming the land offered as security. 

An applicant must satisfy the board that he has the necessary experience and ability to successfully operate the farm and repay the loan.
I want to bring to the attention of the house the reason I maintain that at the present time -I am not blaming the officials for this-the regulations apparently are too rigid. There is in my constituency a very experienced and successful farmer who farms 390 acres. Now, that is a very large farm in the riding which I have the honour to represent. He has 100 acres of that land in hay and the balance in pasture and a small area in grain. He gets well over 100 tons of hay a year and has an excellent herd of good beef cattle. This very successful farmer made an application to the board for a relatively small loan, and his application was rejected. They admitted he was an experienced, successful farmer, but it was rejected on the ground that his house was not on the land on which he wished to raise the loan.
The circumstances are these. This is a cattle farm at an elevation of about 3,000 feet; it is in a mountain valley near Slocan city. I am sure the member for Vancouver-Quadra knows the area about which I am speaking. It is west of Slocan city and it has been farmed for years. There is a very rough mountain road to get there and he cannot live on this land because of getting his children to school. He has to have his milk herd on land closer to Slocan city which is, incidentally, the smallest city in North America. I believe it has a population of something over 375 persons. He has to live on the lower levels in order to get his children to school and deliver his farm products to the city and surrounding district. His application was rejected strictly on the ground that he was not living on the land he was farming. I bring that to the attention of the house because I think it illustrates in some respects that the regulations are too rigid.
Then, as I said before, there is a tendency, and I think it springs from the regulations, to underestimate the possibilities for successful farm development under pioneer conditions. I am quite sure that some of those gentlemen who come from the coast do not believe this heavily wooded area looks like a good investment when compared to some of the land in the Fraser valley or the coastal regions of British Columbia. However, they underestimate, in some cases, the productivity of the soil. They possibly do not realize the excellent markets that are available within a range of 50 miles. They underestimate the calibre of some of these young people particularly who are anxious to settle on the land.
My further criticism would be that the interest rate is too high. At the moment the

interest rate is 5 per cent. Experience in the United Kingdom and in Europe indicates that agricultural credit can be extended very successfully at not more than 3 per cent for loans that are kept up to date. I think the experience of our own Canadian farm loan board indicates that the investment in loans on Canadian farms has been a sound investment throughout the years. It indicates the excellent security and stability of the Canadian farmer. I feel that the experience of the Veterans' Land Act administration bears this out also. Incidentally they have lent considerable sums of money to veterans wishing to settle on land in my constituency and I have yet to hear of the first failure to meet the payments within a reasonable time.
I do urge, therefore, that consideration be given to making the interest rate 3 per cent. As I said before, the experience with agricultural credit in Great Britain and the European countries indicates it is a sound policy. It has proven sound for many years. I believe we should do that at least for these young men and women particularly who are anxious to go into pioneer districts, clear the land and add to the total production of this country. We need to develop our agricultural resources. We need to provide opportunities for our young people. I make this suggestion, Mr. Chairman, as a result of some experience in farming myself, some personal knowledge of the conditions I speak about, and I do urge the minister to give consideration to my representations.


Frederick George Hahn: We in this group consider this legislation very desirable, largely for the two reasons suggested in the resolution itself. First, it says that loans shall be increased to a maximum of $15,000, and secondly loans can be a maximum of up to 65 per cent of the land value. However, we do have a criticism to make concerning the past operations of the act. Frequently we find that appraisals are much too conservative and the property is actually worth many times the value the appraisers place upon it. This makes it impossible for a farmer to get a loan of a reasonable size.
Frequently, we hear remarks to the effect that the appraisals are more conservative than one would get from ordinary mortgage companies. I am not sure of the exact workings of the act. If representations are made by the Fraser valley fruit growers, who suffered such a serious loss from frost in November that they will not have a strawberry crop for the next three years at least, I certainly hope that those funds will be made available to them in an amount that will make it practicable for them to go back to the raising of that particular crop.
Committee on Estimates
We have the large area in the Cariboo section of British Columbia which is going to be opened to the public as soon as the railway line is completed. We are satisfied that those who wish to settle in that area to farm should be able to find some use of this act, if it should function in the way in which we hope it will function.
I should now like to refer to the section having to do with fishermen. I am not too certain whether the intent here is that it should act as a revolving fund. It would appear to be so. For that reason and for reasons which others have given who have spoken on this resolution, I hope that when the resolution reaches the bill stage it will be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce for further consideration and discussion.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 84, to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That a select committee to be designated be appointed to consider such of the estimates as may be referred to it and to report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I propose to refer only briefly to the motion, but I should like to make two points. First, we had a very considerable use of this committee last year, and it seemed to me that-I know there will be objections voiced with respect to some of the procedure in the committee-the committee did perform a useful function. I do not think it can be said that it cut down the time of consideration of the estimates in the committee of supply, but that was not the only reason for appointing the committee. There were many other reasons, and it does seem to me that we ought to continue the experiment for another year at least, if not longer.
Last year, I think the house will recall, we placed before the committee the estimates of four departments. In discussing the motion I said it would be desirable to try to get around to all of the departments in the course of a parliament which would run the normal period of time. That is still our intention and our hope.

Committee on Estimates
We had considered what estimates we might refer to the committee this year. We did that some two months ago and decided to refer to the committee the estimates of the Department of Labour, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of National Revenue and the Post Office Department.
Requests have been made by opposition groups with respect to other departments. I should like to say, sir, that we shall do our best to fit into the program those departments that are now ready to appear before the committee, but if there is time we shall do our best to accommodate the opposition groups, not in full because I know that will not be possible, but in part at least.
On that basis, I hope, sir, that the motion will carry and that the committee may be able to get to work at an early date.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the motion will carry, although there are some changes we should like to see in it before it does carry.
The minister has said that this committee was set up last year on an experimental basis. I took from what he said it was felt by himself and his colleagues that it performed a useful function last year.
With that statement I would agree. We in the official opposition felt that it was a useful step in enabling this house to deal more effectively and efficiently with one of its major tasks, perhaps its major task, namely, the scrutinizing and the control of the spending of public money, but we felt-and on reflection we have no reason to change our opinion -that its usefulness was largely circumscribed by the restrictions on its power.
It is our view that this committee can perform a useful function, and it should be continued on a basis that will enable it better to perform that function. Perhaps so that we can be quite clear as to the basis of discussion here, I should say we feel that there are two main functions that this committee on estimates could and should perform. One of them is a considerably minor function. I will mention it first. It is a possible method of saving the time of the whole house. There were, as I recall it, in the committee appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the revision of the rules which sat for several years, a number of discussions as to whether we should have a committee on estimates, and if so, what should be its nature, its composition and its purposes. There were quite a number who suggested that one of its major functions would be to save the time of the house and to shorten the session. Both at the time these discussions were taking place and as a result


of the experience we had in the committee, I did not feel and do not feel that was or should be its primary function.
With the growing volume of government business and with the growing volume of expenditure, I think it is inevitable that there will be a tendency for sessions to grow longer. Therefore we should approach that aspect of the situation not so much with a determination to shorten sessions, because if we do we are going to have to cut down on the effectiveness of our work somewhat. We should approach it rather from the point of view of how we can most effectively and efficiently discharge our work so that sessions will not grow unnecessarily and burdensomely longer. It is that function which I think this committee can best discharge, and which should be its main purpose; that is, to enable parliament to perform its function of the control of expenditure most efficiently and effectively. In the light of the growing volume of government work, and the extension of the field into which governments seem to engage unnecessarily-some no doubt will say necessarily-unless there is efficiency in the work of parliament in scrutinizing the expenditure of governments, the whole question of the extent to which the people's money is taken and spent by government may get entirely out of control. I do not like to be extreme in my statements, as the Minister of Finance knows, but there is some ground for feeling that it has already gone too far and the government dips its hand too deep into the national revenue to an extent that has gone beyond the safety point.
In considering this matter, as in so many cases, I think it is useful to look at the experience and history of other countries, and the one which forms the readiest guide for us is the experience of the United Kingdom parliament. In looking at the debate at the time when their estimates committee was first set up I find that this was the basis upon which they decided to set up that committee in the year 1912 when they first had an estimates committee. The statement of the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Lloyd George, in which he introduced the motion setting up the committee, made it perfectly clear that the purpose which the government had in mind in setting it up was to enable the house to provide a means by which the House of Commons could more effectively discharge its duties to scrutinize and control expenditure. It was made quite clear in his statement that there was a large body of opinion in the United Kingdom parliament at that time, and I think it would be accurate to say it could be taken from the chancellor's

statement that he shared that opinion to a great extent, which felt that the committee of the whole house, which in this case would be the committee of supply, could not effectively check the growing tendency towards increased expenditure.
He complained, as I suppose his counterpart here, the Minister of Finance and his predecessors and successors will always complain, that the great preponderance of the pressure he gets from hon. members of parliament is for increased expenditure rather than the reverse.
The chancellor told a moving story of the difficulty that confronted him in any endeavour not only to reduce expenditures but to even prevent them from growing beyond all reasonable bounds, and he said in effect that really he was not unduly critical of hon. members for that tendency because, as he said, they come to parliament with individual needs, cases arising in their constituencies which they feel they must put forward, or the necessity of individual groups within the framework of the national economy, and it is natural and proper that they should press those needs; but the result was that there was an over-all pressure in the direction of increased expenditure and that really the only body which regarded itself as the watchdog, and the only body which ever came anywhere near exercising a tendency in the opposite direction, was the treasury, which in Canada we call the treasury board. I think I have heard the Minister of Finance argue somewhat along the same lines in this house.
The committee of supply is a committee of the whole house and thus a committee of a large number of hon. members where it is difficult to come to grips with details and perhaps it is inefficient to come to grips with details because it means that every hon. member who engages in a discussion of any length with the minister on a matter of detail does so while 264 other hon. members are waiting until the individual discussion is concluded before any of the rest of the business can be proceeded with. For these reasons
Committee on Estimates it is possible that the committee is not a body where discussions of detail can be efficiently carried on as a general practice.
That sentiment was agreed to, I think, by most of the hon. members who spoke in the debate in the United Kingdom. Now, sir, I mentioned that at some length because I think it is important that we should keep before us the main function which this committee can and should serve, and that is to deal with details, to be a watchdog of expenditure, to be an agency by which the committee of supply can discharge the function which has perhaps rather slipped from its grasp over late years and which perhaps was inevitably bound to slip from its grasp by the nature of the complexity of the business with which parliament now deals. Therefore, if this committee is tc perform this function of effective scrutiny and thereby increase the efficiency of departments and ensure that the people of this country get a dollar's value for every dollar that is spent, I submit it is absolutely essentia] that the committee should have the necessary powers to enable it to discharge that function
I submit to you, sir, without any hesitation on the basis of our experience last year, tha' the commitee as then constituted did not have those powers and that the committee as contemplated in the motion now standing in th< name of the Prime Minister will not have th< necessary powers to enable it to discharge it: function unless the resolution is amendec along the lines which we intend to offer ii the course of this discussion.
If it suits the convenience of hon. member, I should like you to call it ten o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Fulton the debate wa adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we will take th estimates of the Department of Agricultur tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, withou question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions