1957-02-08

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and ask him whether final disposition has been made of the question of forwarding a petition from the Indians to Her Majesty the Queen. Does the minister intend to follow the course previously outlined of looking into it himself rather than following the traditional policy toward Indians of permitting them to appeal direct to Her Majesty? If that is his view, will he table the petition so that we may know exactly the nature of this petition on behalf of these wards of the Canadian people who, while they have no votes, have rights?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, having looked at Hansard for the past few days I rather anticipated I would be asked a question about this subject this morning. As I told the house on a previous occasion, since this petition came into my hands I have sought the advice of the legal advisers of the government as to the appropriate disposition to be made of it.
As hon. members are aware, and if they were not aware they were told I believe the day before yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Queen in Canadian, affairs has only one group of advisers, her Canadian advisers. It is obvious that the Queen as a constitutional monarch can act only on advice. Obviously there would be no purpose served from any point of view by forwarding the petition without some responsibility being taken for such advice.
I have been advised by the deputy minister of justice and I shall read the advice I received from him as the house is perfectly entitled to know what I have received. This advice came to me in the usual constitutional 82715-70
manner through my deputy minister. The document is addressed to the deputy minister and reads as follows:
February 4, 1957.
The Deputy Minister,
Department of Citizenship and Immigration,
Woods Building,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,
I understand that Mrs. Gorman, barrister, of Calgary, sent a petition addressed to Her Majesty to His Excellency the Governor General concerning proposed amendments to the Indian Act and that His Excellency in turn referred the matter to you.
You have asked my opinion whether the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is required to take any action in respect of the matters petitioned for. In my opinion, he is not.
I might add that it is established practice for the Governor General to refer matters of this kind to the responsible minister.	.
Yours truly,
F. P. Varcoe,
Deputy Attorney General of Canada.
I may say that I have examined the petition and it does not appear to me to be in the form prescribed by the rules of the house for submission to the house. Since I am not an expert in these matters I would not wish to express any view of my own, but it does not appear to me that I should offer to table this petition without its being examined in the way prescribed by the rules. I may say, before the Leader of the Opposition gets too excited, that I would not have the slightest objection to the petition being made public; indeed I would be most happy that its contents should be known to every hon. member and to every other person interested, because the petition merely sets out the same arguments as have been made previously in other documents addressed to me and to the officers of my department. There is nothing new in it and there is no difference in substance from those arguments which have been made up to now by Mrs. Gorman, a barrister in Calgary, on behalf of the Indian Association of Alberta.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the minister now say that the reason he will not table it is that this petition is not a petition that would be accepted by parliament if it had been made to parliament? Is that the ground?


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I said, sir, was that I have looked up the rules and it did not appear to me that this petition was in the

Inquiries of the Ministry form prescribed by parliament, and that I would not venture to offer to table it without that point being considered by you, Mr. Speaker, or by the appropriate officers of the house.
As to the substance of it, I have not the slightest objection. I would certainly be delighted to make copies of it available to every hon. member. But I do not want to break the rules of the house.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises out of the statement which has just been made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. He said the petition should be looked at, and its propriety determined, before he tables it. Is it not the practice according to our rules -and I am looking at standing order No. 70-for a member who has received a petition to table it, and for the decision as to whether or not the petition is in proper form to be made by the clerk of petitions?
Standing order No. 70 provides under paragraph (1) for a petition to be tabled. Without reading all the paragraphs I will proceed to paragraph (7) which states:
On the next day following the presentation of a petition the clerk of the house shall lay upon the table the report of the clerk of petitions upon the petitions presented and such report shall be printed m the Votes and Proceedings of that day.
And so on. I do not think the rest of it is relevant.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is usurping a function of the clerk of the house and the clerk of petitions. The petition may well be in a form which is not proper, but should not the clerk of petitions make that decision rather than the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the point of order which has been raised.
This is just another example of the minister taking upon himself, and arrogating to himself, a power of censorship which he does not possess. This is not a petition to parliament. This was a petition to Her Majesty the Queen, and the hon. gentleman, in what appears to me to be a monstrous perversion of his rights, refuses to permit that petition to go to its destination.
Then, when a proper request is made that parliament should at least know what is in the petition, the minister resorts to what I consider to be another subterfuge in order to deny Indians the opportunity of bringing their petition of wrongs before the house. I think Your Honour will agree that the state-
rnent made by the minister at this time, and his latest stand on this subject, show not only lack of knowledge of the rules but a continued desire to act tyrannously toward these Indians.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point just raised by the hon. gentleman, may I say that I did not refuse to table this petition, and I am not refusing to do so. I said that I wished to stay within the rules of the house, and that I needed guidance on that point.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no doubt about that.


Mr. Speaker:: With regard to this matter of order which has been raised: In the first place one would have to know to whom the petition has been addressed, because it must be borne in mind, according to citation 584 of Beauchesne, third edition, that a member cannot be compelled to present a petition. And according to citation 593:
Every petition should commence with the superscription: "To the Honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled." Then should follow the formula:	"The Petition of the undersigned . . . humbly sheweth." Follows the subject-matter on the petition, in the third person through, and commencing each paragraph with the word "That". The conclusion should be the "Prayer" tersely and clearly expressing the particular object which the petitioners have in view in coming before parliament. The petition should close with the formal words: "and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray". Here follow the signatures which must be in writing and not typewritten or printed.
Without a prayer, a document will not be taken as a petition: and a paper, assuming the style of a declaration, an address of thanks, or a remonstrance only, without a proper form of prayer, will not be received.
There is no doubt that, according to standing order 70, once a petition is presented by a member, either by passing it over to the clerk or presenting it in the house at the beginning of routine proceedings, the clerk of petitions has the responsibility of examining it and making a report and the Speaker on that report will make a ruling whether or not the petition will be received. But it is up to the member who is in possession of the petition to do what he wishes, and that is the information which I think I might give the minister with respect to the matter. He is not compelled to deposit the petition, as it is said in citation 584, but if he wishes to do so he can leave it with the Clerk, the clerk of petitions will examine it and if it is not in conformity with the requirements of citation 593 the petition will have to be ruled out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank Your Honour for this guidance and I will be glad to give the petition to the Clerk at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Since the minister has made himself the final addressee of the petition from the Indian Association of Alberta instead of sending it on to Her Majesty the Queen to whom it was addressed-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -has the minister sent a reply in answer to the petition to the Indian Association of Alberta? If so, what is the reply?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might begin by saying that it does not surprise me that several members of the Tory party seem to want to go back to the days before responsible government when this country was ruled from London.


John George Diefenbaker: That is just nonsense.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We do not have responsible government at this time, so perhaps we ought to go back.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Our position on this side of the house is that it is our duty to take our constitutional responsibilities. Now that I have received the advice I sought from the law officer of the government, I intend to make a reply to the lady who submitted the petition.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Wetaskiwin wishes to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: I should like to ask the minister if he would, as he indicated a few minutes ago, have copies of the petition made for individual members and send them to them, provided the form of the petition is such that it cannot be tabled in the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to do that. [Later:']


Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the letter from the deputy minister of justice which he read a few minutes ago, would the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration state whether he read the entire contents of that letter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, I did not read "The Department of Justice" or whatever appears on the letterhead but I read everything that had any substance. I do not think I read "yours sincerely" or "yours truly" 82715-70i
Inquiries of the Ministry or whatever language appeared at the end of the letter, and I am not even sure I read Mr. Varcoe's signature.


Mr. Fleming:: Smart fellow.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Branf-Haldimand):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister been advised of the situation at the Six Nations reservation, having to do with the legality of a marriage ceremony performed under Indian tradition in the long house by an Indian chief? What is the ruling of the minister on this matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The ruling of the
minister on this matter is, sir, that the solemnization of marriage, under the British North America Act, is a provincial matter.


John Alpheus Charlton: May I ask a supplementary question. If it is a provincial matter, how is it that the name of this particular widow is on the Indian records in her maiden name?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know nothing about the facts in this particular case, but I shall be glad to look into the matter in question. I did not understand from the hon. member she was a widow; I thought she was married.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not see anything funny about it. Apparently, the minister is not aware of the facts. The husband was killed in an accident a short time after the marriage.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Battlefords):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the time expired under the Indian Act when Indians can protest the occupation of other persons on a reserve? My second question is this. Are there any persons other than those in the Samson case under protest at the moment on Indian reserves?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand, sir, that it will no longer be possible to make any protests about persons who were on the reserves at the time the act came into force. However, I would like to examine carefully the hon. gentleman's question and give a full answer the next day we are permitted to answer questions.

Inquiries of the Ministry INCOME TAX



INQUIRY AS TO REASSESSMENT OF 1950-51 RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['He referred to conversations but not in respect of the matters he discussed in the House of Commons.']
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister say if it is the policy of the Department of National Revenue to keep the door open on assessments of 1950 and 1951 income tax returns by reassessing taxpayers before January 1, 1957, when the revision of section 46 (4) (b) came into effect?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I will have to take the hon. lady's question as notice and I shall give her an answer later.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether, when presenting the amendment to section 46 (4) (b), he had any idea that the department would adopt some measure for circumventing the effectiveness of the amendment.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: am firmly convinced that the department does not take action to circumvent the action of parliament.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Was the Canadian government consulted concerning the appointment of Lieutenant General Hans Speidel as commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization central European land forces? If so, did the government express its approval of this appointment?


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that all the nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization were consulted. I have asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Camp-ney) to get out the record and prepare a more detailed answer than the one I am making at this moment.


[Stage Direction]
VISIT OF UNITED KINGDOM MINISTER-[DOT] REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DISCUSSIONS
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimali-Saanich):: May I ask the Minister of National Defence if he intends to make a statement to this house on the visit of the United Kingdom
tMr. Pickersgill.l
minister of defence, as was made by Mr, Duncan Sandys in the British House of Commons on February 6?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of making a statement beyond saying that we discussed matters of common interest, as would be the case with any minister coming from Great Britain. If there are any matters involved which anyone cares to raise when my estimates are up, I will try to answer them.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is the minister aware that the minister of defence did make a statement in Westminster on February 6?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, he did, about his visit to Washington. In the statement he made to the press here, however, he said there were no particular problems to be discussed with the Canadian government.


George Randolph Pearkes: In his statement to the British House of Commons he referred to conversations he had had with the Prime Minister and the minister of defence in Canada. Will the minister not consider making a similar statement?


Ralph Osborne Campney: He referred to conversations but not in respect of the matters he discussed in the House of Commons.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. B. Nesbill@Oxford: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the dangerous impasse created by the adamant stand of both Egypt and Israel in the Near East, has the government made any arrangements to withdraw the Canadian forces presently with the United Nations emergency force should further hostilities break out in the area?
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of Naiional
Defence): No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Nesbiit:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of this dangerous situation in the Near East is it the present intention of the government to continue with its plans to send further Canadian forces to the United Nations emergency force in Egypt until the present situation is clarified?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As regards the supplemental personnel of the services which were mentioned in the house the other day I said I would make an announcement as soon as it had been finally decided what is to be done in that regard. I think I may say that generally it is our intention to support

the United Nations emergency force as long as that support appears to be useful.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Will the minister comment on the fact that at the moment when the Bank of England has reduced its rate from 5i per cent to 5 per cent the Bank of Canada rate has actually gone up from 3.95 per cent to 3.97 per cent?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think the only comment that need be made is that the Bank of England raised its discount rate perhaps a year ago or a little more to what was considered to be an extraordinarily high rate and that this action was intended as a very pointed comment on the money market in the United Kingdom. The Bank of Canada have not felt it necessary to do that in Canada, though they did raise their rates successively during the last year when, I think, the rate reached 3J per cent by action of the Bank of Canada. Then a decision was made by the bank to establish the rate at J per cent above the going rate for 91-day treasury bills from week to week. The action of the Bank of England, as explained yesterday in the House of Commons at Westminster by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been anticipated for several months because of the improved position of sterling and the improved position generally of the United Kingdom with respect to its balance of payments problems and is nothing more than an indication- perhaps I should not interpret anything that the chancellor interpreted-that the problem which arose in the United Kingdom some months before it arose here has been dealt with successfully up to the present time by the same kind of action that is being adopted in Canada.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: From what the minister has said am I to take it that we may quite well expect bur rates still to be going up?


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question in view of his answer to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). He referred to the action of the Bank of England as a pointed comment on the situation obtaining in Great Britain. Would he say that the action of the Bank of Canada in raising the rate during the past year was in effect merely a pointed comment on the situation in Canada?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Edward Harris: Not quite to the same extent as in the United Kingdom, Mr. Speaker, because there, as I pointed out, they raised the rate beyond perhaps what the money market had expected and perhaps unnecessarily having in mind the ratio to the 91-day treasury bill rate. I do not want that to sound like any criticism of the action that the Bank of England took but it is a fact that they raised the rate some months ago to a high in a manner which has not been adopted by the Bank of Canada. As I say, the result is that their problem arose earlier than did ours and over a period of time they are finding that they are working out of it. We in Canada are now perhaps in the position that they were in six months to nine months ago.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I have a supplementary question to ask the Minister of Finance. Will the minister tell the house why this government maintains such a high rate on 91-day treasury bills?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I should like to go into this matter at great length on my estimates but I can perhaps give just one brief answer for the moment. We do not maintain a high rate of interest. This is a matter of public tender weekly and the tender system establishes the rate for that week.


Mr. Sinclair:: Free enterprise.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Does the minister think it is fair to try to make the members of this house believe that the Bank of Canada has nothing to do with the level of interest rates when everybody in the business world who is old enough to come in out of the wet knows that it has?



EXCISE TAX ON AUTOMOBILES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday we were quite agreeably surprised by the announcement made relative to taxes on automobiles, and we took the understanding that this would apply to all cars-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George William McLeod: Just a minute; let me explain.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George William McLeod: We took the understanding that all cars shipped to dealers on and after February 1 until the date of the bringing down of the budget would not be subject to tax unless sold in the meantime. However, the minister stated, as reported on page 1046 of

Inquiries of the Ministry Hansard, that a car would not be a tax-paid car until after title to the property had passed to the dealer. I should like to advise you-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George William McLeod: -that title passes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. gentleman has had ample time in which to lay a foundation for this question and he should now put it.


George William McLeod: I should like to ask the minister if he is aware that title to a car passes to the dealer the minute the seal is broken on the car at the point of delivery?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, what I intended to say yesterday was that I would recommend an amendment to the act during the budgetary bills which would overcome the difficulty to which my hon. friend is referring. If he will read my statement carefully he will see it is a remedial decision and not one of penalty.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Public Works? Has the minister received a petition from girls residing in Laurentian Terrace protesting against the minister's action in quartering his male employees in this girls' residence? Will the minister reconsider this matter with a view to finding other quarters for male members of his staff?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received
a petition. It was signed by 14 of the ladies who occupy Laurentian Terrace out of a total number of some 300, I believe. It has been the practice to accommodate men from various departments of government in spare accommodation in Laurentian Terrace from time to time as an economy measure. It is considered desirable to use that space rather than pay the relatively high cost of accommodating these people elsewhere at times when they come to Ottawa for conferences, courses and the like.
I understand that seven of these 14 young ladies were accommodated in single rooms, and suitable single rooms have been found for them elsewhere in the Terrace. The remaining seven were living doubled up-


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Henry Winters: -and similar accommodation was found for them, also in the Terrace.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Are they objecting to being doubled up?


Robert Henry Winters: I may say that this practice
of using spare space in Laurentian Terrace has been followed ever since I have been associated with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and I do not think there has been any great objection to it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that this building was constructed during the war when materials and manpower were scarce as a public service to provide accommodation for girls who came from all parts of Canada? Would it not seem reasonable to retain this service for girls who are forced to live away from home in the city of Ottawa?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, there is no effort here to take away the accommodation from these girls. What we are doing is-


Mr. Fulton:: Making it more interesting.


Robert Henry Winters: -utilizing the spare accommodation.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister approved the application of the provincial government of British Columbia under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for permission to construct the Deas island tunnel under the Fraser river? If so, what is to be the depth of water at extreme low. tide above the tunnel and over what width of the channel?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes, and I have so notified the government of British Columbia in a telegram this morning.
In reply to the second part of my hon. friend's question the design provides for a minimum depth of 40 feet 9 inches over the tunnel at low water for a minimum width of 700 feet.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works with respect to the Deas island tunnel. Would the minister indicate how the minimum depth that is proposed for this tunnel compares with the St. Lawrence seaway depth? Secondly, would he guarantee that the same

Inquiries of the Ministry depth will be held at all times in the Fraser for bringing this company under an admin-river from its mouth to the city of New istration that would be in the public inter-Westminster?	est?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I understand the St. Lawrence depth is 27 feet. The proposed minimum depth over this tunnel is 40 feet 9 inches. I might say for comparative purposes that the guaranteed depth at low water in the first narrows is 37 feet 6 inches and the present dredging contract when complete will provide for 39 feet at low water. In connection with this tunnel there are certain guarantees to be given by the government of British Columbia that the depth will be maintained not only over the centre line of the tunnel itself but within certain distances on either side of the tunnel.


Mr. T. S. Barneii (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works concerning the subject of tunnels. Has the minister yet received an application from the government of British Columbia to construct a tunnel under the straits of Georgia from the mainland of Vancouver island? If so, what will be the maximum depth at low water if that tunnel is constructed?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the answer to
the first part of the question is no, and therefore the second part does not apply.



BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government taken note of the request of the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour in its recent brief to the federal cabinet for the creation of a special commission to inquire into the monopolistic character of the operations of the Bell Telephone Company in order to make recommendations as to the best means of having this company owned and administered in the public interest? Will consideration be given to this request?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, consideration will
be given to the request, but in my answer I shall not attempt to give any encouragement to the hon. gentleman's desire to see the Bell Telephone Company socialized.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the
Prime Minister care to tell the house what answer he made to the request of the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker,
I do riot remember that there was any specific answer given to that question and of course I do not agree with the hon. gentleman's suggestion that the proposed method would be in the public interest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a criticism of the
stand taken' by the C.C.C.L.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the Saskatchewan pipe line.



INDIAN AFFAIRS-REQUEST FOR ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['You are an angel.']
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can the minister explain why all of the first 39 questions on the order paper have been answered with the exception of four, all of which relate to Indian affairs and have been on the order paper for four weeks or longer? It seems a very strange thing that these questions are the only ones that have not been answered. I would like an explanation concerning this and I wish also to ask another question. Can the answers to these questions be expedited and when might they be expected?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, the answer is very simple. If the hon. gentleman who is rather familiar with some of these questions will examine them carefully he will see that they involve a good deal of historical research. This is being done as expeditiously as possible having regard to the need for carrying on the day to day business of the Indian affairs branch at the same time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister if the question which I have asked involves any historical research expense?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It involves a good deal of research, sir.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Very little.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: I think I owe an explanation to the house with respect to the matter which I suggested be left in abeyance yesterday. We now have Hansard of yesterday and I am

Inquiries of the Ministry referring to page 1049. A question was asked by the hon. member for Restigouche-Mada-waska (Mr. Van Horne) which reads:
In view of the minister's answer yesterday, which I could not understand because of the covering-up noises of the Liberals, to the effect that he did not know of the several weeks' delay occurring in the processing of thousands of unemployment insurance claims, will the minister tell us when he will get busy and do his job and remove the dagger held over the backs of the workingmen of Canada? The minister's do-nothing attitude is that of a saboteur of the rights of the workingmen of Canada, and I am not going to stand for it.
At that moment I asked the hon. member to revise his language and he did not consider that he should be called upon to do so. A point of order was raised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and at that point I said:
I would not want to have a discussion started on the exact words that have been used. I suggest that the matter be left in abeyance until I have had a chance to look at the transcript.
I have examined four dictionaries and have looked at the various definitions of the word that was used. In most instances the word "sabotage" is defined as the act of one who wants to damage or wreck. The King's English dictionary defines the expression as meaning malicious destruction of property. The expression is not one which I believe should be used, but I realize the consequences that may ensue should the Speaker ask that a certain expression be withdrawn. It may be that the sense of the house will not be behind his request or the hon. gentleman who has uttered the expression may not be disposed to adhere to the request of the Speaker. In such case it is automatic that the hon. member be named and then would follow all the consequences the house knows about.
I had hoped yesterday that the hon. member of his own volition would have done something about it and there is still time for him to do something if he so chooses. However, I am not going to insist upon the withdrawal of the word that has been used. For the benefit of hon. members I should like to read citation 234 of Beauchesne's third edition which is as follows:
It is impossible to lay down any specific rules, in regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular members, or to declare beforehand, what expressions are or are not contrary to order: much depends upon the tone and manner, and intention, of the person speaking; sometimes upon the person to whom the words are addressed, as, whether he is a public officer, or a private member not in office, or whether the words are meant to be applied to his public conduct, or to his private character; and sometimes upon the degree of provocation, which the member speaking had received from the person he alludes to; and all these considerations must be attended to at the moment, as they are infinitely various and cannot possibly be foreseen in such a manner, that precise rules can be adopted with respect to them. 
When the Speaker observes upon any expression as personal and disorderly, and tending to introduce heat and confusion, and this appears to be the general sense of the house, the member offending ought immediately to make an apology, and to ask pardon of the house for his breach of their order, in as large and liberal expressions as possible, so as in such apology, to comprehend the person of whom the words were used. This is often very difficult to be obtained, especially when the offending person thinks he had sufficient provocation for using the expressions objected to. This consideration ought to be a warning to the house, and particularly to the Chair, to interfere at first; and not to permit any expressions to pass from a member unnoticed, which being applied by any other member as personally offensive to himself, may draw forth further words of heat and contumely, till at last confusion arises-different members take a warm and eager part in the dispute-and, besides the time that is lost in composing these differences, the House of Commons exhibits a scene of indecency and disorder, not very becoming their character as gentlemen, much less as one of the component parts of the great council of the nation assembled in parliament.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I rise to pay my tribute to the Minister of Labour as a great Canadian, as a great Christian. To apply the word "saboteur" to him is low.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. When I had taken up the matter of the language that had been used I thought that all hon. members had concluded taking part in the question period and I was about to call the orders of the day. I think we ought to proceed with the orders of the day.


REFERENCE TO DISORDER DURING DEBATE ON FEBRUARY 6
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, while we are on this subject may I say that on February 6 I rose in my place to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question, although he was not present at the time. There was so much noise raised by the Liberals, so much clacking and thumping of desks, especially by the rump of the Liberal party-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Before I got my question before you there was so much noise made by the rest of the Liberals after there had been an exchange between me and some of the members in the rump that the Hansard reporter did not get my question at all. If Your Honour wants to cut down the question period to a reasonable time an attempt should be made to keep order among the Liberals in this house when anyone rises to ask a question.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the intervention of the hon. gentleman is one to which I should pay too much attention. I remember the question he was asking and the noise that was made, but I must say that my experience is that it is generally because of provocation which comes equally from both sides of the house.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: There was no provocation on my part that day.


An hon. Member:: You are an angel.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ann Shipley (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of personal privilege, a report in the Globe and Mail of this morning referring to the debate of yesterday has this to say:
From the Liberal side, and particularly from Mrs. Ann Shipley (L. Timiskaming) came shouts of "Shut up".
Neither yesterday nor at any other time have I used such an expression. The only thing I said yesterday was with reference to the Leader of the Opposition, and the words I used were "outrageous" and "shame".



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 9, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, last night I was in the process of speaking to the second reading of the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I was not able to conclude my speech, on account of the time reaching ten o'clock. When I adjourned the debate I was talking about the necessity of paying some attention to the establishment of the family farm. I do not know that I need pursue that subject to any great extent, but I was mentioning the fact that the two-price system which we propose would help to some small degree in assisting the small farms. It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this is entering into the realm of fiscal policy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when we talk of the wheat producers' problem we are always told by the Liberal supporters of the government that we have sold more wheat than usual, and they begin to boast of the markets they have been able to secure for the farmers' wheat. They also boast that the total farm
Canadian Wheat Board Act income is, perhaps, a little higher than in the past. It is all very well to talk in that strain, but it is also advisable to point out that while there is an element of truth in these contentions there is another element which must be considered, namely the question of what has been termed the "price squeeze", as a result of which the amount of income the farmer receives today does not go as far as it did some years ago. In consequence, even though there may be more or less satisfactory markets and the over-all income may be slightly higher, the farmers, because of the price squeeze, find themselves in a very precarious position; they find it very difficult to keep their heads above water and to survive without going into bankruptcy.
The boast of markets and the boast of overall income does not satisfy the farmer who is on the verge of bankruptcy. Let me remind hon. members of this, Mr. Speaker: Mr. J. H. Wesson, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, issued a statement in which he outlined some of the developments affecting agriculture in 1956, and speaking of this price squeeze he said, and I quote from his speech:
But even on the basis of these good sales many farmers did not break even on the year's operations. The continued high cost of things needed to operate a farm and to maintain the farm family was putting the farmer in an impossible position. The price he received for his grain and other agricultural products was too low to keep the average farmer out of debt.
This situation can be illustrated by reference to the farm income and cost figures for 1955. Cash farm income for Saskatchewan that year was only eight per cent above the level of 1946, but prices of things farmers buy were 52 per cent higher than in 1946. The improvement in income in 1956 will not bridge the gap between costs and prices as shown in 1955 figures. The result is that many farmers are dipping into reserves to keep going while other farmers are accumulating debts which will be extremely difficult to pay at present prices.
Mr. Speaker, when you think of that, and then think in terms of the small farmer, you will realize that the small farmer is in a position where he is just about bankrupt. The other day I got a letter from a farmer in my constituency. He is a small farmer, and he writes this way-I will quote from his letter:
What I really wanted to write to you about is this: What is to become of the small farmer in southern Alberta? Is it the policy of the government in Ottawa that these small land holders should give up, sell out and try to make a new home somewhere else? What chance would a man almost 50 years of age, who was born here and lived here all his life, have of finding work elsewhere?
I suppose he could dig ditches or gardens, but I doubt if he could make a living at it. Is it right that a man should have to give up his home just because he did not venture out and grab up a lot of land? Everything seems to be in favour of the big land owners. Banks will lend them money; machine companies will give them discounts, wheat quotas on big acreages give them more return, etc.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
I am not saying, Mr. Speaker, that a man should not acquire a large farm if he wishes to do so and if he is a successful farmer, but I am saying that the fiscal policies of the government in respect of the wheat grower should be such that the small farmer can keep out of debt, support a good farm family and receive an adequate income in return for what he produces.
There is one further thing I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, in respect to the wheat board, and that is with regard to the quota system.
I know it is difficult when we have such huge surpluses to move the grain as many would like it to be moved, but there does seem to me to be some discrimination in the matter of quotas at the various points throughout western Canada. I do believe that there should be some policy adopted whereby there would be, by the end of the crop year, an equalization of the quotas throughout the country. In making reference to this I do not wish it to appear that I want any quotas in some sections of the country pulled down to the level of a lower quota that may exist in other parts of the country. But it must be kept in mind that there does appear to be some discrimination at times.
For instance, I find that farmers at some points, where they have had as much as an 8-bushel quota, are not always dependent upon wheat for their income. We may have certain points where the farmers can go into other lines of production such as cattle or hogs and are not dependent upon wheat for their income. Yet it will be found that at those particular points the quotas have been as high as 7 or 8 bushels whereas at other points dependent upon wheat growing the quotas have been lower. These other points are wheat growing areas where the soil is suitable for the growing of wheat and the water condition is perhaps not suitable for the raising of cattle. Therefore the farmers at such points grow wheat exclusively and are dependent upon the income they receive from their wheat. Yet at some of these points the quotas have been as low as 5 bushels.
That does seem to be discrimination, especially when these particular points may not be very far away from each other, perhaps 30, 40 or 50 miles or in an adjacent community. That situation does not tend towards satisfaction among our farmers. Therefore I urge that some attention be given to the equalization of quotas by the end of the crop year, particularly at the present time when we have huge surpluses which may continue for a number of years.
I wonder whether I might put on the record a table given to me in answer to a question I asked some little while ago. The table


shows the number of delivery points throughout the western provinces and the quotas delivered. I could read it but I will not take the time if I may have it put on Hansard. It is a short document.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman unanimous consent to put the table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the source of the figures?


Ernest George Hansell: It is in answer to a question which I asked in the house. It is already on the record but it is not very long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very well.


Ernest George Hansell: The table is as follows:
Number of
Province	Delivery Points
Over five bushels
Manitoba	 375
Saskatchewan	 1,001
Alberta	 492
Total	 1,868
On five bushels
Manitoba	 -
Saskatchewan	 103
Alberta	 85
Total	 188
Under five bushels
Manitoba	  None
Saskatchewan	 "
Alberta	
On eight bushel quota
Manitoba	 316
Saskatchewan	 307
Alberta	 195
Total	 818
I do not think I need to say anything further at the moment. This group is in favour of the passage of the bill and we would like to see the life of the wheat board continued. Furthermore, we will do anything we can to strengthen the efficiency of the wheat board in the interests of the western farmer.


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


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put I should like to say a few words prompted by two statements made in the house on the first day of February. The first statement was made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and, as found at page 890 of Hansard, it reads as follows:
That is the main reason why, on every and all occasions, the board, strongly supported by the government, has resisted efforts to put the board into the money-lending business by making advances to producers against grain stored on farms. That is not the business of the wheat board and should not be its business. To put the wheat board

into the business of making farm advances is the surest way I know of playing into the hands of those who would like to wreck the board as an effective marketing agency . . .
I think that statement needs some consideration. First, may I say in no uncertain manner that we in the C.C.F. are wholly in support of the wheat board method of selling wheat. We believe that had the board not been operating for the past ten years prices would have tobogganed to a ridiculous level. We know that the farmers know that and will resist almost with ferocity any attempt from any source to do away with that system and will not allow themselves ever again to be forced to sell through the grain exchange.
To those of us who have produced grain for the past 45 years that would be unthinkable. We will never forget the years when we were obliged to sell our wheat in the fall. When the first few loads of wheat came in the prices started to fall and they fell steadily until all of the wheat was in the hands of the speculators. Then prices started upwards. The grain exchange was the greatest gambling institution in the world at that time.
However, having said that, should we set up the wheat board on a pedestal and say that its members are supermen who will always be right and must never be criticized, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce implied in his speech on February 1? Surely in a democratic country governments themselves should be subject to criticism even by their own supporters. That is all to the good and makes for better government.
One statement of the minister with which I must take issue is his statement that the board is strongly supported by the government. I am amazed at that statement. Does the minister suggest that the government has relegated all its authority to the board regarding every phase of the handling of wheat? I have always thought that when a board was set up by a government the government provided a policy and instructed the board as to that policy.
The minister states quite correctly that the board was set up to sell wheat. But does he mean to tell the house that the wheat board dictates policy to him. I think hon. members know the minister too well to believe that. The minister has shown too many times in the house just who the big boss is on the government benches.
The minister complains that farmers are asking the government to make cash advances on farm-stored grain and says that if the wheat board had to do this it would wreck the board. He makes this as a bald
Canadian Wheat Board Act statement without producing any facts to back up the statement, nor does he offer any alternative. Apparently he and the government have decided that the farmer needs no more consideration.
Two years ago the government allowed elevator companies to make use of offsite storage. This was a big help, especially in those districts which built skating rinks. Those districts fortunate enough to have skating rinks, or which built skating rinks on the strength of the idea that they would derive revenue from the storage of wheat, were helped a great deal in that the farmers in these favoured areas were able to deliver a much greater quota of wheat. For some reason or other the government has cancelled this arrangement without in any way providing additional inland storage.
The minister seems to be quite satisfied that the farmers are not doing too badly, and when they bring their problems to the government and ask that certain action be taken to remedy some of the conditions under which they find themselves the minister as much as says that they are trying to sabotage the wheat board.
What are the things that the farmers are asking the government to do? First, they have asked that cash advances be made for grain which is stored on the farm. Anybody who knows anything about wheat farmers in particular at this time knows that the cash shortage on the farms for the past number of years has been very acute. While the cost of production has been going up rapidly, many farmers have not received sufficient cash on the amount of wheat they were able to sell to carry on their day to day operations.
The second complaint is that they want a better quota system. They want a more equitable quota system. We find that at some shipping points last year, as has been mentioned by many other members during the course of the debate, the quota got up to 8 bushels while other points did not get above a 4 or 5 bushel quota. To give one instance, the village of Marsden in Saskatchewan had an 8 bushel quota last year. When I left home a little over a month ago they were already up to a four-bushel quota this year. But the very next village eight miles away got up to only five bushels last year and at the time I left they were only on a one-bushel quota for this year. When complaints were made last year with regard to the quotas the minister gave to the house a definite commitment, as I thought at the time, that the situation would be remedied when the next crop year came around. So far that has not been done.
In the third place the farmers ask that a transport controller should be appointed to

Canadian Wheat Board Act see that the movement of wheat is carried out as expeditiously as possible and that no shipping points will be discriminated against. So long as the minister takes the attitude that he is not going to appoint a transport controller and that he cannot find one, he himself is the one who is putting an extra load on the wheat board, though he complains that the board should not be loaded down by some of these requests that our farmers have been making.
Another matter of interest is that farmers who belong to the wheat pool point out that, owing to the way box cars are allocated between elevators, they often have to use elevators they do not want to use when they have gone to the trouble and expense of building their own elevator system. This year the Saskatchewan wheat pool is paying a cash patronage dividend of one cent per bushel on 1955-56 deliveries amounting to over $1J million : there is also credit to members' accounts at the rate of 13/16 cents a bushel, amounting to about $1J million. This sum is to be used for the revolving fund deduction. While this amount is not large it would be completely lost if that grain were delivered to the line elevator companies. The farmers are demanding that something be done by the transport controller in order to see that they can deliver to elevators of their own choice.
Farmers are asking for more internal storage space so that the movement of wheat can be speeded up and so that, instead of cars having to go all the way to the lakehead, they can be emptied several times in the same length of time it would take to haul them to the lakehead. They have pointed out that with the exception of Churchill there has been no building of inland elevators for many years.
I think it would be a wise precaution if the government built up a good-sized wheat bank, some of which could be held in interior elevators to ensure our customers of a plentiful supply of bread food at all times. The western plains have always been subject to cycles of wet and dry years. While we have been in a wet cycle now for a number of years, a dry cycle will most certainly come again, and if we do not have the wheat to sell -and we have been in that situation in the past-when our customers want it, we are going to lose some of those customers; and once we have lost a customer, it is not always easy to get him back again.
Farmers are also suggesting a two-price system, with a domestic price which would bear a relation to the prices of the things the farmer has to buy. The minister has stated that he was not in favour of the consumer subsidizing the grain producer. But

let me remind the minister and the government that during both world wars the wheat growers subsidized not only the people of Canada but our overseas allies as well.
When world war II was over the Agricultural Prices Support Act was passed and $100 million was voted to support farm prices. The farmers were told at that time that this was compensation for the low prices paid during the war years. Surely the government could go as far as to accede to the demand of the farm organizations that a domestic price for wheat be set at $2.25 per bushel. This action would not raise the price of bread more than one half a cent a loaf.
Almost every major wheat-producing country in the world has taken steps to keep the farmers in business except Canada. Here the farmer seems to be the forgotten man. There is a sharp contrast between what the United States is doing to keep her farmers solvent and on the farm and what is being done in Canada. Last summer I drove across North Dakota. On the outskirts of every town and village were rows and rows of granaries full of wheat owned by United States government agencies. When a United States farmer harvests his crop he can do one of two things. He can sell it to the government agency and get cash in full, or he can store it in his own bin and collect storage payment until he is ready to sell. If he is short of storage space the government will lend him money with which to build granaries. If it so happens that the government agency has no space available and the farmer wants to sell, the agency will measure his bins, pay him for the grain, seal the bin and put on it a sign showing that the grain in that bin now belongs to the government agency. This seems to me to be a very simple transaction, and as yet I have seen nothing in United States papers finding any fault with that operation.
This scheme provides the farmer with the cash with which to pay his bills, provide for his family and home, and carry on necessary improvements. The banks, oil dealers, grocers, implement dealers, et cetera get back the credits that they have extended and the economy runs smoothly. For the life of me I cannot understand why the federal government here in Ottawa continues stubbornly to refuse the request of farmers and their organizations to make living on the farm a little bit more secure.
We in the C.C.F., because we have put forward some of the demands of western farm organizations, have been called calamity howlers and cry-babies. John Wesson, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, can

by no stretch of the imagination be considered to be a calamity howler or a cry-baby. In speaking to the annual convention of the wheat pool on November 15 last year he said this:
..Western farmers face one of the greatest crises in the history of agriculture. Unless the government of Canada takes action to improve the relationship between farm costs and farm prices, farmers face the prospect of once more being pushed deeply into the morass of debt.
Two things were necessary, he said. One was the acceptance by the government of the principle that farmers were entitled to a reasonable price for their farm products. If this result could not be achieved in the market place, Mr. Wesson argued, then the government must make up the difference by deficiency payments.
There is one statement made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) that I cannot pass up without comment. As reported at page 913 of Hansard of February 1, 1957, he said this:
But I also say that the lot of the farmer is not made easier in Saskatchewan by the socialist members who since 1945 have acted in this house as professional cry-babies.
Mr. Speaker, I have been speaking for the farmer and have been working with farm organizations for the past 40 years and I am quite certain that the people that I represent do not consider me to be a cry-baby. Surely it is the duty of a member representing any constituency to place before this house and this government the problems that confront his constituency; and if he does not do so, he is not doing his job and he is not doing his duty. I am quite certain that the people in my constituency will resent the sort of insinuation which has been made. I would remind the hon. member that he himself shed a few tears during some of the earlier years when he was in this house, and not only when he was in the house but also when he was out on the hustings and out talking to the people in his own constituency.
On April 22, 1949, he is reported in the Moose Jaw Times-Herald as having said that farmers have been forced to accept prices 50 cents to a dollar under those prevailing in world markets and that, instead of setting floor prices, the government had set ceiling prices which constituted "vicious discrimination against farmers".
He said that world markets, guaranteed in election promises made by J. Gordon Ross, defeated Liberal candidate, had not been forthcoming, and that British and overseas markets for Canadian wheat, meat and apples were shrinking steadily. "Only the C.C.F. party", Mr. Thatcher said, "could give Canada full employment, social security and
Canadian Wheat Board Act good farm prices." Introduced by Dempster Heming, M.L.A., Mr. Thatcher was thanked by Chairman Fred Jones, who urged delegates to tell their friends about the little barefooted boy of 20 years ago who made such a splendid speech tonight.
In the same paper, the Moose Jaw Times-Herald, Mr. Thatcher is quoted as stating that a C.C.F. government at Ottawa would set up export and import boards to dispose of surplus Canadian food products in exchange for goods which are desired by the Canadian people.
In the same paper, of June 14, 1949, he is quoted as saying:
The C.C.F. will set up a system of guaranteed or parity prices for agricultural crops.
On October 23, 1952, at the C.C.F. nominating convention at which he sought and received the C.C.F. nomination for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre for the 1953 election, Mr. Thatcher said, as reported in the Times-Herald:
When I joined the C.C.F. party originally, I did so because I felt that it was the party which alone could guarantee full employment and reasonable farm prices in a peacetime economy.
Listen to this:
After eight years at Ottawa I am infinitely more certain of that fact. Surely there can be little doubt that our present prosperity is based on a war boom and re-armament.
As reported in the same paper on July 2, 1953, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre called upon the Liberal party to remove trade barriers which were preventing potential customers from selling goods to our markets. The article reads:
"The Liberals have always professed to be a free-trade party yet Trade Minister C. D. Howe has displayed indifference, if not downright hostility towards improved commonwealth trade relations.-Mr. Howe must assume a large amount of responsibility for the loss of Canada's traditional markets in Britain for farm products- actually he has mishandled the trade portfolio in a way that could only spell ultimate tragedy to thousands of western farmers."
Today Canada's agricultural economy was facing a critical situation with mounting surpluses and falling prices, according to the speaker.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, if a condition such as he describes existed in 1953, there has not been any change up to the present time. On August 7, 1953 an advertisement appeared in the same paper together with Mr. Thatcher's picture. The advertisement read, in part,
Your C.C.F. candidates are pledged to fight for the west and the C.C.F. federal program to provide guaranteed forward prices based on parity for primary producers.
On August 4,	1953, the Times-Herald
carried a personal write-up on each candidate for the Moose Jaw-Lake Centre constituency with a summary of the platform
1110

Canadian Wheat Board Act of each party prepared and approved by the candidate himself. The platform of the C.C.F. and the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre was in part as follows:
Instead of producing munitions, we must build homes, roads, irrigation works, schools and hospitals.
The C.C.F. believes that minimum farm prices are needed just as much as minimum wages. We shall introduce legislation providing for guaranteed forward prices on all agricultural products including livestock, poultry and grains.


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: On a point of
order, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if extracts from the press are to be read, at least they should be pertinent to the subject matter of the bill. This is a bill to extend the life of the wheat board.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand the minister is rising on a point of order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have had a good deal of discussion on Saskatchewan politics, but I suggest the time has come when we should consider the bill before the house. These extracts from newspapers have no relation whatever to the bill. Whether or not it is proper to read extracts from newspapers is a matter of opinion, but I do say if they are to be read they should be relevant to the bill.


Mr. Ellis:: It depends on whose ox is gored.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I was very careful to choose ones-


Mr. Depuiv Speaker:: The hon member who has the floor indicated he was replying to a speech made by another hon. member. 1 think he will agree that I have given him a good deal of latitude in doing so. I have for some time, even before the point of order was raised, been wondering if we were not departing entirely too far from relevancy in this debate. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the discussion of the principle of this bill which is now before us.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I was just about through. I should like to point out that I was very careful in picking out these quotations to pick those which had to do with farming and marketing and with wheat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill has nothing to do with farming or marketing. It is a bill to extend the time in which the wheat board may function, and that is the only purpose of the bill. There is a limit on the amount of Saskatchewan politics that we should have to take on a bill of this kind, I suggest.
[Mr. Campbell.)


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Evidently the minister does not like what I have to say. If politics had not been introduced into this debate I would not have been the first one to introduce them. When politics have been introduced from your own side of the house, then I think I should reply.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I am just finished. I should like to close by saying this. If the time ever comes when I cannot support the principles and policies of the party with which I am associated, and I come to a point where I feel that I must change my allegiance and sit with a group in another part of the house, I hope I will have enough courage to go back to the people of my constituency who elected me and ask for their endorsation.


Solon Earl Low: I do not
wish to hold up the bill, Mr. Speaker, or to extend the political debate, but I do have a few things I should like to say at this time and particularly because of what was said in some speeches made last evening. I want to help the minister get this bill through and what I shall say will be directly relevant to the bill.
The whole principle of Bill No. 9 is under consideration at the moment and I want to indicate to the minister that we support the extension for another five years. I want to tell him also that we have not given too much consideration to the question of making the act a permanent piece of legislation. I am speaking only for myself, therefore, when I say that at the moment I do not see any real reason why it should be made a permanent piece of legislation. I believe the fact that we have to bring it back into the house every five years for renewal and consideration at least opens up the whole question of the wheat board and its operations so that the members of the house can debate fully whether or not it has been a good thing. For that reason I say, while I am not opposing the idea to make it permanent, I see some advantage in having it renewed five years at a time, at least for the present.
We have supported the principle of the wheat board as the sole marketing agency for the farmers' wheat since its inception. Many of those in this group, Mr. Speaker, were amongst those who advocated the establishment of this form of orderly marketing long before the wheat board came into operation. The great majority of the farmers in the west are ardent supporters of the wheat board. They may not all have been, but I say the great majority of farmers always have been and certainly the great majority during these past few years. We know that there are some who are opposed to it yet,
mi

Canadian Wheat Board Act
but they are certainly in the minority. In my own constituency, while there are a comparatively few who have not supported the wheat board, the great majority of my farmers do support it and have asked me to support it. I believe in acknowledging and striving to do the will of the people who sent me here.
Like the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), I think we are fortunate in having a very fine group of men in charge of the board. I am not too well acquainted with some of the commissioners but I have known the chief commissioner, Mr. Mclvor, for a great many years. In our youth in southern Alberta we lived only a few miles apart. We had a great many fine basketball games together. He was an excellent competitor and a clean sportsman in those days. I know, Mr. Speaker, from my knowledge, that Mr. Mclvor has been playing the game just as well in his chosen field of wheat marketing as he used to play the game in basketball in southern Alberta. I wanted to commend him and his colleagues for the good job they have done and commend the minister for maintaining such men in their responsible positions.
I do not intend repeating those things that have already been capably expressed by other speakers in this group but there are two or three matters which I feel should be emphasized further.
I want to draw to the minister's attention the fact that some sections of Canada have not had justice with regard to quotas. Many hon. members have spoken about this matter. My territory in the Peace river country is one area that has not received justice in relation to quotas. Perhaps it is because of its isolated position. The Peace river country is a vast grain-producing empire some 250 miles northwest of the city of Edmonton. Frequently we have been left until the very last with respect to getting our wheat out. The wheat board has consistently followed the practice of filling orders especially for export from points that are nearer to the places of shipment overseas and as a consequence of this policy our territory in the Peace river has been left out. I imagine the same thing could be said of certain other areas but I feel there are ways of correcting this situation. In spite of the minister's declaration last year that those farmers who were on a small quota at that time would be brought up this year to something approaching the level of those enjoying the best quotas the farmers in my country are not receiving that treatment. I am not blaming the minister but this does point up the necessity of having an appointment made to the vacant position of transport controller
in order that something may be done to correct the situation that has been referred to so frequently during the course of this debate.
In most of the points in the north Peace river area the farmers are on a 2-bushel quota and even with such a low quota they cannot deliver because box cars have not been made available and many points have been plugged from the early part of the season. One reason not many orders have been placed in that area by the wheat board this year is that frost hit the country and there is a great deal of low-grade wheat, No. 5 and below. Perhaps the demand for that type of wheat has not been very great for export purposes or for feeding purposes in Canada. This, too, serves to point up the necessity of improving our storage situation. It seems to me that an area 250 miles away from the nearest inland storage elevator ought to be considered as a location for an elevator with a capacity of one and a half or two million bushels. This proposal is given considerable weight by the fact that shortly the Pacific and Great Eastern Railway will be linked up with the Northern Alberta Railway at Dawson Creek and much of the farmers' produce will be marketed on the west coast. That being the case, the use of the Edmonton internal storage elevator would be practically denied to our people in the Peace river country. It seems to me that the building of an elevator in that area which is so far isolated from the main centres would be nothing more than justice to the farmers who have pioneered that country and are making of it a great food producing empire for which the people of Canada should be thankful.
Another point in this connection is that the minister should reconsider his position with respect to off-site storage. There are many points up in that country that could use off-site storage and would provide it if they could obtain a licence. The granting of further licences ought to be considered by the minister. I would hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce would give more favourable consideration than he has in the past to this request for an inland storage elevator located somewhere in the Peace river country. I am sure he would find upon careful study that the construction of an elevator there would not only be justified but would to a large extent relieve the situation under which the farmers in that area have to operate. As I said, they are isolated and therefore frequently are not given shipping orders from the wheat board to take care of the demands from overseas. The farmers in that area are finding it extremely difficult to pay their bills and

Canadian Wheat Board Act to keep their families supplied with food, clothing, fuel and the necessities of life. As a matter of fact they are finding it difficult to keep ahead of the sheriff in connection with machine purchases because they cannot market enough of their crops to provide them with money to meet their bills. The people in that territory would have a much better chance of earning a decent livelihood if more inland storage was provided through terminal elevators and off-site storage.
The forward-looking enterprise of the government of British Columbia in extending the Pacific and Great Eastern Railway, to connect with the Northern Alberta Railway at Dawson Creek is to be commended and this will be of great assistance to the farmers in the Peace river territory when the route is completed. I wish to pay tribute to that enterprise and the vision behind it.
I would like to say a word or two concerning the question of parity prices. Other speakers from the Social Credit group have presented arguments in favour of parity prices and there are only one or two points I want to emphasize. Other hon. members of this group have declared that the Social Credit party in this house favours the establishment of parity prices for farmers. I do not think anybody could sensibly argue that farmers are not entitled to parity prices. Certainly no one on the government side of the house could reasonably argue that farmers are less entitled to parity prices than are industrialists. Industrialists get parity prices; they set their prices and many of them are protected by government policy on tariffs and customs. I think it is unreasonable to argue that farmers are less entitled to parity prices than labour is entitled to the stabilization of wages and salaries. Hon. members on the government side of the house have favoured, as we have in this group, the stabilization of wages and salaries for labour, through measures such as unemployment insurance and that sort of thing. We have also given support and consent to measures granting the labouring people in this country the right to strike, to have collective bargaining and things of that nature which enhance their chances of receiving a fair return for their labour. Having protected all other segments of Canadian society, why in the name of common sense are we so loath to come to the aid of our farming population which produces the food we need to keep alive? The Minister of Trade and Commerce and others have argued that to grant parity prices to the farmers would mean we would have to subsidize those prices. As was said so well by the hon. member for Lethbridge last night, even if we have to subsidize farm


prices in order to achieve parity prices we would be perfectly justified in doing so. I strongly suspect that because farmers constitute only 15 or 16 per cent of the total population of Canada this is one reason their voice is not heard as well as it was heard when farmers constituted 80 per cent of the total population of this country.
There was a time in Canada's history when 80 per cent of the population was engaged in farming and in those days the farmer had a far better deal than he is getting today. Today with only 15 or 16 per cent of our population engaged in farming the farmer is lucky if he receives 7 per cent of the national income. That is not right, nor is it fair.
For a number of years the Social Credit group have been proposing in this house the adoption of a two-price system of marketing of Canadian farm products. That cry has now been taken up by farm organizations and even our friends of the C.C.F. now advocate it. We are glad of that because we do not feel we have any corner on the idea, not for one minute. We are happy to see them putting it forward rather than to take issue with them. We rejoice in that action because it is the only way we can ever get anywhere, that is to have a universal acceptance of the idea. We have suggested that the establishment of a two-price system would be a step toward the establishment of parity prices in this country.
There are two phases to the two-price system, as has already been suggested. One phase has to do with external marketing and I do not intend dealing with that this afternoon because it has been dealt with already by other speakers. The other phase has to do with internal marketing. It is well known that approximately 94 per cent of all farm production in Canada, exclusive of wheat, is consumed in Canada. However, the peculiar thing is that the 6 per cent that is exported governs the price of the 94 per cent consumed internally. That should never be; that is a completely wrong principle which denies fairness and justice and denies the principle of supply and demand.
Over and above that the Canadian people consume approximately 160 million bushels of our wheat, either in the form of bread and cereals or seed, but not feed for cattle. That 160 million bushels could be made a very important factor in the establishment of parity prices. Our suggestion is that since the wheat board has the control of the total supply of wheat it would be a simple matter to grant to that board the right to set parity prices on that portion of our grain which is marketed and consumed internally. If they had that right it would go a long way toward

the establishment of parity prices. There is no reason why that could not be done as it would not interfere in any way with the good work being done by the Canadian wheat board.
I know the minister and several others have expressed their opposition to the idea because they do not want the Canadian consumer to subsidize farm prices. Bless my soul, what are the consumers of Canada doing in connection with automobiles and electrical goods. They are paying a price set by a protected industry and this government is providing that protection through its policies. If that is good for the electrical industry, if that is good for the automobile industry, it ought also to be good for the farmer. My contention is that we would be justified in giving the wheat board the right to establish parity prices on all grains marketed inside Canada. If that were done No. 1 wheat would sell at approximately $2.37 per bushel which is the price which has been established as being the likely parity price, a price which would bear a fair relationship to the prices the farmer has to pay for what he buys.
If that were done what would be the result? Would it in truth be necessary for the consumers of Canada to subsidize the price? I do not look upon an increase in price due to costs as being a subsidy. Subsidies are taken out of taxation and paid over as compensatory payments to certain classes or groups, but this matter of charging a price which is fair and just is not subsidization in any sense.
It has been pointed out already, and I want to emphasize it, that if our farmers were granted a parity price for their wheat, for that portion which is used internally, it would not necessarily increase the price of bread by more than one-half cent per loaf. The reason for that is plain. Anyone who has taken the trouble to examine into the way costs have risen since 1945, labour costs, paper costs, packaging costs, retail marketing costs and so on, will have found that the great bulk of the increase in the prices of 16-ounce or 24-ounce loaves has been made up of the increases in things other than the cost of wheat. The fact is that the wheat content in a loaf of bread would not raise the retail price of a 16-ounce or 24-ounce loaf by more than one-half cent if parity prices were adopted.
Ask any person in this country who has the interests of the farmer at heart; ask the labouring man who works in industry what he would think of having to pay a half cent increase in the price of a loaf of bread, and I will guarantee that he would think it through and say: "I favour it because when
Canadian Wheat Board Act the farmer gets an increase in his wheat return he is going to buy more of the products of industry and that is going to stabilize my wages or salary position."
It is well known that in those years when the total volume of wages and salaries in industry has been approximately the equal of the total volume of farm cash income there has been no unemployment, the country has been considered to be prosperous and everybody has been happy. But just let farm cash income begin to decline below the volume of industrial salaries and wages and it will not be long until those industrial salaries and wages will follow the decline and someone will be out of a job. Labour favours the establishment of parity prices for farmers because they know that the farmers constitute their best markets for industrial goods and that their chances of remaining in good jobs with decent wages depend to a large degree upon whether the farmer can buy what is being produced.
Under those circumstances and with those facts in mind I submit that we are not justified in doing anything else but give the wheat board the right to set the internal price at parity for all farm products consumed internally. So far as the external part of the parity price system is concerned, I agree that it would be necessary to establish a floor below which we would not allow that price return to go. However, that is another matter. Even so I think we would be perfectly justified in establishing parity prices all the way through in order to stabilize our economy and insulate us against the sharp declines that are bound to take place when farm cash income does not come up to the required level.
I think that is about all I wish to say at the moment in that connection, but there are two things I should like to deal with very briefly in rebuttal. These were called for last night, otherwise I would not mention them, and I am not playing politics when I do. I want to assure the minister of that.
While the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) was speaking the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) interpolated some questions. I have looked them over carefully as they are set out on page 1071 of Hansard for yesterday, and I can come to only one conclusion, namely that those questions were asked for the purpose of implying that because the Social Credit group in the house voted for the British wheat agreement we had no justification whatever for criticizing the result of the British wheat agreement. That is the only way in which I can interpret what the hon. member for Vegreville said in his questions. It is true, Mr. Speaker-, that

Canadian Wheat Board Act we voted for the British wheat agreement, but at the same time we pointed out that the promise of the government would have to be kept. That promise was that if the farmers would submit themselves to a "ceiling" on the prices which they were to obtain for their wheat over a period-a price that would be lower, perhaps, than the world price-the government would protect them by stabilizing prices over a long period of time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask the
hon. member a question. When was that promise made? As I remember the situation the British wheat agreement provided a better price for wheat than we were getting at the time, and everyone thought we were getting a good deal. The hon. gentleman said, "We might have liked the deal you made but we may not like the way it works out." I think you have to make up your mind whether it is a good deal or not when you sign the document.


Solon Earl Low: I think that if the minister had listened to what I was saying, and allowed me to continue, he would not have needed to make that interpolation. I do not blame him for being a little nervous these days.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not nervous. Just bored.


Solon Earl Low: I will give the minister an answer to his question-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Parliament always bores the minister.


Solon Earl Low: Here again are the words of the prime minister of this country, Mr. King, as spoken over the radio on September 4, 1943.
I wish tonight to thank the farmers of Canada for their magnificent contribution to the battle of production. I wish again to appeal to them to continue to help hold the front line against inflation by continuing to support the price ceiling. If, to help win the war, the farmers are asked to accept a ceiling on prices, we believe they are entitled to a floor under prices to ensure them against an agricultural depression after the war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was no ceiling on wheat, ever.


Solon Earl Low: The minister cannot possibly
defend that position, and when he speaks in rebuttal I challenge him to defend that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am stating a fact. If the hon. gentleman will tell me when the ceiling was placed on wheat-


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that wheat was sold to the millers in Canada under exactly the same terms as the British wheat agreement. He knows, too, that throughout the war Canadian farmers were forced to sell their wheat to Canadian millers at prices well below world prices. He knows that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What has that
to do with the present bill?


Solon Earl Low: It has a lot to do with it,
especially since you butted in. I just want to point out that the Prime Minister of this country did give a firm and unequivocal promise. He went on to say:
As an essential part of its post-war policy, the government intends to ask parliament at the next session to place a floor under the prices of main farm commodities.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to say too much more about that, except this. Speaking in the debate in this house in 1947 on the question of the British wheat agreement, my hon. friend from Acadia had this to say -and it puts our position perfectly plainly in connection with the agreement which at that time was under consideration. He said, at page 746 of Hansard:
I believe that the wheat agreement with Britain was fully justified but it does entail in its early stages a considerable sacrifice on the part of our farmers. We feel that the sacrifice should be borne by the people of Canada as a whole-
That has been the position we have taken right from the beginning, and we took that position because it began to be perfectly plain that under this agreement the government's policy was to make the Canadian farmer bear the whole cost of lower prices, and not to distribute that cost over the whole of the population of Canada. The minister knows that that is so, and later the government did acknowledge, in part, its responsibility for the fact that the wheat agreement had failed the farmers to a certain extent, by granting to them a payment of $65 million which was, of course, only a pittance compared with losses amounting to something like $500 million.


Mr. Hosking:: Sixty-five million dollars a
pittance?


Solon Earl Low: Compared with the total figure
involved.


Mr. Dickey:: In Social Credit terms that
is a pittance.


Solon Earl Low: Sixty-five million dollars was
a compensation that this government decided, arbitrarily, that they would give to the farmers, and even that came from a left-over pot in Britain.


Mr. Decore:: They paid $32 million last
vear for the storage of grain.


An hon. Member:: Is that Liberal policy?


Solon Earl Low: There was one other reason,
Mr. Speaker, why I felt I should say a word in rebuttal-I will be finished in three minutes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You only have
one minute left.


Solon Earl Low: If the minister would rather I called on the clock I will be glad to do so, but I imagine he would want me to finish so he can get his bill through.
While the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) was speaking last night he used the tar brush quite liberally, and suggested that the whole Social Credit group was speaking out of both sides of their mouths at one and the same time.


An hon. Member:: Just what you would expect.


Solon Earl Low: He called, he said, for a more balanced expression of views from the Social Credit group as to why they were prepared to endorse this legislation if they were prepared to oppose similar moves in other fields under discussion. I gathered from the tone of his speech and that of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) that they resented anybody else in this house supporting the wheat board or giving any indication that they favoured this idea of marketing. Evidently they think they have a corner in this idea and that it is a socialist idea.
Mr. Speaker, I deny that they have any corner with regard to the orderly marketing system now being carried on by the wheat board. I deny that is was a socialist idea in the beginning and I deny that it is a socialist idea now. We have given every indication of supporting it in the same way as they have, but let me just point this out: As I understand it, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was simply indicating that he did not know very much about socialist experiments in this country. I will tell you something that we have been opposed to but which the socialists have gone along with. I refer, for example, to the timber board in Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: And the fish board?


Alfred Claude Ellis: What about the fur-marketing service? Are you opposed to that?


Solon Earl Low: The hon. members are just giving evidence of what I was going to say. The socialists did support the government's intervention into these fields and the imposition of a government compulsory service under which they took away from the people the right to their own individual enterprises.


An hon. Member:: Is the wheat board not such a body?


Solon Earl Low: Just listen until I am through and you will get the answer. In the case of
Canadian Wheat Board Act the timber board in the province of Saskatchewan the government moved in and took over timber berths that had been in the possession of private enterprise.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Alfred Claude Ellis: You do not know what you are talking about.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Crown timber only.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Stick to Alberta.


Solon Earl Low: They forced the timber people to sell their lumber to the board at a price.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Crown lumber.


Solon Earl Low: Then they turned around and marketed that lumber at a greatly enhanced price and instead of returning the benefits to the producers they kept them themselves.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Who are "they"?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The people of Saskatchewan.


Solon Earl Low: I am speaking of the government of Saskatchewan.


Mr. Harrison:: The heelers of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid it would be better for all concerned to call it one o'clock because we will not get any further ahead now.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Not now, it is one o'clock.


Solon Earl Low: I should like to call it one o'clock because I want to finish.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I was in the process of explaining why we support the Canadian wheat board and the present bill when I was interrupted at one o'clock. I would just like to take one or two minutes in which to finish what I had to say and then to help the minister get his bill through if we can.
In the first place, the Canadian wheat board was established as a consequence of the demands of the overwhelming majority of the wheat producers in western Canada for a marketing board of that type. It was not imposed by the government upon the farmers. It was given to them as a result of a request for such a board. That is the first important thing. It seems to me that when the overwhelming majority of the producers in any division request some form of marketing service which will be theirs, we have no alternative but to grant it to them if we can.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
Mr. Speaker, the wheat board has continued to operate as an agency representing the producers themselves and certainly in no way can be considered to be a government agency imposed upon the farmers. That is quite distinct from the kind of thing that the socialists would do. The socialists would not wait for the producers in any division to express their desire to have a marketing board of this kind. If they took it into their heads to do so, they would impose it by compulsion on those producers, just as they did in the case of the lumber board in Saskatchewan. The difference between the two ideas, the two types of marketing agency, is this. In the case of the wheat board, having been requested by the producers and having been granted control over 100 per cent of that type of production, the board goes ahead and markets and pays back to the producers the total of the moneys taken in the process of marketing the goods, less perhaps some of the costs of the service of marketing. On the other hand, the lumber board in the province of Saskatchewan was not set up as a consequence of the demand of the lumber producer. In the second place it was imposed by the government as a compulsory service, whether the people wanted it or not. In the third place-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You can sell your own lumber.


Solon Earl Low: Just a minute. When the lumber is produced in the province it has to be sold to the government.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You can sell your own lumber to anybody.


Solon Earl Low: Wait a minute. Ninety-nine per cent of the lumber that is produced in all the provinces of Canada is produced on crown lands.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Oh, no.


Solon Earl Low: It certainly is and there is no exception. Ontario is no exception.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: The lumber
belongs to the people.


Alfred Claude Ellis: You want to give it away to United States interests.


Solon Earl Low: The third point I want to emphasize is this. When the lumber producers in the province of Saskatchewan produce the lumber, they are forced to sell it to the board and the board just pays to the producer a very small return, less than half what the board sells for on the world market.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: They contract-


Solon Earl Low: When you begin to tie a tin can to these braying jackasses' tails, they make a lot of noise.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You fought that in Saskatchewan last year.


Solon Earl Low: You fight it all the time when you can make a lot of noise in order to try to bray somebody down. But I assure you that you cannot bray me down. The fact is that the lumber board does not distribute back to the producers the difference between the small price which that board pays to the lumber producers and what they get for the sale of the lumber in the markets of the world.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: They distribute to all the people in your province.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Solon Earl Low: The difference between the two marketing ideas is perfectly clear when you compare the Canadian wheat board and its operations and the lumber board and its operations in the province of Saskatchewan. Our position is simply this. We do not support in any form the kind of thing that is envisioned in the Saskatchewan lumber board. We support and have always supported the kind of marketing agency that is represented in the Canadian wheat board, one that is set up as a consequence of a demand of an overwhelming number of producers who get the full benefits of the returns from the sale of the products.
There is one other point I wish to make. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) asked why we would not support the setting up of a lumber board or a timber board in British Columbia. The answer is perfectly simple. The people of British Columbia who are in the lumber-producing business have never asked for such a thing.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: They do not produce the lumber. They just cut it.


Solon Earl Low: The lumber producers have never asked for such a thing. The people of British Columbia gave a good answer to that question in the last election when they very definitely turned down the socialists and put a Social Credit government into office. I think that is the answer. Our position on the wheat board is perfectly clear. No matter how many statements are made in an effort to tar-brush our group,-


Alfred Claude Ellis: You are able to white-wash it.


Solon Earl Low: -they cannot get anywhere with it. We do not believe in socialism. We believe in the right of the producers of this

Canadian Wheat Board Act country to have a marketing agency of their needed help. Since I have been a member own that will operate for them and not for of this house I voted to give $65 million to the government of the day.	these western farmers.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Huron wish to ask a question?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The minister made a statement this morning that there was never any ceiling on wheat. I should like to ask what difference there is between a ceiling on wheat and selling below the world market price.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought the hon. member for Huron wished to ask a question of the hon. member who just resumed his seat. But if it is a question that he is addressing to the minister, I am afraid that he will have to ask it when the house is in committee, or perhaps the minister when he has the right of reply may give his answer then.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay this debate-


An hon. Member:: Then sit down.


Henry Alfred Hosking: -but I should like to make some remarks for about five minutes only. I make these remarks only because the debate criticizing the wheat board, has gone on February 1, February 6, February 7 and February 8. During these days we have listened to complaining, snivelling and whining-


Mr. Blackmore:: Nothing of the kind.


Henry Alfred Hosking: -by the socialist members for all those days. I should like to point out that this is a simple bill to extend the date to which the wheat board can operate.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: It is still not simple enough for you.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Because of that fact it is of little interest to the people in my part of Ontario. But I think we should point out to those members from the west who are continually criticizing the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that the people in my part of the country have been extremely favourable to those in the west. I need only recall what happened when I was a little boy when the government of Canada used to subsidize the fares on the railways so that our farmers' sons could go out and work in the west. Our farmers in the east used to send their sons out to help the western farmers take off their crops. Then when the depression came along I can remember that our church collected clothes and that we sent bales of clothes out to the people in the west. We did this because we thought that the western people were proud, hardy farmers who were trying to irjake a living in this country and that they honestly


Alfred Claude Ellis: The farmer's own money.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I heard it called a mere pittance in the house today. When beggars get to the stage that they call $65 million a mere pittance, I am beginning to wonder if perhaps the description of the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue) of his farmers is not pretty close to correct. I would much rather think that the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) describes them properly when he says they are proud hardy individuals who only want fair play,-


Alfred Claude Ellis: They are still asking for fair play.


Henry Alfred Hosking: -such as the minister is giving to them by this bill. Last year I believe we voted them some $32 million for the storage of grain. This year there will be another $29 million, I suppose. It should be remembered that the farmers and others in the east, the people who live in Ontario, pay one-half of this money. If it were not for the fact the Minister of Trade and Commerce persuades the Liberal members of this house that this help is required to give a balanced economy in Canada, I am quite certain it would not be voted by the members of parliament who come from Ontario. The C.C.F. members speeches would persuade us not to vote for this bill.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Do you mean to say that the Liberals generally do not favour it?


Henry Alfred Hosking: If this is a bad bill as the socialist members particularly state by their criticism that the wheat board is badly handled, that it is not a good thing, then I would suggest that perhaps the time has come when some of us should take another look to see if we should continue paying half of the subsidies that go to western farmers.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: That is a Liberal attitude for you.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I might
say it had not been my intention to participate in this debate until remarks were made within the last 20 minutes or so. I am a little concerned about the remarks made by the speaker who has just resumed his seat. I am hoping that his Liberal colleagues from, the province of Saskatchewan will take this opportunity of setting him right on a few of the very grave misconceptions under which he is labouring at the moment.
One thing which has concerned me, Mr. Speaker, has been the tendency on the part
1118	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act of the Liberal government to feel that when they are making payments on wheat they are handing out a gift to the farmers who grew the wheat. Such an attitude, of course, completely ignores the whole principle of the wheat board. When a farmer is paid an initial price and then the books are closed there is a final payment, and that money belongs to the farmer. I resent this tendency on the part of the Liberal government to hand out these payments just before election time with the deliberate intent of creating the impression that the money is coming out of the pockets of the members of the government or the Liberal supporters of the government.
There has been enough of the line of argument just presented by a Liberal member in this house, that I think it is high time some of the Liberal members from Saskatchewan who know better put the man right. I am suggesting that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang) or the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) or the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher)-although he spoke, he did not speak on the resolution but talked about Saskatchewan politics in the main- and some of these other members who have just taken part in the debate should seek to set the record straight. It is their job, because after all he is one of their colleagues.
I am just wondering whether or not the member for Qu'Appelle, the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek and the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre are not actually uncomfortable over remarks of the type just made because they indicate a complete lack of understanding on the part of Liberal members in this house. I blame the Liberal members from Saskatchewan for their failure to acquaint their colleagues in this house with the problem.


Mr. Thatcher:: Mr. Speaker,-


Alfred Claude Ellis: You sit down.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: You asked me a question;
why don't you let me answer it?


Alfred Claude Ellis: You made a speech the other
day. You can sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Alfred Claude Ellis: So far as interruptions are
concerned, I am not too concerned about them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it the hon.
gentleman does not wish to be interrupted at this moment.


Mr. Sluder:: He asked for interruptions.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The hon. member for Swift
Current-Maple Creek is now in his seat and


I would be happy to hear him make a speech immediately after I have concluded.


Irvin William Studer: The hon. member-


Alfred Claude Ellis: Do not interrupt.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Alfred Claude Ellis: We have heard remarks in
this house about calamity howlers, and so forth. I am going to place on the record a statement made just the other day. I am going to give you the statement of a member in the Manitoba legislature:
A member lor the Manitoba legislature urged immediate action to save Manitoba farmers from a situation they are unable to cope with and ease a crisis that threatens disaster to agriculture in the province.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand it is not the practice in this house to introduce into debate the opinions of people from outside of this house. Further, the bill has nothing to do with the subject matter of the present discussion. I do not mind a loud voice being the cover for an empty mind, but I think there should be some respect for the subject matter under debate.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I want to assure the members of this house that I am not concerned about the insults which are frequently hurled in my direction, in this case by the minister, by the members of the house because I feel that rude remarks do not compensate for a lack of logic or reasonable argument.
A remark was made by the leader of the Social Credit group a few minutes ago, and there have been a number of interjections of that type from this group. As a matter of fact, this morning a Liberal member took exception to a statement in the press to the effect that she had told a member to shut up. The only member in this house whom I have ever heard shout "shut up" was the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). I do not feel that is a substitute for a reasoned answer. I can appreciate his concern at times and his desire to avoid criticism of the things he has to say, but I suggest that he give logical answers rather than simple, rude remarks which I do not think add to his stature or the stature of the house itself.
A moment ago, Mr. Speaker, I placed on the record a statement made in the Manitoba legislature by a Liberal M.L.A. Now, there is a calamity howler for you. Here is a Liberal in the Manitoba legislature who has courage to do what the members here should be doing in this house. They should be up on their feet presenting the case for their wheat growers in their constituencies, yet

they sit in supine silence. If they agree with government policy, if they think the government is doing all it should do for the wheat producers, let them get up and defend the government and not sit in their seats. They will not say they are for it and they will not say they are against it. I suggest that they emulate the example-


Irvin William Studer: We will vote for it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: -of their colleague in the Manitoba legislature who placed on the record the situation as it actually is in his own province of Manitoba. I suggest that these Liberal members, if they were doing their job, would be presenting the situation as it exists in their particular part of the country and would be standing up in support of representations being made on behalf of the agricultural industry.


Irvin William Studer: No one believes a socialist member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask all hon. members in all parts of the house to cease this practice of interrupting the member who has the floor. It has reached the point where we cannot follow a discussion according to the rules, and the method of interruption is not in accordance with the decorum which should be kept in this house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, would you mind ruling on the matter of relevance. It seems to me that the remarks which have been made by the hon. member have not touched on the subject matter of the bill. They have touched on nothing important and represent mere ranting of my hon. friend, relevant to nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: As to that, I must say the debate has been proceeding for several days now. I have not been in the house throughout the entire debate and when a matter of this kind is debated at great length hon. members are bound to make certain comparisons and to go over the various declarations that have been made from time to time; then in the rebuttal that is being addressed to the remarks made by previous speakers it may be necessary for someone to advance arguments which necessarily are aside from the matter which is under discussion. From the point of view of strict relevancy there is not very much in the bill that must be discussed at this time. However, the discussion has ranged far afield and from all indications I think the discussion should be terminated rather shortly. Until then I think we ought to allow the same latitude that was allowed previously.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Alfred Claude Ellis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling. When the minister spoke I noted that he ranged far and wide.


John George Diefenbaker: He certainly did.


Alfred Claude Ellis: He discussed matters of a very general nature.


An hon. Member:: Including the Gordon commission.


Alfred Claude Ellis: A colleague of mine reminds me that he discussed the Gordon commission report. I also noted that the minister's colleague the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) devoted a great deal of his time to discussing matters which could have no relevancy to any debate that might take place in this house. I want to assure that hon. gentleman and members of the house that if they wish to discuss Saskatchewan internal politics we will be only too happy to oblige. There is nothing that would give us greater satisfaction than the opportunity to debate at great length the activities of the government of the province of Saskatchewan.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre the other day dealt with matters that have been bandied about in the province of Saskatchewan during the past ten years. They were rejected by the people of Saskatchewan in provincial elections and it was that sort of campaign which drove the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) out of provincial politics and sent him down to exile in this chamber. I am appalled when I consider the depths to which some hon. members sink in their discussion. I am thinking now of a statement made the other day by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, for example, concerning the connection of two ministers with a drive-in theatre. They have had no connection with that enterprise for three years and yet either through sheer ignorance or simply in an attempt to convey an entirely erroneous impression the hon. member resorted to an attack of the sort which the people of Saskatchewan have rejected in previous elections. I do not think there is any point in answering charges of that nature on the floor of the house at this time. I do not think it is worth the time that would be required to untangle all the erroneous statements that have been made.
I remember when the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre participated in the debate on the pipe line. He did not talk about the pipe line but made a speech containing 15 inaccurate statements in the space of a few paragraphs.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Although the hon. gentleman may take wide latitude I think he should return now to the wheat bill that is before the house.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Well, Mr. Speaker, just prior to the time the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) resumed his seat he gave us a little dissertation on the principle of orderly marketing. He was attempting to show us the difference between the marketing of timber and the marketing of wheat. It seems to me he missed the whole point of the argument because one thing that must be remembered is that the wheat belongs to the individual farmer who grows it. I observed that hon. members across the way were agreeing when he admitted that most of the lumber is on crown land. The lumber belongs to the people of the province. There is the essential difference which my hon. friends for some reason or other cannot appreciate and I suspect it is simply because they do not want to recognize that difference. To try to suggest there is no pressure by the lumber producers for the sort of board we have established for the wheat producers is rather a spurious argument to say the least. I realize, of course, that the policy of the Social Credit party is simply to turn over our natural resources lock, stock and barrel to the big interests, the people from whom they are seeking financial support. I noticed a reference in the press the other night to a letter which was being mailed to all the big interests of this country by the Social Credit party soliciting funds for that party and I just wonder whether they included members of the Winnipeg grain exchange in the distribution they made of that letter.


An hon. Member:: What about the lumber interests?


Alfred Claude Ellis: You will get it all. MacMillan and Bloedel and other lumber interests pretty well have a stranglehold in that province. That is your method of doing it in British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The lumber resources belong to the people of Saskatchewan and the idea that for some reason or other the relatively few people who are in the lumber business have priority rights that transcend the interest of the general public is something with which I cannot agree. In actual fact no one sells lumber to the timber board. The timber board hires people to cut the lumber because lumber belongs to the people of Saskatchewan and as long as there is a C.C.F. government in that province that is the way it is going to be.


Mr. Lesage:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, what has lumber to do with wheat?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know if the minister was in his seat just before one o'clock, but comparisons have been made between the wheat board and the timber board in the province of Saskatchewan and I take it that previously in this debate remarks were made by some hon. members with respect to the attitude of others in relation to the policies of the wheat board as compared to the policies followed by the timber board. Just prior to one o'clock the hon. leader of the Social Credit Party gave a rebuttal to these arguments and I understand the hon. member for Regina City is now answering the hon. member for Peace River.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I certainly had no intention of talking about lumber today-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Claude Ellis: -but when an hon. member decides to introduce that subject during the course of a debate I think some effort should be made to set the record straight and that is precisely what I proposed to do at this time. However, I am not going to pursue that matter further in deference to your desire to see a quick end to this aspect of the debate.
There is one other matter which I think should be closely examined. When the hon. member for Peace River was speaking a number of hon. members asked about the fur marketing service. From what I can gather the hon. member for Peace River is opposed to the fur marketing service. In the past Liberals have gone up and down the province of Saskatchewan opposing the fur marketing service and yet that service in principle is precisely what the wheat board is, a marketing agency for a particular product.


An hon. Member:: Where is it now?


Alfred Claude Ellis: How can it be that in one breath a man can say he is all for the wheat board and he is all for the principle of orderly marketing while in the next breath he condemns exactly the same principle in another field of economic endeavour. It seems to me that if you are going to be logical you must be consistent. You cannot praise one form of orderly marketing and damn another. That should not be done even for political reasons.
I think the statements made by the hon. member for Peace River were completely uncalled for and I think that if hon. members will read the speech made yesterday by the

hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) they will find he gave a very dispassionate and reasonable address-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Claude Ellis: -in which he made a few statements that I am sure have ruffled the
feathers of some of the members of other parties who come from the province of British Columbia.
I am going to make this comment, Mr. Speaker, concerning some of the statements which have been made in this debate about the wheat board. It is now becoming the fashion for Liberal politicians to attempt to place the wheat board in the very untenable position of being responsible for all the blunders and mistakes of the federal Liberal government. They suggest that anyone who takes issue with anything done by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and anyone who criticizes the marketing policies of this government is in some way attacking the wheat board. That line of argument in itself is the most dangerous path along which anyone could go with respect to the future of the Canadian wheat board. The wheat board is not responsible for the impasse in which the agricultural industry of this country finds itself at the present time. The wheat board is a creature of the government and is not responsible for the government's marketing policies and its failure to find markets for our wheat. This effort on the part of Liberal politicians to suggest that any attack on the government or any questioning of the government's agricultural policies indicates a lack of support for the wheat board is of course very skilful to say the least. I would say that, as far as the protestations made by Liberal members concerning the support of the wheat board are concerned, there are three points on which they can be judged.
In the first place, they did not want the wheat board. They fought it tooth and nail when it was first introduced into this house. After they came into power they sought to destroy it by underhand methods by means of an order in council which would have had the effect of destroying its effectiveness. However, as a result of the protests by farmers throughout western Canada they realized that they dared not go through with their plan. They then adopted the stratagem -I have forgotten the author of this little expression: if you cannot beat them, join them.
When they realized it was not politically wise to go on opposing the wheat board they turned around and said, "Of course, we are great friends of the wheat board." The hon.
Canadian Wheat Board Act member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) indicated that quite clearly the other day when he said that in his opinion 99 per cent of the farmers on the prairies were in support of the wheat board. I agree with him. By that statement he indicated why Liberal members dared not openly oppose the wheat board. They have come to the position where they must at least pay lip service to it.
As far as the Social Credit members are concerned, those who represent agricultural constituencies in Alberta have from their past association learned that the wheat board is doing a great thing for the agricultural industry, but I am thinking now more of the party as a whole and its propaganda. They go out and talk against compulsion; they condemned the hospitalization scheme because of the feature of compulsory contribution. A few years ago the leader of that party was reported in Maclean's magazine as being against any form of contributory plan if it was compulsory. Now they wonder why some people are a little dubious about the depth of their support for this principle of orderly marketing. They tried to destroy it in British Columbia. I realize that some of these statements are very unpalatable to my friends to my left, but nevertheless I think they should take them into consideration.
Another aspect of the protestations by Liberal members is in connection with the request of this group that the legislation be made permanent. I realize that at times legislation is introduced to set up a board of commission in connection with which there may be some reasonable doubt as to its effectiveness, whether it will accomplish the purpose for which it is being set up, but here we have a case of the wheat board being set up in 1935 and continuing to function in spite of the early efforts of the Liberal party to destroy it.
The very fact as stated by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre the other day, that 99 per cent of the farmers of the prairies are in support of the wheat board, indicates the logic of not denying the request that this legislation should set up the wheat board as a permanent feature. Today the member for Peace River (Mr. Low) indicated his opposition to the setting up of the board on a permanent basis.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of personal privilege. I do not mind the hon. member saying anything he wants to say that is true, but when he stands up and says something that is absolutely untrue involving me I must protest. I said nothing of the kind today. I did say that I was not

Canadian Wheat Board Act opposed to making the Canadian Wheat Board Act a permanent act, but I said I did see some advantages in the method being used today to extend its life five years at a time.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I must thank the hon. member for intimating that he agrees wholeheartedly with all the statements I have made up to this time concerning that particular point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Solon Earl Low: The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) has misstated something else. I did not indicate by anything that I said that I agreed with everything he had said previously, nor with any part of it. When he deliberately tries to put words in my mouth which are untrue I must intervene. I intervene again. I will say that 99 per cent of what he has just said is utter hoopla.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I was under the impression that the hon. member had indicated some reluctance to support the permanency of the wheat board. However, I will accept his correction of that particular statement. I suggest that Liberal members in this house have a duty to their constituencies. First of all, they have a duty to stand up in their places in this house on occasions such as this to present the views of the people in their constituencies. I am convinced that the farmers in the Qu'Appelle constituency are not happy with the situation which prevails in that area. While it is true the hon. member for that constituency may take some comfort from the fact he has a few people who may have expressed satisfaction, from my observations and from speaking to people in that area 1 know that there is as much dissatisfaction in his constituency as there is in the constituencies of the hon. member for Kin-dersley (Mr. Johnson), the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) and the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson). They have a duty to their constituencies to present the cases of their constituencies in as forthright a manner as possible.
I suggest that if they honestly believe that this government is doing all it can for the farmers in their constituencies they should do the right thing and get up and defend the government on the floor of this house.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I would like to know if the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) knows that the destructive speeches which the socialists are making here are undermining the wheat board in the minds of members from other parts of Canada.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree that that is hardly a question. It is not


even phrased as a question, it is just an effort to get a point of view across.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: If you talk much more nonsense we will not have a wheat board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to say more than a few words in closing this debate. As I have said before, the bill is very simple. The effect of its provisions is to make three changes in dates in the bill, from August 1, 1957 to August 1, 1962. That is the whole purpose of the bill.
I opened by making a few remarks about the wheat board. We have heard the spokesmen for all three parties say that they favour the bill. I think there is every evidence that the Liberal party is unanimously in favour of the bill and I am satisfied that the official opposition is in favour of the bill. The suggestion has been made that the board should make payments on farm-stored grain.
In that the official opposition differs from the other parties because, I noted, the other parties say someone other than the wheat board should make advances on farm-stored grain. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to correct the impression which the socialists are trying to convey that the board is a great socialist experiment operated by the government. That is totally untrue. The wheat board method of marketing antedates the socialist party. I do not think there was a socialist in Canada when the wheat board method of marketing was originated in 1924 or 1925. Until the depression came along to interfere with its functioning, the board operated entirely as a voluntary organization of prairie farmers running their own business of selling wheat. The only difference between the board as it functioned then and as it functions now is that the government nowadays guarantees the finances used by the board in carrying on its operations. And, more recently, it has taken over part of the wheat pool surplus and is carrying it on government account. That is the only difference, and to claim that the board is socialistic, or that it has any particular love of or tie with socialists is completely false.
The board is a farmers' board. Operating expenses of the board are paid by the farmers themselves. The board is advised by an advisory board made up entirely of producers and producer organizations. Moreover, the authority for setting the price of grain is vested in the board and not in the government-it has been vested by this parliament in the board itself. Let us, therefore, get rid of the idea that there is anything socialistic about the wheat board.

Mr. Speaker, 1 said I believed that the official opposition favour this bill. I do not believe for a moment that the socialists favour the bill. They say they favour the bill, but- just sit down-what did they say about the wheat board?


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I would like to know on whose authority, or on what statement made in the house, the minister can base the ridiculous statement that members of the C.C.F. party do not favour the principle of the orderly marketing of wheat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will be glad to elucidate. The marketing of Canadian grain is essential to the Canadian economy. I am sure that is true. And we think that a market for Canadian grain must be preserved-a market which will return the value of Canadian grain to the Canadian economy. The United States is in a different position. The United States was never an important factor in the world market for wheat until towards the end of the second world war. The economy of the United States does not depend on the export of wheat. Through internal policies the United States has built up production of wheat in excess of its requirements, and it has undertaken to market that surplus wheat in a way which we believe is destructive of Canadian markets and of the position of Canadian wheat on the world market.
We have protested about these methods. The socialists tell us these methods of United States selling are right. Several speakers, both in the Social Credit party and in the C.C.F. party, say that is the way to market wheat. Do they mean to tell me that a man who is supporting the wheat board in Canada would make that statement? Could anything be more ridiculous? We have heard a good many strange statements, particularly from the C.C.F. party, and I hope the people in the prairies will read these speeches which C.C.F. members have been making. If they do I think we will have fewer C.C.F. members in the next house than we have in the present house.


An hon. Member:: A lot less.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know that the disagreement with the United States about marketing methods has any particular place in this discussion. As I say, I have protested about others talking about everything but the bill and the wheat board, and I think, perhaps, I had better keep to the text.
There is one matter I might deal with, and that is the question raised by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) as to why Alberta grain cannot be bought 82715-711
Canadian Wheat Board Act directly from farmers by feeders in British Columbia. This act provides that the wheat board shall be the sole marketing agency for wheat in the designated area, that is, in the prairie provinces. You may say that it is not the sole marketing agency because one farmer can sell to another-in other words, that a farmer can be a marketing agency. Well, we try to carry out the intention of the act that the wheat board should be the sole marketing agency, and in doing so we use every method consistent with the powers of the federal government.
We can legally prevent wheat moving across interprovincial borders; we can prevent wheat moving across the international border; we can prevent wheat not marketed through the wheat board moving on the railways; and we can prevent wheat not under the control of the wheat board being received at government elevators and feed mills which are agents of the wheat pool. We do all that. But we cannot prevent one farmer selling to another farmer within the same province. Only the government of the province itself can do that. Each province has, in the case of barley and oats, passed legislation regulating sales within the province. However, this government cannot do it, and we do not attempt to stop it-in other words, as far as we are concerned it is legal for one farmer to sell to another farmer within a province.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would the minister permit a question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would prefer he did not interrupt me in the middle-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I understand you to say that the provinces had all passed legislation to prevent one farmer selling oats and barley to another. That is strictly not the case, is it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What the provincial legislation is I am not too sure, but certainly provincial legislation prevents farmers selling to feed mills within a province. Whether it would prevent one farmer selling to another, I do not know.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am quite sure it does not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: However, the
point I am making is that so far as it lies within federal authority we carry out the spirit of the act. For that reason it is not possible for any individual to take wheat across a provincial border. No individual can do that legally under the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
A farmer can buy wheat from the wheat board. He does not get the discount that a farmer in distress may be willing to give on wheat for which he needs quick cash. I think farmers are realizing more and more that it

Canadian Wheat Board Act is not good business to discount their wheat too quickly for the sake of a quick sale.
That is the situation, and I would like to make it clear. There are certain farmers in British Columbia, within the designated area, who have protested that they cannot take their wheat to Vancouver. They could-if they could do it without crossing an interprovincial border. But we do not ask those farmers to stay in the designated area. We are quite willing to remove those districts in British Columbia from the designated area and let them sell their wheat where they like. We have put that proposal to them, and it has been turned down unanimously as far as I can find out. But in dealing with the wheat board they must take the good with the bad and obey the rules, and that applies to the farmers of British Columbia just as it applies to the farmers of the prairie provinces.
The wheat board has a very difficult job. It is attempting to maintain order in world markets for wheat. It is attempting to maintain a stable price in world markets, and it is being undercut in many of those markets by competitors who do not have the same desire for stability. Happily we have maintained the price and at the same time have been able to sell something like our proportion of world markets. We think that when the United States wheat surplus is disposed of and the Americans retire from the markets, as they are pretty sure to do unless the subsidy on American wheat is continued indefinitely, we will have a world market on which Canada can trade as she did in earlier days. But it is a very difficult job and every discussion we have here in the house always has a depressing effect on the sale of wheat. For example, the suggestion is made that we should follow the American practice and put wheat afloat unsold that can be offered through brokers at prices lower than the market price. Every suggestion of that kind makes the task of the wheat board more difficult and is always reflected in the sales of wheat for a period after these debates take place.
In my opinion we have gone far afield in this debate. We have taken up matters that have no reference whatever to the proposal I am making to the house, and I think the wheat board has been the sufferer as a result. I do not know what we can do about wheat legislation. Last year I had a reasonably simple bill requested by a great number of people from the prairies. It was filibustered here for weeks. This is the fourth day of debate on this very simple bill to change a date. I have another bill in mind that should be put through at this session and I think that legislation I have in mind will be required. A great many people on the prairies
IMr. Howe (Port Arthur).]

want it. I cannot ask for the time this session from the leader of the house which would seem to be required to put that bill through and it may have to go over until the fall or whenever we have another session. I might try it for a day. If it goes through, all right, but if it does not the bill is out. But I think the idea that we can tie up the House of Commons for weeks to change a date in an act just because the bill refers to wheat is a theory that is untenable.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I wonder whether the minister would permit a question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. I do not
want to be interrupted. I think that is all I have to say at the moment. I must say that as far as I can see the reasonableness of the ideas that have been put forward is just about in inverse proportion to the length of time taken to make the speech in the house and I think the loudness of voice has been in inverse ratio to the sensible material of the speaker's discourse.


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


Edward George McCullough: I wonder whether I can ask the minister a question. Does the minister think that four days' discussion of the important topic of selling Canadian wheat is too much time for the Canadian parliament to take?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, this bill has nothing to do with selling Canadian wheat. It has to do with whether the wheat board will be continued for another five years.


Frederick George Hahn: May I ask the minister a supplementary question with respect to the matters I raised the other day?


Mr. Speaker:: Inasmuch as the house has now come to the point where it has to accept or reject the motion, may I suggest that as soon as a decision is reached the house will go into committee of the whole at which time members may ask the minister piloting the bill all the questions they wish to ask. Is the house ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Do hon. members wish me to take the yeas and nays?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed to the Viiieneuve motion will please say nay. In my opinion the yeas have it.	Weselak
Winch
Winters
Wylie
Zaplitny-126.
And more than five members having risen:
NAYS-Nil.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Now who is wasting time?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to take this opportunity to bring two questions to the attention of the minister upon which I have been asked to get information. As I have mentioned before, the dairymen, poultrymen and livestock feeders in my constituency find that the cost of feed is a very high proportion of their costs, in fact it is twice the normal Canadian average. The cost of feed to these producers in my constituency is about 40 per cent of their selling price, whereas the normal Canadian average is about 20 per cent, so I am sure the minister will appreciate what a serious thing this cost of feed is to my constituents.
This matter was discussed quite completely at the last annual convention of the B.C. federation of agriculture. Two things were discussed, the high cost of feed and the possibility of buying direct from the farmer through the wheat board in order to save the handling costs. Then, there was another question, and that was the refusal of the railways to load grain within the province for transportation to another point in the province, as a result of instructions from the wheat board. In that connection, I want to read very briefly from Country Life, which deals with a report of that convention:
Questions Authority
There is a feeling among some agricultural producers in this province that the Canadian wheat board is operating beyond its legal powers when it controls rail shipments of feed grains within the province, as in the case of the Creston movements.
I might say in that connection that producers in my constituency had repeatedly tried to purchase grain in that area but the railway company would not accept it for loading because of some rulings of the wheat board. I continue the quotation:
This was expressed by central Vancouver island poultry producers' association when it received unanimous endorsation of a resolution calling for the B.C. attorney-general to study wheat board practices and to proceed to obtain judgment from the courts if he finds that the wheat board is acting without legal authority.
My two questions to the minister are as follows: Is it possible, owing to the circumstances of many producers in British Columbia with respect to the high cost of feed, for some arrangement to be made for purchases direct from the farmers through the wheat board, that is to save handling costs between

Canadian Wheat Board Act the farmer, the elevator and so on? Then again, what authority has the wheat board to prevent the railroads loading grain within a province for transportation to another point within the province?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer to the first question is that it is not possible to buy direct from the farmer through the wheat board. It is possible to buy direct from the wheat board at any marketing point in the province, that means any country elevator, and the purchase price there is the export price at Vancouver less the freight costs charged for the movement from that point to Vancouver. This purchase is legal and afterwards the grain bought in that way will have a certificate that lets it be moved anywhere and by any vehicle.
The reason the railroads cannot accept a shipment of wheat is the provision in the act that we are now extending. That provision has recently been tested in the courts. The case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada and the court upheld the regulation of the wheat board, so I think that has been settled by the highest court in the land that it is not legally possible.


Frederick George Hahn: Further to what I said earlier in this debate and following what the hon. member who just took his seat had to say, I have a question I should like to pose to the minister. During the course of the debate I proposed he set up a fact-finding board to discover if there is any means whereby we can, without circumventing the wheat board, because we in British Columbia realize the value of boards, stop this discrimination between the various provinces, or within the province itself, as a result of the sale of wheat at fire-sale prices.
No one wishes to have grain or any other products sold on the basis of a fire-sale price. We are fully aware of the need for the wheat board, and for this reason we have such boards in my own province. However, I do question whether we will not find ourselves in an awkward position in the very near future if we should have all grain go through the wheat board, as it undoubtedly would, and a short crop year should come to this country. It would appear to be a blessing as far as the farmer is concerned. The wheat board would be able to get rid of the grain by reason of our having a short crop year, and this would give the farmer an opportunity to get ready cash. The farmers on the prairies could go into the poultry business; but we in British Columbia would be in the awkward position of not having these goods supplied to us.
(Mr. Herridge.]
I would like to know if the minister has examined the possibility of setting up a factfinding board to determine what would be the long-range effects of this act. The act has been in operation long enough to enable us to assess its immediate effects, and we certainly can observe them; but has he given any thought at all to the long-range effects?


Clarence Decatur Howe: When this act was passed, Mr. Chairman, parliament made it clear that the wheat board was to be the sole marketing agency for Canadian wheat. I should not like to take any step that would weaken the position of the board in that respect. They enforce the intent of the act as far as they can.


Frederick George Hahn: One further matter, Mr. Chairman. I can fully appreciate the minister's point. It is not my intention to suggest that the wheat board's position should be weakened in any way. What I am proposing is that the act should be examined to see if it could be extended in order to make it stronger.
I believe the hon. member for Lethbridge, in speaking the other day, brought out a point that might be the answer to the whole problem. If there were cash advances for feed grain, seed grain or grain of any kind stored on the farms the problem would not arise, because the farmer would not have to sell his grain at fire-sale prices.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the minister a little earlier. I am sure, however, that upon a little reflection he will agree that it was the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre who was responsible for this bill not being given second reading a week ago today. Members of all parties had spoken and expressed their support of the wheat board, and though I attempted to persuade the chairman to rule that a discussion of Saskatchewan crown companies would be provocative and would not be in order, the hon. member proceeded with his remarks.
This afternoon when everyone was in favour of second reading the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre assumed the responsibility of the leader of the government and of the Liberal party, and forced the taking of time by giving everyone an opportunity to stand up and be counted during the vote. I am indebted to the hon. member, but the minister must hold him responsible for slowing down our progress today and consuming this extra time.
I wish to make it clear that hon. members in this group think this legislation should be permanent. As I mentioned a week ago, the argument the minister used two years ago in relation to the defence production legislation,

which was to make it permanent with a view to making it feasible to get personnel on a permanent basis, is an argument which is applicable to this legislation. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Johnson):
That clause 1 of Bill 9 be amended by inserting a period after the word "repealed" in line 4, and by deleting all the words thereafter.
While hon. members are having an opportunity to decide whether or not they will support this amendment I might continue with my remarks. The fact that this is one of the few times in Canadian history when 100 per cent of the members who were present stood up and were named as being in support of this legislation should give the minister a great deal of satisfaction, and perhaps should result in his accepting this amendment so that whoever is piloting such legislation five years from now will not have to waste time. I think it is obvious that once each year when the estimates of the department are before parliament hon. members will have an opportunity of reviewing the situation. The fact that this debate has continued at some length and that hon. members on the whole have been given such a courteous hearing indicates that this is a very important problem, as the minister himself has suggested.
When the hon. member for Vegreville was expressing the fact yesterday that the wheat board had a tough job, I interjected that their job was not as tough as that of the farmers. To my surprise the hon. member for Vegreville used improper language similar to that which has been used by hon. members like my friend from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. The hon. member for Vegreville said I was "calamity howling" and "singing the blues".. When the hon. gentleman was up in my constituency he did not use that sort of language. When he was there he was face to face with farmers who are hard against it. I understand that the hon. member for Vegreville is not coming back to this house, and I understand that the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre is not planning on coming back. It is all right for them to get up and suggest that everything is rosy. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre will be able to retire on a pension of $3,000 for life without any means test, and I am sure he will be granted the earliest opportunity to do that.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I think my chances of reelection are as good as your own.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member that we are approaching the situation which I was forced to draw to his attention yesterday afternoon. We
Canadian Wheat Board Act are now in committee, and our discussion must be directly related to the item before us.
May I point out to the hon. member that we are discussing clause I of this bill, which amends section 23 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I have the act before me, and that refers only to part 2 of the act, the heading of which is "Control of elevators and railways". There are other subheadings such as "Application", "Permit books", "Administration" and so on, but I would think that under this clause our discussion in committee should be limited to part 2 of the act.
The hon. member has introduced an amendment which I shall read in a moment, but that amendment merely extends the termination of part 2 as set forth in the act. Therefore I must ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the item under discussion.
While I am on my feet, it has been moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley:
That clause 1 of Bill 9 be amended by inserting a period after the word "repealed" in line 4, and by deleting all the words thereafter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, possibly it would be helpful if the minister would explain the basis upon which the administration decided to extend the period for five years. At one time, as I recall it, the extension was for three years and on the second occasion it was for four years. What is the reason for extending the period of five years at this time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I do not know that there was any particular reason. The country seems to be getting used to the wheat board and it did not seem necessary to have this discussion come up as often as it did in the early stages. Our machinery of marketing is becoming adjusted to the wheat board system. There was no particular sanctity about the five years, and if anyone wanted to suggest some other period we would be glad to consider it. It seemed to the government that five years was a reasonable period.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment because I believe the Canadian Wheat Board Act should be a permanent act and not subject to repeal, revision or expiry at a given date. I have always supported the wheat board. I looked up the very first speech I made in this house on February 16, 1936, and before dealing with the matter then before the house, I had this say, as reported on page 175 of Hansard of that date:
Under the last administration-
1128	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act That was the Bennett administration.
-a wheat board was established, and that board was satisfactory to the producers of western Canada; the resolutions of the organized producers show that, I think, completely. Since hon. gentlemen opposite have taken office very disquieting events have occurred.
I then went on to elaborate those events.
I do not want to leave the matter for revision or expiry in the hands of governments which may prove again to be unfriendly to the wheat board method of marketing. I was here during the whole of that controversy and I remember most definitely that the original basis of the wheat board was undermined by the present administration. When they have the nerve to stand up in this house and accuse those of us who through the years have supported the wheat board method of marketing of trying to undermine and destroy the wheat board, I say that that is slander and when it is written, libel on a group of people who have been wholeheartedly in favour of it.
To suggest that there are today any members of this house who oppose the wheat board at this time is equally slanderous, as the vote this afternoon will show. I resent very much the implications by people in this house who try to say that we are opposed to this method of marketing. In fact we want to see it extended to rye and flax and to have a system of orderly marketing set up for all farm products as the producers desire it. It should not be something inflicted upon them, but as they wished it. There should be such a system of orderly marketing under properly constituted boards for all farm products.
My memory is quite good about the long debates which took place between 1935 and 1940 when the war broke out. Then we got the marketing of wheat completely under the control of the wheat board, something we did not have before. I would like to see this act on the statute books as a permanent piece of legislation so that there may be no ifs and buts about it in the days to come.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Chairman, on this clause and on the amendment I think it is important that the government should make some statement of policy in regard to its position in connection with the transport controller. This particular clause relates to the loading of grain into railway cars. I think it is important, when considering how long the wheat board is going to be able to exist in the face of the government's refusal to assist in this regard, to give consideration to this matter.
I think we have had an adequate discussion of this principle in the past. As pointed out by members of the government, the office of 

transport controller is a necessary one. In its annual report the Canadian wheat board referred to the problems confronting it in allocating box cars to marketing points. This is one matter which we should have clarified before deciding what action we are going to take because it is apparent that if the government continues to refuse to assist the Canadian wheat board by appointing a transport controller it will be necessary to have continuing legislation, otherwise the confounding of the wheat board by the government will make it very difficult for members supporting that government to support that policy. I wish the Minister of Trade and Commerce would clarify this matter and make a statement as to his attitude toward assisting the Canadian wheat board by the appointment of a transport controller.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The transport
controller was never a member of the staff of the Department of Trade and Commerce nor was he an official of the wheat board; he operates in a separate orbit. I suppose at an appropriate time my hon. friend can ask the Minister of Transport to elucidate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, in so far as this amendment is concerned I see no reason why it should not be supported. It has been an interesting revelation to hear the degree to which those supporting the government are now in favour of the wheat board, having regard particularly to the opposition in July 1935 to which I referred when it was originally introduced. In view of the fact that it has received the support of members of this house over and over again when extensions have been asked for in the tenure of the board, having regard to the support which farmers in general have given to orderly marketing, I see no reason why this amendment should not be supported. It will be interesting to find out the degree to which my hon. friends who support the Liberal party will indicate their support of and belief in the wheat board when the vote takes place on the amendment.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, as the leader of this group said in the discussion on second reading, he was not opposed to the board being made permanent but he saw certain advantages in the bill under discussion in that when the expiry date was reached we would review the operations of the wheat board. Right here may I say that I do not think the Minister of Trade and Commerce need be too alarmed at the scope of the debate we had on second reading. It is true as he said that this is a simple bill which extends the life of the board for another five years, but we were debating the principle of the

bill. Therefore we had the right to say, "Do we want the wheat board to continue for five years, or do we not?" It did open up the whole matter of the wheat board, and rightly so, I think. 1 do not blame the minister for being concerned at the political trend of the debate, because he had some reason.
In respect to the amendment, I am willing to support it because I see no reason why the wheat board should not be made permanent. At the same time I do not think the amendment is as serious as some might indicate, because it is a matter of fact that in law nothing is permanent. As a matter of fact, though it may seem paradoxical to say it, the wheat board is permanent for the next five years. The leader of the C.C.F. party has said he wants it to be made permanent because he does not know what might happen should a government come into power which is not too favourable toward the board. Well, the result would simply be this. Even though the act were made permanent, any government which came into power which did not like it could repeal the measure. So it does not make any difference, and I cannot work up any enthusiasm one way or another as to whether it should be extended for five years or made permanent.
However, I have no objection to the amendment and I am quite willing, personally, to vote for permanency.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Chairman, I said earlier in this debate that I thought 99 per cent of the farmers in the west today support the wheat board, and I presume that is one of main reasons the minister has brought this measure forward on this occasion. But that does not mean that farmers five years from now will still feel the same way about it. Conditions can change, and I think it is sensible to have the matter reviewed in five years and hear what the attitude of the farmers is at that time.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said today that no one is opposed to the wheat board, as demonstrated by the vote in the house. That is true, but I still find it strange that a party which is so strongly in favour of the wheat board has been, for five days, criticizing just about everything the wheat board has done.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise for only a minute because I believe it might be desirable to have on the record of Hansard just exactly what is involved in the amendment that has been moved by my colleague the hon. member for Mackenzie.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
The Canadian Wheat Board Act as it now stands, section 23, reads as follows:
The provisions of this part shall be deemed to be repealed on and after the 1st day of August, 1957.
The effect of clause 1 of the minister's bill would simply change "1957" to "1962". The effect of the amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Mackenzie is to make clause 1 of Bill No. 9 read as follows:
Section 23 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act is repealed.
Obviously the effect of an amendment which would repeal section 23 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act would be to leave part II of the Canadian Wheat Board Act without any provision for its automatic repeal, as is now the case. This is the desire of those of us in this group who feel that this act should be put on a permanent basis. To achieve this effect would perhaps require certain other amendments which will follow in due course but, as I say, it might be desirable to have on record the exact effect of the amendment which has been moved, the purpose of which is to make this part of the Canadian Wheat Board Act permanent legislation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the Canadian Wheat Board Act involves the compulsion of the ordinary citizen. A man can object to this method of wheat marketing as much as he likes, but if he does not follow the rules prescribed by this act a sheriff comes to his home and hauls him before the court. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition discussing compulsory measure of this kind, and I am a little surprised that he has changed his viewpoint, and now should want to place compulsion on the people of Canada as a permanent measure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the Income Tax
Act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I recall discussions on the Defence Production Act-


John George Diefenbaker: Is this emergency legislation to which the minister is now referring?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Canadian Wheat Board Act fundamental freedom and human rights he might very well consider whether or not the right of a producer to sell his product to whom he pleases cannot be considered a fundamental freedom.


John George Diefenbaker: This indeed is a great day. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has commenced to parade fundamental freedoms. It is a great day indeed, and one that is long to be remembered, because there is no one in this house who has done more to crush fundamental freedoms than has the right hon. gentleman.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


John George Diefenbaker: Today, in shining armour of a new revelation, he stands here and says one of the reasons a period is fixed in this act is because of his belief in the freedom of the individual. It is only a matter of a few minutes ago that he was telling us why farmers are not allowed to deliver wheat themselves or to sell it in other provinces.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is part of the present Wheat Board Act. That is why the act should be reviewed from time to time.


John George Diefenbaker: "Sit down" is the usual attitude of the minister. As a matter of fact, his answer to me that this is emergency legislation indicates the reasons for the fixation of the period. That was the attitude in 1935. I have a copy of Hansard before me which shows that the Liberal party at that time did everything it could to destroy the efficacy and effectiveness of the wheat board. Mr. Bennett wanted it to be a compulsory board but Mr. Ralston, who spoke for the Liberal party at that time, condemned anything in the nature of a compulsory feature as being detrimental to the Canadian people, and said this was in effect emergency legislation.
I am not going into the later history because I want to remain within the terms enunciated by yourself, Mr. Chairman, with regard to discussion in committee of the whole. In order to find an excuse for voting against the amendment the minister finds it necessary to alter his stand and become an exponent of human freedom. That is, indeed, amazing. When we go back to last year's debate in connection with the trans-Canada pipe line and the degree to which parliament was made his pawn and his puppet, I thought, "Well, it is a great day when what we taught him on that occasion has resulted in his realization that the freedom of the individual is, indeed, of some consequence." If that debate did nothing else, it achieved a great deal in that respect.

Amendment (Mr. Nicholson) negatived: Yeas, 26; nays, 55.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-
Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of our group is to endeavour to get the house to support amendments which will make this legislation permanent. I was very gratified to note that in the vote on the motion for second reading of the bill all members voted to extend the Canadian Wheat Board Act for another five years. With such unanimity I believe we can be justified in feeling that hon. members should give full support to making the legislation permanent.
The arguments of the Minister of Trade and Commerce do not seem to me to be very-sound, when he says it is the wish of the government not to make the legislation permanent because it is pretty binding on individuals. I recall that a year ago when the defence production bill was before the house-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I understood the hon. member was rising on clause 2 and that clause 1 had carried. The discussion he is carrying on now is with regard to a matter which has been negatived on a vote in the committee.


Edward George McCullough: Then I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny):
That clause 2 of bill 9 be amended by deleting from line 8 thereof the words "paragraph (a) of", also by commencing the word "section" in line 8 with a capital "S", and also by deleting lines 10 and 11 and by substituting therefor the following words:
"24. Subject to section 31, in this part 'pool period' means each crop year subsequent to the 31st day of July, 1950."
The intent of the amendment is, of course, to conform with the idea of making the legislation permanent. It would then be left to the will of parliament if it should see fit at any time to discontinue the Canadian Wheat Board Act.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, perhaps my brain is not working fast enough, but I am a little confused. As I read the amendment, in the light of the fact clause 1 of the bill remains as it appears in the bill I cannot see that the amendment has any effect whatsoever. The only effect, if any, is to indicate that a crop year ends on the 31st day of July, 1950. That goes without saying. Inasmuch as the first clause has been carried as it is printed in the bill, it simply means

Canadian Wheat Board Act
that the other clauses follow automatically. I do not think the amendment means anything. Vote on it if you like.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I offer an explanation which I think will make the amendment clear to the hon. member and all other members of the committee. Reference has been made to clause 1 of the bill, which has been disposed of. That dealt with part II of the Canadian Wheat Board Act which is entitled "Control of elevators and railways." We are now dealing with a clause that relates to section 24 of the act, which is the first section in part III which is entitled "Interprovincial and export marketing of wheat by board."
In other words, what we are now aiming to do is to make permanent the part of the wheat board act that has to do with the marketing of wheat by the Canadian wheat board. I realize that my hon. friend has not a copy of the statute before him at the moment, but may I tell him that at the present time section 24 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act reads as follows:
24. Subject to section 31, in this part "pool period" means
(a)	each crop year subsequent to the 31st day of July. 1950, and prior to the first day of August, 1957; and
(b)	thereafter, such period or periods as parliament may fix for such purpose.
In other words, at the present time seection 24 of the act states that for the purposes of part III the only crop years to be considered are those that commenced since the 31st day of July, 1950, and will be concluded before the 1st day of August, 1957. Clause 2 of the bill presented by the minister would extend the crop years to be included for the purposes of part III to the 1st day of August, 1962.
The effect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Moose Mountain is to remove any concluding date. It would leave section 24 of the act just as it appears in the amendment, namely:
24. Subject to section 31, in this part "pool period" means each crop year subsequent to the 31st day of July, 1950.
In other words, the same starting date for part III that has been there for a number of years would be continued but there would be no cut-off date, neither the 1957 date that is now in the act nor the 1962 date that the Minister of Trade and Commerce proposes. Rather than having such a cut-off date, part III of the act, having to do with interprovincial and export marketing of wheat by the board, would be put on a permanent basis. That is to say, this is parallel to the proposal made a moment ago. Perhaps it might be 82715-72i
said that it deals with an even more important part of the act, namely that part having to do with the marketing of wheat by the board.


John Hornby Harrison: In the area I have the honour to represent, socialist policy as indicated by the amendment now before us and with respect to many other things has been so detrimental and, having been argued in elections from time to time and at no time supported, I therefore rise to say that I will take great pleasure in voting against any such socialist motion. If I could vote twice I would do so.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: May I ask the
hon. member a question. Does he consider the wheat board act to be socialistic legislation?


John Hornby Harrison: Mr. Chairman, I see that maybe I should have spent a little more time on this debate. I do not consider the wheat board to be such. It has been discussed as a measure before the electorate from time to time and has been endorsed there. From time to time we have had socialist measures discussed in the area from which I come and. they have been repudiated. If anyone wishes an indication of that fact, may I say that the main indication is the fact that I am here.


Alfred Claude Ellis: What did the Liberals do in the north country in the last provincial, election?


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 24; nays, 55.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Duration.
Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on clause 3. There are three places in this bill where reference is made to a cut-off date. As a last hope in trying to get this made into permanent legislation I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin:
That clause 3 of Bill 9 be amended by inserting a period after the word "repeal" in line 12, and by deleting all the words thereafter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Question.


William Alfred Robinson: Do I understand that the committee is ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is calling for the question. Perhaps he might be willing to wait for a moment until it is made clear on the record just what this



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES ACT

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Wheat Board Act amendment would do. Section 34 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act as it now stands reads as follows:
34. The provisions of this part shall be deemed to be repealed on and after the 1st day of August, 1957.
The part referred to in that section is part IV, entitled "Regulation of interprovincial and export trade in wheat".
Clause 3 of the minister's bill would merely change the cut-off date to 1962. The amendment proposed by my colleague the hon. member for The Battlefords would make clause 3 of this bill read simply as follows: "Section 34 of the said act is repealed." Obviously the repeal of section 34 of the act which I read a moment ago would leave part IV of the Canadian Wheat Board Act without an automatic cut-off date. That is the purpose of this group in the amendments that have been moved this afternoon, namely to try to make this permanent legislation rather than emergency legislation, to use the term used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon.
I confess that I was surprised when I heard the minister use that word. I thought he believed in this legislation. But apparently with him it is just emergency legislation, and it seems to me that makes it all the more important that parliament should put it on the statute books in permanent form.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce also had a little bit of fun, he thought, at the expense of the Leader of the Opposition by referring to fundamental freedoms and human rights. I suggest that one of the rights to which the farmers of western Canada are entitled is the right to be protected from exploitation by the grain exchange, and to have that protection made permanent.
William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 26; nays, 55.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 3 carry?
Clause 3 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave.


Clarence Decatur Howe: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TWO NATIONAL MUSEUMS

Jean Lesage: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Act to provide for the establishment of two national museums in lieu of one, as at the present time to be known as the Canadian museum of natural history and the Canadian museum of human history.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few words to say in explanation of the resolution. In the course of its development to the position of national importance it now holds, the national museum of Canada has assumed a function for which its present organization is now no longer entirely appropriate. To rectify this it is proposed to establish two museums. As the minister, under the present act, does not have the power to establish museums, the proposed amendment would give him that power.
In the organization of the national museum there is a definite division between the different parts of the work relating to human history, including the fields of archaeology, anthropology and ethnology, and those parts relating to natural history including geology, botany and zoology. In 1951 the royal commission on the arts, letters and sciences studied the work of the national museum, and concluded that its organization did not make adequate provision for the best possible development of each of these two main divisions. The commission proposed that to provide for full development in the future of the museum functions in the fields of both human and natural history two museums, one to deal with human history and one with natural history, should be created from the existing museum. By such a reorganization and subsequent expansion of activities the two national museums would be able to make their full contribution to Canadian life.
Until recently it would not have been practicable, because of space limitation, to make the change. We can now see, however, that within three years new building programs in the Ottawa area will make possible the move from the present Victoria memorial museum building of both the national gallery and the geological survey, thereby increasing by three times the space now available. With this great improvement in the space situation

Northern Affairs and National Resources
in sight and with the enormous amount of planning and exhibit preparation that must be done to make ready tor this, the time has now become opportune to carry out the anticipated reorganization as recommended by the Massey commission.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was not quite clear as to what the minister meant, Mr. Chairman, when he started his remarks on this subject by saying that the present museum set-up is no longer appropriate. I hope we might get a little explanation of what he meant by those words.


Jean Lesage: The organization set-up-


Douglas Scott Harkness: He has stated as his only reason for introducing this bill to form two museums instead of one the fact that such a course was recommended by the Massey report. I do not think the fact that it was so recommended should be taken as a sufficiently good reason in itself for legislation of this sort. After all, a considerable number of things were recommended in that report which the government has not seen fit to implement. Recently another report, the Gordon report, has been received and if one can judge from the remarks made by some, particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce, it would seem evident that the government is not going to implement the recommendations in that report. Therefore the fact that a certain recommendation is made in a certain report cannot be taken, in itself, as sufficient reason for passing legislation.
The minister concluded by saying that within three years' time space will be available in the present building as a result of the removal from that building of certain branches of other departments which have been occupying it for some time. I know that so far as the museum is concerned, space has been very much at a premium. This has been one of the great difficulties. I am glad to hear that more space will be available and that the present building, which was built as a museum, will be available for use as a museum. However, since both these projected museums are going to be in the same building, I find it somewhat difficult to understand why we need legislation to set up two separate museums. I should like to know whether the curator of the museum has found it impossible to carry on his duties, and whether there is any necessity for dividing the functions between two curators, thereby doubling the expense. I would doubt very much whether that is the case.
As to the necessity of forming two museums which would be under the same roof, apparently the great museums which exist in the various countries of the world have
not found that necessary. The British museum is an example of the fact that it is not necessary to divide this into two or three museums. If these museums were to be in two separate buildings there would appear to me to be more justification for setting up two museums in place of one. Since all the museum facilities are apparently to be housed in the one building, and since nothing has been advanced by the minister so far to indicate that one curator and one museum would not be adequate, possibly divided into two or more branches-in fact I think perhaps the museum should be divided into three or four branches dealing with different types of material-I can see no real reason for the introduction of this legislation. After all, the two museums will continue to be really one museum in one building. It would seem to me a matter of duplication and an increase in what you might call administrative responsibilities. I would think the extra money involved would be much better devoted to securing more specimens for the museum.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I welcome the announcement by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources because, as an individual, I find nothing more enjoyable than being able to spend an afternoon in a museum. I have been disappointed on visits to the museum in Ottawa to find it very crowded, and to find much of the space in that building occupied by the geologicial branch of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. These departments take up space which could very well be filled with displays concerning some phases of our past history which visitors to the museum would find very interesting.
I think the decision to divide it into two branches is desirable, because it will give the branch of the museum dealing with human history an opportunity to explore more extensively the past history of Canada and to display its findings. There have been several field expeditions in various parts of Canada exploring civilizations that have existed on this continent in past centuries. I believe this legislation will make it possible for more extensive expeditions to go into the field. Unless we explore the various sites of which we have knowledge while we still know where they are located it will not be too many decades before the sites have disappeared and those portions of the record of history will be lost forever.
Another important point arising from the introduction of this resolution is that we will have an opportunity to take out of storage many of the findings of former field expeditions, since there will be room in the

Northern Affairs and National Resources museum to display them. I hope that as a result of this resolution we will have here iri Ottawa as a national museum an institution which will favourably compare with the Royal Ontario museum in Toronto.
We have an excellent museum located in Regina, and have received favourable comments about it from people who have had an opportunity of visiting there. I welcome this endeavour by the minister to establish a museum of natural history and a museum of human history, so that as Canadians we may be proud of our display of history and as individuals we may have a knowledge of and an interest in what has occurred in the past.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is necessary for me to dwell on this subject at great length, but I should like to point out to the minister that I feel here is a great deal of merit in the resolution he is proposing today. As has already been indicated by previous speakers, it will be a good thing to establish a national museum on an extended basis.
I am wondering, though not in a critical way, what will be the added cost involved. I understand that both the museum of Canadian natural history and the museum of human history will be housed in the one building. The building will require a certain amount of renovation, and though I would not imagine that the cost will be great I think we should have some indication as to what it might be. Of course there will also be the additional cost of providing the separate staffs that will be neceessary, and we should have some indication of that cost.
It seems to me there is a great deal of work to be done in preserving both our natural history and our human history, and I would think some attention should be paid to giving assistance to museums in other parts of the country that maintain the record of our history. My mind goes at once to my own constituency. A museum has been established in the city of Drumheller under vast difficulties. I do not suppose there is an area in Canada which holds greater prospects for field expeditions exploring the record of the past than the so-called badlands of Drumheller, where the remains of nearly all the prehistoric animals have been found. Wonderful work has been done by the small museum in Drumheller, which has unearthed discoveries that are thousands and thousands of years old.
Many donations have been made to that museum. Although I have referred to it as a small museum I should qualify that by saying it is not small in relation to the size of Drumheller, but only when we think of museums in the national sense. I think it

would be wrong to concentrate all our efforts on the construction of a national museum at the expense of ignoring the efforts being made by museums in other places to preserve our history.
There is an excellent museum located in the town of Banff, which I am sure the minister has visited. I understand the work of this museum is carried on entirely through donations received from private individuals. I have gone through that museum on a number of occasions, and they have many wonderful displays of animal and natural life. Practically all the wild animals are on exhibit there. I am sure no one who visits the national park, and there are many thousands each year who do, fails to visit the museum. I venture to suggest that just as many people visit the Banff museum as visit the museum in Ottawa, if not more. Many thousands of people go through the museum during the tourist season, and you can hardly enter the building because of the crowds.
Although I am by no means belittling the proposal contained in this resolution, I think some attention should be given to assisting museums in other areas where the local people have taken a keen interest in preserving historical treasures. If the minister would give consideration to the museums at Banff and Drumheller I am sure it would enable them to make a further contribution to the preservation of historical records, and thus assist the national museum.
I want to assure him that I think he is following a wise course in introducing this resolution, and I trust he will see his way clear to extending his thinking to museums and activities beyond the scope of those mentioned in this legislation.


Mr. Lusby:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly in approval of the principle of this resolution. It seems to me the principle is entirely in keeping with the growth and development of Canada during recent years.
I do not suppose there is anyone in this chamber who has not taken advantage of the opportunity to make a tour of the national museum during his years in Ottawa and certainly none of us would fail to agree that it was a most instructive and interesting experience. But I remember that on the first occasion-not the last occasion but the first- when I made a tour of the museum, I came to the end of the tour feeling, "Is this all?" It seemed to me that for a country of the present status of Canada there should have been something more; it should have been a more extensive establishment. For that reason I think the proposal to divide the

Private Bills
museum into two separate branches will enable a great deal of development to take place in each branch.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. It being
five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 16, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company and certain wholly owned subsidiaries.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill if enacted, together with the supplementary provincial legislation, will simplify the corporate structure and organization of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. It is similar to the act of last year which is chapter 55 of the 1956 statutes. It provides for the vesting of the assets of 12 wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and the assumption of the obligations and liabilities of those subsidiary companies by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Of the twelve subsidiary companies, seven are incorporated under acts of this parliament and five are incorporated under provincial legislation. The bill provides also for the dissolution of the seven companies incorporated by federal acts. The other five companies will require provincial legislation for their dissolution, and provincial legislation will also be required to vest certain assets in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. In all such cases the legislation is in process of being dealt with or being put before the appropriate provincial legislatures.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, last year we dealt with a similar bill covering I believe twelve subsidiary companies of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. That bill was sent to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and I presume the same course will be followed this year and that officials of the Canadian Pacific will be in attendance to explain various details in connection with these lines.


George James McIlraith: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out to the sponsor of the bill that one of these companies, the Kaslo and Nakusp Railway Company, operated a line running from Kaslo to the vicinity of New Denver in British Columbia. Just two or three weeks ago the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was given permission by
the board of transport commissioners to abandon the line, subject to the condition that a portion of the roadbed would be transferred to the province for use as a highway. I would hope when the bill comes before the committee, officials will be present to indicate what the Canadian Pacific proposes to do in connection with the ruling by the board of transport commissioners. There may be questions having to do with the other railways, and I take it that officials will be present to give all the facts in connection with those lines.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested when I read this bill to find one significant omission from the list of wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I refer to the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company, which operates on Vancouver island. I think this omission is significant, in that there might have been some unfortunate results from the Canadian Pacific's point of view if they had included that railway company in this measure. I submit that if parliament is going to aid the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in a reorganization of its property it should give consideration to the position in which the people of British Columbia have been left on account of this particular subsidiary of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
This line was not built by the Canadian Pacific, it was built as a result of one of the most scandalous land steals in the history of Canada. It was bought later, in 1912, by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. As there was some doubt at that time whether or not the tax exemption privileges which accrued to the original grantees would accrue to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the legislature of British Columbia of that day passed a special enabling act granting those tax exemptions.
I would think if the Canadian Pacific Railway Company wishes parliamentary aid in straightening out its affairs in British Columbia and other parts of Canada it should be prepared to submit to the penalty of having the whole system brought under one unified organization, and thereby perhaps rectify some of the damage done to the people of British Columbia by its predecessors, the Esquimalt and Nanaimo land syndicate.
The losses to the people of British Columbia are estimated to be in the millions of dollars. A former chief forester of British Columbia told me that at the time he was speaking to me we had lost up to $50 million in royalties because of this particular provision in the grant to the Esquimalt and Nanaimo land syndicate and because of the provision in the tax exemption act of 1912.

Private Bills
I hope when the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway appear before the committee they will be prepared to answer questions as to why they have not included the notorious Esquimau and Nanaimo Railway Company in the bill which is before us at the present time.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should answer one or two of the points that have been raised. First I want to make it clear that the question of a railway ceasing operations is dealt with by the board of transport commissioners, and that would not be affected in any way by the legislation now before the house. The jurisdiction of that board will be just the same after the vesting of the railway undertakings in the parent company has taken place.
As to having officials of the railway appear before the committee, perhaps I should have explained that that was done last year and it certainly is the intention to have it done again this year. The officials will be available to answer questions as to any of these companies.
As to the last point raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo, I think the hon. member misapprehends this legislation. There were some 36 or 37 small railway companies which were wholly-owned or almost wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. They were operated by the Canadian Pacific under long-term leases. This necessitated additional bookkeeping, the holding of annual meetings and so on. Legislation was brought before the house last year dealing with 13 of these companies and vesting their undertakings in the parent company. This year another 12 are being dealt with in the same way by the bill now before the house. There will still be 12 or 13 to be dealt with in future legislation.
The reason these different subsidiaries are still being left outstanding can be given when the officials are before the committee. It may be because there are shares of stock outstanding, it may be because there is a particular clause in an agreement, or some complication of that sort. It is anticipated that within another year they will all have been dealt with in the way the group referred to in this bill are being dealt with.
I do not think there is anything more I can usefully add at this stage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fairey for the second reading of Bill No. 15,

respecting Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Regier.
Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman had a chance to look at the remarks I made the other day with respect to the amendment?


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that when a change is contemplated in the capital structure of a company the whole operations of the company are open for discussion and debate, and that even its continued existence as a company chartered by this parliament was open for debate. However, as a new member in this house I am perfectly happy to abide by whatever ruling you may desire to make.


Mr. Speaker:: Having given fully the reasons the other day, namely on February 5, why I considered the amendment to be out of order, I may say that I am still of that view and therefore declare it out of order today.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I have been quite interested in this bill because it seems to me to be almost a classic example of the sort of thing against which I and my colleagues in this house have been protesting against for years. I was interested the other day to hear the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre remark that the socialists usually did not have much connection with business, and I would be the first to agree with him. Socialists, like other intelligent people, do have some doubts as to the wisdom of devoting the short period during which we are on this earth to the business of buying things cheaply and selling them dearly, whether it be selling hardware-in Moose Jaw or embarking on wider areas of rapacity and dealing in oil and natural resources of various kinds.
We are asked to believe, Mr. Speaker, that the promoters and owners of the present company wish to take this action in order to-distribute the shares of their holdings among the general public. Now I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when they ask us to believe that they insult our intelligence. In the first place, if this were so they would be almost the first promoters in history to decide that they wished to invite the public in, unless their enterprise was in a shaky condition or they hoped for some stock market scheme whereby they would gain big profits.
But in this instance the case is clear cut; this is just nonsense, and dishonest nonsense, that is being told to us in this regard; because if the people who had formed this company had wished to have the public participate, then it seems very odd that of the 5 million shares of no par value which were authorized!

in 1951 only some 1 million-odd have been issued, and of that 1 million only 450,000 were made available to the general public.
We are told that another reason why they want to split the stock is that the price has gone so high that the general public is unable, or unwilling, to engage in trading in that stock. Again I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the price had gone so high only in the last year since it became obviously an extremely profitable undertaking. There were two years in which it was not nearly so high, but these gentlemen made no effort at that time to attempt to sell some of the shares, amounting to nearly 3J million, which they had in their company treasury. They waited until the exorbitant profits which were shown last year caused the price of their stock to rise to its present dizzy and encouraging height.
Then it was decided that they wanted to split the stock five to one in order to permit the general public to participate in their operations. But we have had no indication whatever from the sponsor of this bill that the company does actually intend to sell to the public any of those 3J million shares- they would become 16 million shares-which are in their treasury. We have no undertaking to that effect.
We have, indeed, the possibility that what will happen is that those who own the present shares will decide to cash in on their profits after the shares have been split and traded on the stock market until their price has reached an encouraging level. These gentlemen may then unload some of their holdings; they may, indeed, initiate a regular campaign of unloading with the idea of resuming possession of the stock later on.
I cannot imagine for the life of me, Mr. Speaker, how anyone could consider that there is a respectable reason for this proposition which is, of course, just the well-known old racket of melon-cutting. And this parliament is being asked to enable that to be done.
There are those, of course, who imagine that the capital gains that would accrue to these gentlemen would come out of thin air. My friends to the left will probably think that. But I would like to assure them and other hon. members of this house that this is not the case, and that the capital gains which will be made by these people will come out of thje pockets of their fellow Canadian citizens. Let no one try to tell you anything different. If this parliament permits this bill to go through, then they are permitting these gentlemen to draw their capital gains from the pockets of the Canadian public; and I would suggest to all those hon. members of
Private Bills
this house who have been making heartwarming speeches about the necessity for providing more for our old age pensioners, increased family allowances and larger sums in the way of general social security benefits, that they bear in mind that the economy of Canada can carry just so much of a load. It can carry a certain load of old age pensions, of family allowances, of income for the ordinary citizens. It can carry just so much in the way of profits for stock market racketeers; and with every dollar of capital gain that we permit by this scandalous and iniquitous proposal we will lessen the area from which help for the less fortunate members of our society may come.
If parliament decides to pass this measure I trust we shall hear no more demands for increased old age pensions; that from now until the election all those hon. gentlemen who have joined the chorus in favour of increased old age pensions will have the grace to keep their mouths shut.


Charles Edward Johnston: How about individual oil rights? Would you agree that they should be socialized too?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Colin Cameron: I would point out to the hon. member for Bow River that we are not talking about individual oil rights at the moment. We are talking about a barefaced attempt by one of the oil companies who help to keep his party in office in Alberta to mulct the general public a little more than they have been able to do in the past.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask hon.
members in discussing this bill not to venture into provincial politics. It may be that the experience we have had in the recent debate should be beneficial to us all.


Colin Cameron: I think, Mr. Speaker, this parliament should be very cautious about what it is asked to do in these circumstances, and should realize that this is not a bona fide attempt to broaden the basis of ownership in this company but a barefaced attempt to use parliament for the purpose of providing capital gains for a few rapacious individuals.


Mr. Winch:: And it is to be made on the stock market.


Colin Cameron: As the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) points out, to be made on the stock market. The money is not coming out of thin air. It is coming out of the pockets of the Canadian people. I think these gentlemen should be made to answer some very critical questions. The first one is, why have they not seen

Private Bills
fit hitherto to release on the public market the shares that were authorized by parliament six years ago? The next question is, is the company prepared to place on the open market the shares it still holds in its treasury and, if so, to what extent and at what price?
These are questions these gentlemen should be made to answer. The history of oil and pipe-line companies in this country does not lead us to suppose that they are in the main philanthropists. They have in the main done very well out of the people of Canada and their natural resources. I see no reason why parliament should aid them to do well out of the people of Canada by means of a stock market racket of this barefaced nature. Since the amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was ruled out of order, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam:
That Bill No. 15 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo will not object, I am sure, to associating with himself in moving the amendment the name of another member as seconder.


Colin Cameron: I thought I had done so. Possibly you did not get the copy on which I placed it.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the hon.
member to say that the seconder of the amendment was the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, but he has already spoken on the main motion.


Colin Cameron: The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) will second it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo certainly should go a long way to fneeting the suggestions made when the bill was being debated earlier that an opportunity should be given to members to have placed before them all information that could be made available. In a matter of this kind I think the approach suggested in the amendment is a much more appropriate way to deal with the question than for us to be compelled to accept the principle of the bill and then go into committee to get the information that may be required.
The information placed on the record by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam at an earlier stage of the debate was brought into serious and, I thought, unnecessary question by one or two who took part in the debate. Suggestions were made that he had pulled some figures out of a hat and had used
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo).)
them loosely. I suggest that was a rather unwarranted approach to take to the matter, because we all know that reliable figures with respect to earnings and other matters concerning companies do appear from time to time and are available for the use of those who have occasion to discuss matters relating to the operations of firms or the nature of transactions that are being proposed. I think perhaps it was a little unfair to suggest that the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam had not taken the pains to go to sources that he considered reliable in order to obtain the information he used.
I have no real quarrel with the fact that other hon. members may place a different interpretation upon the facts or may have a different view of their implications than the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam; nevertheless I feel that it was not a proper approach to take in a serious discussion of this measure.
This company have come before parliament seeking approval for a certain action which they contemplate taking, and I certainly think we have a right and a responsibility to inquire seriously into all the implications of their request. I am aware of the fact that long before I came into the house a great many debates took place on a number of pipe-line questions and that, of course, the original incorporation of Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company was a matter of discussion in the house. If the company is going to request the kind of change in their operations suggested in the bill now before us, I believe the house should have the right and the opportunity to go into the history of the operations of the company before we decide whether or not we approve the principle of what they are doing.
There are probably members in the house who are prepared to accept without question as a general principle the right of a company to split its shares as it pleases. I do not happen to subscribe to that view. 1 think the whole approach to the making of unearned wealth, which in my opinion has been followed all too commonly by many companies and corporations in this country, is basically wrong. As far as I am concerned the onus should be upon the company to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the proposal they have in mind is necessary and justified.
I think a good deal of confusion exists in the minds of a lot of people as to the basis on which proper earnings should be made by a corporation. As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said, we in this group take the view that under certain circumstances companies which are operating

efficiently and without damage to the public interest have the right to a reasonable return on their investment.
We also take the view that in certain fields of operations where high risks are involved, those risks rightly should give entitlement to more generous treatment than would be legitimate in other fields. I feel that this applies particularly to the field of the basic development of mines and of oil producing wells. No one will quarrel with the fact that in their initial stages at least such ventures are more risky than are many other types of operations. But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a debate on the pros and cons of what is a proper return on invested capital or a proper return for risks which are taken is an altogether different matter from this business of making speculative profits through the manipulation of stocks on the market.
I may perhaps be subject to prejudice in this matter, but certainly my opinions in this regard are not of recent origin. In the days of 1928 and 1929, when in my view the world had gone a bit crazy or at least the people on this continent had done so in respect of gambling in stocks, I can recall the views I came to then, and they are substantially the views I continue to hold. I mention that fact because I want to make it clear that I am not approaching this subject from any narrow, partisan political view, but rather from the point of view that the principles involved here, as far as I am concerned, cut rather deeply into the moral fabric of society.
For that reason, as I say, as far as I am personally concerned, in an instance of this kind the onus should be put upon the company to prove beyond any peradventure of doubt that this stock split is necessary to the continued financial health of their operation before I would be prepared to go along with the principle of this bill. That is one of the reasons I feel that the amendment we now have before us is proper.
I hope that serious consideration will be given by other hon. members to the desirability of following this course in the case we now have before us. I was interested enough to look at the debates that took place when the bill to incorporate this company was first introduced into the house, and to note some of the assurances that were given to the house at that time by the then hon. member for Vancouver South, Mr. Arthur Laing. One of the assurances he gave was that this was going to be a company which would bring oil to the coast of British Columbia and, as I understood him to present the matter to the house at that time, that it
Private Bills
would be used only for the development of the oil extraction industry in British Columbia.
I think most of us in British Columbia recognize the fact that British Columbia at the present time at least may not be able to absorb the full capacity of that line. Nevertheless we had a right to expect that the line would be used for the development of the oil processing industry in British Columbia, and that the products surplus to our needs would go into adjacent markets after having been processed in British Columbia. I think one must have that consideration in mind when one considers the request that is now before the house with respect to this stock split.
I believe one must analyse the record of the company to date. One must realize that while the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company as such is engaged in the transportation of oil, nevertheless it is in fact a tool-and I am not using that word in any derogatory sense-of certain producing and manufacturing oil companies of this country and of the United States, and that therefore its actions cannot be considered only in the light of the operations of an independent company. Because of that fact we must realize that the policies which they have followed, and which have been dictated to them as a corporate entity by those who control them, must affect our attitude to the application they now have before parliament.
I know this is perhaps a matter of more interest to those of us who live in British Columbia than it is to those who may live in other parts of the country. Nevertheless I think the principle involved should concern members from all parts of the country. I hope recognition will be given to the fact that the economic situation in British Columbia is as important to those of us who live there as is the economic situation in the region of Canada around which discussion revolved in a recent debate in this house.
I hope other hon. members will take advantage of the opportunity to express their views on the principle of the bill, and in particular upon the amendment which has just been moved and which, as I have suggested, should go a long way toward meeting some of the objections which were raised when the bill was first up for debate in the house.


Mr. Elmore Philpott (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on behalf of my colleague the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., who is unable to be here today and who is the sponsor of this bill. 1 am not going to get into any prolonged discussion of the rather remarkable amendment moved by

Private Bills
my good friend the hon. member for Nanaimo, because it seemed to me that by the nature of the amendment he moved he gave away his own case. I am certainly not going to get into any involved argument as to whether or not you can submit the subject matter of a very complicated thing like this to a committee without submitting the reason for the discussion in the first place. I shall just content myself by saying that even if we were to vote for the amendment, the only result of that vote would be to accomplish by a very inefficient, confused and involved way what we are asked to do in the bill itself.
Without making any comment whatever on the merits of this bill, I should say it is a very simple submission to this house. We are simply asked to give to this company, a very prosperous British Columbia company of which a great many of us, contrary to some of my friends opposite, are quite proud, the opportunity to do business in the same way a great many other companies do. We are quite proud of the fact that this company, after overcoming the original difficulties it faced, has managed to do so well in the matter of a very few years. I for one believe it is most vexatious and irresponsible for anyone in this house to stand up and say that any company should not have the right to do what all its competitors in the same field are doing.
But ignoring all that, surely there is a very special way for us to deal with all these very real, complicated questions. Surely the way is for us to not continue wasting time, the very limited time we have in these private members' hours. We must be able to find out all the complicated facts about the financing of this company we are discussing. We have to get this before a committee, and the whole purpose of this bill is to get the matter before the appropriate committee of this house.
Therefore, just referring back to the original debates of this house, I recall that my very distinguished predecessor, the hon. member for Vancouver South at that time, had the great honour of being the sponsor of the original bill. I see that at that time there were some submissions made by the hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra which concerned the route of the pipe line.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think I should say one word about my good friend the hon. member for Nanaimo. I think the one thing that distinguishes my own thinking from his thinking is that he seems to resent the fact we have private corporations in this country that are making a good profit. It is on that point I cannot go along with him.

I would be extremely pleased to have a profitable company in my riding. I was astonished the other day when I heard the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam almost bemoaning the fact that this company, which is located in his riding, has been showing a good profit for the last couple of years. I will tell him that if he does not want corporations in his constituency making a good profit, I shall be glad to have them move into Vancouver South.
Speaking very seriously, how in the name of common sense are we going to continue to raise the money we require in this country to finance family allowances and old age pensions, especially with the more generous old age pension that some of us believe is necessary, unless we have prosperous companies operating in this country? I for one am extremely glad we have a prosperous oil company operating in British Columbia. I know of no reason why this company should not be treated in the same manner as all the other private businesses operating in western Canada. I think this house should approve the bill and send it to the appropriate committee, where my hon. friends opposite will have unlimited time to crossexamine the officials of the company. Then they can deal with facts, and not have to continue dealing with fiction.


Harold Edward Winch: You will have to support the amendment, then.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow the hon. member for Vancouver South, but I always find it rather difficult to ascertain just what he does mean. He spoke of the complicated simplicity of this bill, and I wondered as I listened to him whether he was complicated or I was simple. However, I should like to assure the mover of the amendment that it is my intention, and I believe the intention of this group, to support the amendment he has proposed, if for no other reason than to be opposite to the hon. member for Vancouver South and ensure that the bill will be sent to the appropriate committee.
I would refer to what the hon. member for Bow River had to say the other day in respect to the bill. He said he hoped the bill would be sent to a committee where it could be given more complete study, and that is the reason we are supporting the amendment at this time.
Then the mover of the bill, and I regret that he is not in his seat today, said at page 988 of Hansard for February 5, 1957:
... I am sure that this bill will be examined by the appropriate committee.
He does not indicate that the bill is going to be sent to a committee, but he says he is

sure it will be examined by a committee. I hope before this debate is concluded he will indicate that such is the case, thereby satisfying each of us that a bill of this type will be sent to the appropriate committee.
My reason for suggesting that it should be sent to a committee is that here we have a form of utility, and whether or not it is privately owned or not it should come under government scrutiny from time to time. Certainly much of the argument we have heard about old age pensions and other factors do enter into it, but we are agreed that possibly such subjects are extraneous to the subject matter of the bill itself and should be considered at another time. It is not my intention, therefore, to continue the debate along that line.
But I would suggest that here, when we have all the members of the house fully realizing the fact we have so many charges against the company itself in respect of the monopolistic way in which oil is being handled; with the recent price increases, and the fact that the Minister of Justice has been asked to ascertain if there is a combine in the oil industry because of the rise in price, then all these charges should be examined. Possibly when the bill comes before the committee the terms of reference will be such that they will make it possible to examine the need for dividing these shares as indicated in the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for New Westminster I was a bit puzzled by the remarks of our good friend from Vancouver South. Of course he is the member who can vote one way one year and another way another year. One minute he says this is a very simple bill, let us pass it; the next minute he says it is a very complicated bill. Well, perhaps he should make up his mind.


Elmore Philpott: I was talking about the amendment moved by your party when I spoke of it being complicated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The amendment is complicated but the bill is simple in the judgment of the hon. member. Perhaps if he has another interruption to make he will make it even more confused.
Mr. Speaker, there is one point which I think should be kept clear, and I realize it is a point upon which the house frequently gets confused. There is no question but that a private bill such as the bill that has been introduced by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., if it is given second reading, has to go to the committee. We know that; all hon. members of the house know that. But, Mr. Speaker-and I recall your interest in this
Private Bills
point in the days before you were exalted to your present position-there is a difference in our view between sending to a committee a bill which has been given second reading, and sending to a committee the subject matter of a bill.
If we had before us merely the motion for second reading and that motion were to pass, of course the bill would go to the committee; but it would go as having had the endorsement of its principle by this house. We do not think this bill should have its principle endorsed before it goes to the committee. That is the reason for the amendment that has been moved by my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo. We are quite prepared to have the subject matter of this bill discussed by the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. We are also quite prepared to have the promoters of this bill go before that committee and state their reasons why parliament should consider this bill. But from our study of its provisions we feel that that questioning and discussion should take place in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines before the House of Commons has been asked to endorse the principle of this bill. That is the reason for our amendment.
I say again, either way the matter will be referred to the committee. If the bill passes second reading the bill itself goes to the committee. If the present amendment passes, instead of the bill going to the committee the subject matter will go before it, and discussion will take place on the subject matter without the House of Commons having endorsed the principle of the bill.
I want to join with my colleagues the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, the hon. member for Nanaimo and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who have already spoken, in saying that we feel this bill should not be supported. The hon. member for Vancouver South expressed some amazement that we are not delighted when we hear of a private corporation like this making huge profits. Mr. Speaker, when we in this group stand up in this house and ask for certain things that are rather costly, let us say in the social security field, it is sometimes said to us by representatives of the government that for us to ask for these things is to ask for the taxpayers of Canada to pay for them. When the government does not want to agree to a request of ours it takes the position that it has to be responsible and has to consider whether or not all the taxpayers of Canada should be asked to provide money to pay for a particular piece of social legislation.


Walter Edward Harris: We only believe in telling the truth, you know.

Private Bills


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I welcome that interjection because that is precisely what we are doing, telling the truth-a truth which my hon. triend refuses to face-that if this bill goes through a financial return will accrue to certain individuals from this stock splitting which has to come out of the total wealth of this country just as surely as tax money comes out of the total wealth of this country. In the one case parliament in the name of the people controls it, decides the rate of taxation and decides where it will go. In this case a few private individuals get a share of the wealth of the country which has to be created by the people of Canada whether or not those few people need it, and whether or not it is in line with good social policies. No money finds its way into the pocket of any person in this country without wealth to back up that money having been created by the toil and labour of the people of this country; and I say to you that I am telling the truth, as the Minister of Finance suggested a moment ago, when I say that if parliament passes legislation like this it is permitting a few people to get hold of a certain portion of the wealth created by Canadians without regard to the social policy involved in action of this kind.


James Joseph McCann: This is a transportation
company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of National
Revenue says this is a transportation company. He means it is a company engaged in the transport of oil from one part of the country to another.


James Joseph McCann: Why then are you talking about resources?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue does not seem to realize that there is no wealth in Canada that is not created by the application of the labour power of our people to our natural resources. That is how the oil is brought to the surface in the first place. That is how the pipe line is built. That is how the pipe line is operated. And the wealth that is created in the operation of this pipe line and in the transporting of oil through the pipe line is created essentially in the same way wealth is created when workers are employed in a factory, when farmers toil on their farms, when fishermen work at sea or in any other way.
Our point, Mr. Speaker, is that basically all the wealth that is created in this country is created in the same way, by the application of the labour power of our people to our natural resources. A certain portion of
that wealth created by our people is obtained from them in the form of taxes. That portion that is obtained from them in the form of taxes is by the decision of the people's representatives here in parliament.
It is decided by parliament how that portion of the wealth that is obtained from the people is to be applied. But the taxes that are taken from the people of Canada are by no means the only money that is taken away from those who produce wealth. Every time a company makes a profit, whether it is a company that transports oil, a meat packing outfit, a railway or a firm that manufactures farm machinery-


Mr. Murphy (Lambion West):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I wonder if the hon. member would tell the house how five or six shareholders would benefit because the stock was split?


Harold Edward Winch: Because they get four shares for one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As has already been described by my colleagues who have spoken to this bill, if these shares are split on a fiveway basis the immediate result will be that the price of the new shares will be approximately 20 per cent of the price of the present shares, which will produce trading on the stock market; and in view of what has been said about this company it is inevitable that such trading will result in the price of the new shares going up and wealth will be made. My hon. friend thinks it just comes out of thin air, that it just happens-


Henry Alfred Hosking: If it is easy money why don't you buy some shares?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No one has to buy these shares. But the wealth that is created has to be backed up by the labour of the people of Canada, and in transactions of this kind they do not have any say in where that wealth will go.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Did you or your theories ever provide anyone with a job?
On motion of Mr. Knowles the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we shall have a supply motion.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Michener: 1.	What proportion of the first world war veteran pensioners have died as a result of cancer?
2.	What is the number of such pensioners whose death has been ascribed to this cause?
3.	In how many of such cases were disabilities from war service determined to be a contributing cause of death?
Answer by: Mr. Bennett, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Veterans Affairs:
1.	14.57 per cent of deceased pensioners.
2.	7,673.
3.	343.
Questions


NEW FEDERAL BUILDINGS
Mr. Nicholson: How much has been spent by the federal government on new public buildings since 1945?
Answer by: Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister
of Public Works):
1945- 46	 $ 1,255,978
1946-	47	
1,853,4321947-	48	
1,855,4161948-	49	
5,894,3941949-	50	
11,350,6191950-	51	
16,500,4961951-	52	
19,664,9841952-	53	
22,220,3311953-	54	
31,256,5511954-	55	
43,104,6991955-	56	
49,107,1181956-	57 to Dec. 31, 1956	
30,152,848
Monday, February 11, 1957