1957-12-14

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he could tell the house what steps, in addition to those taken yesterday, the government proposes to take at this session "to make both houses of this parliament more effective in the discharge of their duties to the people of Canada".


Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the government has already taken quite a few actions-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: What about the axe you wielded yesterday?


Howard Charles Green: -to make the business and the standing of parliament better during the present session, and the hon. member will just have to wait and see further developments.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Acting Prime Minister. I would like to ask him if he has tabled or will now table a copy of the letter reported in the press this morning as having been received yesterday by the government, through the Prime Minister, from Mr. Bulganin of Russia, so the house may have the letter as well as the press information.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the letter addressed to the Prime Minister from Premier Bulganin was delivered yesterday afternoon by the Soviet ambassador. The letter was in Russian and was accompanied by what was described as an unofficial embassy translation. The note is now being translated and studied, and any comment by the government would have to await this careful examination.
The principal features of the note have been published in the papers this morning. For the most part it resembles the letters sent to President Eisenhower, Prime Minister Macmillan and others.
There are, however, a few passages specifically referring to Canada. The proposals in the note will undoubtedly be given careful consideration at the NATO council meeting in Paris, and I hope to be able to table the translation the first of the week.


Major James William Coldwell: I notice that the Prime Minister has already commented on the note. Could we receive the comment as well, since the note is characterized as propaganda by the Prime Minister?


Howard Charles Green: I think the comment must have been made on the basis of this unofficial translation by the Russian embassy. There has as yet been no official translation by the Department of External Affairs.


Major James William Coldwell: Is this consistent with the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) that we should not always say no without proper examination?



PATENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alex B. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Secretary of State could give the house an indication of when the report of the royal commission on copyright will be available.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, apparently when I referred to this matter on October 28 with reference to the possibility of the tabling of this report I was overoptimistic. In any event the situation now is that the galley proofs are being checked for the English text, and even after they are ready the page proofs will still have to be checked. The hold-up is largely one of the mechanics of providing the printed copy. We expect now that it may be possible to get the English text through by the 17th or 18th of this month, but that again I cannot promise because I do not know just how long it will take to put this through the plant. Whether the French text will be ready at the same time is quite problematic. I should think not; maybe it will take another week or so after that. In any event I can assure the hon. member that we are most anxious

Inquiries of the Ministry to get this done as quickly as possible, and that every effort is being directed toward this end.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can the minister inform me when I may expect an answer to a question I asked which was made an order for return on November 20? The minister will recall that I brought this matter to his attention the other day.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman did mention this matter to me two days ago, and I have asked the department to expedite the return. I will make further inquiries to ascertain when it will be ready.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Earlier in the session I asked the Prime Minister whether amendments would be brought in to the hospital insurance act to provide for the coverage of tuberculosis sanatoria and mental hospitals. His answer was yes, that such amendments would be brought in. Can the minister say whether it is the intention of the government to have this legislation brought in before the Christmas recess?


Hon. J. W. Monieiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, it is not, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister inform the house as to the date on which the government intends to have tuberculosis sanatoria and mental hospitals covered under the act?


Jay Waldo Monteith: This whole matter is one of government policy. I do not think I can say anything further.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, or his deputy, notice of


which has been given. Has the federal government as yet received from the province of British Columbia a report relating to that province's studies of the hydro resources of the Columbia river? If not, when does the federal government expect to receive such a report?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no. In answer to the second, 1 can only say that this depends on the progress of the studies by the province, which is a matter within the control of the provincial government. No definite date for the report has been indicated.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Wesiminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, and in his absence possibly the house leader would be prepared to answer. In view of the fact that no recommendations are being voiced from this house to the board of governors of the C.B.C. for their consideration, would the minister advise the house when it is expected to set up a special committee to study the actions of this hallowed corporation?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice and draw it to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue.



DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Agriculture. Has the government received any recent representations from joint western farm organizations requesting deficiency payments on the 1955-56 crop and, if so, will the government give them consideration rather than giving the kind of answer I received some time ago?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, representations in regard to deficiency payments on the 1956-57 crop have been received from a considerable number of agricultural organizations, some small

and some large. We have looked into the matter, of course, and have given consideration to it.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister just what consideration has been given?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Close attention was given to the proposal which was made.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May we take it from the minister's answer that at some time during the session the government will announce its policy in this regard?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that we continue to announce our policy with regard to these matters as the occasion and the circumstances make it necessary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In accordance with the T.V. schedules.



INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister tell the house if an announcement will be forthcoming regarding the extension and amendment of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be possible to make an announcement on this subject at an early date, probably after parliament reconvenes in January.



SOCIAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I regret not having sent him notice of my intention to ask this question, but I have no doubt that he does not require notice. Will he explain to the house why the old age assistance people in British Columbia did not receive the $9 increase in their pension cheques at the end of November?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I cannot at the moment, Mr. Speaker. I was not actually aware that they had not received it. I know we have had indications that many of the
Inquiries of the Ministry provinces have given the increase. In fact I signed agreements with several of the provinces to bring this $9 increase into effect, but I cannot tell the house exactly what the situation is in British Columbia.


Erhart Regier: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government of British Columbia yet signed its agreement with the federal government in respect thereto?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I cannot advise the house on that question, Mr. Speaker, without looking the matter up. I would be very glad to let the hon. member know.
[Later:!
Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-
Clare): May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could he tell the house with which provinces he has signed agreements concerning increases in the Old Age Assistance Act?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would be happy to report that on Monday. I cannot say offhand.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You cannot remember?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have as good a memory as the hon. member.


Mr. Lesage:: Has Quebec signed?



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. Now that the press reports that the farm organizations have taken a very dim view of the proposed legislation for price supports for farm commodities, will the minister give serious consideration to amending the bill before it is brought before the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This matter is on the order paper for discussion today, and I do not think it is proper to engage in questions at this stage.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, the answer to which might affect the course of the debate on the agricultural prices support resolution and the bill to follow. Is the minister in a position to say whether or not the government will accept the recommendations of farm organizations to have this legislation referred to the agriculture committee so these organizations may make representations to that committee?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have not received or seen any recommendations along that line, so I am not in a position to make a statement about the matter.



WHEAT-REPORTED PURCHASE OF 1,500,000 BUSHELS BY AUSTRALIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question arising out of a news report in this morning's Gazette, which says that Australia will buy 1,500,000 bushels of Canadian wheat. Will the minister inform the house whether or not there are negotiations going on for the sale of larger quantities of wheat?


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on a previous occasion I have explained that active negotiations are going on for the sale of wheat, but I think it is undesirable to give details in this house. As I have said previously, I think anyone who wants wheat sold will not want the details of the negotiations made public.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Is the acting minister aware of the fact that, according to this press report, trade minister John McEwen of Australia has made such an announcement? Will the minister confirm the fact that such a deal has been made or is about to be made?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When I have seen the report I will be prepared to comment on it.
1L ater:]


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, now that I have sent a copy of the press story on the Australian wheat deal with Canada to the minister, is the minister in a position to confirm the report?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I now have the newspaper report which says, "Australia Plans Big Wheat Order From Canada". I think the hon. member must give me time to find the exact stage of the negotiations. I certainly hope it will go through, but I think I must take the question as notice. At the moment I cannot express a definite opinion as to the exact situation.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate the answer of the minister, but I think in fairness to the house I should point out that he read the headline rather than reading the actual report, and the actual report is much more definite than the headline.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, I thought I had given a fair indication. Actually the first paragraph reads:
Trade minister John McEwen said Australia will import 1,500,000 bushels of high protein Canadian wheat.
I think that is what the hon. member wished me to read. There again it expresses an intention on the part of the Australian government, which I certainly hope will be carried out. But at the moment I do not think I can give an absolute statement as to the situation. I do not want to say something definite, and then have to come back and correct it.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lomer Brisson (Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, owing to the absence of the minister I should like to address a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister approved of the directive issued by the Iron Ore Company of Canada to the effect that English will be the only official language used for railway operations on the railway from Seven Islands to Schefferville?


Mr. A. R. MacDonald (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question of the hon. member as notice and bring it to the attention of the minister.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Caslleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the house when those farmers who qualify under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act may receive payments from the government?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, prairie farm assistance payments will begin this month.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the

minister be stopping off at London either on his way to Paris or on his return? If so, will he discuss with the authorities there the way in which they have increased the pensions of retired civil servants, in the hope that he might suggest something comparable thereto on his return to Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the plans I had made for departure yesterday did contemplate that on my way back from Paris I would have a day and a half in London, which I had hoped to spend usefully in certain conferences. Whether I am able to go to the NATO council at all now depends upon whether this bill on which we are engaged is carried this morning. If I am able to go this afternoon I still hope to have some opportunity for conferences in London on the way back.
As to the particular matter my friend speaks of, I have indicated already on several occasions, Mr. Speaker, that this matter has been under very close study for some time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Twelve years.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. We are speaking of the new government. I cannot take any responsibility for what happened in that regard before we assumed office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Were not the results of the former studies left behind in the minister's office?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Whatever studies had been made certainly were not adequate for the purpose, and extensive studies have since been made. We have been gathering a great deal of statistical information, and that gathering of information has occupied much more time than I think my hon. friend may have realized would be necessary for the purpose.
So far as discussions with the United Kingdom are concerned, I do not think those are necessary. Among other things one may have the opportunity to ask some questions on this subject, but we know pretty well what has been the course of discussion on a similar subject in the parliament at Westminster, in the light of steps that were taken there.
Therefore whether or not I have an opportunity to discuss that subject in London on the way back from Paris, if I am able to go to Paris now, will not, I think, materially affect the government's program in this regard.
Inquiries of the Ministry COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE



DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a supplementary question. If the minister does get to Paris, and I am sure we all hope he will and we will do everything we can to facilitate him, and does stop in London on his return, will he be discussing with Mr. Thorneycroft the proposal for a free trade area?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank my hon. friend for his assurance. I do appreciate the co-operation of the house in trying to get this measure disposed of as quickly as may be. I hope on my return from Paris to have a conference with Mr. Thorneycroft in relation to the plans that are being made for the meetings of officials to lay plans for the commonwealth trade and economic conference to be held next year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman be willing to lay before the house the proposed agenda for that commonwealth conference, so all of us may have some idea what the Canadian government is proposing in the way of methods of increasing commonwealth trade?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there is no agenda yet and there cannot be-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what I thought.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -until after these preparatory conferences. The purpose of the preparatory conferences is not only to arrange matters in relation to date, time, place and physical arrangements, but also to take up the question of an agenda. This will be the subject of communications and discussions with the various governments of the commonwealth. I cannot say more than that at the present time in anticipation of what may occur at the preparatory conferences.


Mr. Chevrier:: You have been preparing for several months.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to ask the minister if he can tell us when he anticipates the conference will be held. I mean a possible date.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Various communications
have been exchanged on the subject, and there are the usual problems in arriving at a date that will be convenient to all countries of the commonwealth. One of the purposes of the first of the meetings of officials to be held in London early in the new year is to
2372	HOUSE OF
Buffalo and Fort Erie Bridge review these questions and arrive at a considered recommendation to submit to the commonwealth governments.
It is quite clear that there will be a conference in 1958, but the precise date has not been settled yet. Preferences have been expressed by various countries for dates running from the late summer into the autumn, and it is a matter of fitting in with plans, some of them involving political events, in the various countries. In other cases it is a matter of fitting them in with other international conferences involving finance ministers.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Could the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house what safety precautions are planned during the testing of the Trans-Canada pipe line between Winnipeg and the lakehead to ensure that if an explosion takes place the residents along the route will be fully protected?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think I must take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres asked me whether or not tenders were called for the refitting of the Labrador. The answer is that tenders were not called. In accordance with the standard practice for the repair and refitting of major naval vessels, the contract was allotted to Saint John Dry Dock Company Limited on the recommendation of the Canadian maritime commission.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the announcement of an explosion on Ripple rock in British Columbia, which is now in the press, can the minister tell us if, in the event of


damage many miles away to homes and private property, reparations are going to be made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that question is rather hypothetical at this stage. The hon. member might defer it until he ascertains whether or not there has been any damage.



BUFFALO AND FORT ERIE PUBLIC BRIDGE COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 194, respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company-Mr. Fleming-Mr. Courte-manche in the chair.
On clause 1-Appointment of Canadian members.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps I could just say very briefly that this bill was given second reading in the house with explanatory statements on Thursday. It was passed without opposition. Indeed it was commended by the hon. member for Niagara Falls. Yesterday the bill was before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, where it was further considered and was reported, I believe, unanimously by the committee.


Mr. McMillan:: May I just say a word on this bill in the absence of the hon. member for Niagara Falls. Before the last redistribution bill Fort Erie was in my riding. I may say that at no time did I ever make a recommendation in connection with a change of the personnel of the commission on that bridge or on the Canadian legal counsel appointed by the government of the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. I would like to say to the minister that we have three members of the bridge commission who are very efficient and highly regarded in their communities, and I would suggest that they be included in the new commission along with his two new appointees.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, before this bill is passed I wish the minister would satisfy me on a point which has been giving me some concern. I am sorry I am not a member of the committee and I have not yet received the minutes of that meeting.
We in our province are very much concerned with the subject of the bridges on which we have to pay tolls, and we have always been very anxious that the government or the bridge authority should make it very clear to us when we may expect to see the day when any particular bridge will be toll free, because we believe that basically tolls are a hindrance to progress.

I notice that the bill contains nothing which would indicate to the people most interested in this particular bridge, or in the use of that bridge, that the time may ever come when the bridge might be toll free. Even in the wording of the bill I see there is a listing of several dates and possibilities with respect to toll rates, and these words, "whichever is the later of the dates". What would happen in the case of the indebtedness being paid off before the year 1992? Have the people who are most concerned any reason to expect that they will ever have a toll free bridge?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer this question positively. This bridge was not originally built as a publicly owned bridge, but the money was obtained by the issuance of bonds which are held in private hands. There is provision in this bill for the eventual vesting of the bridge, but in the meantime the occasion has presented itself for submitting this bill to the house. Once again I cannot stress too strongly that it is a very urgent matter, since as of January 1, if we do not get this bill through and get the appointments made, the Canadian representation on the authority will be in a minority position. There is nothing in this bill that deals with the subject of tolls; that is a question for the future, and will have to await the vesting.
Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, December 13, consideration in committee of Bill No. 232, to amend the Income Tax Act-Mr. Fleming- Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
On clause 3.
Mr. Barnett:: The minister will recall that when the house adjourned at ten o'clock last night I had asked him for some information in respect to the amount of the reduction in the receipts of the Department of National Revenue from income tax, as a result of carrying forward the $30 per year reduction to those in the higher income tax brackets. I wonder if the minister has been able to come up, in the interval, with a figure as to what the estimated amount would be in that connection.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, in round figures the number of taxpayers who pay income tax on the first $2,000 of taxable income only is approximately three million, and the number of persons paying tax on taxable income in excess of $2,000 is about one and a half million.
Income Tax Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this is the clause which continues to leave a rate of taxation on the first $1,000 of income over the present exemption levels of $1,000 for a single person and $2,000 for a married person. As the committee is well aware, we argued yesterday, and in fact we put it before the house in the form of a motion, that the least that should now be done would be for that rate to be diminished. It is still our view that the party now in power should carry out the policy which it had when it was on this side of the house, namely that there should be no income tax on the first $1,000 of income over the present exemption level; in other words that these exemption levels should be increased.
The minister has sought to dispel the idea that the Conservative party promised to raise the exemption levels. He made the statement last night, that the Prime Minister did not make such a promise, and every time it has been contended from this side of the house that this was the position of the party now in power, we have been given to understand that we were twisting the record. Well, I may say that I have gone through the record. I do not intend this morning to take the time of the house to quote all that I have found, but I may say that over the past number of years there have been repeated occasions when members of the Conservative party have stood up in this house and said they were in favour of raising the exemption levels to $1,500 for single persons and $3,000 for married persons.
Some of those hon. members might now be described as backbenchers, who were not necessarily speaking for the party. I do not think, however, that their statements can be dismissed, especially when they were made by such persons as the former member for Hastings-Frontenac, now appointed to another place. I do not think the words of the present Secretary of State can be dismissed. She argued quite definitely on more than one occasion that the exemptions should be raised to $1,500 single and $3,000 married.
But, Mr. Chairman, let me quote from the record of Hansard the exact words of no less a person than the hon. member for Eglinton, now Minister of Finance. I am looking at page 474 of Hansard for January 24, 1956. Let it be perfectly clear, as it will be from the sentences I will read, that the present Minister of Finance was not just speaking for himself. He seldom did when he was on this side of the house. He always spoke for the party, and he made it clear on that occasion that that was what he was doing. He was speaking in the debate on the address on January 24, 1956. When he referred to

Income Tax Act
the minister of finance he was, of course, referring to Mr. Walter Harris, who held the portfolio at that time. These were the words of the present Minister of Finance:
If the Minister of Finance is not prepared to go as far as Conservative policy advocates-
The word "Conservative" is printed with a capital C, so it was not just an idea of the hon. member for Eglinton; he was telling us what was the policy of his party.
If the Minister of Finance is not prepared to go as far as Conservative policy advocates in this respect, namely $1,500 for single persons and $3,000 for married persons without dependants, then at least we hope he will take a generous step in that direction.
This, Mr. Chairman, is a clear cut statement by the present Minister of Finance, when he was in opposition, as to where his party stood. Later in the same session- this was last year, 1956, on July 3-we were debating the amendments to the Income Tax Act, the very stage at which we now find ourselves, and the present Minister of Finance condemned Mr. Harris for not having done what he, the hon. member for Eglinton, had called upon him to do on January 24, namely for not having raised the exemption levels as had been demanded by representatives of the Progressive Conservative party. I may say that the words of the present Minister of Finance in that session were not uttered by him as one lone voice crying in the Conservative wilderness, but were supported by those whom I have already named, as well as by others.
Now, Mr. Chairman, anyone who takes the index to Hansard, looks up the Income Tax Act, and then looks down until he comes to the word "exemptions" can find there in the pages of Hansard across the years representatives of the Conservative party advocating that exemption levels should be raised and, in specific terms, that they should be raised to $1,500 single and $3,000 married.
When, against such a background, the leader of a party, particularly the hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister, goes into an election campaign and promises there will be tax cuts, promises that there will be given back to the people the $10 a month by which, he said, they were being overtaxed, I say the Canadian people had every right to believe that was the Prime Minister's way of saying that the Conservative policy indicated in the House of Commons by the present Minister of Finance would be implemented.
I am going to avoid making any reference to newspaper reports of what the Prime Minister said, because he is not here in this house to confirm or deny the accuracy of such reports, but I do want to read one or two quotations from statements he made over the
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
C.B.C., in this case over a radio hook-up. He made similar statements on television as well. Speaking from Vancouver on May 24, 1957, the present Prime Minister said:
We shall put an end to excessive overtaxation. We shall call a session of parliament in September to reduce taxes, and at that session, with $500 million of overtaxation last year, we will be able to increase old age pensions and other pensions to fair and reasonable amounts. The Liberals tell you it is not possible to lower taxes and increase pensions at the same time. Give us a chance-we will show you!


Some hon. Members:: We have.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I paused for a moment, hoping there would be an interjection. The Prime Minister went on:
Any party that cannot do this with that surplus does not deserve to be made responsible for public funds.
Hon. members opposite interjected that they have done what the Prime Minister said. Well, Mr, Chairman, in the same speech from Vancouver the Prime Minister used these words:
We do not begrudge the government the money it needs to run the country, but couldn't you use the $10 a month which the government does not need but still takes from you?
Hon. gentlemen opposite say the government is implementing what the Prime Minister undertook to do. The Prime Minister promised that his party, if it was given a chance, would show us what it could do; that it would give back to the people of Canada the $10 a month which the Liberals were taking from them in overtaxation. We now have before us a clause of this bill which the Minister of Finance admitted a moment ago, in answer to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, provides not more than $20 a year reduction in income tax for three million income taxpayers-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, no; $30.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am sorry. Did I misunderstand the minister? I thought he said there were three million who paid income tax only on $1,000 of taxable income-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The first $2,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: accept the correction. There are three million taxpayers who pay tax on $2,000 of taxable income or less, and to those three million the saving by virtue of this clause is $30 a year or less, depending on the amount of their income. But $30 a year is the most that any of these three million people will save as a result of this proposal. Thirty dollars a year is $2.50 a month. If hon. gentlemen opposite want to call that the implementation of the Prime Minister's promise to give back $10 a month, they can try if they wish. The fact is that many of those three million people do not pay

tax on $2,000 taxable income, so the saving effected by them is a lot less even than $2.50 a month.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think it is time something pretty straight was said about the political morality of a party which takes one stand when it is on one side of the house and another stand when it is on the other side. I think I could choose words of my own to express what people think about this kind of political morality, but I will forbear. I will quote instead a recognized authority, one that is certainly recognized by my hon. friends opposite in view of the ways in which they seem to be copying some of the things he did. I refer to the late Viscount Bennett, who at the time he made the remarks I shall now read was the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, Conservative prime minister of Canada. He did not call himself a Progressive Conservative, he was just a straight Conservative. Some say he was a Liberal-Conservative, but I cannot keep track of all these changes in party names.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was nothing Liberal about him.


An hon. Member:: He did not belong to the C.C.F. anyway.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Someone said he did not belong to the C.C.F.; we know that.


Mr. Hodgson:: I think he was a Liberal-C.C.F.


Stanley Howard Knowles: However, the same Mr. Bennett tried on his political deathbed to bring in some progressive legislation. We know what happened to it, and now when we try to bring back some of that progressive legislation you know what happens to it on the floor of this house.
These were the remarks of Mr. Bennett on the subject of the political morality of people changing their views when they move from one side of the house to the other. He was speaking on July 27, 1931, as reported at page 4200 of Hansard for that year. It is true that he was directing his fire at the Liberals for having changed their views on moving from the government side to the opposition side, but as hon. members will see Mr. Bennett's words apply with equal force to those who move from the opposition side to the government side. These were the words of Mr. Bennett:
I must say that I do not believe the Canadian people think it is necessary for political leaders who one day are in power and the next day are in opposition to revile when in opposition all that they held most dear when they were in power, to change their ground, to shift their position and say, "That which I asked you to accept I now ask you to condemn; that which I told you I believed
Income Tax Act
in then I no longer believe in. I misled you when I told you to do thus and so, not knowing whether X knew or not; I instructed you right then, but now, with changed conditions all that is wrong, all that is nonsense, all that is absurd. What I want to do now is to condemn this thing."
Those are Mr. Bennett's words, and I apply them directly to a party whose present Minister of Finance said in this house last year that it was Conservative policy to raise exemption levels to $1,500 single and $2,000 married, to a party whose leader in the election campaign said, "Give this party a chance and we will raise pensions and reduce taxes; we will put back into your pockets that $10 a month which the Liberals were overcharging you." This is a party that now having gone to the other side of the house, when we propose these things follows a course of action such as we have had in this house in the last day or so, of doing its best to avoid even having to face votes on amendments designed to implement the very things that members of that party said they stood for when they were in opposition and when they were out on the hustings.
I insist, Mr. Chairman, that the Canadian people do not like this sort of thing. It is most disillusioning. Some of the things that have happened here lately at the instigation of those who a year ago were talking about the dignity of parliament and respect for the chair are disillusioning to the people of this country. And what this minister is trying to do right now, in saying that his party did not promise to raise these exemption levels, and asking us to settle for these rates of tax that still apply to the low income people that the Conservatives condemned the Liberals for taxing, is the kind of political morality that merits the condemnation that Mr. Bennett indicated back in 1931 in those words I quoted. It is still the case under this clause that three million people, who in the words of the Conservatives have been overtaxed $10 a month, are on their own terms still being overtaxed at least $7.50 a month.
Those are not my words, and those are not my figures. That is the ground the present party in power chose for election purposes. That is the ground upon which we have the right to judge them in this house at the present time. Of course we welcome the reduction of $2.50 in the taxes on these three million people, but I say to the party opposite that they will be held to account not merely for the policies they bring into the house or fail to bring into the house, but will also be held to account for political morality of this type.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, hon. gentlemen will recognize, I am sure, that if I do not make extended reply to my hon. friend's

Income Tax Act
remarks it is because of the pressure of the clock under the circumstances of this day. We have had this subject up before, and I must invite my hon. friend's attention to what I said on this subject on December 13, at page 2362 of Hansard, where I am recorded as saying:
Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister did not make any promise to the Canadian people in the campaign that if he were elected to office he would bring about a reduction in the tax through the medium of an increase of exemptions to $1,500 for single persons and $3,000 for married persons. Mr. Chairman, nothing would please the present Minister of Finance more than to be able to introduce responsibly such a proposal; but I come back to the point I have made already several times, that we were under very severe limitations coming into office now and having to function within the scope of an existing budget. The fact is, sir, that to put into effect an increase to $1,500 in the basic exemption for single persons and $3,000 for married persons would cost the treasury of this country approximately $530 million, and that kind of money was not available in the balance of ways and means within the scope of the budget that was passed at the last session of the house before dissolution.
I have said it there and there is no point in my attempting to repeat it now. That is the position; that is the fact, and having regard to what my hon. friend has said concerning views expressed by myself and other members of my party when in opposition, there has been no departure from those views.
We would like nothing better than to be in a position to proceed now to put such figures into effect but we have to accept the situation, and in this bill we have done what we asked the former government to do. In the language attributed to me on January 24, 1956, by the hon. gentleman, we have taken a generous step in the direction we asked the former government to take.
I remind my hon. friend that we have done a great many things this session; the increases in the various pensions, together with the increases in the-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. gentleman is in a hurry and we are anxious to facilitate his departure, but surely talking about other things done during this session is outside the ambit of this bill.


Mr. Benidickson:: He is filibustering.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I had one sentence on this subject to deal with the point raised by the hon. gentleman, when he said we had not carried out a particular promise to lower taxes and raise pensions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is not a general debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The point is that we have done both of those things. My hon. friend is not right in his figures. My hon. friend talks

about a $30 reduction, and he is completely glossing over the fact that we have proposed increases in the exemptions for dependants. He has completely failed to make reference to that fact in the figures he has given. If he will look at the table I put on Hansard at page 2008 on December 6 he will see there the benefits that accrue to the kind of taxpayer he is referring to from the combined effect of the reduction in rates and the increase in the exemptions.
If he looks at the first column at the bottom of page 2008 he will see that to a married man with an income of $4,000, of which $2,000 is taxable, the net benefit in the reduction in rate and increase in exemption, where he has four dependent children qualified for family allowances; is $76 and that brings about a reduction of 43 per cent in the tax that he has hitherto been paying.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question. Can he give a similar figure for a taxpayer having a taxable income of $500 with-was it two dependants?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, this figure was for four.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A taxpayer having four dependent children and a taxable income of $500?


Donald Methuen Fleming: How many dependants?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Four. I want to make it comparable, to be fair. I refer to a taxable income of $500.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend, I take it, is assuming that he has already received the benefit of the increase in exemption to arrive at the taxable income of $500. Before he arrives at that taxable income he will already have received the benefit of a total increase of $400 in his exemption for his dependants.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want the hon. gentleman to make it strictly comparable. He gave a figure for a taxpayer with a taxable income of $2,000. I would like the strictly comparable figure for a taxpayer with a taxable income of $500. I am very anxious that the conditions should be precisely similar.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has any particular case in mind, but it seems to me he should give the age of the dependants.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it makes any difference whether the children are above or below family allowance age; it is $100 anyway, as I understand it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In that case I am informed that the combined effect of the exemptions increase and reduction in rates would reduce that man's tax from $65 to $11.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would reduce it from $65 to $11?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I note that the Minister of Finance still follows the course of brushing aside his own promises by saying the Prime Minister did not promise to raise the exemption levels to $1,500 and $3,000; but may I point out that when the Minister of Finance made the statement he did in this house on January 24, 1956, he said it was Conservative policy. I would like to know if that policy has been rescinded by his party and, if so, when? Or is it that the Prime Minister has overruled the statement of Conservative policy which the Minister of Finance made?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Neither the Prime Minister nor myself made any such promise in the campaign. The promise was to reduce taxes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance cannot deny that in this House of Commons the Conservatives argued for a raising of the exemption levels. One cannot collect all these statements that were made on the hustings, but it is a fact that the Minister of Transport repeated this promise at Gananoque on May 23. I submit that when the Prime Minister, on the background of what was said in the House of Commons by responsible members of the party such as the Minister of Finance, said that his party would bring in these grandiose tax reductions; when he said, "Give us a chance and we will show you", that was giving the Canadian people reason to believe that Tory policy would be carried out.
For the minister to stand up now and say that this government has carried out the statement he made on January 24, 1956, is a honey. He asked Mr. Harris to implement Conservative policy, namely $1,500 exemption for single persons and $3,000 for married persons, and then he said if he could not do it all "we hope he will take a generous step in that direction".
I can imagine how readily the Minister of Finance would have approved of any mere step which Mr. Harris might have taken in that direction. If he had not gone the whole way the minister would have said that was not enough. Now he comes along and says, even though he has not raised the exemption levels at all but has merely taken off those two percentage points, that he is implementing the alternative part of the suggestion he made to Mr. Harris in 1956. Surely, the whole point of that statement was that this was the Conservative policy. We now find that the Conservatives have gone to the other side of the house and have in effect rescinded their policy by their lack of action on this matter.
Income Tax Act


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Chairman, in view of the minister's frequent statements that this was the best they could do because of the situation they found when they came into office, may I ask the minister to explain to the committee what material difference existed in the general financial picture in Canada as between the month of May of this year and, let us say, the month of September? In other words, last spring the minister was able to make certain demands for tax reduction. What did he find, after coming into office, that caused him to believe that the things he stated before the election the Conservatives were going to do cannot be done at the present time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: These are the things, Mr. Chairman, that I reviewed in my statement a week ago last night. They have been repeated since. They are all set forth there, the effects on the revenues and the expenditures.


Mr. Herridge:: I should like to ask the
minister this question. If he finds himself unable to give this promised tax reduction now, is he contemplating doing it in the next budget he introduces in this house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps my hon. friend will let me reserve any proposals that may be made at that time until I have the honour to bring down a budget.


Erhart Regier: The minister has gone some considerable length in emphasizing the things he found upon assuming office, yet these changes are to take effect only on January 1, 1958. I shall be filling out my income tax return for the year 1958 some time before April 1, 1959. Therefore the minister will not be getting very much money out of me in the first three months of the fiscal year 1958-59. I know there are such things as payroll deductions, and at the end of January of 1958 there will be some. That will be the first month in which anyone will receive any pay in 1958. However, the employer has a month in which to remit his collections to the department.
Can the minister inform the committee as to what will be the actual cash loss to the treasury before the end of the fiscal year on March 31, as a result of the reductions he is now proposing? How much actually in cash receipts is the treasury going to lose before midnight of March 31 next? As I understand it, it will only apply in the case of those where the tax payments are deducted from their pay and the money is actually in the hands of the government before the end of March.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I gave all that information on December 6. My hon. friend will find the table on page 2009 of Hansard. As for the

Income Tax Act
alleged deferment, the fact is that 70 per cent of all income taxes are paid on the deduction basis, and the benefits of the reductions will therefore be felt as early in the new calendar year as tables of deductions can be printed and circulated.


Erhart Regier: I was not asking whether or not people are going to feel the benefit in the first three months. I know that. I am very much aware that they will welcome any small relief they get. Were the figures the minister published based on three full months' returns, or were they based on the actual loss of cash revenue to the treasury?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I gave all that information in detail. At page 2009 my friend will find the whole story as to what is the actual expected loss of revenue as of March 31, 1958.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is just one factual question I should like to ask the minister. Can he give a comparable figure to the one he gave recently for a taxpayer with a taxable income of $45,000 and four children for whom he enjoys the increased exemption?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Four dependants?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not the same four children, but a similar four children.


Donald Methuen Fleming: His tax reduction will be $242 on account of the increase in exemption for dependants and the decrease in the rates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: $242?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As opposed to $54 for the
taxpayer with $500 taxable.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, because the benefit of the exemption, of course, is greater to the man paying a higher rate. Of course the percentage of reduction of tax to the man with the income, my hon. friend has just mentioned is only a very small fraction of the percentage of reduction to the man he spoke of earlier with the smaller taxable income.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that perfectly.


William Moore Benidickson: When the minister presented the tables he has referred to, as found on page 2009 of Hansard, I think he indicated that the reduction in tax revenues was estimated to be $17 million for the balance of the current year with respect to personal income tax, but I do not think he broke it down into the reduction that would be caused by reason of passing this clause and the subsequent clause. Can he give the committee some information on that division?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If my friend will refer to page 2006 of Hansard he will see that the

estimated loss of revenue to March 31 next on account of the increase in the exemption is $7 million, and I may say to him that the estimated loss of revenue to March 31 in respect of the decrease in rates is $10 million.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of the bill.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, before the bill is given third reading there are one or two points that I believe should receive further consideration in the house. Earlier this morning I got an answer from the Minister of Finance with respect to what the bill will cost the treasury in respect of those in receipt of taxable incomes of over $2,000 per year. The minister stated, as I heard him, that there were approximately one and a half million taxpayers in this category. My arithmetic suggests that that figure multiplied by $30 comes to a total of $45 million per year. When the minister replied last night to my original question he had this to say, as found at page 2364 of Hansard.
Mr. Chairman, it would be an entirely new theory of progressive taxation to say that when you get above the level of $2,000 of taxable income you are not going to tax everybody in the same way on his initial $2,000 of taxable income. That would be an entirely new theory.
Under most circumstances I probably would be quite willing to agree fully with that statement of the minister. However, I think we should realize that the effect of the bill, as the result of the consideration that has been given to it, falls far short of what the people of Canada were led to expect would be done by a Conservative administration, and that in the absence of a basic increase in the exemptions perhaps the consistency to which the minister refers is not as desirable as might have been the case under some other circumstances.
I think point is lent to the suggestion in the minister's statement that you tax everybody in the same way, by the features of the bill having to do with the rebate or allowance for board and lodging of construction workers. If the minister is going to hold himself out as championing the taxing of everybody in the same way in one clause of the bill, and then is going to ignore that principle completely in another clause of the bill, I think his consistency is very much open to question, to say the least. The minister has tried to suggest that the proposal

with respect to construction workers is a new and radical departure in legislation. As found at page 2327 of Hansard he said:
. . . at no time in the consideration of this matter has any question been raised as to any other persons.
I do not believe the bill should be allowed to pass without the attention of the house again being drawn to the fact that the question of allowing exemptions for board, lodging and travelling expenses in the case of workers who, because of their employment, have to live away from their regular homes has been brought up and considered many times in the house. Consideration was given to that matter by the house long before the question of this administrative bulletin No. 10 of the Department of National Revenue was ever brought up.
It is true that a good deal of furore arose across the country because certain groups of people were having certain concessions taken away from them, but I hope the minister understands that people may be a lot more vocal in their objections when they suddenly have something taken away from them which they have enjoyed than if they are attempting to secure the removal of certain discriminations and given something which they have not enjoyed before. I hope the Minister of Finance is not going to allow this subject to get shoved into the back corner of his mind somewhere and forget about it. If the minister is going to use the words he used last night in discussing clause 3, to the effect that everyone would be taxed in the same way, then those words are not going to be forgotten.
In discussing clause 1 the minister had something to say about the interpretation that would be placed upon this clause. At page 2328 of Hansard for December 13, 1957, he said:
I can only say to him-
He was replying to a question asked by the hon. member for Cartier.
-that the interpretation will be a matter tor the Department of National Revenue, and having regard to the purpose of the clause I am quite satisfied that the department will endeavour to place a fair and ample interpretation upon it.
Now, we are faced with the position that this legislation is going to pass out of the hands of the Minister of Finance, who is introducing it, and into the hands of another department. I hope the Minister of Finance will see to it that the Department of National Revenue understands the wording of this clause. For example, I would suggest that he make sure that the Department of National Revenue realizes that the words
Income Tax Act
"construction worker" should not be interpreted in such a way as to apply only to employees of construction companies.
As I pointed out last night, there is a very real distinction there. I attempted to bring to the attention of the minister some of the administrative difficulties I foresee in this connection. Nevertheless, if this house passes this bill as it stands, then I hope the Minister of Finance will make it clear that all construction workers in Canada, no matter for whom they are working, are going to receive the benefits of this amendment if the circumstances of their employment bring them within the terms of the bill.
Then, too, if that is done I can foresee that this question is going to be one with which the minister will have to deal on a more consistent basis, and he will have to include those who work in logging camps, mining camps, on survey parties and all other workers whose conditions of employment are identical with those of the construction worker.
The whole matter is such that those of us who come from constituencies where workers, as a matter of course, have to go into isolated areas away from their families, cannot help but feel that the government is being shortsighted in taking this step to meet this discrimination and injustice against wage earners, and has not seen fit to go much further with this concession.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, owing to the fact that yesterday I was engaged in a most important missionary enterprise I lost the opportunity of saying a few words on clause 1 of this bill. However, I do want to express support for the arguments put forward by my colleagues, and to express our appreciation of the fact that construction workers are at last going to enjoy this benefit. I should like also to urge that there are many others, as the hon. member who preceded me has said, who work under similar conditions. For instance, there are timber cruisers, construction workers who are building highways and camps for logging companies, survey parties and even highway crews of the various provincial public works departments.
This amendment carries with it very wide implications. I do urge the minister to give consideration to this when he introduces his next budget, so that all those who work under the same conditions as construction workers will receive this reduction in taxation.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should allow this measure to receive third reading before I say a word or two. I have been fairly well

Income Tax Act
satisfied with the presentation of the arguments by my colleagues, but I am somewhat concerned that the minister has not categorically given us a full interpretation of who might be construed as construction workers. I am particularly interested in this interpretation, Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that in my constituency I have a large number of floating employees who are engaged in the oil industry. I am concerned that if the administration of this bill goes out of the hands of the minister and is put into the hands of the Department of National Revenue, there may be a narrow interpretation of the words "construction worker", and many of these people in my constituency might not receive the benefit of this amendment.
Before this bill is given third reading I should like a further explanation from the minister and his assurance that people who are engaged not only in construction in the narrow sense, but people in industries such as mining and oil, will receive consideration. I wonder if the minister could give this assurance to the house.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I am not so naive as to think our representations are going to have an immediate effect on this bill so far as logging and bush workers are concerned, but I believe it is in order for me to put on the record this letter that I received just today from a professional forester who is attached to one of the camps I cited as an example of the difficult position of bushworkers. This is from camp 226, Dorion, Ontario, the Abitibi Power and Paper Company. It is dated December 10, 1957, and is written by J. F. Adderley. He says:
-we the woods workers would like to know why-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it my hon. friend is aware of the rule that private letters are not to be read into the record of this house without giving the full text of the letter including the name of the person who sent it. Can the hon. gentleman not state the effect of it without reading the letter?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I gave the name of the writer, Mr. Speaker; is it not proper to give the contents? It is just a brief letter.
-we the woods workers would like to know why Mr. Fleming takes a single group of workers (construction) and states that travel and living expenses paid to construction workers living away from their homes and dependants will be exempt from income tax this year. Our camp is one of hundreds in which the employees live away from their families and yet have to pay tax on the value of free board and lodging. Why then does Mr. Fleming state only construction workers and not all workers who fall in this category?

Perhaps the newspaper has misquoted Mr. Fleming or we do not understand his meaning on the proposed amendment. Could you, Mr. Fisher, give us an answer on this vital question?
Respectfully yours, Camp 226 J. F. Adderley


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister the right to speak? I do not think he has on third reading. Am I not right?


An hon. Member:: Every inch a sailor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to get the minister out of the country.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is one occasion when I do not mind.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


James MacKerras Macdonnell: the second reading of Bill No. 199, respecting the Export Credits Insurance Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce at the resolution stage gave a full explanation of the nature of this bill, and I do not think it is necessary for me to speak at any great length. I would, however, like to read the bill, which consists of only one clause. I would also like to read the explanatory note and then, quite briefly, I would like to read from the speech of the minister at the resolution stage, because I think it covers very concisely the points which hon. members would wish to have in their minds. Thereafter I would like to read also very briefly from an explanation with regard to the actual operation of the clause in question.
The single clause of Bill 199 says:
Subsection 3 of section 21 of the Export Credits Insurance Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(3) The liability of the corporation under the contracts of insurance entered into under this section and outstanding shall not at any time exceed two hundred million dollars"-
That is the change; the section now reads $100 million and the proposed change is to make it $200 million.
-and shall not be included in the liability of the corporation for the purposes of section 14".
I might interject here section 14 is the section which provides for ordinary insurance contracts, and section 21 is to be considered quite separate from section 14. Now if I might read the explanatory note:
Contracts of insurance issued under section 21 of the Export Credits Insurance Act are those which

are considered to be in the national interest, but which would impose upon the Export Credits Insurance Corporation a liability for a term or in an amount in excess of that which the corporation would normally undertake in relation to any one contract, exporter, commodity or country.
Subsection 3 of section 21 of the act now reads as follows:
"(3) The liability of the corporation under the contracts of insurance entered into under this section and outstanding shall not at any time exceed one hundred million dollars and shall not be included in the liability of the corporation for the purposes of section 14."
Section 14 is the section which provides for the limitation on the amount of business which can be done in the ordinary course, and it provides that it shall be limited to ten times the subscribed capital and surplus of the corporation, which at the present time stands at $20 million. Therefore the business under that section is limited to $200 million.
The purpose of this amendment is to increase from one hundred million dollars to two hundred million dollars the total liability that the corporation may have outstanding at any time under contracts of insurance entered into under section 21.
I would now like to read briefly from section 21 before I refer to the remarks made by the minister. This is chapter 105 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, volume II:
Where the minister reports to the governor in council that
(a)	the board-
That is the board of the company.
-having regard to the limitations imposed by section 14, is of opinion that a proposed contract of insurance will impose upon the corporation a liability for a term or in an amount in excess of that which the corporation would normally undertake in relation to any one contract, exporter, commodity or country, and
(b)	in the opinion of the minister it is in the national interest that the proposed contract be entered into,
the governor in council may approve of and authorize the corporation to enter into the proposed contract of insurance.
I draw to the attention of the house the fact that there must be a recommendation from the minister and then the contract must be approved by the governor in council. I continue to read:
(2)	All moneys required by the corporation to discharge its liabilities arising under any contract of insurance entered into under this section shall be paid to the corporation by the Minister of Finance out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund.
(3)	The liability of the corporation under the contracts of insurance entered into under this section and outstanding shall not at any time exceed one hundred million dollars and shall not be included in the liability of the corporation for the purposes of section 14.
I draw the attention of the house to the 'act that in section 14 there is a special limitation provided, and I would now like to read juite briefly from the speech of the minister, 96698-1514
Export Credits Insurance Act recalling to the minds of hon. members certain figures which he gave and which I think are very relevant.


Hazen Robert Argue: On what page is that?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am reading now from page 1867 of Hansard:
The purpose of this amendment is to increase the effectiveness of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation by giving it the necessary authority to take on liabilities of an additional $100 million, under section 21 of the Export Credits Insurance Act. Contracts of insurance issued under section 21 of the act are those which are considered to be in the national interest but which, in the opinion of the board of directors of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, would impose upon the corporation a liability for a term or in an amount in excess of that which the corporation would normally undertake in relation to any one contract, exporter, commodity or country. All moneys required by the corporation to discharge its liabilities arising under any contract of insurance entered into under this section are to be paid to the corporation by the Minister of Finance out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund.
Section 21 of the act as it now stands limits the corporation's liability to $100 million. At the present time, liabilities under policies of insurance actually written plus commitments currently outstanding total $98 million in the aggregate.
That I think makes perfectly clear the need for an extension and the amendment proposed.
It is obvious that in order to have this section of the act continue its effectiveness, and to allow the corporation to insure additional business, it must be authorized to assume further liabilities and I am therefore proposing that the amount of such liabilities be established at $200 million.
I would just like to read a little more:
Through the operations of section 21 of the Export Credits Insurance Act an increasing amount of export trade has been insured, and a considerable portion of it would not have materialized had it not been possible to have it insured. One hundred and six policies of insurance have been issued under this section covering exports amounting to $206 million. Insured export shipments which have been concluded and paid in full amount to $97 million. Insurance premiums paid on this business have totalled $1,659,191, of which $1,245,488 has been turned over to the receiver general and the balance of $413,703 retained by the corporation to meet its expenses and overhead arising out of the contracts of insurance issued under section 21 of the act. I am pleased to report that as yet there have been no losses.
He is referring, of course, to the operation of section 21.
I should now like to conclude by reading a very short extract from a small booklet which has been written to explain the operation of the act, and I read from that part which deals with section 21 because I think the rest of the act has to do with the ordinary course of business. But under section 21 I read the following:
For business to be considered under section 21, the exporter makes his application to the corporation in the usual way and such application is referred to the Minister of Trade and Commerce to arrange for a cabinet decision, and if the
2382	HOUSE OF
Export Credits Insurance Act
application is accepted an appropriate order in council is issued authorizing the corporation to insure.
Hon. members will observe the way in which the operation of this section is safeguarded, and it will be clear, I think, to anyone that under the act the power to insure in this way is quite essential to the operation.
I just repeat before I take my seat that under this act there have been 106 policies coverings exports amounting to $206 million; that there have been repayments of $97 million and that the outstanding amounts insured or committed are $98 million. So we are right up to the ceiling, and it is not only desirable that this bill should be passed but that it should be passed very promptly because, of course, it is hoped to continue operations under it, and at the present time the authority is urgently needed.


Mr. Stick:: Do I understand that every application for an export loan must have cabinet approval?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Under this section, yes. Let me repeat what I read "for business to be considered under section 21 the application is referred to the Minister of Trade and Commerce to arrange for a cabinet decision."


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to deal to any extent in remarks respecting this bill at this stage. On December 4 I made some comment respecting it. I would hope that my friend the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce who is sponsoring this bill would, before ending the debate, explain to the house why despite his extensive objections to the amendments that were made to the act last spring relating to income tax liability, this bill does not reflect any of the recommendations which I would have expected him to have incorporated in it. The bill which is now before us simply changes one word and makes the liability under section 21 $200 million instead of $100 million.
I was pleased that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he spoke at the resolution stage on December 4, and the acting minister now both reported that with regard to insured export sales under this section loans had been insured, and therefore export trade assisted, in the amount of over $200 million. They both reported to the house that to date no liabilities have been incurred.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No losses. The hon. member said "no liabilities"; I think he meant to say "no losses".


William Moore Benidickson: Quite correct. No losses have been incurred by the government under section 21. I just urge the new administration to administer this very useful section with


equal wisdom, and I hope that under their administration the record will continue to be as splendid as it has been under the former administration. Hon. members probably do not realize that under the other regular sections of the bill, with regard to which the corporation itself makes decisions some $400 million worth of export sales have been insured and assisted. This special $200 million worth of export sales which have come within section 21 require specific cabinet approval. This is only what is before the house.
I did indicate to the house on December 4 that there was in some sections of the country some rather extravagant propaganda being spread as to the value of this particular amendment. I pointed out then that the maximum liability was being approached under an export insurance statute which had been introduced by a former Liberal administration and which had been on the statute books since 1944. This action is thus simply a routine matter to extend the maximum crown liability. I pointed out that the export sales assisted under this act which had been found very satisfactory to date, had been largely initiated by the former government.
I also pointed out that there seemed to be some conflict between the speeches which were made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) to Regina audiences with particular reference to the value of this amending bill. The two ministers spoke on succeeding days in Regina, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated that his forecast of wheat sales for the current crop year was 300 million bushels. The responsible minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, gave that figure. On the following day, in Regina suggesting that this legislation would be responsible, the minister of northern affairs (Mr. Hamilton) upped that figure by 50 million bushels.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said to us, on December 4, when discussing this bill, that he saw no reason to reduce his estimate of wheat sales in the current crop year. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the records indicate that wheat is not the only commodity that is assisted by this legislation, which is aimed at increasing Canadian export sales. As a matter of fact a return was given to a question which I asked, question No. 207, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce reported to me and to the house that from January 1, 1957 to October 31, 1957 export sales amounting to $104 million had been assisted under section 21, which is being discussed and amended here today.

It just happens that out of this $104 million of export sales which received assistance to October 31 in 1957, some $80 million was in respect of aircraft and not wheat. So I simply draw attention again to this apparent confusion in the forecast of the value of this legislation, when two cabinet ministers on successive days report to the wheat growing areas of Canada in Saskatchewan differing estimates of the export sales which are likely to take place in the current crop year.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the bill which is now before us to extend the permitted liability under the Export Credit Insurance Act is something that we in this group are quite pleased to support. This has been an instrument of some benefit in maintaining exports of wheat in certain areas where countries lack a supply of dollars.
I do not think the government should be satisfied that the bill now before the house, coupled with any other policy that it has announced to date, will be in fact sufficient to do the job. The truth is that we have a vast surplus of grain in this country which is a burden to the nation. One reason is that money is being paid out of the consolidated revenue fund toward the cost of storage and interest charges, but it is also a burden on the country because producers have to keep large quantities of grain on their farms and they must maintain buildings to house that grain, which is an extremely expensive proposition for them.
There is great need, in fact there is urgent need, to increase by a vast amount Canada's exports of grain. If we are timid in our attitude and in our policies as a country, and if we allow these large surpluses to remain in Canada, it is only a matter of time until we will have lost the economic value of the grain itself. Various estimates could be made, but it costs anywhere from 15 to 20 cents a bushel to carry grain from one year to the next. So if we are going to allow the grain to stay in the country rather than following an aggressive policy of selling grain it will only be a matter of five or six years until we, as a nation, will have sustained the loss of the value of that grain, because the value will have been eaten up by the burdensome carrying charges and interest charges.
The Export Credits Insurance Act has been of some value in the past, but I dp not think it can possibly be the answer. As a matter of fact I do not think it is the answer even in the restricted field to which it applies, because we know that under this act the government has provided for the advance of credit on a rather short-term basis. I believe the longest term has been three years. As I
Export Credits Insurance Act understand it the total amount that has been provided for wheat by way of insurance under this act has been for the export of some 55 million bushels to date. That is just a flea bite compared to the huge surplus of grain we have on hand. This act as it now stands simply will not do the job.
There is growing evidence and there are increasing reports that there are countries in the world that would like to take wheat from Canada in increased quantities, countries that have not recently been buying large quantities of wheat, if they could obtain the grain on a long-term credit basis. I have recently seen reports in the press to the effect that Poland and Spain have been interested in buying substantial quantities of wheat from Canada. I do not suppose it is possible or advisable for the minister to give information and details concerning negotiations that may still be in process, and I do not believe any hon. member of this house would want to say anything that would interfere in an adverse way with those negotiations, but I do think the minister owes it to the house to tell us what is the government's general attitude in the field of long-term credit.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will agree that this is a very narrow bill in principle. The only principle involved is whether the bill should permit the increasing of liabilities from $100 million to $200 million. As I understand it, the issue before the house and the principle of the bill is how much more money is needed to achieve the purposes of section 21 of the bill. The hon. member has been dealing with other ways of meeting the problem, and I just put it to him that as I see it we are debating a rather narrow subject.


Hazen Robert Argue: If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the government that instead of bringing forth a measure to put an additional $100 million into this act, it should bring forward a measure to put $500 million into it, because $100 million simply will not do the job. As Mr. Speaker has now said, this is a very narrow bill-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: -but he was not making any comment on the value of the legislation. Nevertheless we all realize it is a very narrow bill, so narrow that it will not achieve the desired result, and will not even do the job it was designed to do. I think it is in order to say that if this $100 million is confined to short-term credit or short-term insurance it should be made available for a longer period of time.
2384	HOUSE OF
Export Credits Insurance Act
I certainly agree with the comments made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson), that the ministers of this government are not agreed in their own minds as to what is the purpose of this bill. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, who should know, he having initially sponsored this bill which is now being piloted through the house by the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, said that with this measure it is hoped to increase exports of Canadian wheat to a total of 300 million bushels. But the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has become highly enthusiastic, and decided that his knowledge of the Department of Trade and Commerce exceeds that of the minister in charge. He says it is not a bill that is going to result in increased exports of 50 million bushels of wheat, but rather that it will result in total exports of 350 million bushels of wheat.
May I call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock I was saying that if the government was determined to move the great surplus of grain we have in this country I felt something more should be done, and that even under this act a much larger sum of money, a much larger guarantee, should be provided for such a purpose.
I have in front of me the Winnipeg Free Press for Tuesday, December 10, and in it there is an article entitled, "Ottawa Steers Clear of Long-Term Deals". The report goes on to relate some of the countries that are interested in long-term deals. I do not wish to transgress the rules, Mr. Speaker, and I am therefore not going to get into a discussion of any possible long-term contracts, but I must say that in recent days I have gleaned from press reports, and I have heard others say, that indeed there are a large number of countries that are looking to Canada for purchase of wheat if credit can be made available to them.
For example, I understand that Spain has been making inquiries-I understand this, anyway-for, one report says, 20 million bushels. Another report said 7 million bushels a year for some years, which would add up, I take it, to anywhere from 50 million to 60 million bushels of wheat. Well, if Spain has been looking for, or is even interested in, such a large quantity of wheat, or Poland is interested in a large quantity of wheat, I think


it is a fair question to ask whether the provisions of the bill that is now before us to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act are sufficient to enable those countries to buy the large quantities of wheat that it is reported they are interested in buying.
If this act is sufficient to enable them to buy such quantities of wheat, well and good. If the government is prepared to make such contracts, then the government is to be congratulated on making them. On the other hand, if the present act is not adequate in its terms to provide for the longer term credit that those countries may wish to obtain, then I think the government should tell the house that that is so; that it needs additional legislation or additional powers to sign such contracts. I am sure that if the government needs such authority parliament would be prepared to grant it because I think there is one thing the people of this country from coast to coast are agreed on, namely that it is economic nonsense to keep the wheat in Canada over an indefinite period and lose out entirely in an economic sense, even though we can physically see the wheat five or six years from now that it is far better to get something tangible-even if it is by an extension of credit-in the way of a guaranteed return over a period of years than it is to keep the grain at home.
We in this group are quite prepared to support this bill, but we feel that the government under this act and under other acts, is going to have to do much more if it is to meet the problem at hand.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask my hon. friend a question? With respect to prices, he is not advocating a fire sale?


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, no, not at all. I have not seen any suggestions anywhere, even by the countries that, according to the newspaper reports, are interested, that the price be decreased. As a matter of fact, I think the price is already too low. I do not think it is a question of price. To a country that has no dollars it does not matter too much whether you are asking $2.50, $2.00 or $1.50 for the wheat. If they have no dollars they cannot buy. The main problem is not prices. The main problem is to see that these countries obtain credit, or obtain the means to purchase our wheat.


William Moore Benidickson: Under this bill, yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Mr. Jacob Schulz (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this bill is a very important piece of legislation and therefore I should like to say a few words before it receives second reading. It is designed to expedite exports, which is a very important matter at this time. I read in the Gazette this morning that Canada now has a deficit of $1,170 million. This particular piece of legislation would help to increase exports, and particularly the export of wheat.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon. member permit a question. I am rather astounded by the last figure he gave of the Canadian deficit. When he uses the figure $1 billion, is he speaking about the trade deficit, or what?


William Moore Benidickson: Trade and services.


Jacob Schulz: Deficit in foreign trade. This legislation will be of particular importance with respect to the export of wheat. As I understand it, most of this money which is appropriated is intended to be used for extended credit to countries that want to buy Canadian wheat. We are confronted now with a billion bushels of wheat and I think it is very important that this legislation should be passed. But when you compare it with the size of the problem it is supposed to solve it is just too little.
I am again forced to express the same opinion that I expressed when we passed the bill having to do with cash advances to the farmers. I will vote for it under the assumption that something is better than nothing; but it is incredible that people should tackle one of our greatest problems in this country, which is publicly admitted to be the sale of our wheat, with such a limited measure which increases the liability under the act by another $100 million.
I think every hon. member has noticed in the press lately that many countries would like to buy wheat from Canada right now if they could get more credit and have the term extended. I just took a clipping out of the Winnipeg Free Press of December 10, and I should like to quote from it.
Various European countries at one time or another have approached Canada seeking long-term credit arrangements to buy wheat. But the government has not wanted to take on such deals.
Asking which countries would be interested in obtaining wheat under such deals one official said: United Kingdom, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany and Italy. There had been also tentative inquiries on occasion from Spain and Portugal.
Here is a whole list of countries that want our wheat and the only reason they cannot buy it is that they have not got the cash. Therefore I wish the government would
Export Credits Insurance Act approach this issue in a little more positive manner, increase the fund, as was mentioned before, to at least $500 million and at the same time extend the terms because according to the clipping to which I have referred it is evident that the terms are more important at this time than the amount. When we were at the resolution stage the other day I mentioned that I wished the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) would consider the proposal of extending the terms. Apparently nothing has been done in this regard. I am just a new member of the house and I do not know if something could be done now but I think it is such an important issue that we should discuss it more thoroughly and think it through before we pass the legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) and his going back a couple of years to a discussion in which I then participated with regard to a taxation feature of the measure. I do not propose to go back and review that again. In the first place, it is always possible I may have been wrong in what I said then.


Lionel Chevrier: That could not be.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In the second place, we were discussing a question of taxation. The question was whether the provision then made was a deviation from the proposal made years before by the then minister of finance that those crown corporations that were engaged in ordinary competitive business should pay income tax in the ordinary way. The clause proposed a couple of years ago had reference to the fact that the Exports Credit Insurance Corporation could use its margin to increase its reserve and escape taxation in that way. But as the minister pointed out at that time it was possible to argue that the government got the money in one way or the other. If it did not get it by tax it got it in the other way as an operating margin, so I am not going back to review that.
I am grateful to the hon. member for his acquiescence in the measure. I do not propose to contravert what he said in praise of the operation of this measure by the preceding government. If we find any place where the preceding government has done well, we are only too glad to model ourselves on their action. I am not saying how often we find that-


Lionel Chevrier: You have done that pretty often now.

Export Credits Insurance Act


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -but I am admitting that we find it at times.


William Moore Benidickson: Most of this session
you have just enlarged your predecessors' legislation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: With regard to what the hon. member has said, I would merely add that we realize what we realized when we were in the opposition ourselves, that when a measure arises with which you are in full agreement it is sometimes a little difficult to find a great deal of a controversial nature in it.
I want to make some comments on what was said by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). I could not agree more with what he said about the need and the urgency of disposing of our immense supply of wheat, but I do not believe there is anyone in the world who is more conscious of that than the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill). He has been like a commuter across the Atlantic in the last two or three months. I am sorry the member is not in the house but I repeat that I think he can take it that the need and urgency are fully in the minds of the government and the minister. I would point out to him that we have what we believe to be competent and able people, both in the staff of the department and in the wheat board, people who are experienced salesmen, and we are, of course, guided by their advice.
It has been suggested by two members that what we are asking for is not enough. I would point out that the first $100 million did in fact last nearly ten years. It will be immediately objected that we did not have the situation we have now with our huge wheat surplus. I accept that but I also point out that we have and are thankful to have a considerable number of cash customers so that it is not wholly a question of giving credit to everybody. I do wish to say very earnestly that the government and the minister are fully seized of the necessity of moving this wheat.
Finally, in answer to the argument that this amount is not enough, I would say that if it is not enough we will be pleasantly surprised, and it is always possible to come back and ask the house to give us more credit if we need it. After weighing the situation the government has asked for $100 million. I gather that this will be gladly agreed to and I would point out that this represents the judgment of the government as to the amount to be asked for at the present time. I repeat that if it turns out to be too little there is nothing to prevent us asking for more.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
On clause 1-Liability under contracts outstanding.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, in past discussion of this legislation there has been some reference to what we on the left side of the chair felt was an inadequate desire to approach and deal with governments who have been reported in the press recently as being possible purchasers of Canadian wheat. I refer to past debates this session on the Russian trade group approaches, and even yesterday and today we have had references to Australia's possible grain requirements. Then there are some new possibilities such as from Poland and Spain. I feel that in answers to members on this side of the house the ministry has not displayed a properly aggressive selling policy in this respect. I assume that most of these approaches would require credit insurance. I would appreciate it if the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce would say something about this matter.
I join with the hon. member for Assiniboia in saying that we do not want to embarrass current trade negotiations, but I think there has been a rather scandalous disregard displayed in answers given in this house on this very important matter relating to possible wheat sales. I think that we on this side have been fair and responsible. We have endeavoured to advance this legislation as rapidly as would normally be expected.
There is another question I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is there a maximum percentage related to total export sales volume up to which insurance would be provided by the crown corporation or even by order in council under section 21 applying to the Export Credits Insurance Act provisions?
Again, the hon. member for Assiniboia felt, and I agreed with him, that there was a new trend in the approach to such things as wheat sales which required credit over a longer term. Are there any regulations specifying the maximum term of credit with respect to government insurance of this kind? The final question to the acting minister would be, has he any comment to make with respect particularly to wheat as an export item? In answer to a question of mine, question No. 207, this session the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated that in 1956 this section of the act had assisted the sale of 24 million bushels of wheat, and in the period of 10 months in 1957 to October 31, 1957 only 10 million bushels of wheat. Would

the acting minister care to comment on the general prospects of export trade with respect to wheat?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I was a little sorry to hear my hon. friend, whose language is usually so restrained, speak of scandalous disregard on the part of the government. I can only ask him to believe what I said a moment ago, that we have competent and able people and certainly there has been the strongest feeling as to the need for urgency. More than that I do not think it is useful for me to say.
I should like to point out in passing, however, that when we talk of credit, and I think Russia was mentioned and Australia, we should remember that Russia bought for cash and we would expect Australia to buy for cash. We must not talk, therefore, as if this were wholly a credit matter.
The hon. member asked whether there were any regulations specifying the maximum term of credit. The answer to that is no. It is a matter of judgment. It is a difficult matter, but the best judgment that can be brought to bear on it is brought to bear. The hon. member asked also the percentage of insurance under section 21. It is possible for the insurance to be 100 per cent under section 21, and under the ordinary contracts which are made under the other parts of the act, the usual maximum is 85 per cent.


Leonard T. Stick: The acting minister has mentioned the fact that Russia paid cash for wheat and he expected Australia to do the same. I may have misunderstood him, but surely if Australia wanted credit from us, we would grant it. If we make grants of credit to Poland and Spain, then we should grant credit to Australia.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The question does not arise because Australia has not asked for it.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: I wonder if this amendment would now enable Poland and Spain, who have been asking for credit, to finalize their arrangements for the purchase of wheat? I do understand they want credit for these purchases.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have suggested before that members of parliament ought to have some confidence in those who are carrying on this business. As I say, they are able, experienced people who have been in the business a long time. I do request that I be not asked to diclose further details. I cannot see how it could help the situation, and I can see how it could hurt the situation.


William Moore Benidickson: I think I asked the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce a question as to the regulations that might prevail with 96698-152
Export Credits Insurance Act respect to the percentage of insurance that might apply to total export sales. I recall that this morning I gave the house the information that we had sales in 1957, up to October 31 of this year, in volume amounting to $104 million that had been assisted and insured under the provisions of this section 21. It is my understanding that of that amount almost $80 million represented sales of aircraft, not agricultural or grain produce. I believe also that the liability of the government under section 21 was approximately $22 million, having regard to that sale of $80 million of aircraft.
I asked, is there a regulation in effect-I should know this but I do not recollect it; and the minister has an official in front of him-is there a maximum under the regulations with respect to this section on the insuring basis of crown liability that would apply vis a vis the total export sale value and maximum liability to the treasury?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am informed there is no regulation limiting the amount. In the case the hon. member mentioned, of $80 million of sales to Germany and the $22 million of insurance, I am advised that deliveries were so staggered that the company exporting had not more than $22 million at risk at any one time.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I quite appreciate the minister's reluctance to give out details of trade agreements under discussion. I am not asking him for details of trade agreements. However, I believe it is important that the countries of the world be acquainted with the fact that Canada, at least in principle, is agreeable to extending credit to countries who are in need of it. If this amendment will allow us to extend further credits to other countries, as for example to Poland and Spain, since they are currently in the news, I think it would be of considerable value to us in disposing of our grain.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I must have been singularly unfortunate in my attempt to explain this act to the house, because I think the whole point of what we are doing is to put us in a position to extend credit in cases where we feel it desirable to do so. It seems to me that is the complete answer to the hon. member.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: At the same time, there has been very little indication, over the past number of years, that this act has been used extensively for wheat. It was pointed out in a return that $24 million was used-was it last year?


William Moore Benidickson: For 1957 it did not indicate appreciable credit for wheat, but in previous years it was mostly for wheat.

Export Credits Insurance Act


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: In terms of the surplus supplies we have in Canada, it has been used to a small degree. The point I am trying to get across, Mr. Chairman, is that I believe the acting minister has indicated the dedication of the government to following these principles and I just want to assure him he certainly has my support and they can go to it with all the aggression they can muster.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am grateful to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River who, I understand, assisted me in my answers. The amount of wheat insured so far under section 21 is $118 million. This is a fairly respectable amount and, as I said, at the moment we are now seeking the power to insure $100 million more. As I also said that I would assume from the temper of the house if we have to come back and ask for more authority we will get it. If we have made it too low no one will be more happy to confess it than we will and to come back and ask for more.


William Moore Benidickson: I am sure the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce will agree, however, that of the $107 million of insured export sales in 1957 up to October 31, 1957, under this section 21, practically all of it was under the administration of the former government. There is a slow-up in insured exports of wheat under this act since the new administration took over.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well I will not try to
diminish the pleasure which the hon. gentleman gets from saying what he has said just now, but I would like to remind him that the very fact he has said so is the strongest reason for our coming and asking for more authority.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister says he will be quite happy if there is more demand for credit under the act than can be handled by the $100 million. It would seem to me whether the reports we are reading in the newspapers with regard to demand are right or not, there is interest in obtaining grain on credit in quantities that, even at the present time, would take up the whole $100 million. I am wondering if there is any other department of the government or any other act under which credit could be supplied to prospective customers for wheat, because it is obvious that the $100 million based on current prices for wheat, if you take into account the cost of shipment, is no more than enough to handle maybe 60 million bushels of wheat or something in that neighbourhood. If we could judge from the reports at all, we should all hope that much more could be considered on a credit basis than 60 million bushels and, as a matter of fact, I think that

probably even the current situation is that countries are showing interest in obtaining wheat on credit in amounts that far exceed in total the $100 million that we have now under discussion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think perhaps I can usefully say in answer to that, that I should remind the hon. member we should all be back here, happily together, on January 3 and if this happy situation which he outlines should come about in the interval, we would no doubt be able to get any necessary further authority.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, Mr. Chairman, if I can get a satisfactory answer to this question I will be done for today with this particular measure. Will the minister assure the house that the government is prepared to give sympathetic consideration to requests for credit for periods in excess of three years-even for periods of time up to eight or ten years-or is it a fact that the government says "unless the credit periods are three years or less, we shall have nothing to do with it."


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I think I had better content myself with assuring the hon. gentleman of what I have already said, that we want to sell wheat; that we will do whatever we think is sensible in order to sell it, but I would ask the hon. gentleman to allow me to be relieved of the necessity of going any further and mentioning the terms and years such as he has done. He has got the evidence of what has happened over the years; he has my assurance of sympathetic consideration to any proposal for the selling of wheat, yes, but to go beyond that and specify years I think would be unwise. I think the hon. gentleman will have the good sense to know that if he were in my position that is what he would say.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there would be anything wrong, as a matter of fact I think it would be all to the good, if the minister would say that, based on the merit of the application or the request, the government of Canada was prepared to sell wheat on credit for periods greatly in excess of three years. But that is not what the minister has said. I have not the Winnipeg Free Press here at the moment, but they have a report on the front page from their Ottawa correspondent on December 10 which very strongly suggests that the government is most reluctant to consider advancing credit on a long-term basis such as that being defined as 10 years or in that neighbourhood. As I say, I am quoting from memory but I could bring the article into the house in a moment. However, I think I have given a fair analysis of it. If I have the assurance of the minister

that the government will in fact give sympathetic consideration to a proposal-even if the proposal is for credit up to a 10-year period-I shall be quite satisfied.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I always enjoy a conversation with the hon. member for Assini-boia, but I do not think I can usefully continue this conversation. I think all I should say is that X believe it would be very unwise in our negotiations with foreign countries to advise them in advance of our own views as to the lengths of credit.


William Moore Benidickson: I want to be sympathetic to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce; he was always courteous to me when we were on opposite sides of the house but when we asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce-when he was back in the house after one of these trade missions to the United Kingdom-he seemed to be uninformed with respect to the availability of possible purchases of grains from other countries whose trade missions were here in this country.
Would the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce assure this committee, without embarrassment to him on account of customers with whom we might be dealing, that he as acting minister is endeavouring to receive these trade missions and give them the best possible opportunities that may be available for wheat buying, even under this legislation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think I can assure the committee that every trade mission and every inquiry of any kind is being received by the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture with the greatest sympathy.


Mr. Quelch:: I would like to ask the minister whether or not this is the only legislation under which loans might be made to a foreign country to buy our wheat? I ask this question because when we were discussing the first item of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that the government was giving serious consideration to the possibility of making grain available to nations who are not able to pay for it in dollars by purchases under long-term loans or perhaps even the acceptance of their currency. I assume that if that action were taken it could not be done under this legislation but that there would have to be special legislation for this purpose.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well it would be possible, of course, for the government to introduce special legislation if it was thought desirable. I do not think that is a matter to be discussed today. It is quite true that the 96698-152J	jg f
Export Credits Insurance Act Minister of Trade and Commerce discussed a variety of possibilities in his speech which was, I think, made on December 7. But going back to the other question, there can be the most absolute assurance that everything which comes before the wheat board and the department is given the most serious consideration. There is nobody in the world more anxious to sell wheat than we are.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the acting minister just indicate to the house whether or not in his capacity as acting minister for some time now because of the long absences of the Minister of Trade and Commerce he has had any personal contact with possible purchasers of large consignments of Canadian grain.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, I think I can give that assurance; absolutely.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I am not satisfied that the government is in fact trying to do the things it says it is trying to do, namely to sell all the wheat that can possibly be sold. The reason I say that is this: Under this present measure-the $100 million being provided for credit-it would provide for the sale of only 50 or 60 million bushels of wheat.
The acting minister can state the number that it might be able to move if he wishes to. The reason, I believe, why they are thinking in terms of 50 or 60 million bushels of wheat is because the Minister of Trade and Commerce has himself stated that this is the amount by which they hope to increase sales this year as compared with last year up to a total of 300 million bushels, and also the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce said some progress had been made in discussions with the United States, and suggested that the United States program of barter would probably curtail Canadian sales to the extent of 50 million bushels. Then the hon. member for Acadia asked whether this particular provision was the one which would cover the acceptance of local currency, as was inferred by the Minister of Trade and Commerce a week ago when he said the matter was under active consideration. It would seem to me that his reply suggested very definitely that this was the only act under which this idea could be considered.
If I am right in all these things, it comes to this-that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been saying that the government has under active consideration the acceptance of local currency, while the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has gone across the country saying that the government has a plan which may increase exports to 350 million bushels. Yet we cannot get from the government today a simple

Export Credits Insurance Act statement that the government is prepared to consider where necessary long term credit, that is, credit for periods in excess of three years, up to five years or ten years. I think this is a very simple request.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce made it perfectly clear in this house a week ago that there are certain countries in the world where increased sales on a cash basis are out of the question. He said that credit was required, and that the government was considering the matter. But it seems that all the present government has in mind is to carry on exactly the same policy as was carried on by the former administration, under exactly the same act and with the prospects of selling almost exactly the same quantity of wheat under its provisions, namely, 55 million bushels.
I say that the government has shown no imagination at all in the field of selling wheat, that it has shown no concrete results to date, and that the lack of explanation made on behalf of the administration today should be a matter of extreme concern to all those in this nation who derive their livelihood directly or indirectly from the movement of wheat to ports, terminals and so on, and an indication that the government is not doing any more in this field than the previous government did.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as I have been concerned to some considerable extent with efforts to try to dispose of our surplus of wheat during the past few months, perhaps I can say a word or two on this and give the hon. member for Assiniboia and others in the house something in the way of an assurance.
I think I can say definitely that the amount provided in this particular bill will not limit the amount of wheat which we may sell or will sell if we can find proper markets and make proper deals for it. Some hon. members opposite seem to have in their minds that the amount of wheat we can sell is going to be limited by the upper limit of this bill, but that is not so. If we can find a market and make the sales, the amount provided in this bill is not going to prevent the sale of any of that wheat. That can and will be provided for by other means. I should like also to assure hon. members that we have been exploring every possible lead which has come to us as far as the possibility of selling wheat is concerned, and that we are following up in the most vigorous manner possible every indication we get from any direction as to where there may be a market for wheat. And we are ready to receive proposals from any source and to consider them in regard to the terms of sale, and everything else along that line.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear the minister say that we are not limited by the terms of this act in our efforts to sell wheat over and above the quantities which have been sold in the past, and that if there is a possibility of concluding a deal with any country for the sale of wheat which would need provisions in addition to this act, or outside this act, the government is prepared to take whatever steps may be necessary.
Would it not be a fact that if the government wished to sell wheat on a credit basis outside the provisions of this act the government would have to come to parliament for authority and for the necessary legislation? If that is not the case, perhaps the minister could tell us how such sales outside the present legislation could be financed.


Leonard T. Stick: I am rather confused. I know this country and, I think, the government, want to sell the wheat that we have in surplus, but when you have something to sell and you are going out to sell it you should have the terms under which you are going to sell ironed out before you ask the customer to buy.
It seems to me, from the course of the discussion so far, that you want to sell your wheat but you have not made up your minds under what terms you are going to sell it. I fully realize that when dealing with one country the terms may be different from those used in dealing with another country, but I believe that if the government is anxious to sell this wheat it should make up its mind under what terms it is going to sell -three years, five years, or ten years. You are out to sell wheat but you have not made up your mind on what terms you are going to sell it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think I can assure the hon. member that there is nothing in that. We have experts-people who have been selling wheat around the world for many years-engaged in this work. They know their prices. They know what they want. What the hon. member says about wanting to sell wheat but not knowing under what terms they are going to sell it is quite wrong.


Leonard T. Stick: Can you tell us on what terms you are going to sell this wheat?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is a prevailing rate on the market. There are all kinds of considerations which enter into it. I am not here to give a lecture on the methods they use, but they sell hundreds of millions of bushels every year. They do not do that because they are ignorant of the terms under which they want to sell it.


Jacob Schulz: We hear a good deal about the willingness of the government to sell wheat. We hear that they are anxious to do it, but the fact still remains that sales have gone down since this government took office and they are still going down right now. What the government says is no comfort to anybody who must sit there and suffer.
I read a report in the Montreal Gazette this morning. It says that more ocean-going vessels called at Montreal during the season, that less general cargo was handled and that shipments of grain fell seriously.
If the government were only willing to tell this house what kind of measures they want to enact in order to increase these sales, some progress might be made; but the only measure they have brought out so far is this increase of $100 million, and I suggest this does not go far enough at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the acting
minister has said that the wheat board has been in this business of selling wheat for years and that they are the people who should be able to sell the wheat. Now we have a concrete proposal before us that $100 million should be made available under the Export Credits Insurance Act. Having said those two things, without there being any indication that the government is prepared to go beyond the terms of contracts signed by the previous government and realizing that the government has failed utterly to provide any further increases under the Colombo plan, or any further grants for gifts or of food to famine-stricken nations over and above those provided by the last administration, it seems to me that we are forced to arrive at this conclusion: At least as of today the government has no new policy, in fact it has not got a clue as to how it can increase sales and its hiding behind the work of the Canadian wheat board as it has functioned in the past is not adequate at all. The wheat board does not sell wheat outside the scope of government policy. The wheat board sells within the framework of government policy and that policy demands cash sales. Many countries do not have cash so we keep our wheat and the nations that require it cannot obtain it and when the question of credit for a longterm period is raised in this house the government has no answer.
According to the Minister of Trade and Commerce the United States has taken 50 million bushels of wheat sales that otherwise should be ours through its barter deals but the minister's comment only explained 50 million bushels of the increased sales the
Export Credits Insurance Act United States had last year when it sold more than twice as much wheat as Canada sold, some 540 million bushels as compared with Canadian sales of 260 million bushels. This leads me to the conclusion that the United States success in selling more wheat, reducing its surplus by approximately 300 million bushels at a time when Canada's surplus has remained almost the same in spite of a very bad year, is attributable not to the barter policy to which this government has taken such great exception but rather to the fact that the United States sold wheat on a longterm credit basis. The United States gives up to 40 years in its credit provisions and this government cannot get beyond three years.
If we do not provide credit and fail to do anything to move the tremendous surplus of Canadian wheat I can only come to the conclusion I reached earlier today that we are in fact losing the total value of our surplus wheat because it is being eaten up by the burden of carrying charges and interest charges. The policy of allowing wheat to plug the terminal elevators, the country elevators and the farmer's bin is both shortsighted and inadequate. It is a policy of despair and defeat. As far as I am concerned that is the policy that exists today because the government has suggested no way of increasing our sales beyond 50 or 60 million bushels above the sales of last year.


Jacob Schulz: Mr. Chairman, the minister has pointed out to us that we have people in this country who are selling wheat. No doubt he meant the officials of the Canadian wheat board who are trying to do a good job. However, when we were discussing this measure at the resolution stage the other day I suggested to the minister that he should consider extending the term of credit. He replied that he had already considered doing that and had made proposals and discussed the question with the wheat board officials who turned it down. He said they thought it would not be the right thing to do. Who is the boss here? Is it the minister or the wheat board? Who is giving orders to whom? If what the minister said is not true the minister is engaging in a form of buck passing which I do not appreciate. If it is true, then it is even worse.


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


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting.
2392	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization AGRICULTURE



MEASURE TO PROVIDE GUARANTEED PRICES FOR CERTAIN COMMODITIES, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 11, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Harkness-Mr. Courtemanche in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a system of guaranteed prices for certain agricultural commodities to be named therein and to provide that prices may be guaranteed for any other agricultural commodity or commodities as named from time to time by the governor in council, such measure to include: provisions for the establishment of a board and an advisory committee, the appointment of members thereof and employees and the payment of their salaries and expenses; provisions for the payment of administration costs and expenses; provisions establishing a revolving fund in the consolidated revenue fund and authorizing expenditures therefrom for the purposes of the proposed measure not exceeding in the aggregate two hundred and fifty million dollars in addition to the expenditure of the proceeds of sale of agricultural commodities and other revenues derived thereunder; and such further related and consequential provisions as may be necessary to give effect to the foregoing system.
Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Chairman, when ten o'clock came the other evening when we were discussing this resolution the hon. member for Meadow Lake had the floor. He is not here today and therefore I want to take the floor for a few minutes to state our position as we see it at the moment.
We had hoped that we might have been able to have the bill before us at the end of the previous sitting when we were discussing the resolution. We feel that it is almost impossible to discuss the resolution intelligently or even to discuss the system it proposes until we have seen the bill. Not having had an opportunity of examining the bill we do not feel inclined to carry this discussion any further unless something arises in connection with it which would make it necessary for us to do so. As far as this particular group is concerned we think we should get along with the adoption of the resolution at the earliest possible moment and have the bill distributed. If it is possible to distribute it immediately it would be most helpful but if it is not then we would hope to have it brought in at the earliest possible moment. If the minister could give us to understand that there is a possibility of having the bill distributed shortly it would shorten the discussion a great deal as far as this group is concerned. We do not intend to discuss the question further if we could have the bill brought down now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I can give the assurance that as soon as the resolution stage is completed the bill will be brought down as soon as it is possible for the printers


to print the date on the bill. It would then be distributed immediately, within a matter of a few hours. As a matter of fact, I could distribute some of the preliminary copies of which I have a few to the leaders of the various parties as soon as we complete the resolution stage.
I appeal to hon. members to follow the course of action which has been suggested by the right hon. member for Melville. I think it would be a great advantage if the bill were in the hands of hon. members, farm organizations, farmers and other interested parties so that all could study it and see what it contains. It would avoid a great deal of discussion on what you might call false trails if this were done.
It seems to me there is a lot of genuine misconception in the minds of many people as to what this bill proposes to do and what it contains. Therefore, the sooner it gets into the hands of people who are interested the sooner they will be in a position to assess what the bill actually contains and what it is possible to accomplish under it.
There are two basic misconceptions which I should perhaps mention. There seems to be the idea in the minds of many people that what I called the basic security feature of the bill, that is the provision that under no circumstances should the prices for certain key commodities be allowed to go below 80 per cent of the base price, was a provision that the only thing provided was 80 per cent of the average price which has prevailed during the preceding three years. I know a lot of people have seized on that as though it were the only feature in the bill, as though it were the only thing it contained and as though it were the main feature of the bill. It is not the main feature of the bill at all, Mr. Chairman, it is just an ultimate security measure written into the legislation so that farmers will never again be in the position such as they have been in the past where the prices fell to half of what they were, fell very rapidly to a fraction of what they had been or some other very drastic decline like that. That is the sole purpose of that part of the bill, the basic security feature of the bill.
The main part of the bill, actually the important part of the bill, is the provision to provide for a guaranteed yearly price on commodities as those prices may be required. Now I think a good deal of the criticism which has been made in the house and which as a result has got into the newspapers and I think given people incorrect ideas is that because a three-year moving average is used as a formula in the bill to determine the base price, and because of the

fact that during the past three years the average prices have not been satisfactory as far as many farmers are concerned, this means that the yearly guaranteed prices as set out in the bill are going to be extremely low, and so on. That is not so at all. The base price, based on the three-year moving average, is the particular type of formula employed because it is the only formula under which you can have a really flexible price support program.
Any price support program which attempts to use as its formula a base period in the past and apply an index to it, and so forth, immediately gets you into a rigid formula. I think the experiences of all countries in the world demonstrate the fact that a rigid formula just does not work. In that connection I think perhaps it might be interesting to give a couple of paragraphs from a preliminary report on the food and agriculture meetings in Rome which were concluded only two or three weeks ago. I will just read this:-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a point of order, before the minister goes on, I wonder whether the loud speaker system in this house is working properly. This sounds to me like the voice of the former minister of agriculture, but it seems to be coming from the government side of the house.


An hon. Member:: The hand of Gardiner.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has great difficulty in understanding anything that he does not want to understand and he has great ability to hear things which he wants to hear and not to hear things which he does not want to hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But what the minister is saying is the same line I have heard over the years.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Let me read just two paragraphs from this report of the Food and Agriculture Organization conference in Rome.


Hazen Robert Argue: Read your campaign speeches.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I read:
The most far reaching action on the part of the conference was the adoption of the resolution on agricultural support measures. The discussion preceding the presentation of the resolution centred on the factors contributing to the current surplus problems. Some of the delegations stated that in many instances support legislation, if not entirely responsible, contributed to the surplus problem.
The originator of the resolution was Denmark. Canada and New Zealand contributed to the final phrasing. There was general agreement on the need for this type of action. The resolution calls for the spelling out of priciples to serve as guidelines for use by member governments in establishing
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
or reviewing their agricultural price and income support policies. The purpose is to ensure that such policies will be effective in achieving the objectives of ensuring a reasonable level of income for farmers as compared with other sectors of the community, but, at the same time, will have minimum adverse repercussions on the pattern of production and trade of other countries.
I am told that one of the great concerns- and I found this out in the three days I was there-was the way in which support policies in some countries, and particularly that which had been in effect in the United States, had tended to disrupt international trade in agricultural products and had an adverse effect on the agricultural economy of a considerable number of other nations. I do not want to go on any longer at this point in regard to this matter, Mr. Chairman; but once again I would ask hon. members to consider the advisability of passing this resolution and thus enable the bill to be distributed.


Hazen Robert Argue: If we act on this request and do that this afternoon can the minister give us the assurance that the bill will be referred to the agricultural committee so that it can be studied in all its details? The minister then will have full opportunity to demonstrate by hearing evidence from the farm organizations that they feel that this bill is in fact a good one.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman, I cannot give that assurance. If what the hon. member proposes was done this bill would not be through for months.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not true.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, if the bill
were sent to the agricultural committee and we had there a full discussion of various types of what support policies might be put into effect and their advantages and disadvantages and so forth, it would certainly take weeks and, I am sure it would take months. The total effect would be that the bill itself would not be through and it would not be possible to put it into effect and the farmers of this country would not get the benefits of it.
The assurance I will be very glad to give the hon. member is this. I would be glad-and I think it is a thing that should be done-to have the agricultural committee make a study of price support systems and legislation as they exist in various countries, projected systems, and so forth-


Hazen Robert Argue: We want it in Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -and, as a result of a study of that sort there would be much greater knowledge in regard to these matters. It would be a great advantage at the next session of parliament to devote several weeks of the time of the agriculture committee to a
2394	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization study of that kind because certainly this matter of support legislation is one of the matters on which there is perhaps more misinformation and lack of knowledge in regard to the situation which exists as far as systems which are in effect and have been in effect for years in various countries than there is on almost any other subject.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened very attentively to the Minister of Agriculture and to his plea that nobody else should speak on this so that the bill could be brought in and distributed. I have been sitting here waiting to say something on this for quite a while-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to assure the hon. member I shall be glad to hear what he has to say.


William Scottie Bryce: Thanks very much; the minister is very kind.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am always glad to hear what he has to say.


William Scottie Bryce: What I am going to say has to do with the way I understand the resolution and is by way of offering a little criticism. I think the minister could have done a better job because when one compares this resolution with that introduced by the hon. member for Melville in 1944 there is not very much difference. They are practically the same. The only difference is that another $50 million has been added to the fund. Of course, that is only reasonable because everything is up about 25 per cent or more since 1944 and so more money is needed to carry out what you want to do.
The first thing that worries me about support measures is that floors immediately become ceilings and the only person who suffers is the farmer. If the minister is not going to make any more use of the legislation than his predecessor did I do not think there is much use in worrying about it. We used the other legislation at the time of the foot-and-mouth disease and although it was never meant for that it was a Godsend at that time. A good job was also done in maintaining the price of butter for the people who are milking cows. Other than that the legislation introduced by the minister's predecessor never served the purpose we thought it was going to serve.
The minister talks about guaranteed prices. The price for the next year is to be established on the basis of the average for the past three years, but the unkindest cut of all is that after the prices have been set the government is only going to pay 80 per cent of such prices.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, I have said fifty times that is not right.


William Scottie Bryce: That is what you told us.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, I did not tell you that. I told you the opposite.


Alfred Claude Ellis: That is all you are guaranteeing.


Hazen Robert Argue: The rest will be a political price.


William Scottie Bryce: If I am wrong and you are not
going to pay 80 per cent of parity then I am delighted because I do not think 80 per cent of parity is fair at all.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is 80 per cent of nothing.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It is 80 per cent of a low price.


William Scottie Bryce: Well, 80 per cent of a low price makes it worse still. The minister talks about forward prices and says that they are going to be set in the first three months of the year. I hope the minister is listening to me so that he can correct me. He says that forward prices are going to be set in the first three months of the year. What are you going to do about cattle? When a cow is bred the farmer should know what he is going to get for the calf three years hence or it is not a forward price. When he breeds the cow he will then know exactly what he will get for the steer or the heifer on the hoof at such and such a time. A year may be all right for sheep or hogs but when it comes to cattle it is no good whatever. You have got to have at least three years. I hope the minister will take that into consideration.
I have a lot of friends in the House of Commons and I talk to them about different things. Many of them are against controls. If you are going to bring in a workable support price policy there will have to be controls. I have never been against controls. During the war we had controls and our farmers got a better share of the national income than they got either before or since. The producer, the packer and the consumer all got a fair pound of flesh in turning the live animal into food.
Look at the beef we produce. Look at the hogs we produce. We did produce millions of pounds of pork and, may I say, the finest pork in the world today. There is nothing to beat Canadian bacon. That is the way I like controls. Everybody gets a square deal and, as I said, during the war our farmers got a better share of the national income than they have before or since.
I hope the minister will tell us what use he is going to make of the experimental farms in order to advise the farmer as to how much it should cost him to produce animals. That is their business. You do not need to grab

something out of the air and say that the cost should be so many dollars. Let us get the facts and find out what it costs to produce a hog. If you will then allow the farmer his wages he will be satisfied because at the present time he sometimes does not get the price of the feed he puts into the animal.
I do not know what you are going to do about cattle. Today you have steers up to 1,000 pounds in choice, good, medium and common grades. You have steers over 1,000 pounds in choice, good, medium and common. You have heifers in good, medium and common. You have cows in good, medium and common and you also have canners and cutters. Then you have replacement cattle. You have calves. How are you going to set the prices for them? Are you going to establish a board of livestock commissioners like the board of grain commissioners in order to do that job and to see that the farmer gets a square deal under the price policy?
I have mentioned the various grades. The only thing that the housewife buys is beef. There are nine or ten grades of cattle and the only thing she buys is beef. There are nine grades of pork including "A" hogs, No. 1 sows, No. 2 sows, heavy and extra heavy. A housewife does not go into a butcher shop and ask for a piece of No. 1 sow or extra heavy. She asks for a leg of pork. The thing is ridiculous. I hope the minister is going to be able to straighten it out in a way that it has never been done before.
I have other friends in the House of Commons who say to me, "Scottie, if you got your way you would take away the independence of the farmer." My goodness, what independence has the farmer left today? When he sells his hogs what does he do? He gets hold of a trucker, loads the hogs on the truck and tells the trucker to take them to a certain packing company. What does the farmer do? He sits at home and waits until the cheque comes. When I first came to this country about 40 years ago the farmer had some say in the sale of his produce but today he has absolutely no say in what should be done. The hogs are taken to the packing plant, he never sees them again and he gets a cheque. If he is satisfied he is one of the lucky ones. If he is dissatisfied there is nothing he can do about it.
I read the minister's remarks in Hansard when he used eggs as an example. As found at page 2187 of Hansard of December 11, he said:
Let us say that the average wholesale price of eggs in 1954 was 45 cents a dozen. In 1955 it was
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization 50 cents a dozen and in 1956 it was 55 cents a dozen. The base price for 1957 then would be the average of these, that is 50 cents a dozen.
Then let us say that the average price in 1957 was 60 cents a dozen. The base price for 1958 would be the average of prices for 1955, 1956 and 1957, that is, of 50 cents, 55 cents and 60 cents respectively, which would give a base price for 1958 of 55 cents a dozen.
The example which the minister gave us was a rising market, but if it had been a falling market just imagine where we would be. I have to do a lot of thinking about this 80 per cent of parity, but if eggs were 60 cents then, as I understand it, you would only get 80 per cent of that, so you would only get 48 cents a dozen for the eggs. There is no parity at all, but I am giving the minister the benefit of the doubt. I do not want to fall out with the man.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Do you expect to get a better price for those hogs?


William Scottie Bryce: I should like to spend a couple of minutes discussing turkeys. I appealed to the right hon. member for Melville when he was minister of agriculture to do something about turkeys. He never took me seriously enough to do anything about them. The day is coming when something will have to be done about them. If a turkey producer belongs to a co-operative organization he has solved the problem by getting the best price he can under existing conditions. However, let us consider the position of a man who does not believe in co-operatives and who has to sell his own turkeys. I am going to give you an example of what happened to a neighbour of mine. I will not tell you his nationality, but he is one of these canny individuals who has never been known to sell a hen on a rainy day.
This neighbour had 50 turkeys to sell, so he took them to Winnipeg. Hon. members know what it is like to sell turkeys. The buyer says, "Lay them out", and you lay them out and he says you have 20 A's, 20 B's and 10 C's. This friend of mine, whose nationality I have not told you, said, I will leave the A's but not the rest because I would not like anybody to eat a B or a C turkey that I raised. He picked up the B's and C's and sold the A's. He took these turkeys to the next big produce outfit and said he had turkeys to sell. He spread them out and the fellow looked at them, you know how they do, and said, "You have 10 A's, 10 B's and 10 C's." This chap told the same story, that he would not like anybody to eat a B or a C turkey, and he would take them home. He had 20 turkeys left, so he did the same thing with the next buyer who told him he had 8 A's, 8 B's and 4 C's. He
2396	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization left the A's, and at this point he has got rid of all his turkeys, on a grade A basis, except 12.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This is not by any chance the hon. member?


William Scottie Bryce: I would never tell you if it was. He disposed of his turkeys at the best price he could get. He has made a study of it, and he has done the very best he can. Satisfied he has done the best he can, he returns home. He has played the marketing game as it is practised today.
This resolution in the name of the minister is very much like the act that is now on the statute books. It does not do enough for the farmer and the minister's promise of 80 per cent of something-I have to look that up-certainly will not meet with the approval of the farmers I represent in the constituency of Selkirk. I want to ask the minister to give serious consideration to bringing the farm organizations to the agriculture committee. I am sure that if this bill is half as good as the minister makes it out to be, the farmers will take it because they are like drowning men and will grab at a straw now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I must say that the hon. member for Selkirk was well worth listening to; I am sure we all enjoyed him. Quite a number of the points he mentioned are things which have nothing to do with a price support measure. They were marketing and grading problems and are not directly related to a measure of this kind.
Now, the only reason I am on my feet again, Mr. Chairman, is that the hon. member has not understood my explanation. I must apologize for the fact the explanation was not clear as to the various types of prices mentioned by me in introducing this resolution. I should like to make the point that the base price is arrived at by taking the average of prices for three years previous, and is used the same as a foot rule is used in measuring length. In other words, it is a measuring device to a large extent and therefore one should not try to put a great deal of emphasis on the particular type of measuring device. In some other support price formulae you take a base period, we will say as it is in the United States, from 1910 to 1914, then you apply an index to it; you apply another index and so forth and eventually you arrive at something that not one farmer in a thousand is able to understand. While this system might appear complicated, I can assure you it is a marvel of simplicity in comparison with some of these support price formulae and plans. In any event, the purpose of that base price is really


to serve as a measuring device, to give you something to which to relate the actual price set. In other words, just as you would use a foot rule to measure distance, you use the base price to a considerable extent and you arrive at it by applying the three-year moving average formula, as something to which to tie the other price.
Perhaps I could put it this way so the hon. member would understand it better. There are two types of support provided for at two different levels altogether. There is, as I said before, the ultimate security feature, the fact that written right into the measure is a provision that, so far as certain basic commodities are concerned, they must be supported at all times at 80 per cent of the base price. We have never said this base price was parity. I do not want any misconception in anyone's mind that I am trying to maintain the base price is a parity price. I have never said so. I have never attempted to convince anybody of that fact.


Alfred Claude Ellis: We were promised parity prices.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If hon. members would allow me to finish, it would be better. They seem to be concerned with trying to confuse the issue instead of trying to enable people who do not understand what the measure provides to get a clear picture in their minds. This is a mandatory floor price which is provided for right in the bill, and it must be in effect at all times, that is, 80 per cent of these base prices. As I say, that is what you might call the ultimate security measure in the bill. Then the bill provides for the setting of yearly guaranteed support prices. As I said a little while ago, that is really the important feature of the bill. I would hope hon. members would not continue to talk of this bill as though it provided for 80 per cent of the average of the last three years, and so forth, because that is absolutely incorrect.


Victor Quelch: That is the only guarantee, is it not, the only absolute guarantee is the 80 per cent?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It depends upon what the hon. member for Acadia means. It is the only absolute guarantee written into the legislation, yes, but the important thing is this, there is also the guarantee that the legislation provides, as I say, for the setting of these yearly prices, and that is the forward pricing feature which has been requested for many years. I would like to say further that you cannot have both your cake and eat it. If you want, and if the farmers want a rigid price support formula then they have to accept the fact that only a very limited number of products can be or will be supported.

That is the situation in the United States. They produce in that country 250 different farm commodities. How many of those commodities are under price support in the United States? I will tell you how many-thirteen, that is all. Thirteen commodities, plus dairy products and wool. That is the position this year. Of all the commodities which are produced in the United States only 13 are under price support. As a result of that rigid type of price support policy, four-fifths of all the money which is paid out for the price support program went to one-quarter of the farmers. Only one-quarter of the farmers secured four-fifths of all the money paid out.
Now if you attempt to apply a rigid price support program you immediately run into this difficulty, and it exists not only in the United States but in every other country which has tried it or which has it in effect. You can only support a very limited number of commodities. If you want a system under which you can support every farm commodity you must go to a flexible price support program, and that is what we have done as far as this is concerned.
We wanted to have a program under which you could have a support for every agricultural product produced in Canada and the only way in which you can do that is by means of a flexible program of this type or some other type of flexible thing, a program such as we are proposing to put into effect. As I say, if people talk and continue to talk about a fixed price formula-a rigid formula-it means they are actually talking about trying to support the prices of just a very few commodities. The only way in which you can support every commodity is under some flexible type of program.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will these prices be set by order in council?


Mr. Stefura:: I understand the basic price is developed and that the floor price will not go below that but, on the guaranteed prices, is the advisory board going to be working on a definite formula as to whether the rate arrived at will be 80 per cent, 90 per cent, 100 per cent, or 120 per cent of the basic price? Are they going to be working on any definite formula?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, as I think I indicated when I introduced this measure, the procedure envisaged is this: during the first few months of each year, the first step would be for the agricultural prices stabilization board to assemble the statistical information from the last year and determine what the base price would be.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization


Peter Stefura: But there is no definite formula?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, yes. That, as I say, is on the three-year moving average formula. They establish a base price on that formula. All right, then the advisory committee is called in and they make their recommendations as to what commodities should be under the guarantee prices for the following year.


Peter Stefura: There is no formula though?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Now, just a minute-as to the level they should be under and the recommendations they make as to the level they should be under, that would be as a percentage of the base price and the percentage might be 90 per cent, 100 per cent, 110 per cent. It could be any percentage for that year except that for the basic or key commodities it must be more than 80 per cent.


Peter Stefura: But there is no definite formula which they would use to arrive at whether it should be 80, 90, 100 or 110 per cent of the basic price?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no rigid formula, no. You are getting back to this idea of a rigid formula again. There is no rigid formula which they must follow but here are the factors which they would use in arriving at this formula: (a) estimated cost of production on the average efficient farm; (b) supply of commodity; (c) prospective domestic and export outlets for it; (d) price levels at which other commodities are being supported. In other words we want to have some relation, which has not existed in the past, between the price support, say on hogs, and the price support on dried skimmed milk or anything else.
Then there are: (e) historical price information; (f) disposal and storage problems. In other words a commodity which is extremely perishable and for which there are no storage facilities you could not support at the same level at which you could support a commodity, such as butter, which can be stored quite readily for long periods and for which there are storage facilities. Then: (g) perishability of the commodity-another very important factor-(h) the length of production cycle-which is the matter the hon. member for Selkirk mentioned-(i) the availability of funds; (j) the number of producers affected. Of course with a commodity in which very few producers are affected, you could if you wanted to, support it at a very much higher level than you could support a commodity in which there were millions of producers, or it might be better to say hundreds of thousands of producers. Then, (k) the regional nature of the problem. You
2398	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization have a very big difference between the different regions of this country. Those are the factors which the advisory committee of the board and the government would consider in setting the level of the guaranteed price.


Victor Quelch: Would the minister explain a statement of his which appears at page 2187 of Hansard as follows:
Provision is made that the guaranteed price may be made effective by the board, which the act provides for, through it (a) purchasing the commodity, (b) paying deficiency payments and (c) making such other payments as the governor in council may direct.
He never explained just how those deficiency payments are going to be made.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That would depend entirely on the commodity. Under the existing agricultural prices support board, there were two methods provided for supporting prices. One was by means of deficiency payments which was used during the first two years and I think was the only method used during the first two years when the board carried on operations in 1946 and 1947. I have forgotten upon which commodities it was used.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was used on butter for the last two years right up until the time we went out.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, the right hon. gentleman says it was used on butter, but it is not used on butter.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not now but it was when you came in.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, it was not, and it has not been used on butter for many years-


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it was used in the last two years.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -if it ever had been.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will demonstrate that when the time comes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The method which has been used and developed under the Agricultural Prices Support Act has been the method of purchase in the market. That is what has been done with butter. The agricultural prices support board has had a standing offer to purchase butter at 58 cents per pound for the last three years approximately.


James Garfield Gardiner: All through the period of seven years.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It has been around that
price for several years longer than that, but it has varied a little from the 58 cents at different times. Butter has been supported by that method, the method of purchase. Those are the two methods which have been used. We have added here a third provision -any other method which the governor in
[Mr. Harkness.J

council may authorize-and we have added that purposely, because there are some commodities the prices of which you can support and a reasonable return can be given to the farmer only by some other method such as perhaps a flat payment.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to go along with the minister's suggestion that we get through this resolution stage as quickly as possible so that we may have a look at the bill. There are, however, a number of things I should like to say which could appropriately be said at this stage. Last Wednesday, was, I think, a sad day for the people of Canada who are dependent on agriculture for their livelihood. Many hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Acadia, clearly showed why the agricultural industry needs some solid, workable and helpful legislation now. I am not going to go over that ground again on this resolution stage. However, members from many parts of the house have indicated disappointment with the explanation of the resolution given by the Minister of Agriculture, or perhaps I should say not with the minister's explanation but with the contents of that explanation. I am afraid that individual farmers and farmer organizations are also feeling the pangs of disappointment. There is one thing I think we should remember, and that is that if we are disappointed now we had better brace ourselves for what is still to come. Only a few short weeks ago we had another resolution before us, and at that time, from the minister's explanation we thought we had a fairly good bill. I am speaking, of course, of the bill in regard to cash advances. But when the bill was brought in, what a disappointment it proved. It was tied up and tangled up with conditional regulations so that very little genuine assistance was provided for grain producers. In that regard I have a news report here from the Lethbridge Herald which is headlined: "No Rush in South for Cash Advances". If the bill which is to follow this resolution is to be a disappointment in relation to the resolution to the same degree as the bill following the cash advances resolution was, then, as I said, brace yourselves.
This resolution is in my opinion, not materially different in any way from what we have already in the statute book, and if anything it will be of even less help because it exempts things such as oats and barley which the prices support act in chapter 3 did not exempt. We will have to wait to see the bill, but if this is supposed to be part of the Conservative program to see that agriculture gets its fair share of the national income, then I think this legislation can be summed up in

one sentence by saying that the Conservatives must be of the opinion that agriculture has already got too much.
This brings up the question of what we in the opposition should do about this legislation. I think we have several alternatives. In the first place, possibly, we should get this into law as soon as possible so that the farmers may be able to see and judge for themselves the weaknesses of this Conservative policy. On the other hand, we should try, possibly, to stop it or to delay as much as possible so that the government may not feel that it has discharged its obligation to agriculture. However, I think that in the interest of agriculture we should possibly try to prevent this from superseding what is already on the statute books, because weak as that agricultural bill is it appears to me that it is better than this one.
The minister has said we do not understand this measure but I am sure we understand it only too well. If it only provides 80 per cent of what is already too little, I see no advantage in passing it at all. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says this is possibly another case of delayed action to get the Conservatives past the next election. Just for one minute I should like to make some comparisons between the minister's explanations of the resolution and what we already have on the statute books. In section 9 it says this under the heading "Powers of the Board":
To prescribe from time to time, with the approval of the governor in council, prices at which the board may purchase agricultural products in the market.
I should like the minister to explain to me whether that is materially different from what he has called forward prices. They already have the power to establish forward prices if they wish to do so. And further down, it reads:
(c) To pay to the producers of an agricultural product directly, or through such agent as the board may determine, the difference between a price prescribed by the board with the approval of the governor in council for such product and the average price, as determined by the board, at which such product is sold in the market during a specified period if such average price is below such prescribed price.
It seems to me now that having brought in this three year formula, why, they could use a three year formula or a two year formula or any other which seemed desirable. They already have the power to set up prices on the basis of any formula they wish. But there is one thing in this act about which I have heard nothing from the minister, and that is the provision at the bottom which says:
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
The board will endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
Perhaps I have not followed too closely, but I have not yet seen anything which the minister has indicated that it is going to have any relation to the gross national product or to the fair share of the national income.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I say once again that I do not wish to delay this bill. I think however, the time has come and if the Conservatives want to rattle their sabres about something which "will not be too long delayed" this might be a good measure on which to go to the people.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to exercise my parliamentary responsibility and express my views and the views of my constituents on this resolution.
Before doing so I should like to ask the government the cause of the delay between the time this legislation was placed on the order paper and the time we received it in the house. It was forecast in the speech from the throne nearly two months before the day on which it was brought down in spite of repeated requests by hon. members of this group for early action on this legislation.
This delay would have been unnecessary if the election promises made by the Conservative government that they would call a session in September to deal with this as a matter of urgency had been fulfilled. I think, Mr. Chairman there is a close analogy between this situation and the situation concerning the arrival of a circus in town. First, there is terrific advance press publicity. We had all that during the election campaign. The farmers were promised prices which would give them a fair share of the national income. Advertising was put out, and the prospects displayed on most attractive posters. After that, we had a resolution placed on the order paper which adds to the interest and to the expectation. And then, in addition, we had the spieler in the form of the Minister of Agriculture giving us the come-on. I was not as impressed by the come-on spiel as I was with the resolution, and I think the minister would have done better and would have drawn a bigger crowd if there had been no explanation at all, because it seems to me he gave away some of the secrets of the show, and some of us now might hesitate about buying a ticket to go in.
However, I think the problem facing us is the resolution rather than the explanation of the minister and it does promote considerable
2400	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization interest. There should be strong criticism levelled at the government for its delay in bringing in a measure to offer relief to the crisis in agriculture because of the present conditions. It is apparent that over the past number of years a similar charge of delay has been levelled at governments and I call as my witness the then hon. member for Lake Centre, the present Prime Minister, speaking on July 29, 1944, as reported at page 5599 of Hansard when the Agricultural Prices Support Act was introduced. He said:
One observation I would make at the beginning is that it is passing strange that legislation as important as this should have been been brought down so late in the session.
Those are the views of the present Prime Minister. He continued:
When one considers-that it is introduced on a Saturday in the dying days of the session when by reason of long hours of sitting during the week members are necessarily tired out and unable to give the bill as much attention as it should receive, it seems only right that protests should be made against this sort of procedure.
Mr. Chairman, do we not have a repetition of those same circumstances which were condemned by the Prime Minister on that occasion? I would like now to place on the record the words of the hon. member for Huron in the same debate in relation to the Agricultural Prices Support Act as reported at page 5598 of Hansard who said:
If it is being brought in only for election purposes, of course it will do no good. If it is an honest attempt to do what it purports to do, then I support it wholeheartedly. Something of this kind is long past due.


Mr. Marler:: A very intelligent observation.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Those are the
words of the hon. member for Huron who is now the government whip speaking on legislation introduced by a former administration and I can see a very strong analogy between that occasion and the present circumstances.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was that his only speech?


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: It was not a very long one but I appreciate the thought that it involved.
The purpose of the debate on the resolution stage is to give the government the advice and the thinking of the house on the proposed legislation. The present Minister of Agriculture has declared himself to be an authority on this subject and to know just as much about it as any hon. member in the chamber but I think there are many hon. members who are not familiar with all agricultural conditions in Canada and in the hope that these views will be given consideration in the proposed bill I would like to make a review of agricultural conditions.


It has been stated in previous debates that agriculture finds itself in a depressed condition at the present time due to the reduction of the net farm income. It was pointed out that from 1952 to 1956 there has been a decline of the net farm income in Canada of 18 per cent and in my own province of Saskatchewan this decline has been 31 per cent. I think perhaps I should explain the term "net farm income". It is the money we as farmers have left after paying our costs of operation. We do not know yet what will be the net farm income for 1957 but there is every indication that it will be about half the net farm income for 1956. We can see indications of that because from January to June of this year there has been a decline of $8 million in cash farm income, which is the total receipts of farmers in Canada as a whole, and in Saskatchewan we find in that same period a decline of 10 per cent.
In the debate on cash advances on farm-stored grain when this problem was dealt with it was pointed out that it is necessary to give serious consideration to what is generally referred to as the cost-price squeeze. This refers to the tremendous increase in our costs of production and the decline in the prices we receive. In the last ten years there has been a decline in the wheat price of 21 per cent whereas the cost of production has gone up 46 per cent. I am certain that the same cost-price squeeze affects farmers in all parts of Canada whether they reside in Quebec, Ontario, the Atlantic provinces, British Columbia or in the western provinces. They are all plagued with the same problem.
I want to look more specifically at the problems of my own constituency of Kindersley and bring them to the attention of the committee because I feel they are representative of the problems in western Canada in particular. It is difficult to obtain authoritative evidence of the cost of production because there are no government publications which give an exact indication. However, the experimental farm service has surveyed wheat production costs and they provide some information which will be of interest to all hon. members. The Manitoba Co-operator of May 2, 1957, in reporting on the review of the experimental farm service says:
In 1956. the average cost of producing wheat on summerfallow on 10 illustration station farms amounted to $23.22 per acre. The factors of production considered in this study, and the percentage (in brackets) each contributed to the total cost per acre are as follows: Rent of land, taxes and use of buildings $208 per acre (9.0 per cent); cost of summerfallow, plus interest $6.51 (28.0 per cent); seeding, preparation and cost of seed, $4.94 (21.3 per cent); fertilizer, spraying and hail insurance, $1.91	(8.3 per cent); harvesting operations, $4.89
(21.1 per cent); interest on net cost at 3 per cent

on seed, fertilizer and labour $0.16 (0.7 per cent); general equipment charge, $0.51 (2.2 per cent); general farm expenses, $1.06 (4.4 per cent); and a management charge of $1.16 (5.0 per cent).
I believe it is important that these figures be given consideration because they reveal the tremendous increase in the cost of production over the years and should serve to give hon. members from every part of Canada an appreciation of the problems the wheat farmer is facing.
In that same connection I must express disappointment that in explaining the resolution the minister mentioned that wheat, oats and barley coming under the Canadian wheat board were specifically excluded from the operation of the system anticipated by this resolution. I was hoping in reading the original resolution that these commodities would be included since there is certainly a strong demand to have these basic commodities included.
To continue with evidence indicating the plight of farmers I would turn to the annual report of the Kindersley vocational agriculture farm management program. This is a program which works in connection with the larger school unit in that district and is based on a survey of 69 farms in the area. This annual report indicates that the cost of production per crop acre including no wage to the operator is $21 per acre as an average on all farms. Including a $3,000 operator wage, which is very moderate in this day and age, the cost would be $28 per acre as an average for all farms. We can readily see the impossible battle the western farmer is waging in meeting his cost of production when the Minister of Trade and Commerce has admitted that all we can expect this year is a six-bushel quota. On the basis of half summerfallow this would give 12 bushels per wheat acre provided you had no special crops which reduced the quota. This, at the very most, would give you a return of $15 a crop acre. I have already pointed out that the cost of production is $21 per acre.
It is more than evident that the farmers are having to live on the depreciation costs of their farm machinery. The Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, in a study of the depreciation charges per crop acre, pointed out that for a 320-acre farm the cost is $4.53; on a section farm it is $3.99; and on a 2-section farm, $3.07. Therefore, more than the depreciation which farmers should normally be allowed to put aside for the replacement of their equipment is being completely utilized in order to continue the operation of the farms. As a result of that, I
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization noticed in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of November 28, 1957, an article entitled: Bleak Outlook
Lloyd Barber, professor of commerce at the University of Saskatchewan, said Wednesday there was a bleak outlook for the farm implement retail business.
The article goes on to say:
In the next two decades it was possible that where three dealers were operating now there might be only business for one.
There, Mr. Chairman, is evidence which I think is irrefutable to give to hon. members a full appreciation of the agricultural conditions which are facing farmers in western Canada, and I maintain the same circumstances apply to farmers in other parts of Canada. It points out the need for action on the part of this government to forestall this trend. It is apparent that it is not just the farmer who is suffering because these circumstances apply to all those in the smaller communities and in the larger communities who have direct contact with the farmer.
I pointed out that the article indicates a very , bleak future for the implement dealers. Those hon. members who have travelled through rural Canada will appreciate the number of implement dealers who will be put in jeopardy. It applies, of course, to all services to the farmer, to the municipalities and counties.
As I have pointed out, the rising costs are not being offset by the very low deliveries of grain from the farm. As of November 25, which are the latest figures available, it is indicated that there are 644 marketing points still on the unit quota. They are allowed to deliver only 300 bushels of wheat and a fixed proportion of other grains. There are 1,133 marketing points on a 1-bushel quota and only 263 marketing points on a 2-bushel quota. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is apparent that agriculture is facing a dilemma. The same situation certainly applies to those who are in other forms of enterprise.
It has been asked many times by those who have not been adequately informed: Why do you keep on growing wheat when there is obviously no market for it? Why do you not grow something else? In fact, the Minister of Trade and Commerce in that speech he made in Winnipeg implied the same thing. Well, we have the alternative of farmers transferring to other grains, and there has been a great transfer to the growing of durum, which has a very limited market. What will happen as we transfer from the growing of spring wheat to durum wheat is that we shall in turn glut that market.
The market for flax is a doubtful one although the seedings have gone up over 150
2402	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization per cent from the previous year and it is questionable just how much the market can absorb. The third alternative which the farmers have been following is the growing of rape seed, and we find that we are confronted with an exorbitant freight rate and as yet the government has taken no action to dissallow the decision which was made by the board of transport commissioners granting the increase and thus give the farmers a fair deal on that, although they have the privilege and the responsibility. Here again the production of rape seed is limited. You cannot turn all of your acreage into the production of those other crops. I maintain that the farmers have co-operated because the acreage seeded to wheat has dropped in the province of Saskatchewan over a million acres in the last three years.
Well, we have another alternative, namely to transfer to livestock, and I think it is important that this be given consideration in discussing a resolution to provide stability to agriculture. In the first instance, the cash outlay to transfer to livestock from a grain operation is tremendous. I have a letter from a veteran in my constituency, Mr. Timothy McBride of Marengo, who found himself with a large surplus of wheat and who wanted to transfer to livestock. He is a settler under the Veterans' Land Act. He will not get title to his land until May 31, 1959. He would need $5,000 to buy a herd of cattle and to set up the buildings to house them, but he cannot get the money because in the first place he has no title to his land; but, more pointedly, there is no credit policy in Canada to give assistance to such a man who is trying to resolve this problem.
Of course, there are other problems related to the transfer to livestock. One that I would cite would be the shortage of feed and the shortage of water. I am quite familiar with this, Mr. Chairman, because on my own farm I have run a fairly large herd of cattle over the past number of years. 1 had at the start of this year 85 head of cattle and I found that because of the very meagre moisture supply that we had my pastures were drying up. I had to sell 20 head of those cattle and it was fortunate I did because in the course of the year my three dugouts dried up and the two wells which I have to supply those cattle with water are on the verge of going dry any day. Therefore, we have to give very serious consideration to the blanket suggestion that we should transfer to livestock.
In addition to this, members from eastern Canada should be aware of the impact which it would have on their economy if indeed the farmers of western Canada were to transfer to livestock in great numbers. The traditional


tendency has been for the western feeder cattle to be transported to Ontario and Quebec where they are finished off for the large eastern market. In western Canada we have the cattle and we have the feed, and I would submit we would be transferring the problem to the eastern farmers if the farmers in western Canada were to go extensively into livestock.
Now, I should like to make some suggestions which would, in my opinion, resolve this basic problem and they should be given consideration in this resolution. It has been stated by the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool that the income of western farmers must be increased to meet the cost of production. I think we have an important point there which must be given consideration in this resolution.
In the remarks he made the minister indicated that there is no direct relationship between the cost of production and the base price established under this legislation. If that is the case, it is a very serious omission, indeed, because the cost of production and the prices must bear a relationship which will give the farmer a fair return.
One of the short-term proposals which I would suggest to resolve this lack of income would be the payment of a domestic parity price for wheat to the farmers of western Canada. It has been pointed out that over the years, particularly in the early war years, the farmers of western Canada subsidized all of the people in Canada by taking a low price for their wheat; and even today the farmers are getting much less than their cost of production of wheat. Therefore, it would naturally follow that the price of wheat should be increased to the farmer to bear some relationship to the cost of production. It would not increase the price of bread by an appreciable amount, since there is only three cents worth of wheat in a loaf of bread at the present time. On 50 million bushels, which is the amount consumed domestically, it would mean about $25 million to the farmers of western Canada which should be distributed to assist the smaller farmer.
In addition, other producers in Canada who are receiving a price less than their cost of production must receive a deficiency payment. This is not a subsidy. It is an economic technique which would provide those farmers with the money whereby they could meet their cost of production. If they do not meet their cost of production Canada will be confronted not only with an economic but a sociological problem because as farmers go bankrupt and have to move from the farm they in turn create other problems elsewhere in industry.

The proposal of deficiency payments has been advocated by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the interprovincial farm union council and is accepted by farmers. I am hopeful that the principle will be encompassed in the legislation although I am afraid the minister let the cat out of the bag in his explanation and that the principle will not be covered.
We must also give consideration to additional long-term policies which will solve the dilemma of agriculture. We must remove some of the shackles of trade barriers so that Canadian agricultural products can be exported. We must give further consideration to purchasing goods from the United Kingdom so that they in turn will be in a position to buy goods from us. We must face the problem of providing agricultural credit. At the turn of the century agriculture was an expanding industry and all of the policies of this country were geared to an expanding industry. We can think of the settlement policy whereby the government bet the farmer $10 against a quarter section of land that he could not last there for a year. The whole thing was aimed at expanding agriculture. But now that we have mechanization, now that we have $7,000 combines that can do more than several threshing outfits, it is necessary to give consideration to that fact in our agricultural policy and provide policies for readjustment so that farmers can in turn form themselves into an economic unit.
The minister admitted that the legislation was inadequate to meet many of these conditions. I think that admission is rather an indictment of the measure because surely to goodness on the basis of the election promises and the hopes that were raised in people's minds this measure should have solved at least some of the basic problems. In order to resolve the dilemma of agriculture the legislation must include a relationship between the cost of production and the prices paid.
The minister has made a great point of the flexibility of the legislation, how it can be moved about, but it looks to me like this flexibility is going to be a rubber hose with which the farmers will be beaten over the head. The flexibility is not related to any particular subject at all and the minister has complained about rigidity.
In addition, the minister has pointed out that the purpose of the legislation is to guarantee prices. For how long? For one year? A guaranteed price for one year is useless because it does not take into consideration the production cycles in certain industries. It would be all right if you were
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization growing peas. You could plant them in the spring and harvest them in the fall and you would be assured of your price.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And mushrooms.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: The hon. member for Kootenay West suggests mushrooms. That is something else to which help might be given in an effective way. A one-year guaranteed forward price is of no value to the poultryman because in his case there is a two-year production cycle. What about the man who decides to transfer to the production of hogs? In that case there is a three-year production cycle. Of what value is it to him to know that in one specific year he has a guaranteed price? What about the cattle producer? In that case there is a five-year production cycle. Is one year the best the government can do to provide stability for agriculture? We must have a forward price based on the production cycle if the farmer is going to be assured any degree of security and stability.
In addition, the agricultural program must ensure that agriculture receives a fair share of the national income. That is implied in the resolution but unfortunately in giving his explanation the minister indicated that this was something that would be in the discretion of the government. I think it should go beyond that. There are other measures that should accompany this one in order to meet the needs of Canadian agriculture.
As I mentioned, we must have adequate credit facilities to assist young farmers to become established because failing that and with the present cost-price squeeze they are drifting away from this useful and essential occupation to other occupations which they perhaps may not enjoy. We must have a crop insurance program to supplement this measure.
I have dealt in some detail with many of the problems confronting agriculture. I hope I have been able to convince hon. members of the extreme need that exists in Canada for a realistic agricultural policy to provide stability for the family farms. If the measure does not include recommendations to meet these problems, I suggest that the minister should whisk it back for redrafting and in any case he should refer it to the agriculture committee of the House of Commons so that farm organizations and members of the house may be able to make a workable proposition out of it.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I think one of the needs of the house is for some member to stand up and speak of the joys of the farm. I should like to do so but I do not

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization want to take too much time on this resolution. However, may I suggest one or two. Look at the joy of exploring the mysteries of a farm, why a red cow will eat green grass and give white milk. Tell me why it is that taking two grains of wheat of the same size and the same weight one will germinate sooner than the other and one will produce two stalks and the other will produce three. Look at the little chicks, the lambs, the kids, the colts, the joy of experimenting and producing better potatoes.
The farmers of the Fort William district are not living in starvation. In our community we have the champion potato grower and there are others who are experimenting with oats. If we want to help the farmers, let us pass the resolution and get the bill.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, we are discussing a measure to provide guaranteed prices for certain commodities. I think this is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation-the Minister of Agriculture himself has said so-that has come before the house during this session at least. I think it would be wrong if members of the house did not avail themselves of the opportunity to do everything they could in order to make the legislation better than it now appears to be.
In discussing the measure the only thing we have on which to base our judgment is what the minister said in his speech and I must take it for granted that what the minister did say was based on the bill itself. True there are not too many who know anything about the bill. There has not been too much consultation with others in drafting the bill so we must rely on what the minister has told us. Therefore, I assume that what the minister said in his speech about the resolution is correct.
There have been a great many people throughout this country who have been quite concerned about this proposed measure. Within the last few days there has been a great deal of publicity given to it. Whether or not the government delayed the introduction of this measure in order to get this advance publicity, I cannot say, but certainly that was the result.
Within the last little while the minister has been urging us to pass this measure; hurry up and get it through. I do not believe the members of this house should rush a bill of this kind-


An hon. Member:: A resolution.


Charles Edward Johnston: -or a resolution, because it is something that is going to materially affect the economic condition, not

only of the farmers in Canada but all of the people in Canada. The effects of it are going to last for a number of years. I am sure there is no farmer in this country who would not say to his member of parliament, do not rush this thing through; take all the time that is necessary and see if you cannot make some improvements on this otherwise unfavourable measure. The minister does not want to take too much for granted because there are a number of people in this country who are very concerned about this measure.
Mention has been made before during this debate, and I just recall it again to the minister's mind, that some very definite promises were made during the election campaign. There were some definite promises made by the Conservative candidate in my constituency, and by others who spoke over the radio and over the T.V. from Calgary, as to what would be done for the farmers if the Conservatives were elected.
I am not going to refer to newspaper clippings, but I want to refer to a resolution that was passed by one of the farm organizations in my constituency, a district in which some Conservatives spoke and in which the Prime Minister himself spoke. This is a resolution from the farmers' union of Alberta in Carbon, local 1005, and which was sent to me a short time ago. It is addressed to me, and reads:
Whereas during his campaign, if he formed the government, the present Prime Minister J. G. Diefenbaker said, "We will assure the farmer of his fair share of the national income by maintaining a flexible price support program. X underline the word flexible-"
The Prime Minister is still speaking.
'*-to ensure an adequate parity for agricultural producers, based on a fair price-cost relationship- My pledge to farmers in all parts of Canada is; to assure that the farmer shall receive his fair share of the national income."
That is the end of the quotation from the Prime Minister, and then it goes on:
Therefore, be it resolved that Mr. Charles E. Johnston, M.P., keep constantly in front of the Prime Minister and the government, the promises made by Mr. Diefenbaker prior to the last election, stressing the price support program, and of the farmer receiving his fair share of the national income.
Now Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I am doing and what I intend to do. I believe that any member in this house, be he Conservative, Liberal, Social Credit or C.C.F., would not be serving his constituents if he neglected to keep that pledge in this house, and express here on the floor the same comments that he made out on the hustings. I believe there has been only one Conservative in this debate so far who has said he approves of this measure in its present form, and the bill which will follow.

Let me start now to discuss the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture the other day. He pointed out to us that this legislation implemented all their election promises. I do not want to take anything for granted, so I will turn to page 2816 of Hansard for December 11, 1957, and there I find he said this:
The resolution before us is one on which a bill will be based that is designed to put into effect our stated program of greater stability of income for agriculture.
Then, he goes on:
This is a far-reaching and important piece of legislation,-
It certainly is far-reaching.
-perhaps the most important, in its implications,-
Again I agree with him.
-in its expected results for agriculture and its effect on the general economy, that has been considered by the Canadian parliament for many years.
That is just what I am afraid of, that the effect this measure is going to have on the general economy of Canada is going to be very detrimental to agriculture. Then, again at page 2189 of Hansard, the minister has this to say:
I think this legislation will do everything we promised we would do so far as our campaign pledges are concerned.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Conservatives have not kept any of their promises in this legislation, and I shall point out my reasons for making that statement. Let us see whether or not the government has kept its promises. I have a clipping here from yesterday's Ottawa Journal, December 13, and I am sure you will agree with me that in this instance the farmers do not think the government has kept the pledges it gave during the election campaign. The heading reads, "Farm Price Support Plan a Shock". Let us remember this is from Ontario, incidentally. This reads:
An official of the Ontario farmers' union said Thursday Canadian farmers will receive the Conservative government's new farm price support program "with a shock". Albert D. Cormack honorary president of the O.F.U. was commenting on the program announced Wednesday in the Commons by agriculture minister Harkness.
I would take it from that that people do not believe the government has implemented its promises, although the Minister of Agriculture says they have completely filled all their promises. Down farther, this article says:
He contended that supports set at 80 per cent of the prices paid farmers for the last three years "will cause a mass evacuation from the farms".
Canada lost 48,000 farmers during the last five years, he said.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
I am sure that Ontario agriculturists are not very enthused with this piece of legislation. During the election campaign it was stated that when this legislation was drawn up there would be consultations with farmers, farm organizations and those people who were interested in agriculture. But who drew up the bill? According to the minister it was the prices support board, the economic division of the Department of Agriculture and the marketing service. No assistance was requested from any agricultural organization in Canada in the drafting of this bill. There was not one Conservative backbencher consulted in the drafting of this bill. It was never brought up in their caucus, either.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Prove that.


Charles Edward Johnston: If it was, then some Conservative member should get up and say so.


An hon. Member:: We are trying to get the bill before us.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am told it was never discussed in caucus, and I think that is true.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Who told you?


Charles Edward Johnston: There is not a Conservative member in this house, outside of the members of the cabinet, who knows anything about this measure. And yet, mind you, in the election campaign the Conservative candidates went around and said "Well now-


An hon. Member:: It worked did it not?


Charles Edward Johnston: -"Well now you elect me a Conservative and I will be sitting in at the caucus helping to direct the course of the construction of this agricultural program." What a lot of nonsense.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: What a lot of nonsense you are talking.


Mr. Cardiff:: If there was no Hansard he would not be talking.


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not hear
that wise-crack.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I said a lot of you fellows would never be talking at all if there were no Hansard.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well you know, it is a very good thing there is a Hansard, because now we can go back and read what the Minister of Agriculture has said and just see the inconsistency in that speech. I want to do that as we go along.
Now the Minister of Agriculture pointed out in his remarks that the advisory committee, made up of all farm organizations in Canada -and then he took the word "all" out; he

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization must have thought "Gee, that is going too far, they are not going to believe that"-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Charles Edward Johnston: "I am going to take that, 'all', out." So he changed it and said "farm organizations".


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order. The hon. member, of course, has been attempting to misrepresent what I have said right along, but now he has come to an example where I got up in the house and corrected Hansard. I said that "all" should not have been there; it is not a matter of a change, I never said it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I said when I started, Mr. Chairman, that I could only go by what the minister had said in his speeches as recorded in Hansard and I read it word for word. I did say, also, that later on he changed that and took the word "all" out. He did not say some farm organizations, he just said farm organizations. Well that could be one. I certainly do not think we can conclude that the minister has consulted very many farm organizations because now we are getting letters from farm organizations all over the country who are very opposed to this. So certainly he cannot very well take that-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: You had better be careful-


Charles Edward Johnston: As for the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, the farmers in his area are not too enthused about all this either and he had better watch his step because when he goes home he is going to be asked "Why did you not implement these election promises?" He might have a little difficulty on his hands explaining this to his own farmers.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On a question of privilege; the hon. member referred to the volume of letters pouring into his office in connection with this legislation and in protest of this legislation at the resolution stage. Could he put one of those letters on the record please?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not a question of privilege.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have them up in my office and I will be pleased to send them to the hon. gentleman if he will send a messenger with a truck so that he can get all of them.


An hon. Member:: Pretty small truck eh?


Charles Edward Johnston: Now let us see
what is this advisory committee and just what capacity it is going to have in formulating this legislation. This is what the Minister of Agriculture said so far as the effectiveness of the

advisory committee is concerned. As recorded on page 2188 of Hansard he said:
The advisory committee will meet with the board to make its recommendations, and the two will confer together. The board will then make its recommendations to the government as to what commodities should be under guarantee for the next 12 months and the percentage of the base price at which each should be supported. The final responsibility, of course, must rest with the government, which may accept the board's recommendation, alter it or reject it.
Now the point is that the Minister of Agriculture put great stress on the fact that this advisory committee is made up of representatives from farm organizations. But the advisory committee does not advise or talk this over with the Minister of Agriculture at all. The advisory committee meets with the board, and then after that consultation with the board, the board consults with the minister. Now that is a pretty indirect way of the minister saying that the agricultural organizations are going to be consulted when, as an actual matter of fact, he is side stepping them at every turn.
Now this bill itself is divided into three parts-I am not now speaking of the political propaganda which is in it-I mean the three main parts of the bill, the three divisions. First there is the base price. This is the formula which is established in the bill. The minister said the bill will reveal to us the base price which will be the average of the last three years. The cost-price relationship for the last three years has been the lowest since the war and even for a long time before that and so our base price for agricultural products is established on the lowest three year period he could have picked.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not correct.


Mr.   Johnslon@Bow River: The lowest
period he could have picked-


Douglas Scott Harkness: You do not know what you are talking about. I wish you would look at the statistics and then you would not make these terrible mistakes.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is it established on the last three years or is it not?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Certainly.


Charles Edward Johnston: Look at the
condition of agriculture, going down every year. All the prices indicate that the price for agricultural products has been continually declining-


Victor Quelch: He admitted it.


Charles Edward Johnston: As the member for Acadia says, the minister himself has admitted that. Now then each commodity is going to be considered independently and the price of that commodity will be influenced in

this way. Let me quote the minister's own words because I do not want to misrepresent him at all; that is the last thing I would want to do.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You have been doing absolutely nothing else throughout your whole speech which is entirely a matter of misrepresentation.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have been
quoting you.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And it shows a complete lack of knowledge of the scheme.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have been
quoting you. If there is any misrepresentation, you are the one who is guilty of it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You have been interpreting what I have said in your own way which is completely wrong.


Charles Edward Johnston: No, I have been quoting your own words so that there would be no possibility of misrepresentation and I am going to continue to quote. All right, let us see what the minister says now about this particular section.
The relationship of the base price of one commodity to another is left to the determination of market conditions.
Do you mean to tell me there is any semblance of a parity in that? Could you tell me that there is any relationship in that price to the election promises that they were going to give the farmers a fair share of the national income?
Now the reason I have mentioned these fair prices and their relationship to the national income is that it is under this heading of base price that the minister himself used these arguments-not on the guaranteed price-on the base price. Then further down it says, "it reflects market changes". Well, when you come to study the base price on the average for the last three years that reflects market changes-all down-and you say there is a relationship between that and the farmers' fair share of the national income or a cost-plus-a fair profit? Then, he says in the next column:
First, he wants prices for his products which will cover his cost of production and leave him enough to live on;
But in the statement which the minister has made there is certainly no basis whatever in fact for that statement because he has set the price so that it reflects the market changes. There is no attempt there to keep any of these election promises; in fact it is just the opposite. They have avoided every one of their election promises. Now in this next statement which I am about to make, and which I make on my own responsibility
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization -the minister did not say this in effect, but I am going to prove to you that this is what he meant-I will tell the committee that one of the main purposes of this legislation is to curtail production at a time when we should be doing anything else rather than curtailing the production of this country. At a time when we have such great need for our products, such widespread unemployment and so many people in the world who are starving, this is what the government has in mind. Let us look at page 2186 of Hansard, and see what the minister says about it.
I have endeavoured in this legislation to provide for the greatest possible degree of flexibility so we will not be saddled with a program which inevitably acts as an incentive to produce burdensome and unsaleable surpluses.
Is it not clear that one of the main purposes of this measure is to prevent these unsaleable surpluses? Of course it is. Now let us look at page 2187, where the minister says:
The purposes of the moving average formula method of determining the base price are to ensure stability of income to farmers by protecting them against a drastic decline of prices; to provide for a gradual adjustment through prices due to changes in consumption habits, losses of export outlets-
And so on. Thus he is giving to the house a price formula along these lines in order to cut down production so that we will not be burdened by surpluses. Then, again, the minister goes on at page 2187-and he emphasized this at least in three different places when dealing with this legislation, so this must have been uppermost in his mind:
In this legislation we have attempted to meet these two demands, conditional on not providing-
I underline the word "not"
In this legislation we have attempted to meet these two demands, conditional on not providing a price for any commodity which will serve as a strong incentive to farmers and thus result in large unsaleable surpluses.
In three different important sections of his speech the minister stressed the point that the base price will be such as will not be an incentive to raise too much. If the minister had taken as many pains in drawing up this legislation to see that the farmers got parity, or to see that the farmers got their fair share of the national income, as he has in trying to do away with these burdensome surpluses, we might have had some different results from this bill.
The second part of the bill concerns the floor price. The minister said a moment ago that this was the most insignificant part of the whole thing. Well, this is a very important thing for agriculture though it may be insignificant to the minister. The floor price, or as he calls it the security provision,
2408	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization prescribes that the floor price is to be based on 80 per cent-not less than 80 per cent- of the base price. That means that the price which the farmer is guaranteed is going to be 20 per cent lower than the average price for the last three years, which has been the lowest for many years. That is some guarantee. The hope a farmer has, therefore, if things continue the way they are now with unemployment and our declining price structure; the only prospect a farmer has is that he is going to get as a floor price 20 per cent less every year. That is not a very bright prospect for the farmer, and it is not unnatural that the people across Canada are becoming alarmed at the implications of this bill.
And then this basic price, or this floor price, will only be on certain commodities,-key products. It is not going to apply to everything, but only to basic commodities. In fact, the floor price could be even lower than the present price in some cases. The minister says this on page 2189 of Hansard in answer to a question by the hon. member for Assiniboia.
One question he asked is whether the assured floor price would not in many cases be lower than the present price. That is correct-
So the guaranteed price will in many cases be lower than the present price. And this bill, says the minister, is guaranteed to give the farmers their fair share of the national income. What an imagination that man has! He ought to join the movies. As a comedian, of course.
Now let us come to the guaranteed price, the third part of the bill. The guaranteed price may be-and I use that word "may" advisedly-the base price, that is, the average price over the last three years. It may be 80 per cent of that. That is the average price, too. The guaranteed price may be the floor price. It may be 90 per cent of the base price or it may be 100 per cent of the base price, that is, the base price itself. Or it may be 110, 120 or 150 per cent possibly depending on how close you are to an election. That very aspect of it, Mr. Chairman, seems to be-I will not use the word which comes to my tongue there-I will say unfortunate. That is about the mildest term I can think of at the moment. Why should you leave price setting to the minister himself, to the whim of the minister?


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rea):: Order. I must advise the hon. member for Bow River that his time has expired.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have not
finished yet, but I will finish before this resolution is out.
[Mr. Johnston (Bow River) .1


Mr. Campbell (Lambion-Kenl):: Mr. Chairman, and members of the House of Commons, I appreciate the fact that it is possibly the duty of the opposition to try to depict such measures as are now before the house in the blackest manner they can, but I do appreciate the opportunity of speaking at this time in support of the resolution.
I understand that this measure proposes to support and stabilize the products of agriculture. Such a measure, I believe, is necessary and in fact long overdue.
I have many and varied agricultural problems in my own constituency, perhaps more than in any part of Canada. I say this honestly because there are greater variations in the crops produced in Lambton-Kent and therefore there is a greater variety of problems in connection with those crops. I believe that our agricultural policy is unsound and unfair and has been so for a long period of time, and while it must be admitted that there have been times over the past number of years when agriculture has enjoyed a considerable degree of prosperity those times in the main have been brought about by luck rather than planning or management either on the part of the government or of the people.
When I say that these periods of prosperity have been brought about by luck I do not necessarily mean that they have come about as a result of good luck; rather, in large part, they have come about as a result of the worst kind of bad luck which could befall any people, namely war. Surely, Mr. Chairman, there is a better and less costly way of correcting the ills of agriculture than having to resort to war or having to wait for a war to correct them. I am sure we are all in agreement that a small part of the cost of defending ourselves in time of war would correct most of the ills of agriculture in peacetime; yet in wartime we accept the extra load of cost of food together with other costs because then and only then do the people seem to appreciate the vital need and the dependence they have upon agriculture for their very existence.
I have suggested that the position of the farm people appeared to have improved as a result of bad luck befalling the people of the country as a whole in the case of the nation being at war. However, I would like to state here that even that kind of luck has not always worked to the benefit of the farm people in the way they expected it would for I recall quite clearly that during the last war the government of the day saw fit to place price ceilings on agricultural commodities beyond which they could not go and this price ceiling structure had the effect of denying

to people engaged in agriculture the opportunity which would have been afforded in the ordinary course of events to take advantage of a stronger market and at better prices.
Some time ago in speaking in the throne speech debate I mentioned that I had been a member of a delegation which had come to Ottawa asking for measures to protect the sugar beet growers and that we had been refused. Some time later, about the time of the conclusion of the last war, I was again a member of a group of wheat growers who came once more to Ottawa, asking for consideration in the matter of the raising of the price ceiling on wheat which had been set at around $1.12 per bushel. We were not refused on this occasion; in fact, we were well received. We presented our problem and it was gratifying to learn in a few days that the ceiling had been raised to $1.27.
As time passed and the war came to an end farm production costs had continued to rise and the wheat farmers of our area felt that it was unfair to be restricted by a price ceiling that prevented them from taking advantage of the opportunity a free market would have offered them and so another meeting was called and a delegation again came to Ottawa this time to ask that the ceiling be removed entirely and this request was also granted. Shortly after the price rose to the point where it ranged between $2 and $2.40 and where it remained for quite a period of time.
The fact I am endeavouring to point out to hon. members of this committee is that the farm people did carry a big share of the load, perhaps an unjustly large share of the load, in time of war; and if the people and the government feel they had the right to expect the farm people to carry that load in wartime then surely both the people and the government must recognize their responsibility for ensuring that the farmers will share in any measures which will help to keep them in a reasonably sound position in peacetime. I wish to quote from an article that appeared in the Almonte Gazette on November 21, 1957;
We do know that the farmers have very real and obvious grievances. This is indicated by the lamentable trend away from the farms. We noticed in printing the voters' list for Ramsay, this year, that there were 25 fewer names than last year. There was a good reason for us being observant in this connection because printers are paid by the name for printing such lists. But the point is that the most highly assessed township in Lanark county is losing population and has been doing so for many years. There are vacant farms here and there and some of those farms which are still inhabited are being only partially worked, with the men holding down industrial jobs in nearby towns or cities.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
If agriculture were paid on a scale commensurate with certain other trades or professions, many of them less important, the situation we refer to would not exist. The farmer to a greater extent than any vocation we know of is a prey to weather conditions and many other factors over which he has no control.
I wish now to mention a few of the many other factors that have taken terrific tolls in my time in addition to the question of farm costs and the price of agricultural commodities. Some of these are foot-and-mouth disease in cattle; cholera in hogs; dysentery in poultry; blight and black root rot in sugar beets. Last year many thousands of bushels of white beans were lost on account of excessively wet weather. The wheat growers have to fight the plague of stem rusts, several kinds of smut and the hessian fly. In addition to these the farmer never knows when his crops will be damaged by cut worms, wire worms, army worms and grasshoppers. There are also the problems of excessive freezing and thawing; excessive heat to shrink the grain when ripening; excessive rainfall to prevent harvest, or the other extreme, the lack of rain, to promote growth; wind storms to lodge the grain so it is difficult to obtain, and hail storms that often do tremendous damage.
There is one other thought I wish to leave with hon. members of the committee. I feel that people in lines of business other than agriculture are becoming increasingly aware of the unfavourable position the farmer is placed in and in the main they are fair enough to admit that something should be done about it. They also in the main feel that by assisting agriculture they will indirectly be helping themselves. Therefore, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would emphasize that anything which is done to stabilize the business of agriculture will assist materially in bringing a greater measure of stability to the nation as a whole.
To my mind, Mr. Chairman, the matter before us is something like going to Killarney. You have to start somewhere and it does not matter where you are, the best place is to start from where you are and today that is here. I do not expect this bill is going to be a cure-all for all the ills of agriculture but I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that we should try to get the plan in operation; for I believe it does provide an avenue through which at least some of our problems can be solved. Therefore, I say, let us try to make an honest effort to solve the rest as we go along and meet up with them. Mr. Chairman, I have sufficient confidence in the proposals that are before us today to say that
2410	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization I intend to give my support to the bill and I would ask the support of the hon. members of the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I think the most important thing that has come to light in this debate, if we can take the statement of the Minister of Agriculture as it is on the record, is the fact that the Conservative government has broken faith with the farmers and the people of this country as far as implementing its commitments, made time and time again during the election to provide a system of parity prices, is concerned. The Prime Minister made it abundantly clear at place after place where they stood in this regard. The Prime Minister went back and forth across this country saying that if he were elected the government would provide a system of parity price supports. I have in my hand a number of statements he made during the election campaign. Let me quote one which appeared in the Regina Leader-Post and which was made at Kipling, where he said that the price of wheat at $1.40 per bushel was too low and should be increased. Another one is a Canadian Press dispatch in the Ottawa Citizen of June 10, 1957, and is a quotation from a speech made in Saskatchewan on June 8. It reads as follows, referring to the Prime Minister:
He promised them that if a Conservative government is elected he will call a September session of parliament to set up a system of floor prices for agricultural produce based on parity.
That was a very definite commitment which has been broken. According to the Regina Leader-Post of May 18, when speaking in Regina, he said this:
I urged a system of parity prices in 1941 in a resolution in the house and asked for it two other times, but every Liberal member voted against it.
I think it is important at this time to quote the motion made by the Prime Minister in this house in 1941, and I quote from Hansard of April 8, 1941, at page 2280:
That all the words after "that" in the motion be struck out, and that the following be substituted therefor:
it be resolved that the government should take immediate steps to create a parity of prices as between agricultural and other products in order to improve the condition of Canadian agriculture and in order that it may receive a just and fair return,-
That is the position taken by the Prime Minister; that is the commitment he made to the people of this country and yet in this legislation that is being discussed at this time, the guaranteed floor below which prices cannot fall is less than the very low prices prevailing at the current period. Conditions now, according to an index of the dominion bureau of statistics based on 1935-39, are worse than they were at that time. I have


the Economic Annalist in my hand and it shows that in the three-year period on which these guaranteed prices are based, in 1955, prices of agricultural prices were 2 per cent less than the index of the cost of production. They were worse in 1955 than in the late 1930's. By 1956, this position had deteriorated until prices of farm products were 7 per cent worse in relation to costs than they were in the late 1930's. At April of this year the index was 11 per cent worse than it was in the late 1930's, and this is the period of prices on which the government is going to base its guarantee to the agricultural producers of this country, its absolute guarantee.
I have in my hand figures showing the average price of hogs at Moose Jaw for the years 1954, 1955 and 1956. It shows that the average price during that 3-year period was $23.28 a hundred. Eighty per cent of that figure is $18.62 a hundred. Although every hon. member will admit that hog prices at the present time are depressed, yet hog prices on the market at Moose Jaw are now in excess of $24 a hundred. The guranteed prices under this legislation are very much lower than the prices prevailing today. If the guaranteed prices, based on the 3-year average, 1954-56, were in effect today for good steers the guaranteed price on the Regina market would be $13.60 and yet the prevailing price is $16.75.
Grain is excluded from the legislation and therefore there is nothing in it for the grain producers of western Canada. The livestock producers find that as far as the floor in this legislation is concerned their position would be much worse than it is at the present time.
The Prime Minister's definite commitments to the people of this country have been broken and this legislation has been a shock to all those people in this country who are interested in the welfare of the farmer. Albert Cormack, who was president of the Ontario farmers union for a number of years, in his fight for parity prices accepted the word of the Conservative government that they meant what they said in the election and was himself, through his organization the farmers union, responsible for the election of a number of hon. members opposite and the defeat of a number of former members of the Liberal government, including the former minister of finance. What was his reaction to this legislation? Here was a man who, because he felt the Conservative party meant what they said, worked for them in the campaign. Mr. Cormack said he received the announcement with a shock, and that is the reaction of farm organizations all across this country. They wonder why the Prime Minister made these definite promises and has waited until

almost Christmas time this session to do anything about them and, on the basis of the minister's statement, is introducing a bill in this house which is a complete violation of those very definite commitments.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is absolutely wrong. This legislation will live up to every commitment we made about price supports.


Hazen Robert Argue: Except that there is no guarantee that price supports will bear a relationship to the cost of production. Prices in this legislation may be higher than the floor, that is true, but they will be political prices and they will be put up for one year at a time, and the thing next to the heart of the government is any form of legislation to get by the next few months, to get by the next election.
I can tell the Minister of Agriculture why there are no parity prices. I can tell his parliamentary assistant why the minister is against parity prices. If there is anything clear in the record of any hon. member of this house it is the minister's attitude and his record since he came into this house. At every turn he has opposed any suggestion that there should be adequate guarantees for agricultural prices and adequate guaranteed floors under prices.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, statements along this line are at absolute variance with the truth and I do not think the hon. member should be making them. I just cannot understand the hon. member making such statements.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am willing to let the record stand. The trouble is the record is too clear. For instance, when we wanted to get oats and barley under the wheat board so as to have a guaranteed price the minister had this to say, as found at page 1696 of Hansard for February 27, 1948:
I for one-and I know a large number of farmers who feel the same way-do not want to have the government set the price X am to get for oats and barley.
He does not want the government setting prices and the government has not done much in that regard under this legislation. That is the trouble with it. They are offering 80 per cent of the price over a very low, depressed period. In 1954 the hon. member for Mackenzie moved the following resolution, as found at page 4797 of Hansard of May 17: In the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to demonstrating its support of the principle of orderly marketing through livestock marketing boards by announcing floor prices with respect to cattle and hogs at levels not less than the average of the prices which prevailed during the period from January 1, 1951 to December 31. 1953.
96G98-153
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
That would have brought about a floor price for beef of $26.50 a hundredweight and a floor price for B-l hogs at Toronto of $29.65 a hundredweight. This is what the present Minister of Agriculture said in that debate on May 17 as found at page 4806 of Hansard:
In my opinion, if this resolution were put into effect it would be, more or less, complete socialization of the livestock industry.
He is against adequate support prices because he says it is socialism.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That has got nothing to do with adequate prices.


Hazen Robert Argue: He went on to say:
Most livestock producers of whom I am aware do not want their industry socialized.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is a rigid price support program you wanted. You still want it and it is not workable. It is a rigid support price program you have been talking about and it is not workable.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister is against anything that is rigid.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is not so.


Hazen Robert Argue: He does not want a rigid floor. He wants this depressed floor that will do what our friend, Albert Cormack of the farmers union, said it would, drive the farmers off the farms. To make sure that I am not misinterpreting the minister-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: How about the national president of the farmers union?


Hazen Robert Argue: -let me refer to what the minister had to say about an amendment moved by Mr. Bracken on May 6, 1946 with regard to prices of argicultural products. On May 15, 1946, the minister had this to say as found at page 1567 of Hansard:
It is that artificial control of prices and arbitrary distribution of commodities are contrary to the conceptions of free trade and free enterprise-
The present government is against control of prices. This government is against adequate support prices. The minister himself has been the greatest opponent of adequate support prices since he came into the house in 1945.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Again I say that is absolutely untrue.


Hazen Robert Argue: The record I have placed on Hansard at this time proves it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The record shows nothing of the kind. Nothing that you have read shows it.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister wants to deny it but the legislation before the house is proof positive that he is consistent, and that now

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization he is in office he is doing exactly what he wanted to do when he was in opposition, to have as little to do as possible with government control. Never support adequate floor prices because it would socialize the agricultural industry, he said. The government is not for the agricultural producers of this country. The other day they established a royal commission to inquire into the spread in the prices of agricultural commodities between the price paid to the farmer and the retail price. They appointed a six-man commission and there is not a farmer on it.
I asked the Prime Minister if he had discussed the question of submitting a name or a number of names with the farmers union and the wheat pool and the answer was no. It is an amazing thing that on a royal commission to decide why farmers are getting such low prices in relation to the retail prices of their products the government would not appoint a farmer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There are three representatives of agriculture.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is no representation of the wheat pools, no representation of the farmers union. It was not even discussed with them. They were brushed aside. The Minister of Agriculture has made it very clear in his presentation to the house that the measure before us will not provide parity prices. It is not aimed at providing parity prices. I have in my hand a copy of a resolution directed to the federal government which reads as follows:
-we urge immediate action by the federal government to implement policies along the lines indicated by the Saskatchewan royal commission on agriculture and rural life with particular reference to:
1.	Price supports for all agricultural products based upon parity and utilizing deficiency payments.
That is the resolution, support prices for agricultural products based on parity and utilizing deficiency payments. Here are some of the organizations that supported this resolution: The Saskatchewan federation of agriculture, Saskatchewan farmers union, Saskatchewan association of rural municipalities, the urban municipalities association, the school trustees association, the co-operative union of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan federated co-operatives, the credit union league, the women's co-operative guild, the Saskatchewan agricultural societies association, the Saskatchewan federation of home and school clubs, the Saskatchewan teachers federation, the Saskatchewan home makers club, the rural-municipal secretary-treasurers association of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan school unit secretaries association, and the local government continuing committee.


An hon. Member:: Everybody but the
Saskatchewan Conservatives.


Hazen Robert Argue: Somebody says, "Everybody but the Saskatchewan Conservatives."


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: And the Ontario C.C.F.


Hazen Robert Argue: Following the lead of their party obviously the Saskatchewan Conservatives have abandoned any idea of a system of support prices based on parity. This telegram is a demonstration that Saskatchewan is united in its support of parity prices, that all of these organizations in Saskatchewan are disappointed with the government's legislation which does not provide a system of parity prices based on the cost of production.
Not long ago the Saskatchewan wheat pool passed a resolution at their convention, I understand unanimously, saying that they are prepared to organize a mass delegation to come to Ottawa to impress upon the government that there is a need to provide adequate guarantees to the agricultural industry. This support by all of these organizations in Saskatchewan shows that the day is coming when the people of the country will say to the government in a united way, "We expect and insist that you keep your election promises."


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief but I feel I must say something. A proper price support system for agricultural products based on the cost of production so as to give the farmer his fair share of the national income is a most important issue to the people of my part of the country. Not only is it important, it is vital to their very existence. The ability of this legislation to do that job will determine whether or not the family farm in Canada will continue to exist or will disappear.
For that reason we have welcomed the resolution on the order paper which says that it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a system of guaranteed prices for certain agricultural commodities to be named therein and to provide that prices may be guaranteed for any other agricultural commodities.
We have supported this and have looked forward to the introduction of this measure. I will say we are very pleased to see the resolution on the order paper. We are rather surprised that the measure has not been bought forward earlier. We had some hope for the legislation until the minister got up the other day and explained one or two things to us with regard to the legislation, which dashed our hopes rather severely.
The first thing he said was that wheat, oats and barley were out; grains were out of the

measure altogether. As Minister of Agriculture he knows how many producers in this country depend upon wheat, oats and barley for their incomes. If these products are beyond the scale of support prices, then how on earth can the minister give any guarantee that these people will get their share of the national income? The minister talked about the base price and the floor price which is 80 per cent of that base price, but that certainly means nothing. If that is all we are going to get as a guarantee, then I can say we look to the legislation with a great deal of scepticism. A great deal will depend upon whether the advisory committee which he sets up will or will not recommend to the government a guaranteed price on farm commodities. We have no assurance that that committee or board will do the job. We have no assurance that if they make a recommendation to the government, the government will carry it through. We are sceptical of measures such as this which say certain things and then they are not carried out.
I have been here long enough to see some of these things in operation. I should like to read to the minister one clause of a bill which was passed in 1945, which was to guarantee farmers against a drop in prices. The minister will know this measure which is called Agricultural Prices Support Act, for the support of the prices of agricultural products during the transition from war to peace. Section 9, subsection 2 of that act reads:
In prescribing prices under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (1) the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
How much that sounds like the measure we have before us today. How completely that measure failed in its application to do exactly what it was said it would do. Agriculture, in the past number of years has gone down and is in a very depressed condition, not only in the west but in the east as well. Reports from farm areas in Ontario indicate that farmers are unable to carry on their business, even in this province, and make a living. Reports indicate that 50 per cent of the farmers in Ontario are forced to go to industry to supplement their earnings, leaving a wife or a boy at home to try to make the farm pay.
Under the proposed measure arrangements are made for an advisory committee to advise the government as to what it should do. The annual report of the agricultural prices support board contains a repetition each year as to what the board is doing. In each one
96698-153J
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization of the reports the reference to the advisory committee is identical, and I have checked the reports for 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956 and 1957. The paragraph reads:
The general advisory committee to the board, under the chairmanship of H. H. Hannam, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, held regular spring and fall meetings. The committee covered a wide field in its discussions and at the conclusion of each meeting submitted a limited number of carefully considered recommendations.
The same recommendations were made, but nothing was done. There was $200 million set aside for a support price program, but they have never used $100 million of it. It costs about $70,000 a year to maintain this board, for salaries and so forth. The money was never used, and that is the reason agriculture is sceptical about this legislation. The government might add another $50,000 to this amount, but if it is not used it does not do much good.
I am not going to say very much more, Mr. Chairman, except that we would like to see the bill. Perhaps the bill will give us more hope than the minister's statement has. Until that time comes, I shall reserve any further comments I have. My confrere, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, says the bill could give little less. We reserve further judgment until the bill is brought down. I can say that if the bill does not mean any more than the minister has indicated in his speech, then we are going to have to fight it because this is a fight for whether or not we will maintain the family farm as part of the Canadian economy.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Harkness thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 237, to establish a system of guaranteed prices for certain agricultural commodities.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Before I ask about the business of the house, could the house leader give any indication as to when we might receive a copy of the bill so we might look at it over the week end?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can get a copy for the hon. member right after the house adjourns from my office.


Lionel Chevrier: Could the house leader give some assurance that all the members of the house will receive a copy of the bill because unless members get copies it will not be possible for them to read the bill over the week end.

Business of the House


Douglas Scott Harkness: The bill, oi course, will be distributed as rapidly as possible. The hon. member knows the bill has to be dated and so forth, as to when it was given first reading, and it will be distributed as soon as that is done.


Lionel Chevrier: When is that going to be done? Would it be possible to put copies of the bill in the mail boxes tonight?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not know whether that can be done. This being Saturday night, I do not believe the printing bureau is working on Saturday night.


Lionel Chevrier: What will be the business for Monday?


Howard Charles Green: On Monday we shall commence with the third reading of the act-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
not Monday private members' day?


Howard Charles Green: I am sorry, Monday is private members' day. I was giving the hon. member more information than he deserved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: was going to ask about Tuesday.


Howard Charles Green: On Tuesday the first item will be the third reading of an act to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act; then item No.
16 on today's order paper, a resolution preceding an amendment to the National Housing Act; then a resolution which appears in Votes and Proceedings today, preceding a measure to amend the Unemployment Assistance Act; then item No. 1 on today's order paper, the house in committee on a bill respecting a branch line of Canadian National Railways; then item No. 2, house in committee on a bill respecting Hamilton harbour commissioners; then item No. 3, house in committee on a bill to amend the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act. Those have all been passed and reported back by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Then we shall take item No. 9, an act to amend the Pension Act; then item No. 7, a bill to provide for annual vacations with pay.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader if he is able to give a further indication as to what will happen on the other days of next week?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot give that information tonight. I will give it to the different parties as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on December 2, 1957.

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:

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 89
Mr. Lafoniaine:: X. Since the beginning of the month of August, 1957, has the federal government received from the government of the province of Quebec any observations on or requests for financial assistance to the numerous persons who have suffered heavy losses, due to the flood of last August 3, in the counties of Megantic and Beauce?
2.	If so, was such request considered, was a decision taken, and what was the decision?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CHATHAM-ESCUMINAC TELEPHONE SERVICE
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Has the government considered restoring the former hours of service on the dominion government Chatham-Escuminac telephone line?
2.	If so, what considerations were given and what was the decision arrived at?
3.	Has the government made any attempts to dispose of this telephone line to the New Brunswick Telephone Company?
4.	If so, where does the matter now stand?
Answer by: Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	Yes.
2.	The following methods were considered: (a) Construction of additional lines was explored with a view of establishing night connections by way of the switchboard at Bransfield; (b) employment of a part time operator.
A decision was taken in favour of (b).
3.	Yes.
4.	The department is awaiting a reply to a letter to the New Brunswick Telephone Company about their acquisition of departmental lines in the area.


INDIAN AGENCY COAL TENDERS
Mr. Bryce: 1.	Have tenders, 17643 and 17624 for coal, called by the Indian agencies for Fairford and Gypsum-ville been let?
2.	If so, to whom, and at what prices?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 17643-Ashern Supply, Ashern, Manitoba-$244.20; (b) 17624-Ashern Supply, Ashern, Manitoba-$1,953.50.


CHRYSLER CORPORATION
Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Was an order for automotive spares, totalling $57,000, recently placed with the Chrysler Corporation of Canada?
2.	If so, what is the description of these parts?
3.	Can the Minister of National Defence say whether these automotive spares will be made in Canada or imported from the United States?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Minister of Defence Production):
1.	Yes, on August 29, 1957.
2.	71 items of spares required for the maintenance of truck, J-ton, Dodge, military pattern vehicles as detailed on attached list.
3.	The vehicles for which these spares are required were originally built in Canada to United States military specification, using Canadian-made components where practical. In this order for spare parts, the items for which a U.S. source is shown represent vehicle parts for which Canadian production was not undertaken because the cost of tooling up for the small quantities involved was considered to be prohibitive.


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
Serial 2-E-7-255
Item	Quantity	Ord. No.	Description of Supplies and/or Services	Source
			Mfrs. No.	
i	230	G741- 7373764	CC 1268357 Bolt	United States u2	130	G741- 7373695	CC 1270165 Button....	3	225	G741 7351064	CC 1271742 Cable	u
Questions

[Stage Direction]
Serial 2-E-7-255
Item
Quantity
5
7
9
10 11 12
14
16
18
20 21 22
24
26
85
4
18
80
12
23
13
250
40
2,700
300
75
Ord. No.

[Stage Direction]
Description of Supplies and/or Services
Mfrs. No.
CC 1278218	Channel	
CC 1268312	Flange	
CC 1268313	Flange	
CC 1270250	Gear	
CC 1277075	Handle	
CC 1269428	Housing	
CC 1263955	Joint	
CC 1325989 Kit repair winch universal joint	
CC 926753 Knob winch shifter fork	
CC 1273994	Lamp	
CC 926760	Lining and band assy safety brake
[Stage Direction]
CC 1395507	Lock	
CC 657955 Lock wire horn button plate	
CC 1390591 Motor assy ventilator blower, left	
CC 1189423	Pin	
CC 1277038	Regulator, window	
CC 1277039	Regulator, window	
CC 1278257	Retainer	
CC 928954 Seal, dust, ball seat	
CC 926754 Knob shaft shifter fork	
CC 1277713 Windshield assy	
CC 1277644	Weatherseal	
CC 1279116	Weatherseal brake and transfer lever.
Source
United States
it
Canada United States
Canada United States
United States

Questions

[Stage Direction]
Serial 2-E-7-255
Item	Quantity	Orel. No.	Description of Supplies and/or Services		Source
			Mfrs. No.		
27	600	G741- 7374826	CC 1278174	Weatherstrip	United States28	750	G741- 7374828	CC 1278202	Weatherstrip	29	750	G741- 7374827	CC 1278175	Weatherstrip	«30	470	G741- 7005423	CC 1278200	Weatherstrip	31	200	G741- 7413024	CC 1273617	Gasket worm housing cover	32	490	G741- 7005425	CC 1278201	Weatherstrip	it33	407	G741- 7350312	CC 1390276	Leaf No. 3	Canada United States u34	8	G741- 7353816	CC 1292595	Lens surgical light	35	47	G741- 7373716	CC 1268811	Shaft rear axle drive left	36	50	G741- 7374951	CC 1273599	Housing safety brake	37	60	G741- 7706198	CC 1269843	Bracket shaft	u38	90	G741- 8328025	CC 1394247	Control Assy	39	1,280	G741- 8328075	CC 1394963	Capacitor primary filter	United States it40	180	G502- 5249421	CC 1190446	Pipe filler lower	41	80	1392600	Bulb assy spot lamp	it42	140	1269419	Cable assy, winch	it43	104	1300579	Contact horn cable	((44	77	1393475	Flange transmission mainshaft companion.	Canada45	500	1392473	Gasket winch worm bearing retainer..	United States46	753	1398237	Handle assy, front door window	47	32	1395310	Handle assy rear door lock outside	u48	56	1393478	Lever transmission gearshift...	Canada United States Canada United States49	190	1390867	Shaft assy propeller front with joint	50	1,150	393613	Spring pressure clutch plate	51	185	1503789	Switch assy convoy lamp	52	24	1106571	Switch heater	53	450	1391647	Washer C, transmission, reverse shift rail lug plunger	Canada
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
Serial
	
Ord. No.	Description of Supplies and/or Services
	Mfrs. No.
1501149 427658 963799 1270174 1273614 1274205 1400913 1400909 1501831 1503218	Retainer winch worm housing bearing and assy	
Nut, pintle hook adapter	
Screw, headless, carb throttle lever	
Spacer, winch power take off, reverse gear. Plate, winch clutch indexing	
Handle, crankcase ventilator valve	
Body vacuum section fuel pump	
Body assy, fuel section	
Gasket, mounting receptacle, generator regulator	
Nut, pintle hook mounting	1565090 1565089 1560526 1664982	Leaf No. 3	
Spring assy front without shackle	
Door, partition.	;	
Cable assy, circuit breaker extension	2530-00- 164-3937	CC 683963 Lever, release pressure plate	5315-00- 360-6898	CC 619463 Pin, release lever	2520-00- 215-7202	CC 316767 Spring release lever	2540-00- 735-1412	CC 1268969 Horn	
Monday. December 16, 1957