1957-03-13

THE BUDGET


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have tabled the usual white paper in connection with the budget accounts and I would move that it be included in today's Votes and Proceedings and in tomorrow's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to agree to this proposal?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Knowles: 1.	During 1956 (or during the latest period of twelve months for which the figures are available), how many individuals were added to the roll of those receiving old age security payments?
2.	During 1956 (or during the latest period of twelve months for which the figures are available), how many individuals were removed from the roll of those receiving old age security payments on account of death?
3.	During 1956 (or during the latest period of twelve months for which the figures are available), were any persons removed from the roll of those receiving old age security payments for any reasons other than death?
4.	If so, how many, and for what reasons?
Mr. Roberison, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of National Health and Welfare:
1.	88,991.
2.	60,290.
3.	Yes.
4.	Left Canada permanently	 413
Left no forwarding address (presumably left Canada)	 240
At request of pensioner	 22
Imprisonment	 3
Ineligible because of age or residence	 6
Total	 684


&quot;RADISSON&quot; T.V. SERIES
Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace): 1.	What was the original estimate of the cost for the production of the television program series on the life and experiences of Radisson?
2.	How many program-hours were planned?
3.	What was the final cost for the production of the above series?
4.	How many program-hours were produced?
5.	Does the final cost include provision for the appropriate share of overhead expenses, including headquarters administration and similar expenses which cannot be charged directly to a particular program?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises:
1.	In planning the series as now being broadcast, it was originally estimated that over-all costs including overheads would average approximately $10,000 per episode in each language.
2.	Fifteen half-hour episodes in each language at first were ordered for production, with the expectation of going to 26 later, and possibly to 39.
3.	Final costs are not available since the series is still under production. On the basis of actual costs so far, including additions due to adverse weather conditions in the fall, it is estimated that the final figures will be about $15,800 per episode in each language for the 26 now planned.
4.	Shooting has been completed for 17 episodes, of which eight have received final editing.
5.	The figures given include full provision for the appropriate share of overhead expenses, including headquarters administration and similar expenses which cannot be charged directly to a particular program.


CENSUS ERRORS, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. MacLean: What is the explanation of the rather large errors in the unrevised estimated population of Prince Edward Island for the years 1952 to 1955, inclusive, when compared with the actual population as found by the census of 1956?
Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce: Sample data on interprovincial migration between 1952 and 1956, collected during the intervening years, have underestimated the net loss of population of Prince Edward Island over this period due to migration out of the province. For reasons of economy a small sample is used in all parts of Canada for this purpose. In an area of relatively small population such as Prince Edward Island this can give rise to relatively large errors.

Motions for Papers



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12-Mr. Knowles:
For a copy of all agreements, contracts, arrangements and/or understandings made or entered into between Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, dated at any time since January 1, 1954; also for a copy of all agreements, contracts, arrangements and/or understandings made or entered into between the government of Canada, or any department or official thereof, and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, with reference to the northern Ontario section of the trans-Canada natural gas pipe line, dated at any time since January 1, 1954.
Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has requested a copy of all agreements, contracts, arrangements, understandings, etc. I can advise him that a list of the documents with respect to Trans-Canada which had been tabled as of June 12, 1956, was inserted in Hansard of that date. Since then copies of P.C. 1957-122, approved January 24, 1957, authorizing the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the corporation to execute an agreement with Trans-Canada amending the previous agreements relating to proposed undertakings, by each, and P.C. 1957-201, approved February 7, 1957, authorizing the corporation to execute an agreement for the rental and eventual sale of the portion of the line to be built by the corporation, have been tabled. In both cases copies of the agreements were attached to the order in council. Today I am tabling the following documents:
1.	Letter dated September 27, 1956, from the president of the corporation to Trans-Canada regarding the corporation's proposal to place a contract with Trans-Canada to carry out certain services and reply by Trans-Canada thereto dated October 16, 1956.
2.	Treasury board minute 510742 dated December 28, 1956, approving entry by the corporation into an arrangement whereby Trans-Canada will on behalf of the corporation acquire land and land rights for the northern Ontario section.
3.	Treasury board minute 511886 dated February 1, 1957, approving entry by the corporation into an arrangement whereby Trans-Canada will on behalf of the corporation carry out locating and location surveys for the northern Ontario section.
4.	Letter dated February 8, 1957, from the president of the corporation to Trans-Canada and the National Trust Company confirming the corporation's interpretation of the form of lease attached to the agreement dated February 8, 1957. This is the agreement which is referred to in P.C. 1957-201.
In tabling these documents I would like to refer to my statement of March 1 that

"Trans-Canada has done certain engineering work for us and may do certain work for us later but at the moment there are no contractual arrangements with Trans-Canada". This was the situation at that time. I understand that since then a draft proposed agreement for the provision of engineering services was considered by the board of directors of the corporation last week, that the proposed agreement does include reference to the arrangement for acquisition of land and land rights and the carrying out of location survey as well as certain engineering services and further that the proposed wording of the agreement is still under consideration.
It may well be that in due course I shall receive a request from the corporation to present a submission to treasury board requesting authority for the corporation to enter into a contract with Trans-Canada to provide engineering services under the general supervision of Defence Construction (1951) Limited. However, this is a matter for recommendation by the board which, as I have recently explained, has been reorganized to take in the nominees of the government of Ontario.
I would also like to point out on this occasion that the agreement of November 21, 1955, between the government of Canada and Trans-Canada provides that the engineering and design of facilities included in the northern Ontario section and the standards of construction and workmanship shall be in accordance with the design and construction standards specified for the whole all-Canadian pipe line; and further that Trans-Canada and the corporation shall co-operate in every respect to the end that the pipe line shall be completed as one integrated project on the most economical basis from the point of view both of costs of construction and operation, and that the construction of the northern Ontario section and the installation of the facilities are properly carried out to meet the designs, plans and specifications thereof.
Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this statement, with the documents that are being tabled today, meets the motion, I suggest that the motion now be dropped.


Mr. Knowles:: That is satisfactory, Mr. Speaker. The minister has now tabled the documents that I requested.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE BYLAWS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 14-Mr. Knowles:
For a copy of all bylaws passed by the board of directors of Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation.
Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce: Mr. Speaker, there were two bylaws adopted by the corporation. Bylaw No. 1 was published in the Canada Gazette, part II, volume 90, for Wednesday, June 27, 1956, and is therefore a public document. Bylaw No. 2 will be tabled in accordance with this order.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the parliamentary assistant if the document that is to be tabled could not include both of these bylaws so they would be in our parliamentary papers office?


Mr. Dickey:: I understand there is a principle involved in that documents that are already public documents are not republished.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Knowles:
For a copy of the minutes of all meetings of the board of directors of Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation held since the said corporation was established.
Clarence Decatur Howe: This motion opens a door that has never been opened in the 21 years I have been here. It opens the door to calling for all the minutes, for instance, of the board of directors of Canadian National Railways since the railway was established. If this precedent were established by the passing of this motion, documents could be called for that would keep this house engaged constantly, and the civil servants engaged in typing throughout the next year. Under the circumstances, I must decline to bring down this information as a matter of policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if I might ask the consent of the house to let this matter stand. I will give consideration to what the minister has said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: A request of this type, when it is made, is subject to the approval of the government. See citation 147, Beauchesne's third edition.


Mr. Fleming:: Not the government, the house.


Mr. Speaker:: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have stated my position on the subject, and I take it that I have stated the position of the government. We are not going to accept this motion.
Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: If it is the declared attitude of the government that the motion should net be granted, and therefore it is opposed, I cannot declare that it shall stand. I proposed it from the chair, and therefore now it must be either withdrawn or proceeded with somehow.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I suggest that once a motion has been moved it is the property of the house, and under the control of the house, and probably the proper course to adopt under the circumstances would be simply to propose that it be adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: But the motion is not debatable. Explanations are being presented, probably because the house prefers not to take advantage of the provisions of standing order 47 which says if any debate is to be entered upon upon such an unopposed motion it shall be transferred to notices of motions for debate. We have had that before.


Mr. Fulton:: A very bad precedent.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think so. I think it would be a much better procedure for the house to have these matters, whenever there is debatable material to be presented, transferred to notices of motions because it is most unfair for one person to be allowed to say something and not all the other hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since one request has been turned down, may I now request the consent of the house to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman consent to withdraw the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion withdrawn.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE OPERATING BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 16-Mr. Knowles:
For a copy of any operating budget of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation submitted to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for the approval of the said minister and the Minister of Finance, as provided in section 6(5) of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation Act.
Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:	The
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation does not have an operating budget for 1957 as it does not expect to have any operating expenses apart from administrative expenses during this period. The administrative expenses for the year ending December 31, 1957, which are in the nature of capital expenditure, have been included in the capital budget of the corporation.
[Stage Direction]
Annual Reports and Budgets
Order in council P.C. 1956-1827, which approved the capital budget for the year ending December 31, 1957, was tabled on February 15, 1957.
The administrative expenses of the corporation for the period January 1 to February 26, 1957, which were on account of the western section, have been refunded by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. I therefore suggest that this motion be dropped.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the question involved in the motion has been answered it can be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.


Mr. Marler:: May I have leave to revert to motions?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to motions at this time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I move:
That the annual reports for 1956 of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, and the Canadian National Railways securities trust, the auditors' report to parliament in respect of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, and the budgets for 1957 of Canadian National Railways and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, tabled this day, be referred to the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, together with the following items of estimates for 1957-58:
Vote 454, Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals deficit, 1957;
Vote 455, Newfoundland ferry and terminals deficit, 1957;
Vote 465, Maritime Freight Rates Act;
Vote 466, Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited;
and that the resolution passed by the house on January 23, 1957, referring certain estimates to the committee of supply, be rescinded so far as the said resolution relates to votes 454, 455, 465 and 466.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, since we are on motions, I have today laid on the table,

in accordance with standing orders, the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year 1956 and the auditors' annual report to parliament of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ending December 31, 1956. Copies of both these reports have been made available for distribution to all hon. members. I wish to move, by leave:
That the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for 1956, the auditors' annual report to parliament of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ending December 31, 1956, tabled this day, and the capital budget of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ending December 31, 1957, tabled on Friday, February 15, 1957, be referred to the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will he give the house an outline of the subjects he plans to discuss with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at the Bermuda conference which is to take place within the next few days?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: There has been correspondence with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and the last dispatch I got was accompanied by a letter asking that it be kept confidential for the time being and that we make arrangements to make it public at some later date.


Howard Charles Green: Will there be a disclosure of what plans the Prime Minister has in mind before he leaves for the conference?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I think the plans have already been disclosed. I am to be accompanied by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Howard Charles Green: I meant the subjects for
discussion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -and the
subjects to be discussed are at present the object of correspondence. The last communication received from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom asked that we determine when we could make public the contents of the tentative agenda that we are now discussing.


Howard Charles Green: But would it be made before the Prime Minister leaves Canada?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope so because I see no reason why there should not

be a public disclosure of practically everything that I have seen in the tentative agenda so far.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) accompanying the Prime Minister to that conference?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, would we be justified in assuming from that statement that trade relations and the problem of convertibility and so on will not be discussed at this conference?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, the hon. member will have to draw his own conclusions.


Mr. Rowe:: The people of Canada will draw their own conclusions, too.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Having drawn my own conclusion at the invitation of the Prime Minister, may I ask the hon. gentleman if he does not feel it would be appropriate at this time that we should have discussions with the United Kingdom on trade relations, and particularly such matters as the implications of the United Kingdom negotiations respecting the western European union?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec East: When I am at liberty to disclose the agenda I think the hon. gentleman will be satisfied that all matters that should be discussed are included.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Public Works acquaint the house with what plans, if any, the government is concerting for increasing the available supply of mortgage money for house construction?


Hon. Roberi H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Well, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is aware that recently we did increase the interest rate from 5| per cent to 6 per cent to make residential mortgage money more competitive for the available supply of credit. That has had some effect, and I am sure that as the year progresses we will see more results from that action.
In the meantime I have communicated with each of the chartered banks asking them to take what steps they can to ensure that there is a continuing supply of mortgage money 82715-1361
Inquiries of the Ministry into house construction. I know my hon. friend is aware of what the governor of the Bank of Canada has done and I can assure him that all these matters are being pursued.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the minister. I asked him first about the plans, if any, the government is concerting with this end in view. I take it that there are no plans which the government is concerting at present other than those he mentioned. Second, I should like to know if he would indicate what reply the chartered banks have made to the communications to which he referred.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the National Housing Act has many provisions in it that enable the government to take various actions from time to time to meet circumstances as they arise. The extent to which they are taken is usually a matter of degree rather than a matter of any new policy. It is a matter of applying emphasis where emphasis is needed to meet the conditions of the moment.
I have not seen all the correspondence because I have been away and just returned at noon but I have seen replies from a number of the heads of the banks with whom I had communicated and they indicated a spirit of co-operation.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What steps, if any, has the government taken to implement a program of payment of all carrying charges on all the grain in commercial storage positions at the end of the crop year, as advocated by the western farm pools in their submission to the federal government on Saturday, March 10?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What steps would the hon. gentleman suggest? I think I can say that if any decision of that kind is taken, and when it is taken, an announcement will be made to the house.


Edward George McCullough: The
minister is asking me, Mr. Speaker, what steps to take-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think he should
have asked you, and I do not think you should give your suggestions now.

Inquiries of the Ministry CHEESE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can any person import cheese into Canada, or is some government permit required?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, there is no
government permit required for the import of cheese. However, we do have understandings with the principal cheese producing countries which have been effective in the past-and I expect they will be effective in the future-that cheese be not shipped to this market unless the market is in short supply and able to take it without depressing domestic prices.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a question of privilege,
Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer is in direct contradiction to a statement made by him on February 7, 1956, at page 915 of Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I submit that these
matters which are being brought up in this fashion do not, in my humble opinion, constitute a proper question of privilege, and should not be brought up in this manner. See citation 307, Beauchesne's third edition.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to find that, apparently, I have been missed. May I ask the Minister of Finance whether, in' view of the statement made by the Minister of Public Works that he has urged the banks to give more money for building purposes, and in view of the acknowledged policy of the government to restrict credit, it is the purpose of the government to ask the banks to restrict credit for other productive purposes when they extend credit to the Minister of Public Works for the building of houses.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if someone on the opposition side, in asking questions about the credit restriction policy, would ever acknowledge that urging a certain course upon the government would result in the restriction of credit in another direction, and I am glad to note that the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe recognizes that as a fact.


The government's attitude to this particular problem, as I think was suggested yesterday, will be influenced to some extent, perhaps, by the discussions with the banks which it has been announced will be held tomorrow. Until that meeting is held I do riot think I should add anything.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the government will run out of money at the end of the month, can the minister say when he intends to ask the house for interim supply for the month of April?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have no immediate plans as to the particular date, but I think it can be taken that I will ask for interim supply before the end of the month.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister be asking for interim supply just for the month of April, or for a longer period?


Walter Edward Harris: I understand the question, Mr. Speaker, as an offer of more than April.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. If the government is going to ask for interim supply for more than the month of April, will the government at that time recognize its obligation to tell the house what its plans are?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not know what plans the hon. gentleman refers to. Possibly he is referring to the likelihood of a dissolution of parliament and an appeal to the people of Canada this summer. I think that is a fair expectation for the hon. gentleman to entertain.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to a question asked on March 7 by the hon. member for Kamloops. He asked if the rates at which gas will be carried or sold by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines would be subject to approval by the board of transport commissioners and, if so, at what stage of

construction or operation would such jurisdiction of the board commence to be exercised.
The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines is not a common carrier. It buys and sells gas on its own account, and since it is not a common carrier it does not charge rates for transmitting gas; and the Pipe Lines Act does not give the board of transport commissioners authority to control the selling price charged by Trans-Canada or other transmission pipe line companies. Competition with other fuels will, of course, place a ceiling on the prices that can be charged by Trans-Canada or any other natural gas transmission company.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question arising out of his answer to my earlier question, in which answer he said that the board of transport commissioners will not have jurisdiction over the rates to be charged by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. May I ask whether the government will give consideration to amending the Pipe Lines Act so that this company, which has been placed in a monopolistic position as the result of dominion government policy, will have its rates controlled in the public interest by a regulatory body under federal authority?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, all I can say in answer to the hon. gentleman's question is that I think my answer made it quite clear that the situation which he attempted to describe in his question is not the case. In the second place, I can see no reason why we should give consideration to the suggestion the hon. gentleman has just made.



INQUIRY AS TO POWER TO REGULATE EARNINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What agency of government has authority to regulate the maximum percentage earning on rate base that will be permitted any interprovincial pipe line transporting natural gas or oil?


George Carlyle Marler: I can only refer the hon. gentleman to the Pipe Lines Act, which I think will give him all the information that he desires.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask
the Minister of Transport whether it is a fact that the answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary South just a moment ago is that there is in fact no federal body which will regulate the rates to be charged by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited?
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Carlyle Marler: I think if the hon. gentleman will consult the Pipe Lines Act he will find that parliament has not given to the board of transport commissioners the power to regulate rates for the carrying of natural gas. As the hon. gentleman well knows, it contains other regulatory provisions and I think that a study of the act shows perfectly well what the situation is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport supplementary to the questions asked by the hon. member for Calgary South and the hon. member for Kamloops. Will the government consider amending the Pipe Lines Act so as to give authority to the board of transport commissioners over these rates or to provide regulation of such rates in some other way?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the answer I had given to the hon. member for Kamloops indicated that the government did not feel that the circumstances of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines were such that an amendment to the Pipe Lines Act was necessary.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. F. L. Hanna (Edmonton-Sirathcona):: Can the minister say if it is planned to make a start this year on the proposed international airport at Edmonton?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to call for tenders for the work at a very early date.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: May
I direct a question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Public Works. I wonder if the minister is now in a position to answer my question of March 6?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes Mr. Speaker, I think the question had to do with the disposal of the dredge King Edward and whether future dredging on the Fraser river will be let by contract.
The answer is that it is the intention to declare the dredge King Edward surplus to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. In answer to the supplementary question that was asked, may I say that we are contemplating having

Inquiries of the Ministry more of the work done on a contract basis, and are doing some planning to that end.



REPORTED NEGOTIATION OF SALE OF WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the article appearing in Saturday's Regina Leader-Post to the effect that another wheat deal has been negotiated with Poland? Could the minister comment on this report and indicate the quantity of wheat involved?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the heavy burden, $2,000 to date, being placed on the Conseil Central des Oeuvres de Quebec by having to care for stranded Hungarian refugees, does the government expect charitable institutions to carry out the responsibilities undertaken by the Canadian government toward these refugees?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I really understood the hon. gentleman's question. I will read it and give an answer tomorrow, if I can.



HUNGARY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: While I am on my feet, may I ask if the minister has any statement to make on the inquiry regarding the former editor of the Hungarian communist newspaper Free People who was one of the immigrants to enter Canada recently?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Up to now, sir, I have had no such report.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: When does the minister expect to be able to give the house a report on this?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was not planning to give the house any report on this, any more than I do on any other individual immigration case.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The people of Canada will decide.
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member had resumed his seat. The minister has risen to indicate what his reply was. Then I gave the floor to the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) who was just about to ask his question. Let us not take the floor away from the hon. member for Kamloops. If the hon. member for Kamloops is so generous with the floor, he will have to wait a little while before he gets it again.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will take my chances. I understand the hon. member for Quebec West wishes to follow up a question that he was asking the minister previously.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, but we cannot just accommodate ourselves in that way. The hon. gentleman has had an afterthought. He resumed his seat. When I gave the floor to the hon. member for Kamloops he did not have in mind asking a supplementary question. Now he has it in mind. If the hon. member for Kamloops wants to take advantage of his opportunity to ask a question now he should do so.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say whether he is sympathetic to the suggestion and will recommend that the government implement the request of the three western wheat pools made in a submission to the government on Saturday last that greater use of the Agricultural Prices Support Act be made to maintain agricultural prices?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to be technical but I think that in the future the hon. gentleman should revise questions of this type.


Edward George McCullough: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we could have the minister give an answer to the first question.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of would have heard that question raised by a Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I gave an answer number of members, to whom I replied that to the delegation that was here, and I think the question was under consideration at the that was sufficient.	present time.


Edward George McCullough: I
should like to ask the minister in all seriousness if the government is in favour of increasing price supports and of making certain changes to guarantee better prices to egg and hog producers under the Agricultural Prices Support Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, hog prices now, under the use that has been made of the act, are so much above United States prices that I do not think anyone is seriously asking at this time to have the support increased. In so far as eggs are concerned, I have only one answer to make and that is the one I made the other day, that so far as the area from which my hon. friend comes is concerned the only improvement that can be made on what we are doing now is through some action by the provincial government.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. When may I expect an answer to question No. 133 on the order paper, which has been there since February 8?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I shall look into the matter.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Restigouche-Madawaska):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is any action being taken to increase C.N.R. veterans' pensions and, if so, to what extent?


George Carlyle Marler: If the hon. gentleman had been in the house yesterday-


An hon. Member:: He was at a big celebration.


Mr. Casselman:: With 100 absentees over there I would not brag much about it.


George Carlyle Marler: I repeat that if the hon. gentleman had been in the house yesterday he



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ralph Byron Horner: I should like to direct another question to the Minister of Transport. In view of his inability to answer this question previously, is the minister now in a position to state if the new C.N.R. station and warehouse for Edmundston, New Brunswick, plans for which were completed last year, will be built in 1957 as indicated by the minister last year?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. gentleman arrange with the leaders of his party that he be a member of the committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, which will afford him the opportunity of asking all sorts of detailed questions concerning the affairs of Canadian National Railways.



REPORTED PROTESTS FROM EMPLOYEES CONCERNING HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport had a question under consideration involving protests of C.N.R. employees with respect to the attitude of management in regard to the welfare plan. Has the minister anything further to say to the house today? I ask this question because quite a number of members have been receiving letters from their constituents about the matter, and perhaps the minister can now give us his views on the subject.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York-Scarborough was kind enough to show me yesterday a letter of protest he had received. I may say that despite my well known interest in Canadian National Railways I have received no such protests myself. However, I have passed along a copy to the management of Canadian National Railways, and I think I shall have an opportunity at an early date to ascertain what their views are with regard to the whole matter.
2160	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADA COUNCIL



INQUIRY AS TO ROYAL ASSENT, APPOINTMENTS AND PROVISION OF FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: May
I ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the fact that the bill respecting the Canada Council has now passed the other place, when is it planned that royal assent shall be given to the bill? Second, does the government intend to make appointments to the council before March 31? Third, is it the intention of the government before March 31 to place the sum of $100 million at the disposal of the council?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, the budget speech is to be delivered tomorrow, and I think the hon. gentleman should wait until tomorrow to find the answer to the last part of his question. I have been absent since yesterday afternoon for reasons that I considered sufficient, and I just heard a few moments ago that the bill had received third reading last night in the other place. I have already stated in the house that it was our desire as soon as the bill became law to proceed to set up the council and I still hope that can be done at an early date.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: In the
absence of the Minister of Fisheries 1 should like to ask the parliamentary assistant the following question. Will the parliamentary assistant inform the house as to the areas in which it is intended to transplant disease-resistant oysters during 1957, and the reasons for the selection of such areas?


Mr. J. Walson MacNaughl (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. At the present time it is planned to transplant 1,000 barrels of Prince Edward Island stock to the Shippegan area in New Brunswick and 500 barrels to the Malagash-Wallace area in Nova Scotia.
These areas were selected for the first year's experiment because (1) it was felt that it would be better to concentrate on areas where heavy mortality has been demonstrated, particularly if these areas supported a large fishery; (2) it was felt that we should first attempt rebuilding in those areas where the Department of Fisheries is completely


responsible for leasing as well as for the public fishery; and (3) it was felt that the stocks are most likely to be built up quickly in areas where oyster farming is practised widely rather than where the fishery is dependent solely on a non-cultivated stock.
In the Malagash-Wallace area in Nova Scotia there are a large number of leases. In the Shippegan area we have probably the greatest concentration of leases in the province of New Brunswick.
I should point out, however, that although the department is concentrating during 1957 where there is a heavy fishery, where mortality has been demonstrated, and where it has full responsibility, the results obtained therefrom will be applicable to other areas.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister say whether or not an offer of $400,000 on federal account has been made to the British Columbia government towards the cost of a toll-free bridge over Moray channel on Sea island, B.C.? If the answer is in the affirmative, is the offer still open?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I did not catch the last sentence before the supplementary question.


Tom Goode: The question revolved around a toll-free bridge over Moray channel on Sea island, British Columbia.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the position of the federal government was made clear. We have said that if that planned bridge is to be built as a toll-free bridge the $400,000 which was already earmarked for a bridge project in that general area would be made available.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. By what date are employers required to furnish T-4 slips to their employees, and what penalty is there in the case of any employer who does not meet the deadline?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice.



PRAIRIE GRAIN PRODUCERS INTERIM FINANCING


Clarence Decatur Howe: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, 1956, to enable the governor in council to extend the application of the act to authorize and govern guaranteed loans that may be made by banks in the period September 1, 1957 to June 1, 1958; to provide that the rate of interest charged by the banks on a loan shall not exceed a rate prescribed by the governor in council; and to increase the maximum amount of a loan from fifteen hundred dollars to three thousand dollars.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, in this resolution the government seeks authority to introduce a bill to extend the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act for another year.
This will be the second extension of the act. The act originally applied to loans to producers in the fall and spring months of 1955 and 1956. The first extension, which was authorized by the act itself and was brought into effect by order in council, enabled guaranteed loans to be made between October 1, 1956 and June 1, 1957. The government now seeks authority for guaranteed loans to be made available between September 1, 1957 and June 1, 1958.
Limited use has been made of the facilities available under the act. During the crop year 1955-56 producers borrowed a little less than $8 million. Practically all of these advances have already been repaid. Up-to-date records on the current year are not yet available from the banks, but as of January 31, 1957 the volume was less than $4 million, a reflection of the considerable improvement in delivery opportunities during the current crop year. Although only limited use was made of the facilities, they were undoubtedly of considerable value to those producers who needed to make use of them and the government has been strongly urged to extend the act for another year.
Suggestions have been made from time to time, both in this house and elsewhere, for a different system of making advances available to producers. I have heard suggestions that the wheat board should go into the lending business, but I am glad to see that my 82715-137
Grain
own opposition to such a step is now widely shared. Several speakers, C.C.F. and Social Credit, during the debate on the wheat board bill, dissociated themselves from this idea.
Recently, as some hon. members know, other plans have been discussed by agricultural organizations, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The various interests concerned, however, failed to reach agreement on any alternative plan to the one now in effect and have recommended that the present act be extended with certain modifications, such as a larger maximum loan and the advancement of the opening date for loans from October 1 to September 1. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in recommending to this house that the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act be extended for another year.
The bill will propose three amendments: first, that the maximum amount of loan to an individual producer be raised from $1,500 to $3,000; second, that the rate of interest, which is 5 per cent at present, be left to the determination of the governor in council; and third, that the period for the making of loans be extended by one month by moving the opening date forward from October 1 to September 1.
The increase in the maximum individual loan will, I am sure, commend itself to the house. As to the rate of interest, the government does not think that it would be advisable under present monetary conditions to attempt to fix the rate so far in advance of September 1, 1957 which is the time when the loans will become available. I can assure the house that it will be a favourable rate to the borrower, made possible, like the 5 per cent rate now in effect, by the substantial guarantee to the banks provided under the act. The opening date was moved forward one month at the specific request of the western farm organizations, made just a few days ago.
May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I have seldom brought before the house a bill which is unanimously recommended by every farm organization, but I think I can say this about the bill referred to in this motion. The three wheat pools, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the United Farmers and a great number of local organizations have asked that this bill be passed and have asked in the exact terms in which the bill has been drafted. I therefore think that hon. members will find it very simple indeed to accept this motion of the government without extended and involved debate.

Grain


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just said that this bill had been unanimously recommended by all farm organizations. That is certainly not my information. The basis on which the minister makes that statement and the question of what actually did occur are matters on which my colleague the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has some particular information and I shall leave it to him to deal with that phase of the matter when he comes to speak on this measure.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, when this legislation was before the house the members of this party opposed it upon three general grounds. The first, and most important, was that the bill would not do what it was supposed to do or what it was necessary to do in the way of putting sufficient cash into the farmers' hands to enable them to meet their harvesting expenses and to carry them through the winter, let alone provide them with sufficient cash to put in next year's crop. In other words, we contended then, and we still contend, that what was required was a system of cash advances. We contended that this loan system was completely inadequate to do the job which it was supposed to do.
The second ground on which we opposed the bill was that the interest rate was too high. I shall come back to both of these matters later. The third ground upon which our opposition was based was that the amount of the loan was not sufficient. Last year, as the minister has said, the maximum loan provided was $1500. We pointed out that this was only sufficient, in the case of a man who had 300 acres in crop and had to hire a combine, to pay for the cost of a combine and would leave him with nothing over with which to pay all other expenses. This sum was quite inadequate to meet the needs of the average farmer in western Canada. The measure before us provides for doubling the maximum loan which can be secured, increasing it from $1500 to $3000. In other words, this legislation is designed to meet the third criticism made of the legislation last year.
Undoubtedly, this is a considerable improvement. There is no doubt that the increase to $3000 will mean that many more farmers can meet their desperate cash shortage situation, than was the case before. From that point of view, naturally the bill will be welcomed by the farmers who are in a position of having to borrow under this act. I am glad that the government has seen fit to introduce this improvement, so far as this type of legislation is concerned. But, as I said, it still does not meet the needs of the situation.

So far as the interest provision is concerned the resolution reads:
-to provide that the rate of interest charged by the banks on a loan shall not exceed a rate prescribed by the governor in council-
What that means, in effect, Mr. Chairman, I would say is that interest rates are going to be increased. This move is going to be very badly received by the farmers of western Canada. These are guaranteed loans, and as such there is very little risk involved in them so far as the banks are concerned. Last year we maintained that the rate of interest which was provided in the act, at that time 5 per cent, was not justified in view of the risk situation. The farmers themselves took a very dim view of this 5 per cent interest rate. They maintained that the rate should not be higher than that which was being paid by the wheat board which I believe the minister said last year was 3 per cent. As a matter of fact, the general position taken by farmers was that they should not be required to pay interest on these loans at all. They looked upon the payment of interest on the loan as the payment of interest on their last year's wages. I would say this was the cause of a great deal of the unpopularity of last year's measure.
We all know, of course, that interest rates have risen in the last year. There is, therefore, just no question but that this provision to have the rate of interest set from time to time by the governor in council means an increased rate of interest. Before we finish with this resolution stage, I should like the minister to tell us what rate of interest it is contemplated will be charged when this measure comes into effect. Then, we might have something a little more definite upon which to base our remarks.
As I said, our chief criticism of this legislation last year was that it did not provide cash advances on farm stored grain, for which the farmers had asked and for which they are still asking. This request was contained in the last brief which was presented here by the farm union. So far as I am aware the farmers generally, and farm organizations generally, are still anxious to have cash advances rather than this loan system. The minister indicated that a demand had been made for cash advances last year and for what I think he called, other systems of meeting the cash shortage difficulty of western farmers, and he was glad they had not accepted any of these schemes. Indeed, he felt a lot of farm organizations had changed their minds on the matter. I have seen no proof whatever of that fact, that farm organizations have changed their minds in regard to it.

The various difficulties which the minister set out in the way of making cash advances, and the various arguments which he and other members of the Liberal party used last year against cash advances, had no real validity in my opinion. The minister argued that putting into effect a system of cash advances would turn the wheat board into a lending agency. This is not the case at all, and would not have been the effect. A system of cash advances administered through the wheat board would be anything but a system of loans, and certainly would not convert the wheat board into a banking or lending institution. As I pointed out in the debate last year, it would be merely a matter of the wheat board extending its present operations.
All grain has to be sold through the wheat board, except for a very limited amount which a farmer may sell to a neighbouring farmer or feeder. Grain can be sold to the wheat board by a farmer only through his permit book. In other words, the wheat board has complete control over the deliveries which a farmer makes. If cash advances to the farmer were entered in his permit book and then the actual grain deliveries by the farmer were set-off against that, it would be a very simple operation and would not involve the setting up of any new bureaucracy in order to handle the matter. As I say, it would be a simple extension of the wheat board operation. At the present time they make an initial payment to the farmer when he actually delivers his grain to the elevator.
In his statement the minister indicated that there had been a limited use made of this legislation. The number of farmers who took loans under it was not very great. We pointed out last year that this would be the situation, and gave the reasons for it. One of the chief reasons, of course, is the great difficulty many farmers have in securing these loans. Some of the farmers who were in the most desperate situation so far as cash was concerned were the very farmers who could not secure loans under this legislation. I am not surprised that the number who have taken advantage of the legislation is not greater. Most of these farmers, rather than take these loans and pay the interest rate, resorted to every other expedient open to them. We pointed out last year, and I think it was the fact, that the introduction of this particular legislation was not designed to appeal to the farmer and was not designed to get a great deal of business, you might say. The very terms of it more or less ensured that there would not be too many farmers who would come in under the scheme.
Grain
Now, the general situation as I see it, Mr. Chairman, is that the government refuses to accept responsibility for allowing the present surplus situation, so far as wheat and grains are concerned, to develop. The government has had no policy or plan to cure the situation which makes it necessary for the farmer to have cash advances, loans, and so forth in order that he can get enough cash to get along with. The only solution which the government has yet put forward, as far as this whole surplus grain problem is concerned, is to wait for a crop failure, and the ministers have at various times said that we had dry periods in the past and we shall have dry periods in the future, and this situation will cure itself. Well, Mr. Chairman, what is needed is a long-term solution of a definite and positive kind rather than sitting back with hands folded waiting for a drought period to come along and the situation be cured in that way. That is the type of cure that nobody wants no matter what is his own particular surplus of grain on his own farm, and it is certainly one which the world as a whole and Canada as a whole do not want.
There is no question, of course, that this legislation and, indeed, cash advances on farm-stored grain, if that were put into effect, are merely palliatives that do not go to the root of this grain surplus proposition and, of course, do not pretend to go to the root of it.
The world surplus of wheat is likely to be with us for a considerable length of time, and what is needed is a policy on the part of this government, a policy as far as Canada is concerned, of looking after that situation as far as Canadian farmers are concerned. This world wheat surplus has been mounting for several years past. It has been due to factors other than the fact that the weather has been reasonably good over most of the wheatgrowing areas of the world. In addition to that, it has been due to factors such as better methods of cultivation, more irrigation, greater use of fertilizer. These have all served to increase the yield and they are things that are permanently going to keep the yield greater than it was in the years, we will say, before the last war. The figures of production in the principal wheat-exporting countries of the world bear this out very strongly. I would mention just a few of them. In the 10-year period from 1930-1939, the four major exporters, Canada, the United States, Australia and Argentina, produced 1,488 million bushels of wheat. The same four countries in the 10 years from 1945 to 1954, inclusive, produced nearly 2 billion bushels, to be exact, 1,973 million bushels. In other .vords, the production during that period was

Grain
up 485 million bushels. This is on an annual basis; this is not the total for the 10 years; it is the average annual production. At the same time, with this great annual increase in production, 485 million bushels a year more than in those 10 years, 1945 to 1954 and 1930 to 1939, the exports were up only a relatively small amount, and domestic consumption, particularly in the United States, was not up at all. In spite of the fact that the United States population had increased greatly between those two periods, the consumption of wheat in the United States was actually down 5 million bushels a year during this latter period, and as far as the four countries as a whole are concerned, the domestic consumption was up only 65 million bushels, leaving the need for export of 420 million bushels more than had prevailed in the previous 10-year period.


The Chairman:: Order. I have been listening to the hon. member for some minutes now and I feel I should draw his attention to standing order 59, subsection 2, which reads:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I think I have been lenient in allowing him to lay the groundwork for his remarks on this resolution, but I feel that he should now begin to speak on the resolution itself which is an amendment to the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, and that we should not embark on an extended debate on marketing problems. This is a resolution with a view to amending a particular bill and I think we must keep our remarks relevant to this particular resolution.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, may I point out that all of my remarks up to the last two or three minutes are directly on the provisions of this resolution, and what I have been doing during the past few minutes is saying something about the basic reasons why this legislation is before the house at all. The only reason why we have this resolution is that a great surplus of wheat has been built up; farmers have not been able to sell it and therefore it was essential, in order to keep them going at all, to keep them eating and putting them in a position where they could put in a crop again next year, to bring in some measure to put cash into their hands. That situation exists also, of course, because the government, through the wheat board, has complete monopoly really on the sale of grain. In other words, the farmer has no other market. The only place he can market his grain is through the wheat board. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that I am in order

in dealing with the basic cause for the legislation which we are discussing.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I think the hon.
member will agree that I gave him considerable latitude. I was drawing to his attention the fact that that latitude had been granted and I think at the present time he should now direct his remarks to the resolution itself, as he started to do at the outset of his remarks.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, I will not pursue
this matter any farther. I will not make use of any more figures. I say that the farmers themselves have realized the situation much better than the government has and they themselves have cut down the wheat acreage. According to the figures given to the agricultural committee yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture, they have cut the acreage from 29 million acres at one time in wheat to 21 million acres at the present time, a reduction of 8 million acres.
It seems to me that the only logical, proper, general policy for this government to follow is one which will result in a reduction in wheat acreage. There is no use trying to resort to palliatives of the kind that we have before us in the present legislation. We have to go to the root of the matter and we will never be over the difficulties we have been experiencing during the last three or four years unless some definite policy is adopted and put into effect. I submit now, as I did when this was under consideration last year, that that policy should involve, as part of it at any rate, the taking out of land from wheat production and putting it into grass and encouraging livestock production instead of so much wheat, and in that way ourselves cutting down this surplus of wheat which we have, whilst at the same time, of course, building up the fertility of the soil and thus making it possible during a future period, which will undoubtedly come, when there is a demand in the world generally for a larger amount of grain, for our soil to produce that.
I think, Mr. Chairman, I have said all that I wish to say at this stage of the legislation in regard to the objections to it. I think I have made it clear that the objections which we took last year are still valid except in so far as the increase in the amount from $1,500 to $3,000 is concerned. As a matter of fact, from the interest rate point of view, the objections are greater now than they were last year, or apparently will be greater.


Mr. Bryson:: Mr. Chairman, after a long intermission the Minister of Trade and Commerce has seen fit to introduce the second act of a production which could quite appropriately be referred to as a farce in

two parts the theme of which is the granting of bank loans to agricultural producers. Unfortunately at the moment it appears that he is not going to receive the co-operation of the hon. member for Rosthern. I am sure that if he could have gained the hon. member's co-operation this year's performance would have been as interesting as last year's.
When the minister made his statement a few moments ago he pointed out that those of us on this side of the house and in particular those of us who belong to the C.C.F. party should go along with his legislation without debating it at any length for the simple reason that it had been approved by the officials of the organized farmers of western Canada.
In reply to that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I am not in parliament necessarily to represent the officials of western farm organizations. I am here to make a case to the best of my ability for the people and in this instance for the farmers I represent in the constituency of Humboldt-Mel-fort and I am going to attempt to put forward those things which I believe they would want me to bring up in parliament.
For the minister to suggest that the amendments that are before this committee at the moment have been placed there at the express wish of the officials representing the farm organizations in western Canada is in short a deliberate attempt not only to mislead this house but to mislead the agricultural producers of western Canada.
I would like to read into the record a resolution which was passed on March 1 of this year by ten agricultural organizations at a meeting held in the city of Saskatoon which was attended by representatives of the three prairie wheat pools, the three farm unions, the three federations of agriculture and the united grain growers. The resolution reads as follows:
Resolved that while we do not agree that the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act is the most satisfactory method for making money available on grain that cannot be delivered however in view of the late date in having a more satisfactory plan for cash advances adopted at this session of parliament this committee recommends to the federal government the inclusion of the following amendments:-
-two of which have been incorporated by the minister in the amendments we are dealing with at the present time. We in this group, Mr. Chairman, feel as strongly opposed to the passage of this amendment as we felt with regard to the passage of Bill No. 82 last year. We believed that our arguments advanced in opposition to that bill last year were justified, and certainly the figures the
Grain
minister has placed on the record this afternoon appear to justify the validity of those arguments.
We were disappointed that after almost a year's experience during which the government had time to see the shortcomings of the act and to appreciate that it had little or no value they considered it appropriate only to bring in two rather innocuous amendments to the original bill. We believe they should have brought in the principle the farmers of western Canada have been advocating over the years and are still advocating, namely cash advances through the wheat board with no interest being charged, rather than these insipid amendments which add nothing of value to the original bill.
I might point out that these amendments do two things. First of all they seem to prove that the government still fails to fully recognize the tremendous problems that agriculture faces in western Canada. It is almost incomprehensible to me that the government does not understand that there is a tremendous problem in western Canada, and so the second question which is posed by virtue of the introduction of this amendment is that the government is quite prepared as far as this particular bill is concerned to sacrifice western agriculture and consider it as having little or no effect as far as the economic prosperity of Canada is concerned.
I fail to see how the increase from $1,500 to $3,000 in the maximum amount a farmer can borrow under this act is going to help the people to whom the minister referred last year on many occasions, namely the average farmers in the country. On one occasion he said, "We are not concerned about the large farmers". It will be impossible for the average farmer to get any more money this year than he did last year under these amendments. I am unable to go along with the suggestion of the previous speaker in that regard.
As far as the suggestion that the date be set ahead to September 1st is concerned, I again fail to see how this is going to have any effect whatever in assisting the average farmer who needs some assistance. I can well understand how it would apply to a farmer who has two or three sections of land and many thousands of bushels of grain on hand who on September 1-when 80 or even 90 per cent of farmers are just commencing to harvest-could go into a bank and make a loan against last year's wheat that he holds in the bin. But that is not the man the minister is interested in helping. He says he is interested in helping the average farmer.
I might point out that we in Saskatchewan are criticized for having the largest farms in

Grain
the country. A survey which was recently taken there indicates that the average farmer in the province of Saskatchewan has 300 or 325 acres of land so his grain production is limited, and certainly over the years he will eventually get rid of all his grain. Cash advances would assist these farmers in that they would be able to get their hands on a large amount of money in the fall of the year in order to pay current operating expenses, taxes and so forth rather than operating on the 300-unit quota which places them in a very embarrassing position.
Thus we are opposed to this legislation. Not long ago the minister suggested that any land a farmer took out of wheat production and placed in grass would be calculated on his permit book for delivery purposes. That is not going to change this situation, though it seems to me that the packing industry will be very happy about it. We are subsidizing the millers now, so the packers will get their hands into the farmer's other pocket. There is no room for the hands of both packers and millers in one pocket, because the millers now have their hands in right up to the elbows. So the packers have to go into the other pocket.
There is one other matter with which we should be very concerned. Last year when we passed the Bill No. 82 the minister envisaged-and I am going to read from Bill No. 82-that it would be of temporary application. The bill was described as "an act to provide for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver all their grain." The important word there, Mr. Chairman, is the word "temporary". Surely the introduction of this amendment now proves conclusively that the minister envisages that the cash shortage which farmers are suffering today will be a chronic condition, not a temporary one. That is an admission on the part of the minister.
Last year the minister told the house that farmers would market a normal crop. Well, we know that by February 20 last farmers in Canada had marketed 176 million bushels. Yet the 10-year average is 236 million bushels, and still one-third of the points in the west are on a 2-bushel quota.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is stating statistics which are not correct. Would he mind repeating them? I understood him to say that a good many points in the west are on a unit bushel quota.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: No; two bushels. I am quoting from the latest statistics.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry; I just did not hear the hon. member.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: So, in the light of this, we believe that cash advances could be of tremendous assistance to the western farmers. I, personally, do not "go along" with this legislation, and I do not think too many hon. members in this committee will support it to any great extent. This anxiety to penalize farmers for their production by making them go to the banks and pay exorbitant interest rates on their production is only hastening their final bankruptcy. It is not just a farm problem; it is a national problem; yet rather than face its responsibility for trying to find a solution, the government would prefer to go to the chartered banks and ask them to do a job that they themselves should have undertaken.
The minister himself knows that this amendment has no value. He has no faith in it, for not long ago he told us in this house that if the debate on this legislation continued longer than one day he would withdraw it-proof positive that he has no faith that this legislation will stand the scrutiny of this house.
Last year the minister opposed cash advances on the ground that the representatives of the farm organizations had impressed upon him the need for speed, and the urgency of getting some kind of legislation through. Certainly the minister at that time said that bank loans, under those conditions, were the speediest way of doing this job. He said in the debate last year that whether this solved all the problems of the farmer or not he did not know, but it certainly solved the problem the government was asked to solve on that particular date.
He knows, now, that it did not solve the problem, because he quoted figures here this afternoon which proved that point. We have advanced many arguments in favour of cash advances, but I am not going to try to outline at this stage all the reasons why we were opposed to this bank loan legislation. However, I would point out that banking facilities are limited, and that in the three prairie provinces there are only 507 branches of chartered banks. Many farmers do business with the credit unions and these, of course, are ruled out from doing this kind of business. On the other hand, there are some 2,300 elevator points in the three provinces which could very easily do the work which we have suggested they could do in operating a cash advance system.
Then the minister, on one occasion, told us he was reluctant to place elevator agents in "an impossible position". He had in mind, of course, the work of administration they

will be asked to perform. As a matter of fact they are doing at the present time all the things the minister said he was going to relieve them of doing. When a bank manager is approached by a farmer who normally does not do business with the bank, on every occasion, I am told, he consults the elevator agent and finds out the details of that particular farmer's operation. In the final analysis the elevator agent is held personally responsible for the obligation to the bank by every farmer who hauls grain to the elevator and who has made a bank loan.
On another occasion, the minister declared that in the event cash advances were approved, members of the wheat board would resign. But only a few days ago we found out that the minister "instructs" the wheat board as to what they should do. So it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that that argument has little or no validity.
Now I would like to place on record some of the reasons which lead us to believe that cash advances would be much preferable to this amendment. First of all, cash advances involve an interim payment, or prepayment, on the initial price. As such, they would not be in the category of a loan which could be refused by a bank manager. Instead, the advance would be automatic when applied for. Repayments would be fairly automatic since the amount of the advance would be written into the permit book and could be repaid in a stated proportion as deliveries permitted.
Cash advances through grain elevator companies acting as agents of the Canadian wheat board would be much more convenient for the farmers. It is estimated that there are less than 470 chartered banks in the three prairie provinces whereas there are at least 2,300 grain delivery points. This means that in the case of loans through the banks a farmer may have to drive 50 miles to a bank to secure a loan. If he is not known by the bank manager there may be some delay in securing the loan or he may be refused altogether. In general, the farmers have more confidence in the country elevator system which functions as an instrument of the Canadian wheat board which in turn is the farmers' own creation.
Finally, many farmers already have a line of credit with the banks. A further loan would therefore only strain their already tight economic position. One other reason why we are in favour of cash advances is simply that it is only understandable that quotas cannot conceivably be evened out. Cash advances would go a long way to removing some of the inequities that now exist under the quota system.
Grain
I should like to point out to the committee that in 1952-53 the final price paid to the farmers for wheat was $1.81 a bushel. Yet when they went to deliver the next year's crop the price had fallen to $1.56 a bushel, a drop of 25 cents a bushel inside of one year. That simply means that I may be fortunate enough to live on a railroad line where there is an 8 bushel quota and some other person is in the unfortunate position of only hauling out 3 or 5 bushels and must haul out the balance in the next year and take a reduction of 25 cents a bushel.
We believe that cash advances would go a long way toward ironing out some of these inequities. We will continue to fight for cash advances. We will continue to fight for the implementation of this principle as one method of eliminating the many uncontrollable hazards to which the agricultural industry is exposed.


Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Chairman, the resolution that we are asked to discuss this afternoon involves the amendment of a bill that received very lengthy consideration in the house last year. At that time we in this group pointed out to the minister and the government many of the reasons why we were opposing this particular piece of legislation. The amendment which has been brought in today does not do very much, if anything at all, toward changing our distaste for the bill of last year.
During the course of the debate last year it was argued that it was unfair to the farmers of the west to expect them to have to go to the bank and borrow money just because they were unable to sell the grain that they had produced during the year. The reason that they are not able to sell their grain is found in the fact that the present government has not seen fit to adopt marketing policies which would remove the grain from western Canada to countries where it could be consumed. At that time we were told that this would be an interim or temporary measure. Again this year we are asked to approve of another interim financing act, and if the situation continues I presume that next year we will again be asked to approve of still another.
In the meantime what is happening? The farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to finance. In introducing the resolution the minister intimated that he had been urged by certain farm organizations to bring in the legislation. That may be true. I am not going to argue that statement at all, but I do know that when the $1,500 bank loan, as we like to call it, was first mooted a year ago last October the farmers of the

Grain
west became very disturbed. Mass meetings were held throughout the three western provinces in opposition to this particular type of so-called help.
The interprovincial farm union council, speaking on behalf of the farmers of western Canada, pointed out that this farm loan program was not adequate and for several reasons would not serve the purpose it was intended to serve. It was pointed out, for example, that banking facilities are not readily available at many points in western Canada. The fact that banking facilities are not available at many points in western Canada is a consequence of what happened to our banking services in the west during the depression years. Again, the interprovincial farm union council protested against this legislation on the basis of the amount of the red tape involved in securing the acceptance of a bank loan application. The red tape has proven to be so great that it has tended to discourage many farmers from using the legislation at all.
The interprovincial farm union council also pointed out that only the chartered banks were given the right to make loans. In Alberta a large percentage of the farmers do business through the Alberta government treasury branches. This legislation does not provide for the granting of loans through these treasury branches and consequently farmers who have done business for years with the Alberta treasury branches have to go to the manager of a chartered bank and attempt to gain his good graces if they want to secure a loan.
The practice of the banks of deducting the value of any grain sold under the initial quota or additional small acreage quotas from the maximum face value of the loan means that most farmers can only qualify for amounts so small that they are not going to apply for them. Again, if the farmer has had to go to the bank during the last operating season to borrow $400 or $500 to carry him through until harvest that amount would immediately be deducted by the bank manager when the farmer applied for a new loan. Of course, behind all this there is in the minds of the farmers of the west a great distaste at the thought of ever having to become involved once again with the banks through loans.
Last year the interprovincial farm union council certainly did not accord any great amount of praise to this legislation. In February of this year the interprovincial farm union council made its submission to the federal government. I have checked their brief carefully and they do not mention the $1,500 bank loan, but instead they suggest and urge the government to institute a
[Mr. Smith (Battle Rlver-Camrose) .J
permanent system of cash advances on farm-stored grain. They pointed out that cash advances would enable the farmers to receive cash early in the fall so that they would be able to pay the accounts that they had accumulated during the year.
On many occasions the Minister of Trade and Commerce has made it quite plain that he believes it to be in the general interest of Canada to maintain a surplus of wheat. With this stand we have no quarrel, but we do quarrel with the policy of the government which expects the farmers of western Canada to finance a large portion of this wheat surplus.
The need for this particular resolution, as I see it, is the direct result of an unfair policy that is followed by this government. If the farmers could market their grain there would be absolutely no need for government-guaranteed bank loans of any type. The farmers have been wondering, and they are still wondering, why this government is so reluctant to embark upon a system of cash advances on farm-stored grain. It has already been pointed out that farmers are not the only ones who suffer as a result of their inability to sell their grain. Small businessmen, garage men, oil merchants and others have experienced difficulty. I have already pointed out once in the house this year that tax arrears in the rural municipalities in the west are accumulating. A system of cash advances paid at the beginning of each crop year would certainly help to relieve this situation.
On many occasions we have heard remarks made about the tight money policy being followed in Canada at the present time. Last October I had a visit from two of my constituents. This constituent and his wife were very much disturbed because of the treatment they were receiving from one of the chartered banks in my area. I should like to place on record a portion of a letter which was directed to this constituent by a bank manager:
With reference to our interview of this afternoon and based on the fact that you have given me an order to have all grain marketed payable to yourself and the Bank of Nova Scotia, we undertake to deal with your over-all loans at this point on the basis of a division of 60 per cent to the bank debt and with 40 per cent returned to yourselves for necessary operating expenses.
That is 60 per cent to the bank and 40 per cent of each quota delivered left for the farmer with which to do what? To pay the bills that have accumulated over the current operating season. I submit that we have here an example of what is going on as far as the western farmers are concerned. This

morning I received a letter from a farm union organization in my riding. In it they had this to say:
Our greatest problem is to get grain cars so we could get some more grain out. Spring is near and we would like to get some cash to get seed, fuel oil and repairs. Cash is very hard to get right now.
I want to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the $1,500 bank loan, as I like to call it, or the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act has been and still is in operation, but cash is very hard to get right now. This organization went on to point out:
We are on the C.P.R. line. Our quota is four bushels.
I might point out in that connection that last August, I believe, the Minister of Trade and Commerce assured the members of this house and at the same time the farmers of the west that attempts would be made to equalize quotas in the west; that those points which were on a low quota basis as of August 31 last would be given special treatment this year and their quotas would be raised at a more accelerated rate than those of points on high quotas. That has not happened. This particular point to which I am referring was on a 6-bushel quota at the end of the last crop year, and at March 1 this year it had reached only a 3-bushel quota position, while at the same time in my particular riding I had 16 points on a 5-bushel quota and 34 on a 4-bushel quota. Hence little or no attempt has been made by those in charge to equalize quotas throughout the west. However, to continue with this letter:
We are on the C.P.R. line. Our quota is four bushels. The line company have some room______
By that they mean the line elevator company.
-but the pool and U.G.G. are full all the time and cannot get any grain cars. We are very displeased the way box cars are allotted here, as most of us are pool or U.G.G. members and wish to haul our grain to the elevator of our choice.
That letter is signed by the president of a farmers' union local in the province of Alberta. I believe this particular letter expresses the sentiments of most of the farm union locals and the members of those locals throughout the whole of our province.
I suggest that this particular resolution means very little to the farmers of the west who find themselves short of cash. It provides that if they are able to convince the banker that they are worthy to receive more than $1,500, they can get it. I believe in order to do that last year they had to establish that they had guilt-edged security or they did not get the $1,500; but if they
Grain
can establish this gilt-edged security and more of it this year they can borrow up to $3,000.
There is something in this resolution that is extremely distasteful to me. I never like to buy a pig in a poke. Last year the rate of interest was 5 per cent. It was definitely stated in the resolution that it would be that rate. We opposed this rate of interest as being too high at that time. However, what do we find this year in the resolution? It contains these words:
... to provide that the rate of interest charged by the banks on a loan shall not exceed a rate prescribed by the governor in council . . .
What does that mean? It might mean that the rate of interest could be reduced. I doubt that very much. I am more inclined to believe that the rate of interest is to be increased this year, and that this provision is in here so this increase can be brought in.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that the answer to this problem is for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to get busy and convince his government that a system of cash advances on farm-stored grain is the answer to the problem. It is the temporary answer. The problem will be solved when the government embarks upon marketing policies which will allow Canada to sell its surplus grain to countries which need it. I am told that right now the west coast terminals are not quite half full. I know perfectly well that there are millions of bushels of wheat on the western prairies that should be moved and sent to the terminals. What is being done about this? Nothing. We asked the government this session to appoint a new transport controller. Nothing has been done about that matter. Any semblance of orderly marketing is certainly not to be found in western Canada.
Mr. Chairman, there is just one other matter that I should like to advance. This is a problem that is of concern among the farmers of western Canada. The farmers are well aware of the fact that elevator companies are paid at the rate of 1 cent a bushel for every 35 days for storing grain. The farmers cannot see why the wheat board could not advance the price of wheat or other grain stored on the farms by 1 cent a bushel per month. Surely the individual farmers of the west should receive the same consideration for storing grain as the elevator companies do.
In concluding, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say this. It is my personal opinion that this particular resolution is a far cry from being a satisfactory answer to the problem which is facing western agriculture at the present time.

Grain


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, checking back on the record of the discussion when this legislation first appeared before the house, I find that it is almost a year ago since we were having a similar debate. At that time many lengthy statements were made concerning it. From this side of the house the viewpoint was unanimous that this bill, called the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, 1956, was not adequate to deal with the problem with which it professed to deal.
One of the main points I raised last year, I recall, was that the very wording of the bill, and of the resolution conveyed the wrong impression, in that it laid stress on the word "temporary". In the resolution we have before us again today there is a reference to this legislation as an interim financing act. In the events that have transpired during the past 12 months, when we have had some experience with the operation of the act, I find no reason at all to change the viewpoint I held last year. This viewpoint is not only determined by the recommendations we have received repeatedly from the farm organizations who are most intimately acquainted with the subject, but also from the individual farmers in my constituency.
The method the government has chosen to assist the farmer in the chronic cash shortage problem that has confronted him now for the past few years is totally inadequate to deal with the situation. I am afraid the government, in re-emphasizing the temporary nature of this type of assistance, is missing the point entirely. Just the other day we were dealing with another important piece of agricultural legislation, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and I was interested to note that this act was regarded as a temporary piece of legislation even though it has been on the statute books since 1939. Well, that is a rather long temporary period. I am afraid unless something is done in regard to the government's approach to the changed cash position of the farmer, if it continues to be regarded by the government as a temporary situation, we will find this piece of legislation still on the statute books 20 years hence as a temporary measure, much after the fashion of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
The arguments against this particular approach to the farmer's position have been recited repeatedly in this chamber. Most of the arguments have been placed on the record again by the speakers who have preceded me in this discussion today. But judging from the government's repeated attempts to solve the basic problem of agriculture by pro tern methods, it would appear that there is a need for something to be said again this afternoon concerning the basic problem of agriculture,

prairie agriculture in particular but also agriculture generally across the country. The information we have on this subject has been added to by the recent submission of the preliminary report of the Gordon commission.
The section of this report dealing with agriculture, the third chapter on page 25, begins by saying:
Great changes have taken place in Canadian agriculture since the end of the last war. Between 1946 and 1955 the physical volume of output per farm has increased by 30 per cent and gross physical output per man-hour by almost 75 per cent. This greater productivity has been made possible in part by favourable weather conditions in western Canada and, in part, by substantial increases in the use of power and equipment on farms.
That is as far as I intend to go in quoting from the Gordon commission report in this respect, but hon. members who have read the report in detail know that the general thesis that is put forward in that analysis is that the agricultural industry in Canada has passed through a basic change in the past two decades. Agriculture has moved from a subsistence economy and is now operating on a straight cash basis, as is the case with small businesses and other industrial activities in Canada.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the government fails to appreciate the fundamental change that has taken place in our economy. The farmer needs cash if he is going to carry on a successful and efficient farm operation today. The surplus situation we have had with us during the past few years, which has been partly created by unduly heavy yields, is also due to the changed methods of production, and in certain respects to a proportionate loss of the total world market for grain. It appears that this surplus situation is going to be with us for some considerable years. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose has just suggested, but it does mean that the parliament of Canada must take some action to deal with the special problems created for our grain producers by this continuing condition.
The interim finance act as a method of getting cash into the hands of the hard-pressed farmer is merely one way of solving this problem. It is the over-all situation that will have to be met with over-all planning on the part of the government of Canada. This is merely one very small contribution to solving the total difficulty. The basic difficulty is the necessity of providing stability of income for the farmer as we have provided stability of income for other segments of the national economy by various devices, most of which have been devised on the national level of government.

Another aspect of the difficulty that has been pointed out from time to time in this house that suggests we are in the midst of a fundamental change is the continuing outcry for a more generous credit supply. We even have the farmers today suggesting that if they are to retain a supply of reliable labour for the farm a program similar to that of unemployment insurance for the industrial worker must be devised. Then again on this same point, emphasizing the fundamental need for a reliable source of income and a stable income if the farmer is to operate efficiently, there is the growing demand, particularly from our prairie farmers, for some kind of crop insurance which would help them meet the impact of the plagues and the pests to which the agricultural industry inevitably falls heir.
Then finally, Mr. Chairman, there is the continued demand for cash advances on farm-stored grain. I should point out that it comes not only from the farmers. In talking to the businessmen in the smaller communities of western Canada I find that they are feeling with equal force the lack of sufficient cash on the part of the farmers to meet current obligations. This whole problem has very broad sociological implications. We are faced with a situation of depopulation in the rural areas because of the expansion of our farms into increasingly larger units in order to meet the economic changes arising from the revolution taking place in agriculture. These changes in turn, of course, are leaving in their wake agricultural ghost communities all over the prairies as the farm population finds the pressure of rural-urban migration becoming increasingly intensified.
The principal objections to this one small contribution by the government to solving the farmer's problem have been laid down point by point here this afternoon. The very fact that in the minister's statement itself it has been said that limited use has been made of the legislation up to the present time suggests that it has not been received very cordially by the farmer. One objection last year toward cash advances was the point made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that the wheat board officials were not interested in the cash advance solution to the farmer's problem of cash shortage.
I am glad to know that argument has not been used this year. In fact previous speakers in this debate, Mr. Chairman, have pointed out that actually the wheat board set-up, the very fact that we have the wheat board organization, makes it a fairly simple matter to have these cash advances made to our prairie farmers.
I have heard farmers use this argument repeatedly. His wheat is going to be marketed
Grain
eventually through the wheat board. He has no other recourse, as the situation exists, and he resents the necessity of having to go to the banks and meet his problem of cash shortage through the method provided by this legislation. He calls it a system under which he has to pay interest on his own wages. He is going to sell his grain eventually to the wheat board. The money is actually his. If the market were there, if the grain could be sold, the money would be as good as in his pocket, and he resents this rather complicated and awkward procedure. The farmer has always been reluctant to indulge in credit activities of this kind with the bank. Perhaps part of the difficulty is an educational one. He resents this complicated procedure to make it possible for him to have at least a minimum supply of cash to meet his current obligations.
The minister made the point that there had been some change in the attitude of the farmer toward the government's approach to this problem. I took the trouble to make some inquiries concerning the meeting which was held March 1 last in the city of Saskatoon. This meeting was called for the definite purpose of coming to some conclusions with regard to the legislation we now have before us. The legislation had been placed on the order paper, and the three federations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the three unions, the three pools and representatives of the United Grain Growers came together at Saskatoon on March 1 to consider what attitude they might take in regard to this legislation. In conversations with some of the men who were at that gathering they very emphatically informed me that their position in regard to this legislation had not changed one iota. They still oppose it as a method of meeting the problem of cash shortage. They still insist that the cash advance formula would be a more effective and more efficient method of handling this situation.
The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort placed on record this afternoon the resolution that emerged from this particular meeting and it, without any equivocation at all, indicates that the farmer reluctantly consented to accept what the government was offering because at this late date there was no other alternative. The need is there, the basic problem is there, and it is better than nothing at all; but, as the preamble to the resolution says:
While we do not agree that the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act is the most satisfactory method for making money available on grain that cannot be delivered, however, in view of the late date in having a more satisfactory plan for cash advances adopted at this session of

Grain
parliament this committee recommends to the federal government the inclusion of the following amendments.
I wanted to place that on record because of the statement of the minister. There is no doubt about it, Mr. Chairman; the Canadian economy is booming. We have that drummed home in season and out of season by representatives of the government. It is rather tragic that in this booming economy a very important segment, if not the most important segment, our agricultural industry, finds itself in a state of considerable economic distress. There is no doubt, there is no uncertainty at all-and this has been underlined again by the Gordon commission-concerning the continuing development and increasing prosperity of our Canadian economy.
But I think the question does arise on the occasion of a discussion of this kind as to just what direction this boom is going to take. All hon. members of this committee should give serious consideration to moving in a more positive way to help the farmer.
The farmer is certainly doing everything within his means by way of recommendations, resolutions, briefs and pilgrimages to Ottawa to bring home to the government the economic situation of agriculture, and certainly we have heard enough speeches in this house which would tend to suggest that all is not well in our agricultural industry. If we are to continue to have a balanced, healthy economy, Mr. Chairman, I am quite convinced that something much more adequate than what we have before us must be devised to help the farmer to adjust to the economic situation in which he now finds himself.


Mr. Zapliiny:: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before us in my opinion does nothing more than prolong an inadequate piece of legislation. The Minister of Trade and Commerce in opening his remarks today made a statement which at first I thought I had not heard well, because it was difficult to believe when he stated that this resolution together with the proposed amendments to the bill had met with the unanimous approval of the farm organizations.
I contend, sir, that the very opposite is the truth because, as the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort and the hon. member for Brandon-Souris have already pointed out, as recently as March 1, 1957, the organizations representing grain producers in western Canada at a meeting in Saskatoon passed a resolution which very definitely stated the very opposite to what this committee was told this afternoon. The very first sentence of their resolution indicates their stand. It reads:
Resolved that while we do not agree that the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act is

the most satisfactory method for making money available on grain that cannot be delivered-
Then it goes on to say that in view of the fact that they do not expect anything better at this time they propose certain amendments to the existing act.
While I am in thorough agreement with the first part of that resolution, in that I agree this is certainly not the best method, I am not quite so enthusiastic about the latter part of the resolution, which indicates that in view of the late date we cannot expect any action on cash advances. I do not think that is the case. I do not see any particular difficulty in the road of this parliament adopting a system of cash advances within the course of the next two or three days. In my opinion it would not take any longer for the minister to introduce legislation for the purpose of establishing a system of cash advances, as has been demanded by farm organizations for the past two or three years, than it will to pass this resolution which is like a French proverb which comes to mind; "the more it changes, the more it is the same". It does not do anything.
In order to establish more clearly what is the stand of the farm organizations I think I should put on record what their resolutions were as passed at their conventions and as outlined in their briefs presented to this government. I have in my hand the submissions made to the government on February 19, 1957, by the interprovincial farm union council. I propose to read their proposal which appears on page 8 of the submission under item No. 7, and I would like the committee to compare this with the statement made by the minister this afternoon that what he is proposing in this resolution has met with the approval of the farm organizations. This is their proposal:
That a permanent system of cash advances be established on the basis recommended in previous submissions, in order that farmers will have the means to meet their annual obligations-
Then it goes on:
-also, that provision be made for accelerated depreciation on grain storage buildings built by farmers.
The first part of that proposal is perfectly clear. This was the submission of the interprovincial farm union council to this government as late as February 19, 1957. The interprovincial farm union council includes the farm unions of five provinces, the three prairie provinces and also Ontario and British Columbia. That body, which represents a very large proportion of the grain producers in Canada, stated in clear language to the

government that what they want is a permanent system of cash advances; yet the minister tells us today they have approved something different.
Let me turn now to the attitude of the wheat pools. The wheat pools do business with the grain producers in the three prairie provinces, and in that way they also represent a great majority of the grain producers. In their statement of policy of January 19, 1956, here is what the Saskatchewan wheat pool had to say:
The current problem of a shortage of farm cash was considered as soon as the annual meeting opened. The delegates went on record in favour of a system of cash advances against farm stored grain to be paid out by the Canadian wheat board through elevator companies with the federal government assuming the interest on the loans involved.
Certainly that is clear and unequivocal enough. The delegates assembled in the biggest wheat pool meeting in the world passed a resolution in plain language stating that they are in favour of a system of cash advances through the Canadian wheat board, using the elevator agents as the channel of distribution, and that the federal government should absorb the interest on the loan involved.
Here we have two farm bodies between them representing, I think we can safely say, at least 90 per cent of the farmers in the prairie provinces, both stating clearly and categorically that what they want is a system of cash advances with the interest absorbed by the federal government. Instead of that the minister places on the order paper a resolution which in effect only continues the inadequate bank loan system we have had since it came into effect last year.
I say there is time to do something different because after all, as the resolution itself points out, authority is being sought from this house to enable the governor in council to make certain arrangements in order that bank loans guaranteed by the treasury may be made from the period September 1, 1957, to June 1, 1958. In other words this legislation will have no effect whatever until September 1 of this year. We are now in the middle of March, and there is plenty of time between now and September 1 to do what the grain producers are recommending.
Therefore I see no particular reason why, unless the government and particularly those hon. members who support the government are prepared to disregard completely the recommendations of the farm organizations, action should not be taken to put into effect a system of cash advances as has been recommended. I think it is up to the hon. members who support the government to see that
Grain
this responsibility is met, particularly those who come from the rural parts of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba and who more directly represent the cause of the farmers here.
Even the extension of this act seems to indicate that the government continues to view this question as a purely temporary problem, though one can refer to almost any publication which has had anything to do with farm problems during the last three years, whether it is the Gordon report, or the report of any other commission, or the briefs of farm organizations, and confirm that the farmers no longer regard this question of our grain surplus as a temporary problem. Certainly all the indications are that it is going to be a long-term problem, for various reasons.
First, and perhaps most important, is the fact that there has been a tremendous change in methods of production. Under normal conditions, Mr. Chairman, we can now expect greater yields per acre on the prairies than in the past. New and improved methods of farming, improved farm implements which enable farmers to develop their land properly, put in the seed at due time and gather the harvest at the proper time, when weather conditions permit, combined with the improved know-how of the farmers, are going to improve the yield per acre very materially. That in itself is a very good thing, because this country has always prided itself on being able to put out more production per man than perhaps any other country in the world with the possible exception of our great neighbour to the south; and today possibly we are even ahead of her. We take pride in being a high production country, and that is something which could make Canada a very prosperous and happy nation.
But are we not discouraging this most desirable element in our economy by not making provision for putting the farmer on a cash basis, which is the only way in which he can operate efficiently? The government has used various arguments in the past for not agreeing with our proposal for cash advances, and I am not going to take up the time of the committee by answering all those arguments. Some of them have already been referred to by other hon. members. But I find it hard to believe that the government can adopt two different attitudes at one and the same time in such glaring fashion as it does.
Less than a year ago parliament was advised of a proposition by the government to provide a cash advance to one corporation to the tune of about $80 million. That was to one private corporation, namely the Trans-Canada Pipe Line Company. With such great

Grain
enthusiasm did the government propose this that they were prepared to move closure and do almost anything in order to steamroller that measure through the house, in spite of the strong and bitter opposition which it encountered not only in the House of Commons but in the country generally.
However, when we come to this question, as soon as we propose cash advances the government begin to present their other side; they haul out their tight money policy. If there is anything that indicates a tight money policy it is this present legislation, because not only does it put a farmer in the position of having to practically beg at the doorstep of the bank for a loan, but under the proposed resolution the interest rate itself is no longer fixed. The resolution provides that from here on the interest shall be at a rate not to exceed an amount that is to be fixed by order in council.
What does that mean? In his introductory remarks today the minister did not indicate what the rate of interest would be, or what the government has in mind as a fair rate of interest. This gives rise to great anxiety because the trend, in the last six or eight months particularly, in response to the government's tight money policy has been for interest rates to notch up all along the line. Is the government going to apply this tight money policy to this act also, and provide that interest rates should rise by one-half or one-quarter of one per cent every few months, with the result that a farmer will not know from day to day what it is going to cost him to get a loan under this legislation?
I think that in itself is enough to make farmers look at this act with a great deal of anxiety from now on. In any case, farmers will be at the mercy of an order in council which could raise the interest rates at any time without notice, and I think before we are through with this legislation the minister should give the committee some indication of what he has in mind as a maximum interest rate under this act.
It has been pointed out that this legislation and the demand for cash advances arose out of the situation in this country with regard to grain surpluses. I have stated that in my opinion this is not a temporary situation, but that it is going to be a continuing problem. And I think if the government is really serious about providing a long-term solution to this problem, some steps must be taken along the lines of either this type of legislation or of cash advances.
At any rate some attempt must be made to face this question, and I think it is time for the government to say they are prepared to look upon the production of grain in this
[Mr. Zaplitny.l
country as a national asset. But they don't. We have referred in this house and elsewhere to the grain situation on the prairies as "a grain problem" or "a surplus problem". We refer to it as a problem. But I think that is looking at it in the wrong way. Properly considered, it is one of the greatest national assets we have. If we treated it properly our grain surplus would not be a problem but an asset, and if the government were prepared to regard it as an asset and make provision for orderly marketing and storage of that grain without placing the burden of financing it on the shoulders of the farmers who have produced it, it would become an asset.
Steps should have been taken long ago- certainly they should be taken now-to provide greater storage facilities, to provide for greater movement of grain and to arrange for a larger supply of boxcars so that this idea of a quota, which every year is a recurring headache, will eventually be done away with. The farmer will then be in the position of knowing that if nature has been bountiful, and he has produced a good crop, he will be able to market that crop at least within a reasonable period of time, let us say six or eight months. As it is now he does not know whether it will take him 12, 24 or even 36 months to dispose of his crop.
Each year when a good crop is in the making it is a joy to the farmers, but this most natural joy in the world is dampened by fear and anxiety as to how it will affect the surplus position.
I think those are steps that have to be taken. The government has to take a whole new look at the grain business. A new philosophy has to be evolved. The government has to treat our grain as a national asset, and every surplus should be a matter of joy to the government, not something to be treated as a problem that has to be faced from year to year.
There is another reason why in my opinion the whole question of cash advances is very important to western farmers. Not long ago in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Moose Mountain, I believe, the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that the Canadian farmer has been in competition with the United States treasury for quite some time now. The minister showed no particular surprise at that situation, as if it was to be expected. That may be the case. But if, as the minister admits, the Canadian farmer today is in competition in the disposal of his grain with the United States treasury, which is involved to a far greater extent in the disposal of grain than is the case in Canada, is that not all the more reason why the national treasury or the

government of Canada must move in on the side of the Canadian farmer if he is to have any chance whatever in the face of competition with the United States treasury, which the minister admits to be the case?
What form of competition is it? In the United States there is the Commodity Credit Corporation, which is financed by the national treasury and is authorized to take from the farmer on a cash basis all the grain he grows. They go to the farmer and pay him approximately $2.24 a bushel for his wheat. He can either deliver the grain to the Commodity Credit Corporation if the corporation has space in which to store it or, if it is more convenient, the farmer is permitted to build approved storage on his farm. He is then paid so much per bushel per month for the grain while it is in his own storage waiting to be delivered to the Commodity Credit Corporation.
In driving through the United States last summer I had the opportunity to stop and examine some of these farms where approved storage has been built, and I spoke with some of the farmers about it. I find that the farmer there approves strongly of the method, because it does two things at once. It provides him with a cash return immediately as soon as he produces his grain, in order that he can go ahead and finance his next year's operation. At the same time it provides him with an income from the storage space he has built in order to accommodate the grain which the corporation has purchased. That storage space can also be used for other products as soon as the grain is removed. When the grain has eventually been delivered to the corporation the farmer can then use the same storage space for feed grains, corn or anything else he may have on his farm.
Something of that nature certainly should be done in this country. That in itself would provide a measure of relief for the whole surplus situation, and would probably make the kind of legislation now under discussion unnecessary, because you would then have an orderly system under which the farmers would know that having produced their grain, they would be paid for it in cash, and if it was necessary to store it on the farm for any length of time they would be compensated for the storage they had to provide.
Those are some of the things we have been advocating for a long time, and on this occasion I appeal particularly to my good friends from the province of Manitoba who represent rural ridings. I ask them to support the idea of cash advances, because their attitude has always been a matter of sorrow to me.
Grain
When I go out on the prairies between sessions I sometimes drop in on public meetings where various members of the Liberal party are speaking to the farmers. I listen to them and I hear them talk in such fine terms about the need for cash advances, and I say to myself that it would do so much more good if I could just pick them up while they are speaking, bring them back to the House of Commons and dump them down in their places so they could continue their speeches here. Somehow we do not hear these fine speeches in the house. They seem to be limited to Portage-Neepawa, Provencher or other parts of Manitoba. When these members enter the house it seems that the atmosphere of this place takes away all their enthusiasm.
After all, there is a testing time coming in the near future. This issue will have to be faced by these members, and if it is not faced in the house it will have to be faced by them in their constituencies. I think it might be better for their own peace of mind if they were to rise in their places, whether they come from Manitoba or Saskatchewan, and say to the government on the floor of the house that they do not consider this legislation adequate. It has been pronounced inadequate by the farm organizations, and as good representatives of the farmers it is the duty of these members to get up and so advise the government.
By doing so they would be performing a useful service. If they fail to do so I would not be too surprised if the Minister of Trade and Commerce got the impression that if his own supporters from the prairie provinces are not at all interested in improving upon this legislation then it must be good enough, and the government will just go on merrily from year to year and keep extending it with all its inadequacies and do nothing about cash advances.
Therefore I invite these hon. members to take part in the debate and state in the house the same opinions I have heard them state at public meetings in their own constituencies. That is all I ask them to do. If they do that faithfully I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce will withdraw this inadequate resolution and probably early next week will bring in a resolution to provide for cash advances on farm-stored grain, with the government prepared to absorb the interest in the way the farm organizations have demanded.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot be quite as optimistic as the last speaker in believing that the minister will withdraw this legislation, though I quite agree that is the very best thing the minister

Grain
could do in the interests of the farmers and then bring down something more along the line the farmers are requesting.
One of the peculiarities of this parliament has been that during a period of so-called prosperity the government has been quite busy passing bill after bill to help stampede the people of the country further and further into debt.
Last year we raised the ceiling on loans under the Small Loans Act, the Industrial Development Bank Act and the National Housing Act. Then there was special treatment for agriculture, because the government realized that agriculture was not in as prosperous a position as other industries. Instead of trying to bring about conditions that would make it possible for agriculture to enjoy the same level of prosperity as other groups, the government merely took steps to make it possible for the farmers to plunge further and further into debt.
So we have had a succession of bills, a bill to increase the amount of money that can be borrowed under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, a bill to increase the amount of money that may be borrowed from the farm loan board, and now this prairie grain producers interim financing bill. This session we have increased the capital of the farm loan board so the board can lend more money. Now we have this bill which makes it possible for the banks to lend $3,000 to a farmer instead of $1,500. In other words it guarantees the banks against loss, and I think there is far more concern being shown for the bankers under this legislation than there is for the farmers.
It is quite evident that in the past few years agriculture has not enjoyed the same level of prosperity as other industries, and the government has done very little to help the farmers in that regard apart from paying the carrying charges on wheat carried over in the year in excess of 178 million bushels. The government apparently thinks it has fulfilled its obligation when it helps the farmers to go into debt which, of course, increases farm costs by expanding the interest charges the farmers have to pay.
We all realize that the farmers are obliged to sell their wheat through the wheat board. Unfortunately, owing to the government failing to adjust their marketing policies to handle a succession of large crops, the marketing channels for wheat have become congested. It is rather interesting to note that five months after the end of the crop year, on January 4 of this year, we see a situation in Alberta where two points were on a unit, 179 points were on 1 bushel, 245 points were on 2 bushels and 155 points were on 3 bushels.
[Mr. Quelch.l
That, mind you, was the situation five months after the end of the crop year.
How were those farmers expected to carry on in a situation of that kind? Naturally they were obliged to borrow money, unless they were in the fortunate position of having been able to build up a reserve. Some of the older farmers may be in that happy position, but unfortunately many of the younger farmers and veterans are finding it extremely difficult to finance. The Alberta Wheat Pool Budget of January 25, referring to a situation in the south, under the heading "Grain Not Being Moved", had this to say:
According to reports coming from the southern part of Alberta, farmers are not satisfied with the movement of grain from that area this year. They claim that promises by the wheat board to give extra consideration to points that wound up last year with low quotas have not been implemented.
I do not know whether or not the wheat board actually made that promise, but certainly we had the assurance of the Minister of Trade and Commerce last year that points which had a low quota at the end of the last crop year would be given special consideration this year. I have not found that to be the case. I made an investigation of a number of points where they had a low quota at the end of the crop year last year, and I found that they were on a low quota this year.
That fact did not have anything to do with the type of grain they had for sale. Hence those farmers naturally feel that they are being discriminated against, and they are not at all satisfied with the suggestion that legislation of this kind will meet their situation. As I say, as a consequence of this situation we have a great many of the young farmers leaving the farms because they find they can get a higher standard of living and far shorter hours of labour by going into other industries.
The western grain conference in 1956 urged the government to make cash advances against grain up to 50 per cent of the estimated delivery quota. I think that was a very moderate suggestion and a very fair one. Ever since that time the farm organizations have been making similar suggestions. I think the Gordon commission made one fairly good suggestion in this regard, though I am not by any means endorsing the majority of their proposals. However, at least they recognized that if all farmers were not able to deliver the same amount of wheat, there should be an obligation on the part of the wheat board or the government to accept enough wheat from the farmers so the quotas can be evened up. I think that was quite a fair suggestion.
We believe a number of steps should be taken to remove the present congestion of wheat. First of all we believe that there

should be an expansion of storage. If there were an expansion of storage it would be possible for farmers to deliver more wheat and legislation of this kind would not be needed. In addition, cash advances against grain stored on the farm would not be as important.
Then we feel there should be an expansion of sales by a number of methods such as, for instance, the acceptance of foreign currency, barter and, in the case of dire distress, gifts. I know the Minister of Trade and Commerce has never been sympathetic to that idea. Nevertheless the United States are continuing to expand their sales of wheat and the thing the Minister of Trade and Commerce prophesied would happen has not happened. The Minister of Trade and Commerce prophesied that if the government were to sell more wheat by the acceptance of foreign currency or barter, they would sell less wheat for dollars. What do we find in the United States? We find that they are expanding their sales for foreign currency and that they are at the same time expanding their dollar sales. Hence the main objections which the minister raised to that proposal seem to be melting away.
If the government are not prepared to take steps that will make it possible for the farmers to deliver more wheat, I think they would be justified in introducing legislation which would make it possible to divert land from the production of wheat and utilize it in other fields along lines similar to what was done in -connection with the soil bank in the United States, or under legislation that we had in this country during the war. I think that legislation was called the Wheat Acreage Reduction Act. Under it farmers were paid to sow land down to grass and into pasture, etc.
If there is a feeling that our reserve of wheat is getting too large and that the situation is going to continue, surely the logical thing would be to encourage the farmers to put some of their land into grasses which would help build up the fertility of the soil, so that when the day arrived when more wheat was needed we would have the land in good shape, ready for the cultivator, and it could be put back into cultivation and the need supplied.
I think the immediate need is for the government to adopt a system of cash advances, that is if they are really interested in providing legislation that the farmers want. The government could also help to remove the discrimination that exists in the quotas by raising the price of wheat so much a month, a cent a bushel a month or more, on the amount of .wheat that is going to be
Grain
delivered under the quota. We had legislation of that kind in operation some years ago, and it at least helped to remove the discrimination that existed as between farmers who could deliver their wheat and those farmers who were not able to do so. A program of that kind, of course, would apply only to the wheat that was going to be delivered under the quota in that year.
The main objections I have to the present legislation are first, that it provides for no interest charge. The old act provided for an interest charge of 5 per cent. None of us knows what interest rate is to be incurred under this legislation. The minister says it is too far ahead to say what the interest charge should be. From that I do not suppose we have any right to believe the minister intends to reduce the interest rate. I think everything would indicate that if the interest rate is changed it will be to a higher interest rate.
I want to point out that already, today, the farmers of this country are being severely penalized as a result of the government's monetary policy. That monetary policy today is to boost interest rates, no doubt in order to encourage foreign investment in this country, which has the direct result of appreciating the dollar. The Canadian dollar is quoted at about $1.04 in United States funds. I believe it has been as high as $1.05.
What effect has that on agriculture? It means that farmers today are obliged to take 7 cents a bushel less for their wheat as a result of government monetary policy. The governor of the Bank of Canada points out that having an appreciated dollar helps to reduce the cost of living in this country, and that the people as a whole benefit as a result of the price of imports being lowered. But what is the effect upon agriculture? The effect is that the farmers are penalized by being obliged to take a lower price for their exports. If it is to the advantage of the general Canadian economy to have an appreciated dollar, then it seems to me the government is under some obligation to -compensate the farmers for the penalty imposed upon them as a result of appreciating the Canadian dollar. I would point out that the appreciation of the Canadian dollar has practically wiped out the advantage of the government paying the cost of grain in storage.
Another point in this bill upon which I should like to comment is that if a farmer has not been able to repay his whole loan he cannot get a new loan. It stands to reason that if a farmer cannot sell his wheat, he is not going to be able to repay his loan. Then why should he be debarred from taking the new loan if, as a result of government policy, he is not able to sell his wheat

Grain
in order to repay his first loan? I think some consideration should be given to allowing a farmer to take an additional loan in cases where he has not been allowed to deliver more than a very small amount of wheat.
It is quite evident that there is not any enthusiasm in the country for this legislation. I was frankly amazed when the minister stated that all farm organizations had asked for this legislation to be introduced. We have had a number of farm organizations in Ottawa during this session, and every delegation that has appeared before our group has been asked, "What is your attitude toward this legislation; do you think we should support it or not?" We have not had a single delegate tell us that this legislation was of any great value. Several, I think, suggested the best thing we could do would be to oppose it. Not one delegate suggested that we should support this legislation; so if these organizations told the minister they were in favour of the legislation then apparently they are telling two different stories, because they have not given that story to this group when they have appeared before us.
They still feel that the only solution to this problem is cash advances. We feel that the government is under an obligation to introduce legislation which will make cash advances available until such time as adequate storage has been provided and sales expanded, which will make it possible for the farmers to bring about an orderly marketing of their wheat.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with the other members of the C.C.F. party as well as those in the other opposition political groups in the house in an attempt to convince the government of the desirability of replacing this legislation, which the minister is introducing, by other legislation to provide for a system of cash advances. I think the very fact that the government has been forced to introduce this unpopular legislation is an indication of the ineptitude of this government.
As indicated by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort, this is just a part of the larger problem which is confronting Canadian farmers. Indeed, I think this legislation is illustrative of the horse and buggy thinking of the government. In fact, when I think of this type of legislation, and the bankruptcy of the government, I think back to the thirties when we were farming with horses and the one obstacle we had in the field as we drove the horses down it was the ever-present danger of the horse stepping into a badger hole. Here we have the government preparing another badger hole in an

effort to wreck the efforts of the farmers in carrying out their operations.
I can notice some similarity between the government's policy in connection with farmers and the operation of the planning and works department of the city of Ottawa. I hope the government is not getting its ideas from the Ottawa road department, because there are pot holes in the city streets which would make a self-respecting western badger very envious. Each year the city works department goes around sprinkling a little bit of sand and gravel in the hole to make it look a little better, and each succeeding year it is chopped out again by the traffic. Here we have the government smoothing over this eruption in the western economy, the difficulty due to cash shortage, with a proposal for bank loans which no more meets the problem than does the patching of the roads in the city of Ottawa.
I think it is apparent that what is required is a rebuilding of our agricultural program. Perhaps I have given the government too much credit by implying that there was an agricultural program. Indeed, what is required is an agricultural program which will fit into all aspects of the Canadian economy, an agricultural program that will be geared to maximum production and maximum returns to the farmers of Canada. If we had such a system it would not be necessary to introduce this palliative of bank loans to remedy the severe cash shortage which is confronting western farmers.
I think an indication of this ineptitude is the fact that we have the largest grain carryover on record. The minister has stated that this has been due entirely to the bounties of nature. I cannot agree with that. I will say that in part it is due to the bounties of nature, due to the rainfall and the good climatic conditions we may have experienced, but it has been built up as a result of the failure of the government to apply an agricultural policy that would allow farmers to go into the production of other things rather than straight grain farming, where we have the security of the Canadian wheat board.
I think this legislation has been necessary because of the failure of this government to adopt realistic trade policies. Indeed, the delegates of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, at their annual convention this year, passed the following resolution, No. 5:
We recommend that the government of Canada should take all possible steps to develop trade arrangements involving increased imports of industrial goods from those countries which require substantial quantities of our agricultural products, and thus broaden the sales field available to the wheat board.

It is evident that the rank and file of the western farmers, the delegate body of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, are quite aware of the problems that are confronting us and are making suggestions which are continuously ignored by this government. The recent experience the farmers have undergone, of being forced to subsidize the Canadian millers so they could compete against the United States treasury in certain export markets, is another example of the shallow thinking of the government. The Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated that this action was necessary in order that Canadian wheat would find its way into the markets. In other words, because of the failure of this government to follow a realistic trade policy the wheat producers in western Canada are being forced to subsidize the millers by 4.5 cents to 8 cents a bushel.
I know what the minister's technique is in this connection. He will deny that the government has anything to do with it. In fact on page 1875 of Hansard for March 5, 1957, he said, in referring to the policy of subsidizing the Canadian millers, that this whole program was established by the wheat board. Previously, as recorded at page 1698 of Hansard for February 27, 1957, when the minister was asked a question about the allocation of box cars, he replied:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, priority has been given to those points. That was my instruction to the wheat board, and I know that the wheat board has been attempting to carry out that instruction.
There we have it. If the policy the wheat board is following happens to be favourable to this government they are only too anxious to take credit for it, but if it is an unpopular policy they again make the officials of the wheat board the whipping boy for government inefficiency.
The government has continued to compound the difficulties of the wheat board and of the farmers by refusing to appoint a transport controller.
It is part and parcel of this same problem of the need for cash advances owing to the inability of the farmers to market their grain. It was apparent that the former transport controller was under criticism from western farm organizations because of his failure to use the powers which he had to ensure that box cars were fairly allocated. His term of office expired at the close of shipping last year, and the government has just left the office vacant. It has now announced that this very difficult and onerous job is to be thrust upon the shoulders of the Canadian wheat board, so they will come under more difficulty in their operations.
Grain
In introducing this resolution the minister stated that he had never introduced a resolution that had met with such unanimous approval from farm organizations. I do not know where the minister gets his information, because I have resolutions passed by those same farm organizations which give me an indication of their thinking, and I should like to relay this information to hon. members.
We will go back to the annual report of the Saskatchewan wheat pool for 1953. One resolution dealing with their future policy states:
To bring into effect a plan of interim farm financing which will enable farmers unable to deliver grain at country elevators, to secure cash advances against grain in store on the farm.
In 1955 we have this same organization passing the following resolution:
That the organizations participating in this conference urge the government of Canada to make immediate provision for advances to farmers on grain in store on the farm; and further, that these advances should be up to one-half of the value of normal delivery expected and should be repayable on the basis of one-half of the value of each delivery made by the farmer.
This is another indication of the thinking of the delegate body of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. We find that at that same meeting instructions were given to the board of directors, as indicated in the resolution passed at that meeting, as follows:
That the board of directors give consideration to drafting a plan that will permanently meet the need for advances on farm-stored grain, and that this plan be presented to the next annual meeting of delegates.
We find that at that annual meeting the delegate body again favoured a system of cash advances on grain on the farm, as is outlined in resolution No. 8:
That cash advances should be made by elevator companies operating under a special line of credit, guaranteed by the federal Department of Finance.
They went on to outline a system of cash advances which they wanted this government to adopt. The interprovincial farm union council, in their memorandum on grain presented to the federal-provincial agricultural conference on December 3, had this to say:
The bank loan legislation implemented last year has not provided a solution. We feel a permanent system of cash advances must be instituted to provide financial assistance to farmers during periods when, due to congested facilities, they cannot deliver their produce.
There we have representative thinking of the farmers of western Canada, and I am quite certain that if you were again to ask the delegate body of the Saskatchewan wheat pool and the members of the interprovincial farm union council for their opinions they would reaffirm this declaration.
We find that the problem is of such far-reaching importance in western Canada that it has received the consideration of organized

Grain
labour. They have found that the cash shortage of farmers in western Canada is creating a hardship for them as well, and in the merger convention that the Saskatchewan federation of labour held in Regina in November of last year they, too, passed a resolution requesting cash advances on farm-stored grain through the elevator system. We can take it right down to the municipal authorities. At the annual meeting of the rural municipality of Newcombe No. 260, held on October 25, 1957, the following resolution was passed unanimously by the ratepayers present:
That we strongly protest the interest-bearing bank loan scheme as a solution to the farmers' financial plight and that we recommend a policy of interest-free advances on farm-stored grain.
It is apparent then, Mr. Chairman, that the farm organizations, the labour organizations and the farmers themselves are overwhelmingly in favour of a system of cash advances to deal with the present shortage in western Canada. This same indication was given by the select special committee on marketing and farm income of the Saskatchewan legislature. One of the recommendations for short-term policies recommended cash advances. It reads:
That a system of cash advances consisting of prepayment on farm-stored grain be implemented immediately, particularly in areas where grain delivery quotas have been unusually restrictive.
There we have the provincial representatives of the people of Saskatchewan in 1956 giving an indication that they too are overwhelmingly in favour of cash advances. The hon. member for Acadia referred to the preliminary report of the Gordon commission which indicated that a system of cash advances should be inaugurated. The report states in part.
Farmers' needs for cash income could be met by a system of intermediate payments based on the rate of delivery over the crop year.
By that I am not indicating my support for the report of the Gordon commission itself on wheat, but I did notice, Mr. Chairman, that this same indication was commented upon favourably by the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. Now, if you add up all the evidence I have placed on the record, indicating a desire for cash advances and opposition to the system of bank loans, I fail to see how the minister can state that he has brought this in on the recommendations of farm organizations. I have quoted the resolutions from those farm organizations, and I claim that those resolutions reflect the thinking of the rank and file of the membership of those same organizations.
It was pointed out by members of this group that the C.C.F. stand is that of requesting a system of cash advances rather

than bank loans. It was indicated that the problem is larger than that which can be solved by temporary palliatives, and that you cannot cure the economic ills of the country by introducing a system of cash advances.
It was also indicated by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort that cash advances fit into the proposal for orderly marketing which we in this group have been advocating. We have been the strongest proponents of orderly marketing through the Canadian wheat board, and we feel that the system of cash advances would fit very well into this system. On the other hand, the bank loans do not fit into this proposal. I say the cash advances fit into this proposal because they would play an effective role in distributing the income of the farmers over the year, and would allow them to compensate for the unequal quota position which they are experiencing at the present time.
The hon. member who led off for this group indicated that one-third of the marketing points in western Canada were on a 2-bushel quota.
It is apparent that we have some marketing points on a 2-bushel quota and some on a 5-bushel quota, a situation that developed and was encouraged by the government last year. On former occasions when each marketing point had the same quota there was not this same urgency for this type of remedial action. It is most unfair for one farmer to receive a return on five bushels to the acre when another is receiving a return on only two bushels to the acre.
This can be corrected by a system of cash advances rather than a system of bank loans which does nothing more than increase consumer indebtedness. That is something to which all hon. members of this house should give consideration, because there has been a serious increase in consumer indebtedness, and bank loans only contribute to compounding it. In fact, in 1950 consumer indebtedness in Canada was $1,034,000,000, and it has now doubled to a colossal $2,395,000,000. This is an indication of the path we are following.
The record of these bank loans is not one which would receive our hearty commendation, because we find that since its inception the average loan as at the end of January, 1957, according to my computation was $704.16. The average loan in the first period was $764.45, when the maximum amount was $1,500. There is apparently something wrong with this program other than the maximum amount of the loans. We find that the average loan in the second period from November, 1956, to January, 1957, dropped $70 to stand at $694.87. The cost to the government and to the banks since the inception of the bank

loan scheme has been nothing. It is true that there is still an amount of $140,000 outstanding for the first period, but it will be recovered in following years.
The government apparently are not so satisfied with their legislation, as is indicated by their grave tardiness in renewing it by order in council this fall. If there was such a serious cash shortage as the minister states-and indeed there was a serious cash shortage-why did not the government take some action instead of sleeping at the switch until Thursday, November 29, when the order in council was passed renewing the legislation? They had the power under the act to renew it from October 1, but instead they sat idly by until November 29, 1956.
The fancy footwork on the part of the minister in attempting to popularize this measure by changing the date from October 1 to September 1 will have little appeal to western farmers. As was pointed out, at September 1 most farmers are only starting to harvest their crops, and according to the regulations which are printed in the Canada Gazette they are required to indicate the quantity of threshed grain at the time of their application. If a farmer lived in one of those areas that had been flooded out or sustained a crop failure in the previous year he would be unable to benefit by virtue of the fact that this starts on September 1; but more dangerous than that is the fact that this measure encourages the indebtedness of farmers.
I feel the fact that the government is extending this legislation is an admission of the continued failure of its policies. It is apparent that we are going to experience the same congestion next year that we experienced this year, and we will have the same cash shortage next year that we have this year. These problems cannot be resolved by increasing the indebtedness of the farmers.
Another feature I observed which indicates that the government is experiencing difficulty concerning the operation of the act was in relating it to the same type of legislation passed in previous years. In 1951 when the grain was out under the snow the government introduced legislation providing a 5J per cent interest rate and a $1,000 maximum loan, and the maximum amount of capital held by the government was $20 million. In 1956 the interest rate was lowered to 5 per cent and the maximum loan was increased by $500 to $1,500. Then the government felt it was necessary to increase the capital amount to $50 million. In 1957 in the legislation which the minister is proposing he has supposedly
Grain
doubled the amount. We do not know what the interest rate is to be, but he is quite convinced there is not going to be an increased demand for the loans because the capitalization is not to be changed.
We are opposing this legislation, as we did last year, because we honestly believe it prevents the adoption of sound legislation to provide cash advances. I realize that the minister is quite capable of putting up straw men, donning a Sherlock Holmes hat and going around trying to find all kinds of evidence as to why the system of cash advances would not work. He is capitalizing on the difficulty he has in getting all the farm organizations in western Canada to agree to the letter of the proposal they want for cash advances.
According to information that was given to me by the delegate body and many of the directors of farm organizations, it is apparent that a system of cash advances is workable. I feel that as a federal government we owe something to the farmers of western Canada, and that we should bear the interest cost in order that their burden of debt should not be further compounded.
When farm organizations endeavour to improve upon this legislation they are put in the position of a quack doctor who is trying to decide whether he should administer a dose of castor oil or a dose of epsom salts to someone suffering from appendicitis. Both would be fatal. Similarly you cannot improve this legislation by changing the date from October to September and by increasing the maximum amount from $1,500 to $3,000. It is the basic legislation that is at fault, particularly in the way it fits into our economy.
I would like to reiterate the closing remarks of the hon. member for Dauphin, who appealed to the government to give this matter further consideration, to withdraw this legislation and introduce a system of cash advances which will prove universally popular in western Canada.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we shall continue with this tomorrow and, if it is completed, take the estimates of the Post Office Department.


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

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

Mr. Thatcher: 1.	Since January 1, 1957, what total loans have been made by the federal government In the province of Saskatchewan, for the purpose of building limited dividend projects for senior citizens?
2.	What was the location of each project, the number of units provided for, and the amount of the federal loan in each case?
Answer by: Mr. Bourgel, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
(1)	Since January 1, 1957, 16 loans totalling $3,221,073 have been approved for limited dividend companies for the purpose of building limited dividend projects, for senior citizens, in the province of Saskatchewan.
(2)	The location of each project, the number of units provided for, and the amount of the N.H.A. loan are:-
Hostel
Self-con- bed-accom-			Amount of
Location tained units	modation	loanAssiniboia ..	48	48	$367,214Balcarres ..	14	14	114,724Carnduff ...	20	20	185,296Estevan ....	24	24	212,508Kamsack ...	20	20	186,864Macklin ....	10	-	55,152Maple Creek	20	20	179,739Meadow Lake	20	20	185,083Middle Lake	30	-	147,888Ponteix ....	16	16	139,708Shaunavon .	20	20	179,110Swift Current	74	74	582,475Tisdale ....	18	16	158,085Unity 	20	20	184,000Wadena ....	16	16	155,870Watrous ....	20	20	187,357TOTAL	390	348	$3,221,073


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Kirk (Aniigonish-Guysborough): 1.	Which government is responsible for designating the route of the trans-Canada highway in Nova Scotia?
2.	What route was specified in the original agreement between the federal and provincial governments?
3.	Was any change made in the route since the original agreement was signed?
4.	If so, when, in what respect, and at whose request?
5.	Has the government of Nova Scotia requested further changes in the location of the route?
6.	If so, when, and in what respect?
Answer by:	Mr. Bourgei, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	The government of the province of Nova Scotia, subject to approval by the federal government.
2.	Schedule "A" of the original agreement specified the route as follows:
"Generally from the New Brunswick-Nova Scotia border via route 4 to the strait of Canso, crossing the strait via the proposed causeway, and thence to the Newfoundland ferry terminal at North Sydney via a route to be determined as a result of further surveys.
The trans-Canada highway in Nova Scotia shall also include that portion of highway from the junction of the West river-Pictou road at route 4, to Pictou, and thence to the Prince Edward Island ferry terminal at Caribou."
3.	Yes.
4.	The government of the province of Nova Scotia requested a change of route which was incorporated in schedule "A" of the trans-Canada highway agreement, of September 4, 1956, as follows:
"From the New Brunswick-Nova Scotia border to Oxford, thence via route 4 to Sutherland river, thence via Merigomish, Arisag and Antigonish to the strait of Canso, crossing the strait via the causeway to Port Hastings; and thence via Whycocomagh and Baddeck to the Newfoundland ferry terminal at North Sydney. On the portion between Sutherland river and Antigonish, Canada's participation will be limited to a distance of 30.4 miles.
The trans-Canada highway in Nova Scotia shall also include that portion of highway from the junction of the West river-Pictou road at route 4, to Pictou, and thence to the Prince Edward Island ferry terminal at Caribou."
5.	Yes.
6.	A revision of schedule "A" of the agreement of September 4, 1956, was requested on February 5, 1957. The route specified is now as follows:
"The trans-Canada highway in Nova Scotia shall proceed generally from the New Brunswick-Nova Scotia border to Oxford; thence via route 4 to the strait of Canso, crossing the strait via the causeway to Port Hastings; thence via Whycocomagh, Baddeck and Little Bras d'Or to the Newfoundland ferry terminal at North Sydney.
The trans-Canada highway in Nova Scotia shall also include that portion of highway from the junction of the West river-Pictou road at route 4 to Pictou, and thence to the Prince Edward Island ferry terminal at Caribou."


ARMED SERVICES
Mr. MacLean: 1.	What was the total number of enlistments in the (a) navy; (b) army; (c) Royal Canadian Air Force, during the year 1956?
2.	What is the total number of discharges for all reasons during the same period in each case?
3.	What was the total strength of each of the three services at the end of 1956?
Answer by: Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):
	(a)	(b)	(c)
			air
navy	army	force1. Enrolments in 1956 .	2,686	7,409	7,1862. Net releases in 1956.	2,904	6,939	6,9763. Strength Dec. 31, 1956	19,005	47,632	50,540AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS,	1956-	-FATALITIES	
Question No. 217-Mr. Hansell:
1. How many people in Canada have been killed by reason of automobile accidents during 1956?
Questions
2. How many of these were the result of accidents at railway crossings in each of the provinces?
Answer by:	Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
1. This information is not available for 1956. The number of people killed by automobile accidents in Canada in 1955 was 3,037.
2. This information is not available for 1956. The number of fatalities in motor vehicle traffic accidents involving collision with railway trains in 1955 was:
Canada	 168
Newfoundland	 2
Prince Edward I	 -
Nova Scotia	 1
New Brunswick	 6
Quebec	 42
Ontario	 75
Manitoba	 10
Saskatchewan	 12
Alberta	 12
British Columbia	 8

Thursday, March 14, 1957