1957-02-01

THE PRIME MINISTER


Mr. Speaker:: There occurs today one of those happy parliamentary occasions when we wish to pause briefly to do honour to one of our own. I refer of course to the birthday of the right hon. the Prime Minister. It appears that all hon. members wish to join me in extending to him and to Madame St. Laurent our most heartfelt congratulations together with our best wishes for continued health and happiness and, of course, many happy returns of the day.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed an historic occasion, being the second time since confederation that a prime minister while in office has attained the age of 75 years, the other being of course the founder of this country, Sir John A. Macdonald. This is one occasion that permits parliament to reveal its glory which consists in the fact that the sentiments that separate us on different sides of the house are not as great as the sentiments that join us together. On behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and I am sure on behalf of all members of the house, I extend warmest congratulations and felicitations to the Prime Minister, coupled with the hope that he may enjoy many more years of good health and much happiness.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the leader of this group (Mr. Coldwell) and all my colleagues I should like to join with Your Honour and the other members of the house in heartiest felicitations to the Prime Minister on his birthday. We are glad to see him looking so well and wish him many happy returns. I am sure he will understand if I add that we feel that surely the time has come for him to enjoy a very happy retirement.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak for all my colleagues when I say we are delighted to see the Prime Minister enjoying such good health and living in such vigorous fashion on this
his 75th birthday. I had thought during the past few months that he must have found the fountain of youth and it was in my mind to ask him privately some time just what it was and where I could find it but I was afraid he might suggest to me that I join the Liberal party and then I would find it. Seriously, I do want to join with others in extending to the Prime Minister our heartfelt felicitations, our good wishes and to express the hope that he will enjoy many more years of vigour, good health and usefulness in whatever calling he may follow.


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you and, through you, all the members of this house for the great satisfaction your words and the way in which they have been received give one when he passes another milestone after a considerable number that have been passed in previous years. To the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to those who speak for other groups in the house I wish to express my complete agreement with their stated opinions this morning that though there are many things upon which we disagree and upon which we express our disagreement in this forum, there is no doubt that much stronger and more impressive than the divergences which arise in our opinions and in our expressions is the sentiment that we are all Canadians and all doing our best here to serve our fellow Canadians. That, I am sure, is the solid basis of the personal friendships which exist between the members of this house and of the sentiments which are expressed on every occasion when it is the turn of any one of us to be passing one of the milestones in his life. I am really happy to be of the group that thus in friendship, each to the best of his ability, strives together to serve our fellow Canadians.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wishes me years of happy retirement. I feel that I shall be happier as long as I do not have to reach the point where retirement would be the wisest decision to make. It was felt in the garden of Eden that the condemnation to earn one's bread by the sweat of one's brow was a real condemnation. That was long ago. I think the greatest satisfaction we get out of life now is that of doing useful work to the best of our ability.

R.C.M.P.-Musical Ride

On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. I must say prior to putting my question that in view of the general and very sincere rejoicing at the Prime Minister's celebration of his 75th birthday I regret that my parliamentary and non-conformist conscience prompts me to ask what might be considered in some quarters a somewhat indelicate question. Does the Prime Minister know who is paying the expenses of the ladies and gentlemen of the fourth estate who will be attending an important event in Quebec tomorrow?


Mr. SI. Laurent (Quebec East):: I do not
know what arrangements, if any, have been made for members of the fourth estate who may be contemplating attending what the hon. gentleman refers to as an important event in Quebec tomorrow. I, myself, have been invited to attend a dinner and I have accepted. I intend to pay my own expenses. I have not inquired, I have given no thought to inquiring and I do not now feel it would be proper for me to inquire, as to what arrangements have been made by or with or for other guests who may have been invited and who may have accepted to attend.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? Could he enlighten the house in this respect?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have been invited to say a few words at the gathering. I was informed at the same time that I would have to buy my ticket like everyone else, which I have done. I would assume that everyone who attends will be in the same position.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement in respect of an announcement being made in Great Britain.
Last summer a number of the most prominent agricultural societies in the United Kingdom requested through the Department of External Affairs that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police musical ride be made available for presentation at selected agricultural fairs and other events there during the summer of 1957. The government has agreed to this and accordingly the ride will be going to the United Kingdom this coming spring.
[Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East).)
This well-known and distinctly Canadian attraction consists of 32 mounted men under command of an officer. There are also included a senior N.C.O. riding master, a band conductor, and two to four spare riders. On December 3, 1956, a series of musical ride engagements in Canada and the United States was completed. These engagements were widely acclaimed as outstanding and those presented in the United States brought, I am sure, a great measure of credit to this country. The troop going to the United Kingdom will be composed of substantially the same personnel.
At a recent meeting of the royal agricultural society of England delegates expressed their gratitude and warm appreciation to the Canadian government for its generosity in making the Royal Canadian Mounted Police musical ride available in the United Kingdom this summer.
Although no definite itinerary has been arranged as yet, it is understood that the committee in the United Kingdom which is co-ordinating arrangements has received applications from 10 of the largest and best known agricultural societies for the appearance of the ride at their annual exhibitions. As an indication of the interest and enthusiasm back of the invitation, one of the royal agricultural shows has in mind slanting its whole program towards Canada provided our ride can be featured.
The troop will receive its Anal training at the Rockcliffe barracks during the early spring and travel by ship to a United Kingdom port towards the end of April.
[Later:!
On the orders of the day:


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the statement made by the minister with reference to the musical ride being sent overseas, which I think is well merited and will be an excellent and attractive advertisement, I would like to ask the minister if he would give consideration to the possibility that there might be extra demands for them in the old country and probably in Europe for another year. While it would be too late this year to make much change I would like to ask him at this time to give consideration to improving the type of horses that are used in the musical ride. Many of the horses are growing old and because they are going overseas they are not a good advertisement for this country, which I think should be represented by a better class of horses than our military men have had a chance to use.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Is this an advertisement?


William Earl Rowe: I do not say this jocularly, Mr. Speaker. I believe this is a situation to which some consideration might be given. I believe the horses are limited as to price. I would ask the minister if he would give consideration to improving the calibre of horses.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to be as good a judge of horses as my hon. friend, but the information I have received from people who I would say are as good judges as my hon. friend is that for the purposes of the musical ride we have a most desirable type of horse. I know that this has been a matter of great concern to the commissioner of the mounted police for many years past and on various occasions when the matter has arisen he has discussed the question with me.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act to increase the authorized capital of the board from $3 million to $4 million.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house whether any contracts have yet been signed between Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and any municipalities east of the Manitoba border for the delivery of gas, and if so with which ones?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that Trans-Canada does not deal with individual municipalities. The company deals with whoever owns the franchise in the area that it wishes to serve. I believe it is Union Gas that holds the franchise for Hamilton, which I presume interests my hon. friend. In the same way, Consumers' Gas holds the franchise for the Toronto area.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I used the word "municipalities" but I meant the company or municipality as the case may be which had the franchise. Could the minister enlighten the house as to whether any contracts have yet been signed for the delivery of gas?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Decatur Howe: All I can say is
that sufficient contracts have been signed in Canada to justify the financing of a line that will cost, when built, $375 million. So, I think we can take it for granted that contracts for great quantities of gas have been signed.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In Ontario?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In Ontario.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, pursuant to a telegram which I am advised was forwarded to the minister by the chairman of the Abbotsford and district citizenship council relative to Hungarian refugees housed in temporary quarters in that area. Would the minister advise the house whether or not any comfort allowance is obtainable from the federal government to assist in providing these people with funds for incidental expenses?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I would not like to make any answer offhand, sir. I was at a meeting all morning. I have not seen the telegram. I prefer to be quite precise in making an answer.



OLD ORDER AMISH SETTLERS


[Stage Direction]
TO ministers' statement

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This question arises out of an answer he gave to a question I asked on January 18.
Would the minister indicate to the house whether or not the individual to whom he referred in his answer on that date failed to satisfy the immigration requirements because of characteristics common to the whole group to which he belongs? In other words, was this application a test case as far as Amish immigrants are concerned?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid, sir, I did not hear the date to which the hon. member referred and I do not recall the answer I gave. I think it would be better for me to look it up. I might say, however, there is no such thing as a rejection because of the characteristics of a whole group. The
374	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry hon. gentleman can read the regulations; they are in very plain language.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Would the minister say if it is possible that immigrants would be turned down because of an objection on their part to bearing arms or taking certain forms of oaths in connection with their applications for immigration?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir. Those in either case would not be considered reasons for rejection. There is always an immigration into Canada, and there has been for many years, of Mennonites and Quakers who I understand have conscientious scruples about taking oaths and who are allowed by the laws of this country to affirm.



SCOTLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. What are the reasons that only about 10 per cent of the applicants in Scotland for admission to Canada are to be admitted, according to recent newspaper reports?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the statement in the newspaper article is quite untrue.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. He has stated that the report about the restriction on Scottish immigration is untrue. Will he please make sure it is untrue?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot make sure that it is true or untrue. I do know and I think everyone else knows that there has been an encouraging increase in the number of people in the United Kingdom who seem to want to come to this country. Various hon. members may have different interpretations of the reason for that, but I am inclined to think that it is because we have had great prosperity under a very good government. I am also quite satisfied, although I have been chary about making this prediction, that there is going to be a very substantial increase this year over last year in the number of immigrants from the United Kingdom, and last year was the best year since the war.



PATENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. Has the minister yet received the report of the royal commission on patents, copyrights, trademarks and industrial designs? If not, can the minister say when the report may be received and when it will be made public?


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: I wish to thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his question before I came to the chamber. The answer to the first part of the question is no. As to the second part of the question, I have been informed this morning that the commission expects to submit its report to me on copyrights and industrial designs at the beginning of April, and it is not expected that the report on patents and trademarks will be ready before autumn.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say when the report will be made public? Will it be soon after he receives it?


Roch Pinard: I would think that also depends on the exact date when it will be submitted to me in April. Whether the report can be made public during the session I think is a matter for speculation by both my hon. friend and me.



INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce now inform the house whether the government plans to participate in the international trade fair to be held in Montreal, Quebec, in May of this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot. Ordinarily the Department of Trade and Commerce does not participate in any fair within Canada. Tharhas been the policy for many years. We did for a time sponsor the international trade fair. That has been abandoned and my officers have been examining the situation of the trade fair in Montreal, but I am not optimistic about federal participation.


William McLean Hamilton: have a supplementary question. Is the $2,225,000 expenditure on the Brussels international trade fair proceeding satisfactorily?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Canada building in Brussels was the first to be placed under contract. I understand that the work on the building is proceeding very well and I am quite certain that Canada will be on time when the fair opens.


William McLean Hamilton: have another supplementary question. Is the minister satisfied with the European manager and chef they have procured to run the Canadian restaurant at the Brussels trade fair?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the committee in charge did their best to interest a Canadian caterer in taking on the job. They were not successful. I am told that the caterer who has been secured operates a first class Belgian restaurant in Brussels. He visited us here and went over the arrangements and those responsible are happy with the plans he has in mind for operating the restaurant.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Are press reports correct that the minister is today making public the report of the restrictive trade practices commission of its investigation into the sugar situation? If so, can he say whether the report calls for any action?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I did not get the last part of my hon. friend's question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can he say whether the report calls for any action?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that the report is being tabled. Having regard to the fact that it deals with a field in this general subject matter in which there is scarcely any jurisprudence or experience, and since it indicates merely that there has been a first step toward a merger, we think, as is said in the announcement, the company should be given the opportunity to consider its position before we decide to take any further steps ourselves. All of this is in the press release.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. When he was in Manitoba last week did he take note of the representations made publicly by a manufacturer in Winnipeg and also by the Liberal 82715-56*
Inquiries of the Ministry women's association urging that something should be done to investigate the rising prices of sugar?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I had correspondence with Mr. Ronald who is the manufacturer in question-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Bond.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I should have said Mr. Bond. Ronald was the name of his partner. As a matter of fact, if I remember correctly I signed the last letter to him just last evening in this chamber. I have also had correspondence with the Liberal women. I will not detain the house with my explanation but they were dealing more with sugar prices than with the question that is the subject matter of this report.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister care to table copies of that correspondence?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have no objection.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister noticed the many announcements since the recent increase in the interest rate on N.H.A. loans to the effect that the one-half per cent increase in the interest rate will be ineffective and will not provide more money for housing in Canada? Has the minister any comment to make on those announcements and has he received any assurances that his measure is going to be effective? If he has not, is the government contemplating any additional action in order to assure a continuous supply of new housing in Canada?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen very many announcements saying that the steps taken will not be effective. On the contrary, I have received indications that they will be effective. Therefore the last part of the hon. member's question becomes hypothetical.


Erhart Regier: May I ask a supplementary
question. Would the minister care to elaborate his statement that he has received assurances that the method to be employed will be effective? Is it the banks of Canada, the investment houses of Canada or the mortgage companies that have assured the minister there is now more interest in investment money in housing, or who has given this assurance?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I have assured the house that would be the case and I am quite prepared to stand behind the assurance.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the conflicting views and reports as to the effect of the increase in the interest rate on N.H.A. loans, would the minister consider making a reference to the banking and commerce committee which would enable that committee to hear the views of experts from the Bank of Canada and the banking institutions of the country.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not know what kind of conflict there may be in these matters. I accept what the Minister of Public Works has to say about the results of the credit restrictions on housing.


Colin Cameron: May I ask the
Minister of Finance a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the increase in the interest rate for housing is only part of the government's general fiscal and monetary policy, about which there has been great controversy in the country, would he consider referring the whole question of the government's policy in this regard to the banking and commerce committee in order that hon. members may be able to discuss these matters with the experts?


Walter Edward Harris: It has been customary when the Bank of Canada's annual report is presented to parliament to refer it to the banking and commerce committee, which on most occasions has had the governor of the bank before it. I presume the same practice will be followed this year.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has he received complaints from a group of veterans in Victoria that the purchase price of their C.M.H.C. housing which they now occupy is out of line with current prices and, if so, will he please investigate?
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I have received letters which are the usual type that we receive whenever we place any of these houses in a sales position. I have replied saying that in the light of all the circumstances and in accordance with our policy I believe these prices to be reasonable. There is no compulsion upon anyone to buy a house.
[Mr. Regier.)



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question asked on January 29 by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in which he referred to an amount of $12,500 paid by one contractor to another to obtain a contract on a subcontract basis in Ontario. The hon. member asked:
Can the minister say whether any portion of that highway was part of the trans-Canada highway system?
The answer is "no". He then asked:
If not, does he know whether this practice has been followed in relation to work on any portion of the trans-Canada highway?
No such practice has ever been brought to my attention.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to answer my question of Wednesday regarding such other legislation as the government may be laying before parliament this session?
Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, no, I am not yet in a position to give the hon. gentleman a full list of the measures which will be brought before parliament. I have asked that the departments be communicated with in that regard. That is being done and I am having a report prepared.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) asked the following question:
Can the minister advise the house whether it is his intention to recommend changes in regulations or legislation that come completely within federal jurisdiction and responsibility relative to recommendations made in the Fauteux report and the report of the joint committee on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries? If not, why not?
My answer to the first question is "yes". The second question is answered by the answer to the first question.



STATEMENT ON PERJURY BEFORE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yesterday the same hon. member asked me the following question:
Will the Minister of Justice inform the house whether or not the courts of Ontario have jurisdiction over the other place and the House of Commons and the evidence or operations given before or carried out by a committee of the other place? Will the minister in answering that also inform the house whether if a bill is passed in the other place and the House of Commons dealing with divorce that would not negate any charge by a private member of perjury, with the act having been passed. Third, as a further supplementary question, would the Minister of Justice also tell the house why a private member should have to do the minister's job for him?
The answer to those questions will be found spelled out at great length along with other material in the report of a debate which was attended by the hon. member for Vancouver East which took place in this chamber on July 8 last and which is to be found on pages 5878, 5879, 5880 and 5881 of Hansard. If the hon. member does not remember what took place, if he will read Hansard he will get his answer.


Mr. Winch:: I read it but it was not conclusive.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
545. Loan to the United Nations Organization to help finance the clearing of the Suez canal, $1,000,000.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, since this matter was last discussed the whole question of the Middle East and the solution of the difficulties between Egypt and Israel has been before the United Nations. Naturally Canadians, as would be the case with people in other freedom-loving countries, are most anxious to ascertain the present position of the negotiations being carried on at the United Nations and also the probability of the two resolutions now before the United Nations assembly receiving the support of the necessary two-thirds majority. I would appreciate it very much if the minister would bring the house and the country up to date with regard to this question.
Would he also say whether or not in either or both of these resolutions there will be any mandatory requirement imposed upon Egypt to assure that the Suez canal will be open to the traffic of all nations, including
Supply-External Affairs Israel? After all, if we in Canada are tc>
be asked to make a loan for a project there should be some assurance that in the event the project is proceeded with it will not be only a temporary clearing of the canal to-be followed immediately by acts of sabotage on the part of Nasser and those associated with him.
On the basis of the information which only the government can have, would the minister say what the probabilities are whether or not Canada's representatives at the United Nations are now convinced that Nasser's future course will be a reversal of his previous course with regard to the canal? Certainly if the loan is made and the work proceeded with and it merely provides another opportunity for Nasser to destroy the usefulness of the canal and thereby make his contribution to preventing the free world from using the canal, a loan such as this will be worthless.
There is something more too in connection with the loan. What is the basis upon which the government contends that repayment will be made? Nothing very clear has been said in that regard yet. I know of no provision under the United Nations for the borrowing of money and I am wondering how provision will be made or what the plan is to assure repayment.
Finally, I repeat the question to which we received no answer the other day. What is Canada's attitude going to be now that she has taken a greater interest in the Middle East situation and in particular the Suez canal situation than the defence minister revealed in August last when he said Canada had no interest in the Suez dispute? What is Canada's attitude going to be with respect to securing repayment by compensation being demanded from Nasser?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I must repeat the point of order I raised on Wednesday that this item is confined solely to a loan for the purpose of clearing the canal and should not give rise to a debate about other matters, particularly other matters which are under discussion at the United Nations at the present time. I am quite prepared to answer direct questions affecting the loan and the attitude that Canada is prepared to take and is taking with respect to the canal itself, but I submit with great respect that other general questions are out of order.
The first question directly affecting the loan is the method of repayment. I have made it quite clear on at least two occasions in the course of the debate-


John George Diefenbaker: Not very clear.

Supply-External Affairs


Walter Edward Harris: Permit me to complete the
sentence. I have made it quite clear that it is an advance by this country for the purpose of expediting the clearing of the canal. It is a loan in the sense that we expect to receive it back in either one of two forms, either by repayment should some form of financing other than the present one be undertaken by the secretary general of the United Nations or if an assessment is ultimately made by the United Nations on the nations, including Canada, for the cost or a part of the cost of the clearing of the canal this payment will be credited to any such assessment as may be levied on Canada. If it happens that Canada's assessment is less than $1 million we will then have a repayment made to us out of any funds that the secretary general of the United Nations may be able to raise for the purpose of completing the clearing of the canal.
I do not suggest the probability of having this sum repaid to us within a matter of days or weeks. I think the probability is that the second alternative will be the one that will be acted upon, namely, that when the cost of the job is assessed among the members we will receive a credit and a refund should our assessment not total $1 million.
It is true, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that the United Nations does not have the necessary means of borrowing money and, as a matter of fact, that is why an appeal was made to Canada, among other countries, to provide money in this, may I put it, informal manner in order that the various salvage companies might have funds from time to time to pay wages and costs.
The second question directly related to the financing is the question of what the position will be with respect to Nasser arid his attitude towards the canal when the canal is finally cleared. I think that everyone knows perfectly well that we cannot project in our own minds what the Egyptian government may do two or three months from now. This is a calculated risk that I think we are bound to take arid I believe that hon. members opposite are prepared to take it.
It may well be that the present Egyptian government will continue to be as unco-operative with regard to some things as they have appeared to be up to the present time. But it is not the custom to refuse to take action if you cannot really see the end of your action. It is true that you must be careful about it and take all the precautions you can, but the problem is not whether we should lend the money now in the certain knowledge that in three months' time Nasser and his government will take a certain attitude towards the canal. The problem we

have to face is, should the canal be cleared at the present time, what means should be adopted to do that, and then let us try to work out the means whereby the canal will be, as I have already said, free to the use of all nations.


John George Diefenbaker: Is he showing any signs
of co-operation now?


Walter Edward Harris: So far as our knowledge goes, his attitude is reflected in the statements he has made and perhaps semi-officially in the statements made by the press of his country. One can interpret those attitudes in whatever way he thinks they should be interpreted.


Mr. Green:: Can the minister tell us briefly what they are?


Walter Edward Harris: The only recent statement about which we have information is the one which I think would be put well down the list of official statements which was read the other day by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. The press in Egypt has, of course, been conducting a campaign which would not lend itself to co-operation and compromise at this time anyway. But that is not to say that this will be the continuing attitude of the Egyptian government. Indeed, if the canal were cleared by the United Nations and if at that time the Egyptian government were informed by the United Nations to this effect: "We have undertaken this task; we have expended the sums of money with or without a final settlement of how the money is to be collected and we expect the canal to remain open now to the shipping of any nations free of any discrimination", we would hope, of course, that at that time the collective pressure of the United Nations would be sufficient to ensure that Nasser would not attempt to interfere with shipping in the canal.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Has he any ground for believing that Russia would join in the pressure on Nasser?


Walter Edward Harris: I think that would be too broad a statement to which to make a direct answer. However, I think it would be correct to say that there have been occasions, both in the United Nations and in public negotiations with other countries, when it has been indicated that Russia-with all the difficulties that we have recognized in our diplomatic relations with that country-nevertheless is as conscious as is any one of the possibilities which might ensue if a peaceful settlement were not arrived at of any particular problem. The

solution may not be satisfactory. It may only be a compromise of a good many interests and it may be a subject of irritation. I would hope that we would not find that world peace would be permanently jeopardized by a question such as whether or not the ships of all countries should have free access to the canal when it is cleared in two or three months time.


Mr. Cardiff:: May I ask the minister a question?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Is it not true that England and France offered to clear the canal free of any assistance from other nations?


Walter Edward Harris: What they offered was to be of assistance in clearing the canal and that offer has been accepted to the extent that some British and French groups are working on it. My understanding is that at least one of them-if not both-is doing it without charge.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: May I ask this question? Did not the British parliament the other day vote a sum of money for the clearance of the canal in the amount of some $39 million?


Walter Edward Harris: I have not been informed that was the case. I would be surprised if it were because that would represent almost the total cost of clearing the canal.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That report was in the press.


Walter Edward Harris: I should be glad to see the report. Our last information is that the $10 million that was referred to at the beginning of this debate is still needed for the purpose upon which we base the request to parliament.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I ask
another question before you proceed?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Has this government already paid any of that money over to the United Nations?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Chairman. We have paid no money at all to the United Nations in connection with this matter. I think my hon. friend is probably confusing this with the money we paid in connection with Hungarian refugees; I refer to the $1 million we paid in November for that purpose.
If I have not answered these questions directly, I should be glad to be prompted. I think hon. members will realize the impossibility of giving any assurance except that the government will use its best endeavours and the best possible diplomatic approach
Supply-External Affairs that we can make through the United Nations and through other sources, in order that in the time that will elapse between now and the completing of the clearance of the canal we shall have, if not direct assurance, at any rate acquiescence in the use of the canal unrestrictedly by other nations and subject of course to the conditions of the treaty and the rights of those who claim rights in the canal. This will be a matter of great debate, no doubt, at the United Nations during the next two or three months.
I do not think there is any difference of opinion at the moment in this house about what our attitude ought to be in the course of those negotiations. As I said the other day, I think that everyone believes that you are more likely to get peaceful solutions if your country is in good shape. The economy of Europe has been suffering because of the blockage of the canal. When people are spending money in higher taxes, higher costs for gasoline and the like, when they are put on quotas and rations and the like, it is far better to get them off those things at the earliest possible time not only for their own sake but for the sake of a state of mind in which one could make more suitable settlement of the difficulties that gave rise to the restrictions on them.
It has been a surprising thing perhaps to most hon. members that, since this trouble began, the price of sterling has strengthened. I would not suggest that it should not do so. However, a great many people looked forward to certain financial difficulties in Europe this winter, which difficulties are taking place but which are being met by the peoples there in a spirit which has maintained confidence in the currencies of those countries. I would not ascribe a reason for that. I merely report it. But even so, let us consider how much better those currencies would be and how much better the feeling of the people would be if their costs were cut and if they were put back in the position which they occupied before the difficulty with regard to the canal. While a political settlement of the difficulty is, of course, a most desirable end, I suggest that an economic solution to the problem is urgently needed; and I know that fact is appreciated by hon. members who, in the main, I think will agree with this vote.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the minister is being extraordinarily optimistic when he speaks as though all that is required to bring about an economic solution is for this money to be put up and then for the canal to be cleared. I am afraid that is just the beginning of the problem. The minister himself today has in effect admitted that there is absolutely no assurance that, the minute the canal is cleared, this dictator

Supply-External Affairs Nasser will not take the position that British, French and Israeli ships cannot use it. Of course the minister cannot go any further than the actual facts of the case warrant. But I understand from him that that is the position, namely that the free world has absolutely no assurance that Nasser will allow the shipping of those three nations or for that matter the shipping of any other nations to use the canal once the money has been spent.


Walter Edward Harris: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: I think that shows just how terribly serious this question is and the need for the Canadian government and the governments of the other freedom-loving countries to take a determined stand that this sort of nonsense is not going to be permitted any longer. May I ask the minister, for example, whether this question of free navigation of the canal is even under consideration in the debate now taking place in the United Nations? When the Prime Minister spoke on Wednesday he intimated to us that the whole position from Canada's point of view was covered by the speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on January 29 in New York. We have now had an opportunity to read that speech. In it I find not one word about the Suez canal or about the question of navigation. May I ask the minister whether or not that is the fact, that all the discussions now taking place do not involve at all the question of the clearing of the canal or the free navigation of it?
Then, one other question I would ask him. Is there any move under way to use the United Nations emergency force as a police force in the Suez canal area as distinct from the Sinai desert, the Gaza strip and the gulf of Aqaba, to ensure that there is free navigation of the canal? Apparently, from all we can see, there is not any such intention. No nation seems to have mentioned it at the United Nations in the course of this debate, and yet I do not know of any other way in which the free navigation of the canal will be assured. I should like to know the opinion of the Canadian government as to whether or not this force should be given the task of policing the Suez canal itself until agreement has been reached under which there will be free navigation of the canal by the ships of all countries.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall try to answer both questions, Mr. Chairman. The first had to do with navigation, and whether it was under debate, and the second had the same purpose. I think my hon. friend misunderstood the Prime Minister the other day. You may remember that at the time I raised the same point of order that I have now mentioned

again. The Leader of the Opposition had asked about the Gaza strip and other related matters in connection with the dispute between Israel and her neighbours, and it was that to which the Prime Minister was referring when he said that the attitude of the Canadian government could be gleaned from the speech which was made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Prime Minister had in mind that it was that part of the question which had been addressed to him that would be covered by that speech. There was no intention to suggest that in the speech there was a discussion of the particular matter we are now discussing, namely, the canal itself, although I think my hon. friend will agree with me, having read the speech, that there were direct references to the gulf of Aqaba and other matters that stem a little bit from the canal clearing.


Howard Charles Green: But nothing about the canal.


Walter Edward Harris: No, I agree. The Prime Minister did not intend his answer should be taken in that light. He intended his answer to refer to those questions having to do with Israel and the Gaza strip which had been asked of him, and not to the canal itself. It was for that reason, as a matter of fact, that at that time I raised, as I raised again this morning and raise now, the point of order that we ought to confine our discussion to the canal rather than the Gaza strip and other matters that have arisen out of this but are not subjects we are discussing at the moment.
The second question has to do with the use of the United Nations emergency force in connection with the canal itself, and whether or not that is under discussion at the present time. I think my hon. friend should bear in mind the priority at the moment at the United Nations. At the moment, they are discussing the question of Israel, the Gaza strip and matters connected with whether or not Israel should withdraw and what should take the place of the Israeli forces should that withdrawal occur. The other question, the question of the canal and what happens to it after it has been cleared, will be discussed on the motion which will try to allocate the cost of clearing amongst the various members of the United Nations or in whatever manner may be decided.
At the moment, however, this subject is not under consideration because, as I say, the United Nations feels this other matter should have priority of consideration. As I said a moment ago, I am sure it will be raised during this session and at that time

there will be no point of order raised if discussion goes on about the canal and not about the Gaza strip.


Howard Charles Green: This is a discussion about the canal. The Canadian taxpayer is being asked to put up a million dollars to help clear that canal. Now, what is the stand of the Canadian government with regard to the use of the United Nations emergency force in the canal area in order to ensure that there will be free navigation for the ships of all nations? This must have been considered by the Canadian government. If it has not, it should have been because I believe that on November 2 there was a resolution adopted in the general assembly of the United Nations which authorized action to reopen the canal and this is the important part of that resolution to which I wish to draw attention and to secure full protection of navigation. The Minister of National Health and Welfare will correct me if I am wrong in that statement. The resolution of the assembly itself deals not only with the clearing of the canal but also with the free navigation of that canal.
Does the Canadian government believe, or does it not, that the United Nations emergency force should be used in the canal area itself until agreement has been reached which will ensure that all ships can use that canal?


Walter Edward Harris: I thought I dealt directly with the question on Wednesday, so I shall quote myself by reading two or three sentences found on page 807 of Hansard for January 30, 1957:
I do want to give the assurance that coupled with the vote of $1 million which I hope the committee will approve we will reiterate the position we have always taken on this matter, that is that the Suez canal shall be free to everyone without discrimination in its use. What form the operative part would take is still a matter of great concern and indeed may not be foreseen at the present time, but the United Nations resolution saying that this waterway shall be open to all users is not only endorsed by Canada but will be endorsed by Canada and insisted upon in so far as we have the ability to do so.
I cannot give a more definite statement than that. We shall do all we can to see, once the canal is open, that that position is maintained. We shall use all the good offices we have at the United Nations-and I think my hon. friend agrees that they are quite extensive because of the high regard for the representative of the Canadian people there- to see that these negotiations and discussions result in the canal being open. Now, whether or not we would say that we would do this or that to achieve that result would depend, of course, on the progress in negotiation. We cannot say at this moment that unless certain conditions are met we shall not go along with this; we are going to do our best to convince all members of the United Nations that this
Supply-External Affairs position should be the ultimate outcome. I, for one, am inclined to think most members here would feel that what can be done will be done by our representatives there and if they are not able to bring it about probably no one would be able to do so.


Howard Charles Green: That is all very well, but the minister has not answered my question so I am going to repeat it. Does the Canadian government believe that the United Nations emergency force should be used in the canal area to ensure the free navigation of the canal? The minister said that the government is in favour of free navigation of the canal. Everyone in Canada agrees with that, but I am not so sure that Egypt does or that Russia does or that a great many other nations agree with it. It is obvious, it seems to me, that we must know something further than that. Here is this United Nations expeditionary force in the Sinai desert. This house was led to believe last fall, I do not know whether or not it was intentional, that Canadian troops were going to take part in the United Nations emergency force in order to bring about free navigation of the canal as well as an armistice between Israel and Egypt. That certainly was the implication contained in the statements of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think that is what should be done. I think the United Nations emergency force should carry out that job. Nasser has told us in the last few days that the minute the Israelis withdraw then the United Nations emergency force has to get out of Egypt and that, of course, includes getting out of the Suez canal area. There are two very distinct stands.
I should like to know whether the Canadian government is standing firm on the plan that the United Nations emergency force shall be used in the Suez canal area to ensure that there is free navigation?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Canadian government will stand firm on any pronouncement made by the Prime Minister and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would not, however, draw the direct conclusion from what has been said by my hon. friend, that we have made a decision already that the United Nations emergency force ought to be used for the purpose that he has mentioned. In fact, I will go further and say I do not think we have made such a decision, although I quite agree that during the course of the past three months a good many things have been said and done which have affected the whole problem which gave rise to the difficulties we are now considering.
The real purpose of the United Nations force, of course, was to restore a situation in

Supply-External Affairs which peace and stability could be achieved by negotiation. Now, to say at this moment that in three months' time we shall insist on the emergency force staying in the canal area for the purpose of ensuring free navigation in the canal is expecting too much of any government. We would hope that we could achieve the results of free navigation by negotiation. I do not think you enter negotiations with your hands tied too much, and I do not think it would be desirable if we said at this time that only on that basis would we participate in the clearing of the canal. On the other hand, I think we are only-[DOT] to use the Prime Minister's words the other day

dealing in semantics.


Howard Charles Green: Has Nasser given the slightest indication that there will be free navigation?


Walter Edward Harris: No; I said that already this morning. He has not, so far as I am aware; but admitting that, I do not think we should sit down and allow things to remain as they are. We have to take some positive action to clean up difficulties which occurred in Egypt and in Israel.


Solon Earl Low: I have two questions in my mind that I wish to put to the minister. First, I must agree with him when he says that our first objective ought to be to get the canal cleared. I think that is understandable. The restoration of navigation in the canal is so important to the well-being and the economies of western Europe and they in turn have to be built up in strength if we are ever going to be able to provide the effective opposition to the communist imperialists that we must present, and I do not think there is anything we can do but to back the minister in his request for this $1 million to get the canal cleared. At the same time, I think we would like to feel that, as we join with the other nations in contributing money to see that the canal is cleared, we are buying one more right to demand that that canal be truly internationalized; that traffic through it be guaranteed to every nation. Furthermore, I think we also ought to make it abundantly clear through the firm attitude that we express that, we are going to see to it eventually that Mr. Nasser pays for the malicious job he did in blocking up that canal.
I never found any more effective way of dealing with a boy who was just a little bit malicious than to make him pay the bill. I do not mean punish him by beating the dickens out of him. That is not my thought. But I saw a lad one time who maliciously broke the windshield of an automobile. His father could very easily have paid the bill; in fact, he did pay it but he said to the boy,


"You are going to have the full cost of this deducted from your allowance over the months until it is fully paid for." That lad never wanted to break another windshield. I think it is exactly the same with Nasser because he is nothing but an overgrown boy and he is silly to boot. My own judgment is that he did this thing maliciously and we ought to make it abundantly clear that he and his country should repay the full cost in due course.
It does seem to me that if we go into this thing with a soft attitude and follow the diffidence that Hammarskjold has used in working with Nasser we will never get anywhere. I would like to believe that when we vote this $1 million and hand it over to the United Nations we ought to say to Mr. Hammarskjold, "You stiffen up on this business now and see to it that ample provision is made, whether through the use of the United Nations emergency force or in some other way, so that the canal zone will be occupied and administered by the United Nations until a perfectly sound agreement has been reached that will continue over the years and guarantee to all nations the right of unimpeded traffic through the canal." That is the first thing.
Then, I think we should also say to Mr. Hammarskjold, "Get it over to Mr. Nasser and his people that they are going to pay this shot and they will have to pay for any further malicious acts of this kind as well." If you stiffen up and do that, Mr. Minister, and see that our representative talks straight turkey to these people we will not hesitate to back you with this $1 million.


Walter Edward Harris: Just to answer-not the last question because I am sure the remarks of my hon. friend will be drawn to the attention of Mr. Hammarskjold-the former question: Before it was agreed to recommend to parliament that this advance should be made we did say to Mr. Hammarskjold what my hon. friend has said-


Solon Earl Low: Thanks.


Walter Edward Harris: -namely, that we are going to insist, and we will not put this request to parliament unless it is understood-and in doing so our position is quite clear-that this canal must be free.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question but first I would say I do not think there is one of us in this house who would like to see the dictator of Egypt placed in the position of Hitler and Mussolini. Somebody says that the United Nations has given him all the rope possible and he will soon hang himself. We would like to see that day now, but that

is not the question. The point I wish to make is that the United Nations is doing the job of clearing the canal; the work is going on now and it is our duty to pay for it. That is what this $1 million is for.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Has the question of the status of the canal ever been referred to, or judgment passed by, the international court of justice?


Walter Edward Harris: No.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If not, does the minister not think that this may be an appropriate time, while the canal is being cleared and while there are all these doubts in people's minds as to what the status of the canal shall be, to refer the question to the international court for a ruling in order that the United Nations could then have a clear guidepost lor future action? Obviously, if we are to act as we talk, then the United Nations will have to take some sort of concerted action, or leave it to someone else to take action privately, which is the very thing we are trying to prevent. If the United Nations is going to be called upon or expected to take concerted action for the purpose of making this canal available for all shipping without discrimination, I think it would be of value if it had a clear-cut ruling on what the status is under international law. I should like to hear the minister's opinion on that point.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, there is no power in the United Nations assembly to compel the reference of a question to the world court. Under those conditions it is unlikely that with the temper of the persons concerned it would go to the world court although it could go by the consent of the nations concerned. Under those conditions I can only say I am quite sure this stratagem to bring about at least a legal opinion about the rights of the countries concerned has no doubt been considered by a great many of the people directly or indirectly involved. As I say, Mr. Chairman, while we here might all agree that that would be a desirable end, at the moment it is not a possible end without the consent of the countries concerned.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I would like to get the answer clear in my mind, Mr. Chairman. The minister says, "without the consent of the countries concerned". In this instance does he refer to Egypt or does he refer to the countries which use the canal?


Walter Edward Harris: I refer to all countries. You cannot refer a question concerning a country to the world court by compulsion.


Mr. Hodgson:: Mr. Chairman, I believe it was on Tuesday that the minister said that in making this loan Canada was acting as a
Supply-External Affairs temporary banker for the United Nations. In view of that would the Secretary of State for External Affairs be attempting to replace some of the supermen of Europe to whom the Prime Minister referred in a speech a few weeks ago?


Walter Edward Harris: I think, Mr. Chairman, the question was intended as a serious one and the answer ought to be that we are doing our best to bring out of the chaos in the Middle East not only just a cessation of the hostilities which we have already achieved, but a settlement of a great many of the problems which have grown up over a number of years but particularly since 1948. There is lots of evidence to indicate that any action taken requires the good will and the co-operation, either willing or under pressure, of almost every group concerned and that in bringing about that solution we are actuated by only one motive and that is to restore the situation so that trade can be resumed, peace can be more permanently established and, as I always think as Minister of Finance, so that money can be used for the development of trade and the improvement of the standard of living instead of some of the things for which it is now being used.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the work of clearing the canal has been progressing for at least three weeks or more. Could the Minister of Finance say how those operations have been financed to date? Quite obviously the money must have been paid out to those companies which are doing the salvaging work and wages paid to their personnel.


Walter Edward Harris: As I said a moment ago, in some cases the salvage companies were doing it on their own or at the cost of the governments concerned. If the salvage companies themselves have not been financing their own operations in the expectation of receiving payment from the United Nations, I can only assume that they are doing the work with some kind of government assistance from their own governments although I have no knowledge that this is so. At any rate through the United Nations there has been no money paid up to the present time.


Mr. While (Haslings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister made it very clear that at the present time there is no agreement or assurance of any kind with Egypt that they will keep the canal open after it is cleared. I take it from what the minister said that as soon as the canal is cleared it will then be solely under the jurisdiction of the Egyptian government subject to any agreement that may be made through the United Nations. I should like to ask the
884	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs mimsx-r if there has been any discussion so far about this canal and as to any claim that is going to be made for the loss of the revenue from the date the canal was closed until it has been cleared and reopened.
I understand that the average daily revenue at the date the canal was blocked was between $500,000 and $1 million. If that is correct, there is going to be in all probability a large claim made by Egypt against somebody and I would like to know if Canada is then going to be placed in the same position we are in now where we have to pay a part of the cost of clearing the canal and in addition make a contribution toward any claim made by Egypt for loss of revenue during the time when the canal was closed.
The minister said he hoped that, when the canal was cleared, through pressure brought to bear by the United Nations some agreement could be made. Surely the minister remembers how much pressure the United Nations exerted and how hopeless and helpless they were in doing anything about Hungary because Hungary was backed up by Russia. Does he not feel that the United Nations is going to be placed in exactly the same position as far as Egypt is concerned if Egypt refuses to allow the passage of ships of all nations through the canal?
Further, why should not Egypt pay the entire cost of clearing the Suez canal? I do not know the number of ships sunk, but I believe practically all the ships, vessels and barges were sunk by Egypt. If Nasser should fly into a rage again, what is to prevent him from doing exactly the same thing? As far as I am concerned there is nothing that the United Nations can do legally to prevent Nasser operating that canal or blocking the canal again. Once again we are going to place our hopes in the United Nations. I think the minister and the government must realize at this date, which is far too late, that the mistake was in the pressure put on Britain and France by the United Nations, in which Canada played no small part, to withdraw from Port Said. If Britain had been allowed to proceed there the canal would have been protected, would not have been blocked and the United Nations would be in a much better position today than they are.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister indicated that our contribution or loan would be deducted from the assessment we pay to the United Nations fund. Is that to be taken directly from the service the United Nations offers or from the general fund to which we contribute for the operations of the United Nations itself?


Walter Edward Harris: It is to be an additional assessment to the annual one of, I think, 3.7 or 3.8 per cent.


Mr. Fulton:: May I ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, if he does not consider it reasonable that before we should be asked to vote $1 million to be paid by the people of Canada there should be an attempt which need not take long, and not only an attempt but should it not be decided, that Nasser should give a clear indication of his intention with regard to the future use of this canal? Otherwise does the minister not agree that we are being asked to vote $1 million without any knowledge of whether it is going to be put to useful purposes or thrown away? What is the use of clearing the canal if we find in fact it is not going to be open to ships of all countries who so vitally need it? Why is not an attempt made to obtain a clear and unequivocal statement from Nasser with regard to his intentions concerning the future use of the canal?


Walter Edward Harris: For the reason I gave a short while ago, Mr. Chairman, that all the advantage at the moment seems to be on the side of clearing the canal pending negotiations for the ultimate use of it rather than doing nothing. I made it quite clear that in the absence of a direct statement by Nasser it is our opinion, and I believe it is the opinion of my hon. friend, that it is better to take three or four months while this work is going on to negotiate this question than to ignore it and have a tremendous cost added on to the various nations that are suffering because of the closing of the canal, and hope that that in itself would be a sufficient reason why in the long run a satisfactory solution might be made. But in any event I must say that it would seem to me that we could not look forward to doing nothing about the canal even if the Egyptian government does at the moment appear to be saying, "We are not going to say now what we will do in three months' time." In effect, that is the situation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I just follow that up, because I do not gather from the minister's previous statement that instructions have been issued to the secretary general to obtain a clear statement from Nasser of his intentions. I should not think that that would take three or four months; it should be possible to do that in a matter of days. I do suggest therefore that three or four days should be considered as a reasonable time to devote to obtaining this answer before we and indeed other countries are expected to vote money.
That is not to ignore the problem and the fact that the canal is closed; that is merely to say that we are going to act expeditiously

and tell Mr. Nasser that we are prepared to vote this money, along with the other nations concerned, but before we do so we are entitled to have a clear statement of his intention.


Walter Edward Harris: I asume that in his negotiations with the Egyptian government, which the secretary general undertook four or five weeks ago, and no doubt in the continuing negotiations which are going on probably every day this question has arisen. However, I do suggest to my hon. friend, who is rather an expert in negotiating on occasion, that one thing you must avoid is having someone at a time when his position may appear to him to be strong or when his feelings are running strong take a position from which he cannot recede at a later time. I should say that that is the first step in diplomacy. If we were to demand an answer from Nasser, an answer involving certain courses of action to be taken, it would seem to me that we might not get very far in achieving a final result.


Colin Cameron: Can the minister tell us if he knows of any more profitable use to which Mr. Nasser could put the canal than to let ships through? Would he perhaps find it more profitable to grow water lilies in it or to conduct general hydrophonics?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: While it is true of course that the "Eisenhower doctrine" is quite apart from the United Nations, nevertheless I should like to ask the minister whether under the pressure which he has pointed out as having to be relied on in dealing with this strange man Nasser he considers that there might not be pressure exerted, either directly or indirectly, through the Eisenhower doctrine to the end that this man will show some common sense?
There are two aspects to the Eisenhower doctrine, one economic and the other military. I repeat what I said at the outset. While the minister may say it is irrelevant, looking at it in the broad, personally it does not seem to me to be irrelevant and I should like to know what the minister thinks.


Walter Edward Harris: I am quite sure that the United States government are as anxious as we are to come to the time in the spring when this work will have been completed and some continuing arrangement made, if not on a permanent at least on a temporary basis, which would permit the free use of the canal pending the outcome of whatever negotiations and discussions are then going on to achieve a permanent political settlement. I think the United States government was the first to say that it would contribute to this fund we are talking about now because
Supply-External Affairs despite the advantages there may be to the Texas oil producers they feel that in the long run and the immediate run there are advantages to the world as a whole in clearing the canal so that oil and many other commodities as well may pass through for western Europe.
I would not want to comment on the recent Eisenhower declaration about Middle East policy because, as I say, that gets into the larger sphere and is included in the larger attitude of restoring and maintaining peace in the Middle East. I would be quite satisfied that the United States administration and the Canadian administration were as one as to the desirability of a final settlement that the canal would be free to the use of all people without restrictions.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the minister answer this question on which I am not as well informed as I should be. Is there an indication that the economic aspect of the Eisenhower plan will in the immediate future take as one of its forms a readiness to help in the economic situation? I have been glad to observe recently that some of the oil-producing countries have begun to squawk because they are losing their means of livelihood. I have been wondering for months why the oil-producing countries, some of which live almost entirely on oil, have said so little about the fact that their business was being so greatly hampered and their losses were so great.
I realize that you are dealing with an extraordinary creature in the person of Nasser. I realize that you have to consider the pros and cons and weigh the considerations which might be conclusive to those of us who like to think we are full of common sense but which may not be so compelling in his case. If it is reasonable to believe that Egypt at the present moment is beginning to learn the economic facts of life and that one thing she will have to rely on is assistance from the United States, then it would seem to me reasonable to believe that the Eisenhower doctrine might operate very powerfully.


Walter Edward Harris: I think it would be unwise to make anything but general comments about political and economic doctrines which are under debate in the United States congress. I join with my hon. friend in the hope that that doctrine and its application, either in the political or economic stage, will be such that it will act, immediately or as soon as possible, with greater pressure to solve the problem now before us. Anything that can help to do that would return dividends, not only in money but in peace for a great many years.

Supply-External Affairs


Mr. Blackmore:: I know the minister is speaking extemporaneously and is probably not able to choose his words, but I was not very well pleased with his use of the words "levy" and "assessment". It seems to me that it would be wise for the minister to use "assignment" or "allotment". I do not want the idea to get into Hansard that we take the attitude that any group on earth can levy on us or assess us.


Walter Edward Harris: I hasten to agree 100 per cent.


Frederick George Hahn: Supplementary to the question I asked a few minutes ago: If I interpret the minister's remarks properly they would indicate that we will be allotted-I am using the word suggested by the hon. member for Lethbridge-a certain sum to be charged the different countries. I am wondering whether all the members of the United Nations have agreed to the plan that they should be allotted a certain figure at this time.


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Chairman, the resolution has not been debated yet and the attitudes have not been made known.


Howard Charles Green: Has Egypt been asked to pay anything towards the cost of opening the canal? I have not been able to find any reference in the press that such a request has been made. Perhaps the Minister of Finance can give us that information.


Walter Edward Harris: No, no one has been asked to pay anything. The only ones who have been asked have been those countries who have been asked to make these temporary advances. The whole question of paying for the costs has yet to be discussed at the United Nations.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister mean to say that neither Mr. Hammarskjold nor anybody else has even suggested to Egypt that she should pay one cent for clearing the canal although all the damage was done by Egypt? Is that the ridiculous situation in which we are put?


Walter Edward Harris: My hon. friend is very apt at reducing a situation to simple words which do not quite tell the story. It is true that Nasser has not been asked to pay but it is equally true that no one else has been asked to pay, so I agree with his statement put in that form.


Howard Charles Green: The Canadian taxpayer has been asked to pay $1 million. That is what he is being asked this morning. I should like to know why it is that the Canadian taxpayer is paying $1 million and 10 or 15 times as many American taxpayers are being asked to pay only $5 million. Why is it that Canada has to pay a so much larger proportion than the United States?


Walter Edward Harris: I went over that on Tuesday and I went over it on Wednesday.


Howard Charles Green: No, you did not.


Walter Edward Harris: Oh yes. The answer is perfectly simple. First of all, there were a few countries which had dollar assets and for a modest sum of this kind-I use that expression in connection with the total budget-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: What's a million?


Walter Edward Harris: -and not in connection with the amount involved-they had the exchange available. After consideration of the problem the secretary general decided that he should ask certain countries if they could help immediately by way of advancing a fund of $10 million. At that time the United States offered $5 million which, as I recall it, is more percentagewise than their annual contribution towards the cost of the United Nations. Therefore, taking that yardstick, they offered more than they would otherwise have had to contribute.
When it came to our case we were quite conscious, as I said on Tuesday and Wednesday, that a contribution of one dollar in ten to an interim advance was a greater percentage than we would normally be expected to contribute to any United Nations fund. Our contribution is somewhere below 5 per cent. But because of the fact that we have the dollars, because of the fact that we are a country whose motives are not suspect in any sense of the word in this controversy and because we were in the position that parliament was meeting shortly after it was decided that this would be the best method of interim financing, it was thought that we would have the money available reasonably soon if parliament saw fit to vote it. For that reason we decided after careful consideration on the amount of $1 million knowing nonetheless that it represented a greater portion of the total and a greater proportion with respect to the United States contribution but expecting that the loan will be repaid or, alternatively, that if we are asked later on to make a contribution towards this cost and do so we will be able to recoup the $1 million or a large part of it.


Howard Charles Green: It looks suspiciously' like another case of "what's a million".


Walter Edward Harris: I did not say that.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the Minister of Finance can tell us what arrangements, if any, have been made about the payment of tolls for the use of the canal once it is cleared. Are those tolls to be paid to Nasser, to the canal company, to the United Nations or to someone else? What is to be done?


Walter Edward Harris: Well-


Howard Charles Green: I am not through with my question. Are any negotiations under way at all with regard to the question of the payment of tolls? Is any of the money from tolls to be used to repay the cost of clearing the canal?


Walter Edward Harris: There are no negotiations publicly at the moment. There are a good many discussions going on at the United Nations as to the outcome of the use of the canal. One method suggested for repaying this money is to increase the tolls and make a charge of some kind on the tolls which would be collected and remitted to the United Nations in repayment of this sum of money. But, as I have indicated this morning, there has been no decision made because the whole question of financing has not yet been discussed by the United Nations.


Howard Charles Green: What about my question as to the authority to which the tolls are to be paid? Has that been decided?


Walter Edward Harris: That has not been decided. It will be decided along with the other questions when the United Nations comes to the resolution as to what will be done when the canal is cleared and made available for shipping.


Frederick George Hahn: It seems to me that the minister has certainly given us every assurance that our representatives at the United Nations will try to establish that we do get the money repaid. It also seems to me that the greatest beneficiary from the use of the canal is the United Kingdom. Having felt as we have in the past about this whole conflict, I would say that under the circumstances it is very desirable that we see to it that the $1 million is voted very shortly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to know if I understood the minister correctly a few minutes ago when I thought he said that in paying over the money we would indicate that it was being done on the condition that the canal must be free for all. Did I understand the minister correctly?


Walter Edward Harris: No. I answered that in a different form the other day when replying to the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I said we could not impose sanctions on the use of the $1 million. Once we give it to the secretary general it will be for the purpose of clearing the canal. We are going to do that but I said at the same time that we would accompany the cheque with a restatement of our support for the resolution of the United Nations calling upon the powers concerned to make the canal free and that we would continue to insist in negotiations at the United
Supply-External Affairs Nations that that be the ultimate outcome of the negotiations.


Mr. Quelch:: Can the minister say whether or not Russia has stated that she will not pay any part of the cost of clearing the canal? I did see where she had stated that in her opinion Britain and France should pay the whole cost. I believe she has also stated she will not pay any part.


Walter Edward Harris: That was a statement attributed to one of the representatives of Russia at the United Nations but in connection with a debate which has not yet arisen there, and one is hopeful that there may be a change, although I am not going to suggest that there will be.


Howard Charles Green: What consideration has been given to the suggestion that it is possible to construct another canal not on Egyptian territory? I am not in a position to know whether or not such a course is feasible but we have seen reports to that effect. If no one is going to put this man Nasser in his place it might be a good idea for investigations to be made as to the possibility of an alternative canal. It does seem to me that action along that line is much more likely to get reasonable action out of Nasser than for the freedom-loving nations like Canada to go on hoping that Nasser is going to be fair.
That is all we are doing today. I realize that the minister cannot take any other stand. He cannot say anything else because it is perfectly obvious that that is what Canada is doing as well as the United States, namely just hoping that Nasser is going to do what they want him to do. Would it not strengthen our hand a great deal if at least real steps were taken to find out whether or not it is possible to construct an alternative canal? Certainly if that can be done, Mr. Nasser and his Suez canal will be high and dry and we probably would not have much more trouble from him. Just what is the picture with regard to that possibility?


Walter Edward Harris: The original canal, of course, was a private venture backed by certain governments for the purpose of profit, and I am satisfied that in the intervening years it has become quite profitable. This would only mean that there would be a possibility of competition from others who would feel that they might make a profit too. It seems to me that this is a case where these matters would probably be present in the mind of Colonel Nasser. But in any event I think that every possible alternative to future trouble over the canal ought to be explored. If any one were in a position seriously to advocate a canal in another position or an alternative method of transportation such as

Ways and Means
the Israelis are attempting and are carrying out with some success, I am told, that would be one more economic reason why, in the course of these negotiations, we might come out with a reasonably good settlement.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: After listening to this debate for two full days now or nearly that much, the muddied water so far as I am personally concerned is becoming clearer every minute, and I am becoming more in favour of passing this vote and granting this money to the United Nations. I want to make myself clear on this position. At the time that Great Britain and France went into this canal zone, there is no doubt at all in my mind that the United States let them down for political expediency and that at that particular time Our Canadian representative played no small part in letting them down. They sold Mr. Eden down the river. There is no doubt about that. For that mistake which we made, if for no other reason, we should pay the piper. This is one way of paying him. We should pay this amount whether we get the money back or whether we do not. I have not much faith in ever getting it back. These loans or investments or whatever you call them made in this sort of way are generally give-away programs. But if we made a mistake-and there is no doubt that our officials did so at that time-let us pay the piper.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The committee also asks leave to sit again. When shall it have leave to next sit again? Later this day or next sitting?


Walter Edward Harris: Later this day.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
['Wait till Monday.']
Walter Edward Harris: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1957, the sum of $23,270,000 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 25, for granting to Her
[Mr. Harris.)
Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1957.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
['Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1957, the sum of $23,270,000 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave shall this
bill be read the second time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order,
Mr. Speaker. Since this is a money bill, should there not be two cabinet ministers in the house, one to make the motion and the other to second it?


Walter Edward Harris: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I asked for
your ruling, not that of the minister. This is a money bill. Surely it cannot be either moved or seconded by a member who is not a member of the cabinet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not believe
what is suggested by the hon. member is necessary. As long as the minister is here to sponsor his bill, I believe it may be seconded by any hon. member who is in his place.


Howard Charles Green: There are two parliamentary
assistants here. Perhaps they would do for one minister.


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave shall this
bill be read the second time now?
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.


Walter Edward Harris: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall this bill be
read the third time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Only by leave.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Clarence Decatur Howe: the second reading of Bill No. 9, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

He said: The purpose of Bill No. 9 is to extend for another five years certain vital sections of the Canadian Wheat Board Act which expire at the end of this crop year, that is on July 31 next. These sections have the effect of maintaining the wheat board as the sole marketing agency for western wheat, oats and barley.
The Canadian wheat board is in its 14th year of operation as the sole agency for the marketing of wheat produced in western Canada. During that time it has encountered nearly every conceivable combination of production and international trading conditions. There have been rusted, wet and frozen crops; there have been large and small crops; there have been periods of shortage when special measures were necessary to allocate supplies; more recently there have been unprecedentedly large crops at a time of intense international competition.
The board has met and dealt with these problems and today has more widespread support amongst producers and producers' organizations than ever before. This widespread support is, I think the house will agree, a tribute to the soundness of the present wheat board system of marketing and to the devoted and skilful work of the members of the board, in particular of course the work of George Mclvor, who has been a member of the board almost since its inception and who has been its chief commissioner since 1937.
The producers of western Canada understand thoroughly what the board is and how it operates today. That is why they give it such wholehearted support. I regret to say that there is less understanding in certain other quarters, and if the house will bear with me I should like to give a brief review of the origins and purposes of the present system of marketing.
The present system of wheat board marketing is an outgrowth of the pooling system which got under way in the early 1920's. All members from the prairies are familiar with the establishment of the Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta wheat pools. The basic idea was that members of the pools should deliver their grain to the pool and receive an initial price at the time of delivery, and the balance of the sales price, less expenses, when all grain had been sold. A central selling agency was established to co-ordinate the selling activities of the three provincial pools. The pools operated on this basis throughout the 1920's with considerable success and without any intervention or help from governments. Unfortunately, however, they became victims of the great depression. Although the initial prices for deliveries from the huge 1928 wheat crop, and deliveries from the 1929 crop, had been fixed at what seemed
Canadian Wheat Board Act reasonably conservative levels, the market collapse of the early 1930's prevented them from realizing enough from sales to cover these initial advances, plus expenses. The provincial governments first came to the rescue by guaranteeing the advances made by the chartered banks. So great was the debacle, however, that in the fall of 1930 the federal government had to provide additional guarantees to the banks.
At the same time, the government of Canada appointed John I. McFarland as manager of the pools' central selling agency. Mr. McFarland was instructed to stabilize the market, and this he did by buying both cash grain and futures on the open market for government account. Between November 30, 1930 and December 2, 1935, the central selling agency, which became divorced from the wheat pools and became instead the stabilization agency for the Canadian government, increased its holdings of wheat from 37 million bushels to 205 million bushels. Meanwhile the provincial pools operated on a small scale. This was the situation when the Canadian wheat board came into existence in 1935. It took over the wheat accumulated during the stabilization operations of the previous five years, and it stood ready to take wheat from producers at an initial price, and to return the proceeds of sale, less expenses, to the producers.
Hon. members will note that the Canadian wheat board at this stage was not the sole marketing agency for wheat. It stood ready to take delivery from producers, at a stated initial price, but producers could, if they wished, sell on the open market. In other words, it was at this time a board operating a voluntary pool. And so it continued to be until September 1943. While on the voluntary basis, the activities of the board fluctuated widely and rapidly. When the open market was above the initial prices, producers delivered relatively small quantities to the board. When the open market was below the initial price, producers delivered practically all their wheat to the board. From the point of view of a successful marketing operation by the board, this was a most unsatisfactory position. In a sense it was a sort of "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition. And as events were to prove, the producers themselves preferred a different system.
During the period of the voluntary pool the wheat board suffered one major loss arising out of the marketing of the 1938 crop, amounting to over $60 million. There were one or two other minor losses, but with these exceptions the boards not only sold at high enough prices to cover its initial advances and expenses, but also to make a further payment

Canadian Wheat Board Act to producers who had delivered wheat to the board. In September 1943 the wheat board became the sole marketing agency for wheat produced in the prairie region. Acting under authority of the War Measures Act, the government discontinued trading in wheat futures at Winnipeg. Special arrangements were made for the sale of wheat under mutual aid, and to meet the requirements of subsidized domestic purchasers. And the initial price was raised from 90 cents to $1.25.
This was the turning point in the recent history of wheat board operations. In September 1943 the present system, which enjoys such widespread support, came into effect. At the end of the war, of course, it was necessary for parliament, by the enactment of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, to put the system on a peacetime basis rather than on the basis of the War Measures Act, but otherwise the essentials were preserved. It is worthy of note that, since the board became the sole marketing agency, it has always been fully solvent and has always been able to make payments to its producers in addition to the initial payment. So popular did the present system prove to be that strong representations were made to extend it to oats and barley, which was done, effective as from August 1, 1949. Because of the constitutional position applying to grains like oats and barley, which are very largely consumed within the province of their production, the government insisted upon provincial legislation in each of the three prairie provinces to support the wheat board as the sole marketing agency.
That is the history. Now let me describe the system as it operates today. In effect, the wheat board operates a pool for the benefit of all producers, with the advantage of government support in its financing. The government, on recommendation of the board, fixes initial prices for deliveries during the crop year at what appear to be reasonable levels, taking into account prospects of sale. The board pays the producer initial advances on grain delivered to the pool by borrowing money from the banks, under government guarantee. The board sells the wheat and, after paying all expenses, returns the proceeds of sale to the producer in the form of further payments.
The board is a producers' board and even the salaries of board members are paid by the producers. The money involved is wholly money belonging to the producers, even though the board's bank borrowings are guaranteed by the government.
The board is strictly a marketing organization. It has no other functions whatever. Its aim is to market as much grain as possible, at

as high prices as possible, to keep its expense to a minimum, and to provide as high a degree of equity in delivery opportunities amongst producers as can be achieved within the limits of its overriding duty of selling grain.
In my opinion, the board has done a magnificent job in carrying out these functions and in attaining these objectives. And the secret of its success lies in the fact that it has not allowed its energies to be diverted in other directions.
That is the main reason why, on every and all occasions, the board, strongly supported by the government, has resisted efforts to put the board into the money-lending business by making advances to producers against grain stored on farms. That is not the business of the wheat board and should not be its business. To put the wheat board into the business of making farm advances is the surest way I know of playing into the hands of those who would like to wreck the board as an effective marketing agency for the producer.
Hon. members may wonder why I have tried to explain in detail the nature of the wheat board and the manner in which it functions. Those hon. members who represent prairie constituencies and many other hon. members require no such detailed explanation. Strangely enough, many people living in other parts of Canada who write and talk about the marketing of wheat obviously do not understand the detail of present methods of marketing Canadian wheat. It is to them that my explanation is directed.
A case in point is the Gordon commission which, after an extensive investigation, has produced a preliminary report that is obviously based on incorrect understanding of present marketing methods. In paragraph 5 of the section on wheat the following section appears:
Under the present system the Canadian wheat board announces shortly before the harvest each year the initial or minimum prices which will be paid for the crop which is about to be harvested. These minimum prices, which vary depending upon the grade, apply to the full amount of the crop . . .
That statement, of course, is a complete misconception. The government authorizes the board to fix an initial price for such wheat as may be delivered to the board within the next crop year, and guarantees the banks against loss through payment of the initial price, but the government does not guarantee payment to the farmer of any price for wheat which is not actually delivered to the board within the crop year.
It will be obvious to the hon. members from the prairies that the board cannot

possibly form an accurate estimate of the amount of grain which can be delivered to the board in any future crop year. Conditions in the export market change from month to month to an extent that can greatly change export prospects for better or for worse.
No reasonable man would ask the board to undertake the quite impossible task of fixing delivery quotas for individual producers on the basis of past records of acreage and yield. As a matter of fact, there are no available records which would be of any help to the board for such a purpose. Furthermore, it is the farmers' money that the Gordon commission would pay out on the basis of such an export forecast and on delivery quotas for individual producers fixed as recommended by the Gordon commission. Before taking any steps toward implementing the recommendations of the Gordon commission, the government would require almost unanimous support from the producers' marketing organizations. 1 feel sure that that support will not be forthcoming.
If any hon. member wishes to be recorded in support of the recommendations of the Gordon commission I hope that he will rise in his place and state his position clearly and unequivoc ally.
The underlying theme of the Gordon report on wheat is "restriction". The report returns time and again to the theme that the producer must be confronted with a limitation under which he will make whatever adjustments he can. This conception is directly opposed to the present government policy, which is to establish fair initial prices, provide the largest possible delivery opportunity for producers and to assist by paying carrying charges on abnormal surplus stocks of wheat until markets can be found.
The Gordon commission recommendations appear to be based upon the assumption that there is likely to be a continuing surplus problem. I do not share that view and I think it would be a great mistake to base our policies on such an assumption.
I have said many times, and I say it again, that the only reason that any substantial surplus of wheat remained on farms at the end of the last crop year, and is likely to remain on farms at the end of the current crop year, is the remarkable series of bumper crops. Had crops been average, or even moderately above average, in recent years not a bushel of grain would be on farms today other than grain that the farmer himself preferred to hold. But crops have not been just above average but of unprecedented proportions in recent years.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
In fact, farmers have marketed very large quantities of grain every year. Our exports on the whole have been at satisfactory levels. Last crop year, for example, they were well above all except a very few preceding years and domestic consumption is now, of course, more substantial than it has even been. This crop year our exports are considerably higher to date than they were in the same period during the last crop year.
The outlook is not gloomy. The wheat board has a difficult task but it has demonstrated that it knows how to handle its task. It will at all times receive the full support of the government.
I have no hesitation in recommending an extension of the present system of wheat board marketing for a period of five years.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the review by
the Minister of Trade and Commerce of wheat board transactions today was, in my opinion, quite incomplete. Apparently, however, the purpose of the speech the minister made was to scuttle the recommendations of the Gordon commission in their entirety, a commission set up by the government, a commission that spent a fabulous amount of money reviewing the economic future of Canada, a commission that, in so far as the wheat policy recommendations are concerned, has received from the Minister of Trade and Commerce one of the most scathing denunciations that paternity ever gave to progeny.
Sir, as to many of the recommendations there will be strong disagreement, but to refer to the recommendations of the commission in support of cash advances in such critical terms as were used by the minister this afternoon is to pay no heed to the demands of western farmers today on behalf of cash advances. The events of the last few months have added emphasis to the demand of last year that there should be incorporated in this act a permanent provision for cash advances in order to assure western farmers of a reasonable opportunity to meet their initial costs and expenditures. The minister says that anyone who would advocate that policy would be a participant in contributing to the destruction of the board. Well, Mr. Speaker, if that be so then the western farm organizations and the pools themselves must be in that category. Certainly farmers in general who support the wheat board marketing system are almost universally in support of incorporating a provision for cash advances in the act which I believe is necessary having regard to the uncertainty of marketing arid storage difficulties.
892	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act
When that course was advocated last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said that he had communicated with the members of the wheat board and they had given him to understand that if a system of cash advances was brought into effect they would resign. I asked for the production of the correspondence to that effect and also a summary of the conversations which allegedly had taken place. The answer given in reply to that request was that there were no records and there was no correspondence. I say again that commencing this afternoon, there should be incorporated a system of cash advances in order to make this legislation more effective. In' so far as the general purpose of the bill is concerned, in order to provide for the extension of the life of the wheat board for five years, we in the official opposition intend to give it our support. We have been in favour of the wheat board operating all through the years in order to secure and assure for the farmer the largest possible return, but unfortunately my hori. friends in this government did not always hold the same high opinion of the wheat board that they avow today.
The hon. gentleman reviewed some of the wheat board's transactions and having done that I may be pardoned for also filling in, in what he called a review of the origins and purposes of the wheat board, certain things to which he did not make reference.
I think it is appropriate to review the history of this board since 1935. It was in 1935 that the late R. B. Bennett, the then prime minister, introduced the Wheat Board Act in the House of Commons. It was his desire and purpose that it should be a compulsory board much in keeping with the present situation in so far as the compulsory features are concerned. However, the Liberal opposition of that day opposed him and on July 1, 1935 after a series of discussions between members of the government and the opposition it was finally agreed that the only way in which the legislation could find itself on the statute books would be by having the voluntary feature incorporated and not the compulsory feature.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my
hon. friend a question. What was the Conservative majority in this House of Commons at that time?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, the minister now asks what was the Conservative majority in the House of Commons at that time. Let me say this. On July 1 that year it had been indicated that within three or four days dissolution was to take place. Dissolution was requested over and over again by Mr. Mackenzie King. Members of the Liberal


party, and in particular the late J. L. Ralston representing that party, promised to continue to fight on and on regardless of the time that was consumed in order to prevent that board being made a compulsory board. This occurred before my right hon. friend invented the system of applying closure even before discussion took place. That was the reason we had a voluntary board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has not answered my question.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not interrupt my right hon. friend when he was speaking and presenting a one-sided discussion and I would ask him now to contain himself in silence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He does not know the answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Canadian Wheat Board Act prices in the United States and world prices. This subsidy varies from time to time, depending upon prices at home and prices abroad. Secondly, the United States sells wheat for payment in the currency of the buyer. The proceeds of sale are usually left in the buying country, either to be used by the purchasing government for some purpose approved by the United States government, or in some cases to be converted into dollars several years hence. At the present time, for example, a deal is being worked out with Brazil for a 40-year credit payable in Brazilian currency. I do not think it is unfair to say that in most cases the United States will receive in payment only a small fraction of the selling price. In other words, this is a form of foreign aid, rather than a method of sale.
Thirdly, the United States attempts to trade its wheat against strategic materials. I do not think it is unfair to say, from the evidence available, that the emphasis is more on disposing of wheat than on securing supplies of strategic materials. Fourthly, the United States offers wheat without payment to countries which are in dire need, because of some calamity. In principle, of course, there can be no objection to such gifts, provided that they are not used to destroy commercial markets, which would otherwise have been available.
Then the minister continued:
As I said, I do not think that the United States intends to harm Canada by any of its policies.
Those are sweet words from one usually given to strong expression.
Yet there can be no doubt that, whatever the intention, the methods used by the United States to dispose of its wheat surpluses have been harmful, not only to Canada, but to the wheat situation in general.
And again:
When the members of the United States cabinet were in Ottawa in September-
That was September 1955.
-to meet members of the Canadian cabinet, I put the Canadian point of view before our American friends more strongly than ever before.
Well they did not listen even then. What did he say, what were the strong words that were used? The government of this country has been blaming the United States for the loss of markets, and the wheat board has been doing the same. Mr. Mclvor, chairman of the wheat board, said on July 4, 1956, that United States policy was the main reason for loss of wheat markets by Canada. He said markets were lost for reasons beyond our control. He then went on to say that they were lost because the United States was engaging in a system that was not justifiable.
Well, Mr. Speaker, they did not find out how serious it was until October, 1956. They always contended that the Americans were acting in an injudicious way but that what they were doing might be justified. It was only in October, 1956, that they found out. We have these wheat merchants and trade commissioners all over the world and yet they did not find out until then or a few
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
weeks before that the United States was engaged in a most improper practice whereby in the disposal of farm produce the nation that received the benefit of these give-away terms or reduced prices undertook to buy future requirements from the United States. In other words, these gifts, these fire sales, in effect carried with them a gobbling up of wheat markets in the future which no one can justify under the terms of the agreement on tariffs and trade.
Mr. Victor Mackie, writing in the Winnipeg Free Press, had this to say on October 8, 1956:
Only this summer Canadian officials began to become aware of the important part this provision in the American surplus disposal program was playing in United States disposal of its produce. One report published in a Toronto financial paper in a Washington dispatch states that it was not until the Canadian-U.S. meeting of officials in Winnipeg August 28 that the Canadian government discovered the "tied" sales, which had been standard U.S. operating procedure in its disposal program.
It had continued for several years. The article goes on to say that Canada's government has moved in the diplomatic field to put a stop to the tied deals for the future and has sent a formal note of protest.
Where were they, Mr. Speaker, during the two years? Why did they not find this out? We were losing important markets. The United States was concealing nothing. It gave away wheat and other agricultural products either at lower prices or almost as a gift but always tied to the undertaking on the part of the receiving country that that country would continue to purchase further wheat or other agricultural products. I could quote from various editorials in other western newspapers. The Winnipeg Free Press, the Regina Leader-Post, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix and other newspapers that support the government found it difficult to understand why the government was blind for two long years as to what was going on while we were losing our markets.
To say we have increased our exports of wheat does not meet the question at all. We have increased our exports and so have other countries. The United States has increased its exports the greatest of all and has taken over our place and forced us into a secondary position in this regard. We tried to find out what the government had done. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said that he had spoken in strong terms to them. What was said? Whatever was said has not brought about any change. Why can parliament not find out? On the 24th of January, as found at page 589 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce what

had been done, what was the nature of the protest, and in reply he said:
The two governments have appointed a continuing committee of senior civil servants of both governments to deal with these matters. The committee meets from time to time. I think the last meeting was some two or three weeks ago. Protests are filed through that committee, and sometimes remedial action is taken.
There has been no remedial action in connection with wheat that can be seen by any eyes anywhere in the world. He goes to say:
Protests, I may say, are sometimes filed in both directions. In any event we find that committee has been useful as a means of conveying our protests, and has had some effect in discouraging certain policies to which we in Canada take strong objection. There is nothing to table. We do not file our protests in writing; we file them through the committee.
Then I asked the minister whether he would tell us what had been done and what was the nature of the protest, and this was his answer:
Mr. Speaker, to discuss in parliament the subject matters that are dealt with by the committee would be to destroy the usefulness of the committee.
I would have destroyed the effectiveness of the alleged objections being raised. That, Hr. Speaker, is what it would have done. Parliament? Why tell parliament anything? They are talking the thing over in such strong words that parliament dare not hear them.The minister goes on to say:
I do not know that it is particularly in the public interest to discuss the kind of transactions we object to. Certain transactions we do object to; but to single them out and discuss them on the floor of the house would, as I say, seriously prejudice the future of the continuing committee.
In other words, parliament which set up the wheat board, parliament which is interrested in the trade of this country, parliament which desires to know what is being done in order to prevent the loss of markets by improper procedures on the part of the United States, is to be denied information. Finally, Mr. Speaker, after I had raised that point and said how unfair it was the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said:
If the hon. gentleman reads what was being talked about before he rose and reads his own remarks, he will find how inappropriate they are to what has been the subject of discussion.
My remarks were these:
. . . does the Prime Minister not believe that parliament has a right to hear?
Is there anything inappropriate in that?
Is everything to be hidden under the new policy or the continuation of the old one that is being followed ... by the government of concealing all information that it does not want parliament or the people to have?
Sir, we have lost these markets for the future. We have lost them because the United
Canadian Wheat Board Act States has adopted a policy of tying in future deliveries and promises of future deliveries with the present-day give-away and fire sale policy. Surely parliament is entitled to ascertain how strong these protests are or whether in this regard Canada's economic future in agriculture is to be sacrificed to the desire of the government to conceal the pusillanimity of its protests. Are they afraid to speak out? The United States is not. We are joined together. We supply the United States with a major portion of its needs to forge the shield of freedom. We are a have country and they are becoming a have-not country.
Surely a protest should be made to the government of the United States that could be heard, not one of these listless, silent protests that are conveyed through a group of civil servants, senior though they may be, whose protests dare not come to the light of day through parliament which created the wheat board. The Canadian people are denied information on a matter upon which they are entitled to information.
We say, sir, that in the last several years the Department of Trade and Commerce has not exercised that degree of diligence in the securing of markets that it should have. We are treated regularly to optimistic statements, and while Canada's parliament receives optimistic statements the United States of America gobbles up future wheat markets and denies us in Canada any opportunity in the future to deal competitively with the United States of America.
I come now to one other matter, the general position of the farmer, particularly with regard to agricultural prices, and the difficulty the farmer finds himself in today by reason of the fact that he is caught in a squeeze between falling farm prices and rising costs. This was dealt with during the last few days by the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. I refer to an editorial in the Western Producer, summarizing the situation, on January 17. Mr. Wesson was dealing with the export of Canadian wheat and flour, and he said this:
The improvement in exports was reflected during part of the year in good delivery opportunities at country elevators throughout the west.
Then I leave out a few lines, not that they are not material, and continue:
These additional marketings last year have given farmers a higher cash income for 1956 than they enjoyed in 1955.
That is a higher cash income. In fact they are receiving year by year a lower net income. Then he goes on to say this:
But even on the basis of these good sales many farmers did not break even on the year's operations.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
He is speaking in particular of the wheat farmer.
The continued high cost of things needed to operate a farm and to maintain the farm family was putting the farmer in an impossible position. The price he received for his grain and other agricultural products was too low to keep the average farmer out of debt.
Then he went on to point out this:
The improvement in income in 1956 will not bridge the gap between costs and prices as shown in 1955 figures. The result is that many farmers are dipping into reserves to keep going while other farmers are accumulating debts which will be extremely difficult to pay at present prices.
Then he said the future is bright for wheat, and ended in this way:
The disparity between costs and prices will in all probability continue to have a serious effect on farm people throughout the coming year . . . The continued high cost of things needed to operate a farm and to maintain the farm family is putting the farmer in an impossible position.
That is something we have been bringing to the attention of the house over and over again in recent years. That was one of the reasons we have advocated-and I again advocate it-in view of the loss of our wheat markets through the actions to which I have referred, that in the interests of maintaining and extending a continued increase in our wheat marketing we should convene in Canada at the earliest possible date a British commonwealth trade conference in order to ascertain in consultation, as I expect can be achieved, whether or not we shall be able to secure a larger share of the wheat marketing within the commonwealth.
What about India? Under this scheme she has entered into an agreement with the United States to take $400 million worth of wheat and other farm products, a practical giveaway. Surely if a commonwealth conference were convened such things would not be taking place. In any event, the condition would be alleviated and a larger share of the wheat market would be made available. Why not call the conference? What harm can there be in doing so? If anyone argues with me that nothing can be achieved, then I ask why it is that we send trade commissioners all over the world. Let us convene such a conference and endeavour to secure for the future some of the markets for our wheat which are being lost.
We said the same thing in 1928 and 1929, namely that the markets for wheat were being lost. If you read the speech from the throne in 1929 and 1930 you will find that the Governor General uttered words to the effect that all was well, that we had on hand and unsold more wheat than ever before. We lost our markets then as we are losing them today. We are not only losing our markets for today, but by improper practices that

are countenanced by this government through its failure adequately to object, we are losing our markets for the future.
This brings to mind a further suggestion that I place before the government in connection with agriculture in general, and wheat and other farm products in particular. Now that the Supreme Court of Canada has given its judgment on the jurisdiction of the dominion parliament and the provincial legislatures in connection with agricultural boards and the like, I suggest that there should be convened a conference of dominion and provincial representatives on agriculture and also representatives of the various agricultural bodies in this country, to the end that in a community of discussion we may be able to determine a course of marketing for wheat and other farm products, and also assure that agriculture shall not continue in its present position of being caught in a squeeze between rising costs and falling farm prices.
These are but one or two suggestions. There are others I could have made, but at the moment I will rest at this point and merely say this in summary. We support the legislation continuing the wheat board. It is natural that we should do so, for we gave it birth and we have given it support throughout the years. In the second place, I suggest that the wheat board should operate as an independent body for the producers, and in no way to carry out government policy under the direction of the government to the detriment of the farmer. In the third place I suggest that in order to meet the serious challenge to our agricultural markets, and in particular our wheat markets of which I am speaking at the moment, parliament has the right to know what this government is doing. Is it whispering to the United States?


An hon. Member:: It is playing golf.


John George Diefenbaker: There is nothing on the record. Last year a question was asked as to the particulars of the protests and as to the replies given to the protests, and the minister said the protests were worded in such terms that they did not require a reply. Let us make protests that require a reply. Let us make known to the government of the United States exactly how Canadians feel about this highly improper and improvident course of action that is being followed.
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister met with the President of the United States in balmy Georgia-


An hon. Member:: He went to play golf.


John George Diefenbaker: -and had that ride on the cart, did he tell the President of the

United States what a ride the Canadian wheat farmer was receiving at the hands of the government of the United States? X tried to get that information previously, but I have not succeeded in doing so. Possibly when the minister replies he will tell us what strong words he used or what words, if any, he used, and also the degree to which the warning words have fallen on ears that have not only heard but have acted.
Again I suggest the convening of a British commonwealth trade conference in order to ascertain whether or not these markets within the commonwealth can be retrieved. When you look at the situation in Europe today you find that Britain for the first time in all her history has commenced to look to the continent of Europe for a free-trade area. In that area there will be mutual trade with six other countries. Britain is only held back by her desire not to do any harm to the agricultural products which she purchases today from various parts of the commonwealth.
What is the government doing in that regard? What will be the result if this free trade area is opened? What loss will be suffered by Canadians, and in particular by the wheat farmers? What is Canada doing in regard to this innovation in international trade on the continent of Europe to assure that her markets for wheat will not be lost there, and what is she doing in order to assure the continuance and maintenance of the British market?
Then, sir, one final suggestion is the convening now in Ottawa of representatives of the dominion and provincial departments of agriculture and of farm bodies generally. Realizing the distribution of powers between dominion and provincial governments and the limitations on the exercise of federal and provincial jurisdictions, we should act in order to do something on behalf not only of the wheat farmers but of farmers generally in all parts of Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: We in this group, Mr. Speaker, will vote for second reading of the bill. We do so because we believe in an orderly system for the marketing of wheat and other grains. I listened very carefully to the remarks made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon. When he says that the western producers almost unanimously support the wheat board, he is correct. When he says that the producers of western Canada believe the present personnel of the Canadian wheat board have done a very good job, considering all the circumstances, he is correct.
But I was disappointed that the minister did not demonstrate his own belief and the
Canadian Wheat Board Act belief of the government in the good job the Canadian wheat board has been doing under these circumstances by proposing to parliament that the Canadian Wheat Board Act be made permanent legislation. Apparently the government is converted to the principle of the wheat board on a temporary basis. The minister says we are asking parliament now to consider giving the wheat board a further life of five years. We have heard a lot of talk this afternoon about a great many of the problems that face producers in the marketing of grain, but I have heard few suggestions as to what should be done to help farmers; what should be done now to put more money into the pockets of the farmers; what should be done now to see that within the next few months farmers are able to sell more grain.
We believe in the wheat board system of marketing grain. We in this group believe in it because we believe it will be more and more demonstrated that it is necessary for a government to involve itself to an even greater extent in the marketing of such commodities produced in this country. We believe in it because we believe there is an important field in this country to be occupied by public ownership and by public planning. The wheat board is part and parcel of the principles and beliefs of the members of this group. So we say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that if he himself were in fact completely sold on the principle of orderly marketing under the Canadian wheat board, he would not be proposing to parliament at this time a bill to extend the life of the Canadian wheat board another five years, but he would be presenting to parliament a bill to make the wheat board a permanent part of the economy of this country. In addition, he would be proposing that the wheat board handle oats and barley outside the Winnipeg grain exchange, and would prepare an amendment to the present act so the wheat board would be empowered as the sole marketing agency for rye and flax.
The minister has divided himself and his beliefs into two compartments. Part of the minister's belief is in the Canadian wheat board, that is true; the other part of his belief is a belief in the Winnipeg grain exchange, keeping their doors open and allowing the future market to operate to the detriment of the producers.
Producers well know just how the futures market has operated in recent months to their detriment. A year ago last fall when the farmers were selling flax they were getting just over $2 a bushel. When they decided in the spring to buy some seed to

Canadian Wheat Board Act sow flax they found the price was up to $4 or $4.25. When they marketed their flax through the Winnipeg grain exchange, through the speculative market, the price was low. In the spring when they went into the market to buy flax, they found the price was high. I suggest that right now the government, if it wants the approval of he Canadian wheat and grain producers, should introduce an amendment giving the exclusive marketing of oats, flax, barley and rye to the wheat board. Then they would close the grain exchange and, in effect, put a padlock on gambling and throw away the key.
The minister is not interested in supporting a system of orderly marketing to that extent. We believe, too, there should be a system of cash advances. We supported that idea last year and we support it now. I suggest that at this moment, in this crop year, farmers are very much in need of such a system of cash advances.
Then the minister took this opportunity to condemn the report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. This commission was a child of the government, but the minister has condemned its report by a very sweeping statement to the effect that certain sections of the report are completely impracticable. I do not agree with one section at all, but perhaps for different reasons from the minister. We in this group would not be satisfied with the proposal of the royal commission that the wheat board make a guess as to the amount of wheat it would be able to accept, and then provide for an initial price based on that quantity. If marketing conditions were not good and the amount of grain the wheat board could export was not large, then the farmers' income would be very low. A further item that is not mentioned is what would happen if the wheat board were able to take more grain than they judged they would be able to accept. Would they take it at a guaranteed price or at a lower price? I think the whole section of the royal commission report dealing with agriculture generally is very inadequate and, to make a general statement, the implementation of that report would not meet the needs of the farmers in this country.
We would like to see the principles of the Canadian wheat board extended. We would like to see the government take action to improve the sales and exports of Canadian grain. A year ago the minister made a very optimistic statement to this house as to the future of wheat exports. Today he did not make any optimistic forecasts. He did not say we would be marketing, in this crop year, a much larger quantity than we did

last year, or exporting a much larger quantity. All he said was that the outlook was not gloomy and went on to say that the wheat board has a difficult task.
The other day, in making a speech outside of this house, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as reported in the Globe and Mail on January 24, had this to say on this point:
I would mislead you, however, if I did not add that, in order to produce satisfactory results, the wheat board and all others concerned, will have to work harder than ever to sell our grain in overseas countries. Competition shows no signs whatever of abating, and the high current level of ocean freights constitutes a new and formidable problem.
We all know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce looks on everything in a very optimistic way, but in this instance he has changed. He is not painting an optimistic picture. I can only conclude that the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself feels that the near future for the marketing of wheat is very uncertain indeed. I saw a report by the Alberta wheat pool, published in the Alberta Wheat Pool Budget of January 11, which states that the reports received on future sales of wheat are discouraging. The Alberta Wheat Pool Budget goes on to say it does not appear certain at this time whether or not Canada will export during the present crop year even as much wheat as we exported last year.
Last year our exports of wheat increased considerably over the year before. In studying why we were able to sell 309 million bushels of wheat in the face of very severe competition from the United States I found there were three main reasons. The first was that there was a poor European crop. They had a very bad winter in Europe a year ago, so that sales to Europe from Canada were increased. The Argentine experienced a very poor crop, and for that reason competition from the Argentine was lessened. Probably the main reason was that last year there were very substantial quantities of wheat purchased from Canada by certain Soviet bloc countries. These exports to countries in the Soviet bloc amounted to a total of some 45 million bushels.
The picture now seems to be changing. The Argentine crop, which has just been taken off, is estimated to be something of the order of 253 million bushels as compared with 193 million bushels last year. Australia has been successful in increasing her exports from 90.6 million bushels a year ago to 130 million bushels in the most recent crop year. In this situation we see that the wheat board is experiencing some difficulty in selling and exporting Canadian wheat, even

Canadian Wheat Board Act
though in the current crop year the record, compared with the same period last year, has been better.
Last year, in the period from August to November, our exports were some 28 million bushels fewer than they have been in the same period this year. In that same period this year we exported 106 million bushels. The United States exported 150 million bushels, or 44 million bushels more than Canada was able to export. The Canadian Wheat Review for December, 1956, shows that for the first time since 1951, in the period from August to November, United States sales of wheat, or exports of wheat, exceeded those of Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Don't use the word "sales".


Hazen Robert Argue: Almost every other country in the world has long since decided that the people who farm and produce food are entitled to an equitable living on a par with people engaged in other occupations. The United States is now paying a support price of $2 a bushel, Japan $2.59 a bushel, France $2.64 a bushel, Turkey $2.91 a bushel, Norway $3.43 a bushel, Switzerland $4.03 and so on. Countries across the world have decided that adequate support prices should be implemented but this government, believing as it does in the free market system to the extent it can get away with it, continues to return to the farmer only the number of dollar bills it can obtain on the world markets.
The United States government is very directly engaged in the marketing of the grain of that country. The Republican government elected in 1952 said it was determined to get out of the wheat business, and its policy was to withdraw any government control of agricultural commodities. Today the Republican administration of the United States is more deeply involved in the marketing of agricultural commodities than any previous Democratic government had been. The United States are grabbing the wheat markets of the world.
Much has been said in criticism of the policies of the United States government in this regard. I have some information concerning the large quantities of wheat the United States government has been able to dispose of under its various policies. I doubt if many hon. members realize the large degree to which the United States has corralled the present wheat markets of the world. The information I have obtained indicates that under title I of public law 480 the United States since 1954 has contracted for the sale of 2,073 million bushels of wheat. Under section 402 of public law 665 concerning the acceptance of defence material the United States has sold $393 million worth of wheat. Under title 2 of public law 480, which is the gift section involving the provision of food in the event of famine, approximately 40 million bushels of wheat have been exported. All in all under these policies the United States as I understand it has contracted and agreed to the sale of some 2,200 million or 2,300 million bushels of wheat.
I suggest that even if the government sent the entire cabinet to Washington to protest the actions of the United States under these policies nothing could be accomplished because the damage has already been done. Even if the United States were asked to break its contractual obligations with importing countries the answer of that country is

bound to be in the negative. There is no hope for us this way. We can merely protest, saying we do not like it. I suggest we can shout as loud as possible and make as much noise as we like, but it will probably not result in the sale of an additional bushel of wheat.
The United States has corralled some of Canada's best markets. The United States has entered the Brazilian market, and has a three-year contract for the sale of $200 million worth of wheat to India. The Indian market is in large part already lost to Canada. Last year we were able to develop an additional market in iron curtain countries. Last year during the first nine months we sold to Poland, Russia and Czechoslovakia a total of $60.4 million of products, mainly wheat. During the same period we imported from those countries a mere $6.1 million worth of goods. I am now wondering if the difference between the export and import figures explains why these countries have not so far this year purchased any wheat from Canada. Certainly it will be impossible for Canada to continue selling to these countries ten times as much as we are prepared to import from them.
It is for this reason that hon. members of this group say the time has come for this government to adopt new policies governing the sale of wheat and other commodities. We suggest once again as we have so often suggested in the past that the government should be prepared to accept local currency from any country that might want to buy our wheat. We should agree not to turn the local currency into dollars but to block it in that country and be prepared to use it in the future for the purchase of goods produced in that country, or for investment in the countries which have purchased our wheat.
We think that is a sensible policy. We think that is a policy which will increase our sales. We think that is a policy which will return us something for the wheat which we have to sell. We suggest further that it is not good enough to sell wheat to countries which may wish to buy it from us on a contractual basis. We suggest that we should be prepared to say to Russia, Czechoslovakia and Poland, "If you are prepared to buy our wheat we will agree to purchase substantial quantities of the goods you produce so you can keep on being a good market for our products." I am afraid that if we continue to say to the nations of the world, "We will sell only if you pay hard money" we will continue to experience great difficulty in the selling of our wheat. The danger is that the United States may grab more and more of the markets we have enjoyed.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
To sum up, I suggest that there are at least six practical things the government could do now, things that are not just talk, not just window dressing, but acts by the government which would benefit the agricultural producers in Canada.
First, I suggest that the government should extend the operations of the wheat board to cover the marketing of oats, barley, flax and rye in their entirety, and thus bring about the final closing of the Winnipeg grain exchange.
Second, I suggest that the government should extend the principle of paying storage on grain, such storage to be paid on all wheat held in the elevator system and to farmers who store wheat on their farms.
Third, I suggest that a system of advance payments should be adopted so as to give to each producer in western Canada the same income per acre as his neighbour, irrespective of what quotas may exist at the end of the crop year.
Fourth, the government should adopt a system of parity prices that would guarantee the people engaged in the agricultural industry 100 per cent parity of income as compared with people engaged in comparable occupations.
Fifth, I suggest that in order to improve exports of Canadian grain we should be prepared to accept local currencies of countries willing to buy our grain.
Sixth, I suggest that Canada should stand prepared to make bilateral trade contracts in order to guarantee good customers for Canadian wheat that Canada in turn will be a good customer for their commodities.
I submit that if this type of program were adopted it would greatly increase Canadian sales of wheat; it would restore Canada's position in the international markets of the world, and it would bring to our wheat producers a quality of income as compared with people in other industries.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, we in the Social Credit group will support the second reading of Bill No. 9, to extend the operations of the wheat board as the sole marketing agency for wheat for another five years. There is no doubt that the majority of farmers do support the wheat board as the sole marketing agency for their grain, and they are asking that flax and rye should be brought under the act. I suggest that the main reason for that is that rye and flax are under quota now. A wide variation in prices has developed, and the farmers want to have the same stability in the marketing of those grains that they have in the marketing of wheat, oats and barley under 1he wheat board.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
I think we are fortunate in the type of men we have had at the head of the wheat board, and I have in mind particularly Mr. Mclvor.
I think it speaks very well that in spite of the difficult times the grain growers have been going through the wheat board is still endorsed by them as the sole marketing agency for their grain. I think the reason for that is that the farmers realize their difficulties are not due to the fact that their grain is marketed through the wheat board, but rather to the failure of the government to cope with the difficult problem of surpluses.
Hon. members on all sides of the house have stressed the fact that agriculture is a depressed industry. It has been stated on many occasions that the net income in 1955 was down 45 per cent from 1951. I am well aware of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture does not consider that a fair comparison because the 1951 income was at the peak; but it is also interesting to note, as has been pointed out by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, that today farm prices are 6 per cent lower than they were in 1949, while farm costs are 20 per cent higher. That indicates the type of cost-price squeeze the farmers are in. No one can suggest that farm prices in 1949 were anywhere near their peak; they were at a quite reasonable level.
In my opinion the depressed condition of agriculture is due largely, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said, to the number of large crops harvested in the west. It is due in part also to the fact that we have lost certain markets to the United States, which has resulted in surpluses which in turn have had a depressing effect upon prices. I think the important question that must be dealt with is just how much production do we want. Does the government want a high level of production maintained? From the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that would certainly appear to be the case, and I think he is right.
It will be remembered that last year he said he hoped we would have a bumper crop in 1956. Well, we did have a bumper crop, which helped to increase the problem of the government in marketing.


John Horne Blackmore: And the problem of the farmers.


Victor Quelch: Canadian Wheat Board Act quota they have not the right kind of grain, but I have found that is not a fact. I made a very close survey of that question, and I found that at a number of local points where the quota was low they had exactly the same grade that was being shipped from the high delivery points. I took this up with the wheat board by letter and they did take action to rectify the situation at some of the points. But even now, though they have got a few cars in there to raise the quota of the low points perhaps by a full one bushel or two, they are still well below other points.
I think that is a situation the government will have to take some action to rectify. It is bound to strain the loyalty of people to the wheat board when a situation like that continues. They blame the wheat board for the situation sometimes, but I really do not think the fault lies there at all. The minister has said some rather harsh things about the Gordon commission. I frankly admit that I did not like the report of the Gordon commission so far as agriculture is concerned. I think there are some good points in it and there are some poor ones, but at least at one point the Gordon commission does recognize the fact that the farmers should have some assurance that they will be able to get a minimum income. In other words, they say that when it is agreed that a certain quota should be in force, the wheat board should pay the farmers for the undelivered grain if the board is not in a position to accept delivery of that quota. If that policy had been in force last July it would have gone a long way to do away with the complaint that was being made at that time. I think the government should give serious consideration to a policy of that kind; that is to say, if by July 31 it is not possible to equalize quotas, then advances should be made to the farmers on the grain that has not been delivered in line with the top quotas.
On the question of support prices, we in the Social Credit group for a number of years have been advocating the adoption of the two-price system. We have been advocating it ever since 1950. When we first advocated such a system we pointed out that it is in line with the general practice of secondary industries. Secondary industries set a price for the products sold in Canada at a level that will give them a fair return on their investment. Then on the goods they ship abroad they seek to get the best price they can.
There are times when those goods which are shipped abroad are sold at a price lower than that for which the goods are sold in Canada. I remember that some years ago I checked on the sales of farm machinery by


a Canadian manufacturer, and I found that in England they were selling their machines at prices considerably lower than those at which they were selling the same machines in Canada. In other words, they were operating under a two-price system.
It seems only reasonable that a similar system should be adopted by agriculture. Apart from wheat, about 94 per cent of all farm products is sold in Canada, but we allow that small 6 per cent that is exported abroad to set the price for the other 94 per cent. It appears to me that there is little sense or reason in allowing a situation of that kind to exist. Therefore those people who advocate the adoption of the two-price system are merely advocating that the farm products sold in the domestic market should be sold at parity, or in other words at a price that bears a fair relationship to the prices of other commodities; and that that portion exported abroad should be sold, preferably under international agreement, for the best price that can be obtained, with a support under it to insure the exporter against a price collapse.
It is interesting to note that today every major farm organization is advocating the adoption of a two-price system. At the western agricultural conference held in Winnipeg from January 21 to January 25 this resolution was adopted:
A two-price system establishing prices on all farm products at a fair relationship level for the domestic market and floor prices at non-incentive levels.
It will go the Canadian Federation of Agriculture from that conference. Then the Alberta wheat pool, according to the Wheat Pool Budget, issue of December 14, 1956, stated this:
Two Price System
Alberta wheat pool delegates have passed a resolution calling for a two-price system of selling wheat. They urged that wheat used for domestic consumption in Canada be sold at the ceiling level of the international wheat agreement, namely, $2 a bushel, and that exports be made at world prices which are somewhat below this level.
The Saskatchewan wheat pool advocate a domestic price for wheat used in Canada for human consumption in line with other Canadian prices-that is $2 a bushel-and then deficiency payments from the treasury of Canada to bring the agricultural producers a fair share of the national income when the prices of farm produce do not achieve that end. The exports would be supported. The interprovincial farm union council, in a brief which they put before the federal-provincial agricultural conference, December 3-6, 1956, had this to say:

Canadian Wheat Board Act
Parity Prices
We believe that immediate consideration should be given to a program of parity prices on the domestic market and adequate support prices under exports.
In other words they are advocating that the domestic market should pay a parity price and that the world market price with adequate supports be accepted for that portion that has to be exported abroad.
I know the Minister of Trade and Commerce has taken quite strong exception to that suggestion. When the interprovincial farm union council appeared before the committee on agriculture and colonization on June 17, 1952, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, commenting on the proposal to apply the two-price system to wheat, had this to say as reported on page 538 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee:
I can make it plain that as a matter of government policy the Canadian government will not tax the consumers of this country to bonus the wheat producers of western Canada.
Let me point out that the domestic price at parity is no more a tax than is the price charged by secondary industries. They charge a price that gives them fair return on their investment.


John Horne Blackmore: More than fair.


Victor Quelch: Under parity prices the
farmer would receive a price that bore a fair relationship to the prices of secondary industries, so that by no stretch of the imagination could you call that a tax.
Let me point out that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is on somewhat dangerous ground when he suggests that a policy of that kind would be a tax on the consumers of this country. The government did not hesitate to tax the wheat growers some years ago for the benefit of the Canadian consumers. Let us remember that during the operation of the British wheat agreement the western grain growers were compelled to sell their wheat or to have their wheat sold to the millers for the Canadian consumer at a price considerably below the world market price, a price which was at the same level as under the British wheat agreement. That action of subsidizing the Canadian consumer at that time cost the farmers of western Canada $136 million.
Some people say they do not think the farmers are justified in expecting the people of Canada to agree to support prices of agricultural products. There are a number of reasons why the farmers are entitled to that support price. One can go back to 1943, the time at which the ceilings were placed on 82715-58
products, and recall that the then prime minister stated as follows:
If, to help win the war, the farmers are asked to accept a ceiling on prices, we believe they are entitled to a floor under prices to ensure them against an agricultural depression after the war. As an essential part of its post-war policy, the government intends to ask parliament at the next session to place a floor under the prices of main farm commodities.
Would anybody suggest that wheat is not one of the main farm products in this country? Yet strangely enough there is no support price under wheat today because wheat is not covered by the agricultural Prices Support Act.
One might ask whether or not the price of wheat today is a fair one. In the first place, what would parity be? If the price of wheat today were maintained at parity level, according to the bureau of statistics- and I obtained these figures last week-it would be $2.37 a bushel. That is to say, if the formula that is used under the Agricultural Prices Support Act were used to cover wheat, the price would be $2.37 a bushel.
Let us recall that under the Agricultural Prices Support Act we use the base period 1943, 1944 and 1945, and then say the price of farm products today should bear the same relationship to the prices of other commodities as they existed in the 1943, 1944 and 1945 period. If that were put into execution in regard to wheat prices, wheat today would be $2.37 a bushel. Instead of that, the price of No. 1 wheat to the farmer is, I suppose, around $1.53 by the time you pay the freight to Fort William, or $1.70 at Fort William. So when you compare the price farmers are getting for their wheat with parity prices we find there is a very substantial difference, and that the farmers are losing quite heavily in regard to the promise that was made by the prime minister back in 1943.
Whilst the price of No. 1 wheat is about $1.70, let hon. members not forget that many farmers today, in order to try to get some income are selling their wheat for as low as 60 or 65 cents a bushel in western Canada, that is No. 5 or No. 6 wheat. If a farmer is up against it and cann*t sell his wheat to the elevators, then he looks around for a market for his feed wheat. He can sell his feed wheat if he takes 60 or 65 cents a bushel for it, but that is a heavy loss the farmer should not have to take. It is a loss he would not have to take if the government would introduce a policy of advances against grain stored on the farm.
Practically every other country is supporting the price of wheat. It is not surprising that Professor Hope, when he was asked in the banking and commerce committee if he

Canadian Wheat Board Act knew of any other country doing less for farmers than Canada, answered no. I would say that low prices are the main cause of the farmers' plight today. Apparently the Minister of Finance is opposed to support prices. I suppose the Minister of Finance has quite a bit to say regarding policies the execution of which cost money. In the Western Producer of December 13, 1956, there is a quotation taken from the Financial Post. I shall read it.
Finance Minister Walter Harris deserves a good deal of credit for speaking plainly on an important subject in Toronto last week. He came out clearly and strongly against a policy of government farm price supports. "We are close enough to the American experience", said Mr. Harris, "to realize that certain policies offer no solution to our problems."
It is quite a popular pastime with certain ministers of this government to criticize the policies of the United States under which surplus products have been marketed. I would say that the program in the United States, instead of being a failure, has been a gigantic success when you realize the purpose behind it. Let us go back to the end of the war and the Hot Springs conference of FAO, when apparently we all had high ideals. Let us recall the declaration that was made at that time by the member nations, and let me quote section No. 3:
There has never been enough food for the health of all people. This is justified neither by ignorance nor by the harshness of nature. Production of food must be greatly expanded; we now have knowledge of the means by which this can be done. It requires imagination and firm will on the part of each government and people to make use of that knowledge.
That was back in 1943, I think. I believe we will all agree that the United States addressed themselves to that problem. They took energetic action to build up their production, and they were successful in building it up. They built it up at a faster rate than the FAO or other United Nations organizations were able to distribute it.
The FAO did a lot of very valuable work in trying to establish an organization which would have the responsibility for distributing surplus food to. needy nations. First of all we had the suggestion for a world food board. Then we had the suggestion for an international commodity clearing house, and I think that was the best suggestion put forward by the FAO organization.
The Canadian government, along with others, turned down the proposal. I would say that probably one of the main reasons they turned it down was that it embodied the idea of the acceptance of foreign currency in payment for surpluses. In any event, the FAO were not successful in getting other 
nations to accept their proposals, and consequently each nation was left with the responsibility of disposing of its surpluses. The United States, in carrying out the request of the FAO to build up their production, had built up tremendous surpluses, and these surpluses were left on their doorstep.
On the other side of the picture you had half the population of the world hungry or on the verge of starvation. The United States, and I think it is to their credit, found ways and means of getting that surplus food to the people who needed it. What did we do? Instead of complimenting them upon getting this food to the people who needed it we did nothing but criticize them. Why did we criticize them? We did so from purely selfish reasons, because that action interfered with our own markets. I would suggest that instead of criticizing the United States for what they have been doing we should be prepared to do likewise, and get our surplus food to the nations that need it.
I should like to refer the Minister of Trade and Commerce to a statement made by Right Hon. A. B. Low, minister of state for the British board of trade, regarding sterling. We have had quite a few discussions on the question of the acceptance of sterling. The minister always emphasizes the fact that if we accepted sterling we would not be able to do anything with it. Let me quote from the Western Producer of October 11, 1956:
Pound sterling accepted by Canadian exporters for sales to Britain, can be used for purchases of goods anywhere in the sterling area. Right Hon. A. B. Low, minister of state in the British board of trade, told the Western Producer in an interview at Edmonton last week.
That is all I am going to say on that point now, but that points out that sterling would not be quite such a useless commodity as the Minister of Trade and Commerce tried to make out last year, when he said you could not even buy a necktie with it. Certainly the United States is making its surplus production available to the nations that need it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not notice on what date that statement was made by Mr. Low.


Victor Quelch: October 11, 1956.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest that may be the reason he is not in the present government.


Victor Quelch: The minister can suggest that, but that does not mean the suggestion has any validity. The minister makes some queer suggestions once in a while.


Mr. Studer:: Not half as queer as yours.


Victor Quelch: After the speech the hon. member made the other day, he should keep quiet.


Irvin William Studer: You will be hearing another one.


Victor Quelch: The hon. member had better read the speech the hon. member for Red Deer made, and then send it out to his constituents along with the one he made.


Irvin William Studer: He confirmed everything I said.


An hon. Member:: You said nothing.


Victor Quelch: If the government consider that the reserves we have built up are too high and that reserves should be reduced; if they do not think it would be wise to build the reserve any higher, then I think they might well give consideration to the recommendation that is now being made by most of the farm organizations. That is that an inducement should be given to farmers to take land out of wheat production and plant it to soil-building crops.
We see what they are doing in the United States in that regard in the soil bank. We had somewhat similar legislation in Canada during the war, namely the Wheat Acreage Reduction Act, which encouraged farmers to put land into grasses and clover. If at the present time we feel that we are raising too much wheat and that in a short time there will be an increased demand, well, it might be a good thing to conserve the fertility of that soil by putting some of the land into grasses and clovers, so when the time comes that we need additional supplies of wheat that land will be in a good fertile state. It can then be broken up and once again put into .wheat. I would suggest to the minister that consideration might be given to this idea.
I see my time is up. When we get into committee I shall have a number of questions to ask.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the hon. member for Assiniboia has made an excellent speech. I understood the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre had planned to speak, but apparently the subject has been covered so thoroughly that he has decided to wait until some other occasion.


Mr. Thatcher:: I am waiting for you.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that since there has been no opposition to the principle of marketing through the wheat board, the Minister of Trade and Commerce should give careful consideration to the suggestion made by my colleague that we should set up permanent legislation. I should like to remind the Minister of Trade and Commerce that some two years ago, as a matter of fact on March 10, 1955, we had a 82715-58j
Canadian Wheat Board Act certain Defence Production Act before parliament. The Prime Minister said at that time, as reported at page 1905 of Hansard:
It is felt that the time has come when the life of the department should be extended by placing it on the same basis as other government departments, leaving it to parliament to decide if and when it will be proper to bring it to a termination.
During the same debate the minister who was piloting this bill said, as reported at page 1967 of Hansard.
There is no need for me to repeat the remarks of the Prime Minister on the need for a more permanent basis for the department in order to attract and retain the type of person needed to carry out the very responsible procurement functions of the future. I would, however, like to say something of the way in which the procurement functions have been carried out.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if it was sound business to bring in legislation two years ago with a view to attracting and retaining the best possible personnel, surely we have reached the stage when we should make it clear that we are accepting the wheat board method of marketing not only the grains marketed at the present time but all cereals that enter into the export trade. They should all be handled by the wheat board.
I would like to endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Acadia regarding the outstanding personnel of the wheat board. I agree with their views. I would like to add the name of Mr. C. B. Davidson, the secretary. Mr. Davidson and I were in university together some years ago. He was regarded as one of the outstanding students at the university, and his outstanding work since then has attracted a good deal of favourable comment. I am sure that men like Mr. Mclvor and Mr. Davidson would not have any trouble in finding other employment if it was decided that we should do away with the wheat board, but I think the work these men have done would warrant this parliament passing legislation now indicating that the Canadian Wheat Board Act will be permanent legislation; that it will not be subject to review every five years, and these people will not be held in suspense.
I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would not suggest that we go back to the type of marketing we had in Canada when we had the last Conservative government in office here. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Manitoba Co-operator giving the fluctuations in prices of wheat over a number of years. I find that when the Conservatives were in power we had a fluctuation in the price of wheat between 50 cents and $1 in 1930; 51 cents and 73 cents in 1931; 39 cents and 94 cents in 1932; 54 cents and 87 cents in 1933; 75 cents and 94 cents in

Canadian Wheat Board Act 1934; and 73 cents and $1.03 in 1935. I have left off the fractions. I am sure it would be very unpopular for them to suggest that that is the type of marketing our wheat people would like to have, so they would have a high price one day and a low price the next day.


Mr. Charlton:: We had a better average price during that period than we had from 1935 to 1940.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The point I am making is that the farmers do not want to be in the position where the speculators are able to make fortunes out of the fluctuations in prices.


John Alpheus Charlton: The Leader of the Opposition never suggested that:


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If you will calculate the prices I think you will find that from 1935 to 1940 they were higher; but if the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand is opposed to the wheat board legislation-


Mr. Tustin:: You heard the Leader of the Opposition say this afternoon we were absolutely in favour of it.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the member for Brant-Haldimand never suggested, nor did the Leader of the Opposition suggest this afternoon, that we were opposed in any way to the wheat board. Let that be clear.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am glad the record is straight.


John Alpheus Charlton: You are just trying to clutter it up.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There is not going to be any attempt to turn back the clock and have the farmers in the position where they would be at the mercy of the speculators on the grain exchange, who managed to have a very low price when the farmers sold their grain and then a fairly high price later on in the year so the speculators could make their fortunes.
This table goes away back to 1918. I am not going to give all the years, but it is interesting to see that before the war we had a high of $1.16 and a low of 78 cents in 1913. The next year we had a high of $1.64 and a low of 94 cents. The following year we had a high of $1.61 and a low of 88 cents, and then a high of $3 and a low of $1.54, in 1916. Therefore, after the experience we had before the war, during world war I and world war II and since world war II, I think the producers in all parts of Canada are expecting the government to provide not only for the orderly marketing of wheat, oats and barley, but to see to it


that flax and rye are handled by the wheat board, and even before this legislation is passed to bring in the necessary amendments to set up permanent legislation.
Other members who have spoken have referred to the position in which the wheat farmers find themselves, when their product is being sold in the world markets in the face of unfair competition, from our point of view. We are quite prepared to sell our commodity on the basis of quality any place in the world if we are able to buy those items which enter into the cost of production in a fair market; but it is quite impossible for us to buy in the highest priced market in the world and sell in competition with other countries which are directly and indirectly subsidizing their wheat producers.
The Department of Agriculture publishes a pamphlet called "Agriculture Abroad" every two or three months. The one for December discussed agriculture in a great many countries. I shall refer to a few of them. The price in the Argentine is not too high, but there is a subsidy of 36 cents a bushel there. Wheat is sold to millers at 72.9 cents a bushel, but the farmers are getting $1.09. Costs are much lower in the Argentine, but there is a subsidy there of 36 cents a bushel. There is an interesting section dealing with Egypt. It is pointed out that the plan is for Egypt not to have to import wheat. Canada exported wheat and wheat flour to Egypt in 1952 and 1953, but apparently this market is going to cease to be available.
The hon. member for Assiniboia referred to the situation in France. France is paying a price much higher than our farmers receive. France is determined to be in the export business. France exported some 60 million bushels on which they paid a subsidy of $1.60 a bushel. It is difficult for Canadian wheat to be sold in markets where subsidies of that kind are paid. The price in France is $2.93. If the French farmers can get $2.93 and sell their wheat in other countries under a subsidy, this offers very stiff competition.
It appears that agricultural problems in West Germany have received careful consideration. Plans have been worked out and legislation introduced with a view to greatly increasing West Germany's production, particularly of cereals.
While the position of the Mexican farmer resembles the position of the Canadian farmer and those in a few other countries of the world, Mexico is recognizing that her farmers are receiving a pretty rough deal. Approximately 30 million people in Mexico make a living by farming; they comprise almost 60 per cent of the total population, and receive about 30 per cent of the national income.

That is running pretty true to form as far as Canada is concerned. The Mexican farmer receives about half as much as he should receive. It is extremely interesting that our government is concerned about making available information about the difficulties confronting farmers in countries like Mexico and outlines some of the plans that are being made. I am sure there is no easy solution anywhere for the crisis confronting agriculture, but some of these countries are facing the difficulty and attempting to reach a solution.
There is an interesting portion dealing with the United Kingdom containing no mention of wheat, so I will come to the United States. As the hon. member for Assiniboia pointed out, the United States is presenting real competition to us. The soil bank program in the United States is a scheme devised to put some money into the pockets of the farmers. The program for 1956-57 calls for the payment of $197,-
651,000	in connection with this one program alone.
There is also an interesting section concerning the United States barter program. From July to September of last year the value of the negotiated barter contracts stood at over $64 million compared with $43 million the previous year. Under title I of public law 480 an agreement amounting to $98 million has been signed with Yugoslavia, and one of the main commodities involved is wheat. It is expected that 61.1 million bushels of United States wheat will be going to Yugoslavia on a local currency sale basis. The export of United States agricultural commodities totalled over $130 million during the July-September period, wheat being one of the major commodities. In the United States they are devoting a great deal of time to considering the critical position of the farmers in that country with a view to giving them a better break.
There is also a publication on the marketing and transportation situation, which points out that the farmers' share of the consumer dollar which stood at 40 per cent during the 1935 to 1939 period picked up to about 52 per cent in 1946, and has declined year by year until it is now down to 39 per cent. That posed a real problem.
While the farm bill was being discussed in the United States Senate, a senator from Arkansas went back to the days of the ancient Romans and asked what was the cause of the decline and fall of Rome. In his answer he pointed out the decay of Rome quite certainly began when the hardy farm citizens whose valour had made Rome great ceased to be able to maintain themselves
Private Bills
and their families by farming their small holdings. He said that in hardly more than a generation over great areas of Italy the family-size farms were swept away, making way for vast consolidated, slave-operated absentee-capitalist holdings that were the equivalent in those days of what we now call industrialized farms.
The senator went on to say that the people who are not prosperous in the United States are the folk on the family-size farms. They are so unprosperous, in fact, that the United States is virtually beginning to be divided into two nations. A single statistic tells the story. Per capita farm income has now declined to the level of $860 a year, whereas the per capita income of Americans off the farm now stands at the level of $1,922. Farm folk are much less than half as well off as other folk in the United States,
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when the' authorities in the very rich country to the south recognize that they have a farm problem; when they bring in legislation to provide money for a soil bank program and carry on barter sales and negotiate for the acceptance of soft currencies, the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is piloting this measure through the house should not be too complacent. He should not be satisfied because this is the best marketing agency that has been devised in Canada or anywhere in the world. The legislation must be tested and weighed against the question as to whether it is doing everything that reasonably can be expected.
I notice that it is five o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I would like to continue my remarks at a later period.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. F. T. Fairey (Victoria, B.C.) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 15, respecting Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that these bills have just come in. I tried to obtain them earlier in the afternoon but they were not available. Under those circumstances I suggest that an attempt should not be made now to proceed with the debate. There may or may not be something controversial in the bills, but at least we are entitled to examine them and find out what they are all about. That has been quite impossible with regard to the three bills that are on the list today.


Francis Thrower Fairey: Under the circumstances I am prepared to allow the bill to stand.

Private Bills
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):
Bill No. 15 stands.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
Mr. John M. James (for Mr. Mcllrailh) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 16, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company and certain wholly-owned subsidiaries.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not know whether this is exactly the same type of bill as was presented at the last session, but if it is perhaps there is no reason why it should not be gone on with although the sponsor is not here.


Howard Charles Green: My remarks apply also to this bill. We have not had a chance to consider it, and I think it is only fair that it should be allowed to stand.


John Mason James: This bill is almost exactly the same as the one presented last year and I think the hon. member would be familiar with it. There is nothing complicated about it. It is strictly to amalgamate several wholly-owned Canadian Pacific subsidiaries for purposes of economy and better administration.


Howard Charles Green: It is not exactly the same, because it involves a different set of subsidiary companies. I presume they are located in different parts of the country, and it may be that some hon. member will desire to say something about one or more of these particular subsidiary companies. I suggest that it is a bad practice to have bills go through without anyone having a chance to look at them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: hope the house will appreciate my position as I understand it; that is, that as occupant of the Speaker's chair I have no right to order bills to be stood when they appear in the regular way on the order paper. Of course the sponsor of a bill has the right to request that it be allowed to stand, and such request is usually acceded to by the house. I do not know whether it is my duty to outline the procedure, but alternately if the sponsor of a bill proceeds it is open to any hon. member to move the adjournment of the debate at any stage after the bill has been introduced. Perhaps I could ask the hon. member for Durham, whom I am advised is representing the sponsor of this bill, whether it is his desire to proceed or to have the bill stand.


John Mason James: If the hon. member does not wish to proceed it is perfectly all right with me to have it stand.
[Mr. Fairey.l


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: Bill No. 16 stands. I take it that all divorce bills on the order paper are to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: The
business set down under private and public bills having been completed, the house will resume consideration of the business interrupted at five o'clock.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 9, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, some reference was made this afternoon to the preliminary report of the Gordon commission. I do not think anyone agrees with everything in the report, but it is significant that it was considered necessary to devote a separate section to wheat. I think it is disturbing that the best authorities seem to accept the fact that Canada's part in supplying wheat for bread for the hungry peoples of the world is not going to increase. I think most people throughout the world had hoped that in the brave new world which followed the second world war we would attack in an imaginative way the problem of hunger, and that our great wheat fields would be cultivated and food would be sent to those other countries.
The forecast is that our combined export and domestic demand will be between 400 million and 500 million bushels per annum, compared with 385 million bushels in the 20's; 330 million bushels in the 30's; 393 million bushels in the 40's; and an average of 525 million bushels during the seven years 1950-56. It is true that the target of between 400 million and 475 million bushels is a good deal more than our total when the Canadian and world populations were much smaller, but I think it is disturbing that apparently there is going to be no attempt to reach the average established in 1950-56 of 525 million bushels per year.
The federal authorities should make a decision well in advance of seeding as to the quantity of grain which would be expected, and it should decide something about the price. I would remind the house that the minister who is piloting this bill through the house is also charged with defence production. Some time ago he told us that the CF-105 was going to cost $120 million. Apparently he was wrong, because we are now told it will cost over $200 million before

the first CF-105 comes off the assembly line. We are told that in connection with guided missiles we had spent some $24 million when it was concluded that this was too big a project for Canada, that it would be left to the United States to spend money on the development of guided missiles. We have recently completed the construction of the mid-Canada radar line at a cost of another $200 million.
It seems to me that if this minister is prepared to spend $200 million for a plane and $2C0 million for a radar line, he could ask his colleagues to use their imagination in order that Canada may not go out of the production and exporting of this important commodity, which in my view could be used more effectively in winning friends for the free countries. I think the proposal that the farmer should have some indication as to what the requirements are going to be and how much the economy will stand is a good one.
It is disturbing to be told that our farm population, which stood at 25 per cent of the total at the end of the war, is now reduced to 15 per cent and will be further reduced to about half that in the next 25 years. I submit that the minister in his capacity of minister in charge of the wheat board should give the board the green light to make arrangements with Canadian farmers so they may continue to produce sufficient food to meet our own requirements and to permit us to make some impression on the problem of hunger which has confronted over one billion people throughout the world all their lives, and which is likely to continue during the life of most of us here.
I think the question of bringing goods into Canada from the countries which are buying our wheat must also be considered in connection with the extension of the life of the wheat board. I believe most members will recognize what an impossible task the members of the board are going to have if they are going to be required to dispose of wheat in countries that are prepared to accept our wheat on condition that we purchase some of their goods. Last year the minister was able to end the year in quite a favourable position partly because of the very substantial sales made to Russia and some of the other iron curtain countries. The last time I discussed the question of wheat in the house I referred to our sales to Poland, and pointed out that Poland is apparently planning on buying upward of 20 million bushels of wheat per year over the next 10 years. Apparently Poland is well satisfied with the quality of our wheat and is prepared to give us a fair share of their imports.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
It would appear that last year Poland bought around $20 million worth of wheat, over $1 million worth of rye and about $250,000 worth of barley, total purchases in Canada amounting to $25 million. But what about our purchases from Poland? They are running around $2 million. The proposal made last year by Poland was that if we could buy around $5 million worth of goods from Poland they would be prepared to use scarce dollars to buy around $10 million worth of goods a year from Canada.
But surely that is not a concern entirely for the people of Poland. Surely the Minister of Trade and Commerce has some responsibility to give some encouragement and direction to these customers of ours who are not going to be able to continue to purchase agricultural products if more interest is not taken in their products.
The same thing goes for Great Britain. Great Britain has been one of our very best customers, but there has been no serious attempt to see that the wheat board or any other organization is charged with some responsibility for seeing that more British goods find a market in Canada. Therefore it would seem to me that the minister must accept the responsibility for setting up an import board which will have similar responsibilities to those of the wheat board. I am not suggesting that the government should accept a policy which would be foreign to them, but I think if the government set up an import board which could place the problem in its proper perspective before the Canadian people it would be fairly easy to decrease our purchases of goods in markets where we have an unfavourable balance, and increase our purchases of goods in countries where we bought so little.
I submit that the minister must give consideration immediately to the setting up of an import board to deal with the problem of getting goods into Canada from our good customers in the past and from our new customers. Last year, as I said, we sold about $20 million worth of wheat to Poland. I cannot see any reason why in a sale of this sort it is necessary for our customers to go to the brokers or agents on the grain exchange. I understand that there would be a commission of one-half of 1 per cent. It would appear to me that would be something like $100,000 on one sale alone.
Since the wheat board seems to be able to set up very efficient machinery to buy wheat in 1-bushel lots, 5-bushel lots or 10-bushel lots from any farmer regardless of the amount he has to sell, I see no reason
912	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act under the sun why the same organization cannot sell this product directly to those customers who would prefer to buy directly from the wheat board. I suggest that the splitting of this $100,000 commission on one transaction alone so the buyer might have half and the seller might have half would meet with very general approval on the part of the farmers, who need every last cent they can get. I submit that taking $100,000 of their hard-earned money to complete a sale through brokers or agents is not in the best interest of producers or consumers.
Having listened to speakers from all parties who are anxious that the method of marketing through the wheat board should continue, I submit that the minister should give consideration to following the same procedure he followed two years ago in connection with the Defence Production Act, and introduce legislation to provide that the wheat board act will be made permanent.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of the bill now before us is to extend for another five years the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. In Saskatchewan the socialists say the Liberal party has no selling policy for marketing wheat. I want to emphasize that this act is the very cornerstone of Liberal marketing policy. In a nutshell, the bill provides that the wheat board shall continue to be the main marketing agency for wheat, barley and oats. I believe I am correct in saying that 99 per cent of prairie farmers, regardless of their politics, support the bill in principle.
It is quite true that world conditions have strained the facilities of the board in the last five years. It is also quite true that our bins, granaries and elevators in western Canada are jammed to capacity at this moment with about a billion bushels of unsold wheat. But this situation was not caused by a breakdown in the selling machinery. Rather I think the wheat surplus has been caused by three other factors. First, as the minister pointed out this afternoon, we have had an unprecedented series of bumper crops. Second, there is the fact that many former importing countries, helped by United States aid and machinery, have in recent years become exporting countries. Third, there is the terrific competition of American giveaway programs.
Despite all these difficulties the Canadian wheat board has steadily, patiently and without panic continued to sell wheat in the world markets at the best possible price for the producer. Personally I think the wheat board has done an excellent job in the past five years. Our export movement of wheat 

has never fallen below the long-term average. The last crop year was one of the most satisfactory export years we have ever had in our history. A vigorous selling campaign was carried on by the wheat board and the government in the iron curtain countries as well as in our traditional markets, and so successful was that drive that last year we exported 309 million bushels of wheat, an increase of 57 million bushels over a year ago.
What is even more encouraging to the western farmer at this moment is the fact that up to January 15 of the current year our exports have been 108.5 million bushels compared with only 71.1 million bushels a year ago, an increase of about 42 per cent. It was said this afternoon that we have lost some of our markets to the United States. Most of those markets were lost primarily, if they were lost, because the Americans gave wheat away.
I sincerely believe that during the past several years the wheat board has done a good job, not only because it sold a great deal of wheat but also because it prevented the price of wheat from dropping very substantially.
A few weeks ago Mr. J. H. Wesson, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, was speaking in Regina. From the Leader-Post I quote what he said on that occasion:
"Other problems which we have considered at this meeting . . . are small in comparison to the danger which we have passed through that wheat prices might have fallen by 50 to 75 cents during the past year."
Then the report continues:
He urged delegates to tell the membership that the wheat board and the international wheat agreement had averted this catastrophe.
Those are the main reasons the Liberal members from Saskatchewan are 100 per cent behind the Canadian wheat board in their effort to get a better price for the producer. However, I find it most difficult to understand the attitude of the socialist members from Saskatchewan toward the Canadian wheat board. On the one hand they solemnly profess vigorously to support the wheat board in all its objectives, yet on the other hand here in parliament and out on the hustings the socialists criticize just about everything the wheat board does.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What, for example?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: They say that selling policies are ineffective, that the allocation of quotas at delivery points are unfair.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What about cash advances?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The board members said
they did not want advances. The socialists

say we should have them. They say the wheat board are subservient to the government.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member a question.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Certainly.


Edward George McCullough: Does the hon. member agree that the quotas that apply on box cars at individual loading points have been fair to the prairie province producers?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I say that the quotas at delivery points have not been all the farmers might wish. But I also say the Canadian wheat board, when all circumstances are considered, has done the best possible job it could.
Mr. Speaker, I would be the last one in the world to say that the prairie farmer has not laboured under great difficulty in these past few years. Of course it is disheartening and discouraging to grow one bumper crop after another and find it possible to sell only a portion of it. But I also say that the lot of the farmer is not made easier in Saskatchewan by the socialist members who since 1945 have acted in this house as professional cry-babies.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You are including yourself.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: They have wept copious tears. They have cried blue ruin. They have preached gloom. They have prophesied disaster, and time and again they have forecast a complete collapse of world wheat markets. All through Saskatchewan they have tried to stir up trouble by exaggerations and statements which frequently border on untruths. For example, here is one statement which the hon. member for Assiniboia made when speaking at the convention of the hon. member for Mackenzie, and I quote dispatches from the Regina Leader-Post which I presume the hon. member for Assiniboia himself sent in:
Mr. Argue emphasized that at the present time the farmers . . . are in as serious a condition as they were in the thirties.
Mr. Speaker, in the thirties wheat was selling at as low as 20 cents a bushel; eggs were selling for as little as 5 cents a dozen; the price of cattle was as low as $10 a head. People in those days had to depend on eastern Canada for charity, for their clothing and even for food. Yet the hon. member for Assiniboia says that conditions are as bad today as they were in the 1930's.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Today their share of the national income is less.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The people out in Saskatchewan have too much sense to believe that statement.


An hon. Member:: Have you compared the farmers' income?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: According to the dominion bureau of statistics, in 1931 cash income for Saskatchewan farm products was $74 million; in 1932 it was $80 million; in 1933 it was $80 million; in 1934 it was $96.5 million. Last year the cash income for Saskatchewan farm products was $592.7 million.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: That is a typical Liberal trick.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Yet the hon. member for Assiniboia says the farmers are as badly off as they were in the thirties.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Give the net farm income.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, there is no one so blind as he who refuses to see. I am not going to try to tell this house that the prairie farmer is satisfied with everything the Canadian wheat board does. He is not. However, I am going to say this. The Saskatchewan farmer is a rugged individualist who is fiercely independent in his way of life. He is proud of his province; he is proud of his country, and he is proud of his own accomplishments in farming since 1945. He wants every dollar that is fairly and justly coming to him. Above all he does not want to be pushed around by the more populous provinces. But despite the wailings and snivellings of the C.C.F. here in this house he wants no charity or hand-outs from any one. In talking about wheat selling policies, I say that many of these socialists have taken an attitude that has harmed the producer instead of helping him.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Nonsense.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: By their talk in parliament, by their complete lack of financial responsibility, by their lack of any constructive suggestions, the socialists have injured the prestige and welfare of the province of Saskatchewan. Mr. Speaker, they have cried "Wolf" so often that when one of them gets to his feet hon. members from other parts of Canada are immediately suspicious and automatically hostile.
It may be that some westerners think that I am exaggerating when I make that statement. Here is a quotation from Hansard showing what happened in debate on March 13, 1956. As reported at page 2100 the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Bennett), who was then speaking, had this to say:
I should like to say this to the C.C.F. group. I came down here prepared and anxious to help the

Canadian Wheat Board Act western farmer. After hearing all the repetitious debates that took place here, I was reluctant to vote for those bills. I think the western farmer has not had the kind of representation here that he deserves.
From the 12 years I have spent in this parliament, Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely convinced that the western farmer will get more by a spirit of reasonableness and cooperation on the part of members representing him than he will by the constant stream of abuse and vituperation that comes from the socialist group.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Why did you not give the farmers of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre a chance to express their opinion?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The Canadian wheat board is responsible for selling the nation's wheat. The socialists from Saskatchewan usually lack the courage to come out directly and attack the wheat board. Instead, they go after the government, saying that in actual fact it is responsible for its policy. I pose this question to the house today. Could the socialist members from Saskatchewan do any better than the government or the wheat board are doing in selling this billion bushels of wheat? I submit that they could not, if we are to judge from their experiences in other fields. Surely there is no better way in which to judge an individual or a political group than by their accomplishments. I do not pay so much attention to talk and words as I do to the past record. What are the accomplishments of the socialists in the field of selling? Out in Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker, back in 1945 the provincial C.C.F. government embarked on a number of crown corporations.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down and take it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that-


Mr. Sinclair:: The brick plant.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -last year, the hon.
member discussed crown corporations in the pipeline debate and the Liberals refused me an opportunity to reply. I submit that the hon. member should not be allowed to discuss Saskatchewan crown corporations at this time unless ample opportunity is given to put forward the other side of the question.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the hon. member for Mackenzie for not wanting that record put on Hansard, but may I submit-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: -here are our socialist friends coming into this parliament and saying that the wheat board does not know anything about selling a billion bushel wheat surplus. I want to put on Hansard two or three illustrations of the socialist selling record in Saskatchewan.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker,-


An hon. Member:: We do not want to hear it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -I want to hear from the Speaker as to whether or not a discussion of crown corporations in Saskatchewan is in order on this bill?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The
debate we have had this afternoon, from start to finish, has ranged far afield. Shortly before five o'clock I was in considerable difficulty as to whether or not I should not then have intervened because of references- I do not remember them exactly-to aeroplane production, the cost of the D.E.W. line and so forth. In an honest effort to rule always in favour of whoever had the floor, I considered that references to other things- this happened to be a reference to a series of matters which had come under the control of the minister who was responsible for this bill-were getting us far afield from the wheat board, but I think perhaps the references were fair. If the hon. member who has the floor now proposes to make certain references to show that those who oppose the bill have, by a similar line of action, indicated their ability or inability to take wise action, I do not think I should stop that either. But I have no intention of permitting the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre to go farther than to make the same type of reference or listing of what he considers comparable matters as has been done in previous speeches made in this debate.
I believe the house will agree with me that it has been the desire of the house this afternoon that matters directly and indirectly affecting the wheat board should be discussed under this bill. One could, of course, have made a very narrow ruling that nothing could be discussed except shall or shall not the wheat board be extended and if so, shall it be for a period of five years. I do not believe it was the sense of the house that this should be the ruling, but I shall continue to endeavour to keep members within what I think is the general ambit of the subject under debate, having gone as it has gone so far. I do not think comparable references should be ruled out all of a sudden, when they have been permitted in the last two or three speeches.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to endeavour to explain to the house how unsuccessful the socialists have been in selling other products out in the province of Saskatchewan, so we can then judge their ability to sell a billion bushels of wheat in the most competitive market in the world.


An hon. Member:: You did that in the pipeline debate last year.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I shall only give a few examples for purposes of comparison. In 1945 they set up a leather tannery. We certainly had lots of hides out in Saskatchewan, and the crown company was able to turn out a large amount of leather. Unfortunately they did not have salesmen who could sell this leather effectively in the country's markets, so the company folded. They started a shoe factory in the city of Regina and manufactured thousands and thousands of pairs of shoes. Unfortunately again, apparently they did not have salesmen who could sell those shoes in competition with other companies. This company was also forced to close its doors.
Out in my own city of Moose Jaw they set up a woollen mill. The woollen mill operated fairly actively for a while and turned out a great many woollen goods. They did not have the salesmen who could sell these goods competitively and were forced to close. I could go on for quite some time in listing these illustrations-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What did you say about the closing of the woollen mill at that time?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: -but I suppose that someone could take exception. I do want to say this in summing up, Mr. Speaker, that in the province of Saskatchewan, out of all the crown corporations that were set up, and which had to compete with private interprise, there was not one that had good enough salesmen, to be able to compete effectively without losing substantial sums of the taxpayers' money, or close their doors entirely.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is not true, and you know it.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The great majority of the crown corporations have some kind of monopoly or some kind of special privilege. But even where they have arbitrarily taken special privileges, their salesmen have not been able to compete efficiently. I mention the field of gas. A complete monopoly is what those salesmen have, yet the price they charge for gas in Saskatchewan is more than double the price of gas under private enterprise in our sister province of Alberta.
Most socialists have had very little to do with the business world; most of them are not
Canadian Wheat Board Act very well acquainted with commerce. There have been one or two notable exceptions. For example, several years ago our premier and provincial treasurer went into the drive-in theatre business. The theatre went pretty well for a while, but then suddenly it folded. Today it stands empty and desolate, a monument to the failure of the premier and his chief lieutenant to sell the people of Regina on the merits of their particular enterprise.


Irvin William Studer: They cannot even entertain the people.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I say that the record of socialist salesmanship in Saskatchewan is a record of ineptitude, inefficiency and bungling. Yet these socialists today have the audacity to say something like this in parliament: It is true that we could not sell blankets or textiles out in Saskatchewan; it is a fact that we could not sell hides or shoes; it is true that in the middle of the greatest construction boom Canada has ever had we are having some considerable difficulty in selling our bricks; it is a fact we could not sell timber, gas, fish, or furs without a monopoly, and it is also true-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Nonsense.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: -we need certain special privileges to sell our insurance. As a matter of fact, it is true that out in Saskatchewan we could not sell anything efficiently. But let no one be worried. By national planning and socialist theories, we could sell a billion bushels of wheat overnight.


An hon. Member:: You are going to have trouble selling yourself.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Socialist planning means
that the provincial government usually takes some teacher or preacher or someone who knows nothing about business, and puts him in charge of an enterprise. These socialists today are telling us in effect that men like McNamara, Mclvor, Riddel, C. D. Howe and James G. Gardiner do not know anything about selling wheat. But, they say, let us be the salesmen and we would get rid of a billion bushels of wheat. I would say that the practical farmer in Saskatchewan has far too much sense to listen to such nonsense.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Why don't you tell that to the farmers in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: During the past few months
I have had many farmers come into my office to tell me about their problems in connection with wheat.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: From Moose Jaw-Lake
Centre?

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Yes. I told you once before that experience is a great teacher, and it is an extremely foolish man who will not learn from experience. I, fortunately, learned a little, but my hon. friend did not.
Most of these farmers, when they come into my office, talk about wheat. I ask them, it they were the Prime Minister, what they could do about the surpluses, or what solution they might suggest. They are usually frank enough to admit that they have no over-all solution to offer. The reason they have not is rather obvious. Today, regardless of what any member in this house says, there is not an easy solution or a pat answer or a magic formula.
What are some of the proposals which have been put forward over the past four or five years by our socialists? Most of them, I suggest, are little more than economic nonsense. We heard some of them this afternoon. The first suggestion, made year after year, is that Canada should give away the wheat surplus. The hon. member for Assiniboia has been particularly vociferous in putting forward that suggestion. I suggest to you that if the government had followed that proposal from the time it was first made, a number of years ago, the taxpayers today would be several billion dollars poorer. I am constantly amazed at the willingness of my former socialist colleagues to give away money which belongs to someone else, or give away assets which belong to others. They are never so generous with their own possessions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We gave you away.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Frankly, I feel that Canada should not hesitate to make gifts of wheat to the starving countries of the world. We are doing that under the Colombo plan; but to suggest sincerely that we should take several billions of dollars, put it into wheat and give that wheat away, I do not think is practical. Surely federal representatives in this house should be just as responsible in spending the taxpayers' money as they are in spending their own. I do not think there is one socialist in the house who would dream of spending his own money in that reckless manner, including the hon. member for Assiniboia. I suggest that if the hon. member for Assiniboia does feel that the Christian and humanitarian thing for Canada to do is to give away our wheat, he should set the example and give his own crop away. It is easy, Mr. Speaker, to be generous with someone else's money.
The second suggestion which has been made frequently by the socialists is that the government and the wheat board should take


sterling in return for wheat. Well, that suggestion may sound plausible, but actually it is not much more practical than their first scheme. Out in Saskatoon, about a year and three months ago, the British trade commissioner was invited to speak to a farm union meeting. One of the delegates rose and asked this question:
If Canada would take sterling would we sell any more wheat to Great Britain?
According to the report of the meeting appearing in the Regina Leader-Post of December 2, 1955, Mr. Bowen made this flat reply:
Britain would not purchase a bushel more if sterling were accepted in payment by Canada.
I think the trade commissioner's statement indicates the value of that socialist suggestion.
Well, now, socialists say in parliament and they say around the country that we should accept local currency in payment for wheat. What this really means, of course, is that we should sell our wheat at a discount, because if the local currency is as good as dollars then there is no difficulty in selling for dollars. If the local currency is not as good as dollars then, in fact, the wheat is being sold at a discount. Personally I doubt whether the western farmer would welcome a lower price for wheat than he is getting at the present time, yet that would inevitably happen unless the federal treasury were prepared to make up the difference by subsidy.
Another favourite proposition put forth by socialist members is that we should barter our wheat. I notice that whenever they talk in this manner they talk in generalities; they are never specific. I have nothing against barter when somebody comes forward with a sensible proposition, but so far no socialist has done that.


Edward George McCullough: The
hon. member knows no more about wheat than he knows about Mae West.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The socialists are never specific as to what countries want to barter with us, nor about the goods we can get in return for our wheat. If they were specific about barter the western farmers would realize that it would have the same effect on the wheat surplus as a pail of water taken from the Saskatchewan river would have in lowering its level.
The fourth suggestion put forward by socialists from time to time-I cite the speech of the hon. member for Assiniboia on May 17, 1955-is that the government should provide a school lunch program to take care of further agricultural surpluses. Well, I am not going into the merits or demerits of that

plan, except to say that a school lunch program would have the same effect on our wheat surplus as a workman would have trying to dig the St. Lawrence seaway with a teaspoon.
The fifth suggestion that has come again from the hon. member for Assiniboia is that there should be a march on Ottawa. Well, I say that a march on Ottawa at this time would be the work of a few professional socialist agitators organized for the sole purpose of trying to make political capital out of the farmers' difficulties. I believe that members in this house of all political parties, even the socialist group, want the farmer to be treated fairly and justly. I do not think they have to be pressured into giving him fair treatment by a march like the socialists have suggested. I say that C.C.F. members from their leader down to their remotest backbencher have so far offered no real solution for our wheat surplus problem.
I listened to the socialist members speak this afternoon. I hoped they would tell us how they would sell more wheat than is already being sold. Not one sensible, concrete suggestion was put forward.
I conclude by quoting a Canadian Press dispatch from Winnipeg, and again it is Mr. Wesson speaking:
The Canadian wheat board averted a possible international economic crisis and saved the situation for the farmer, John Wesson, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, told the western agricultural conference here.
I think these words of Mr. Wesson justify Liberal marketing policy in western Canada, and most effectively answer the criticisms which have come from the socialists today.
I support with enthusiasm the legislation which is now before us, Mr. Speaker, and I want to tell my hon. friends from Saskatchewan on the opposition benches that there are some members in this house who are not keen about the wheat board because they are a little bit afraid it may be a socialist measure. The criticism and unceasing opposition of socialists to the wheat board may result in a situation like this, one of these days. Eastern members are going to say, "All right, fellows, if the wheat board is so bad let us scrap it". That is the situation which these members may provoke. I suggest, whether deliberately or otherwise, they are time and again indirectly sabotaging the Canadian wheat board by irresponsible talk. Today the Liberal government is doing the best possible job under difficult circumstances.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Will the hon. member permit a question before he resumes his seat? Will he suggest some ways of moving more
Canadian Wheat Board Act wheat to give the wheat farmers a fairer share of the national income?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was very clear in what I said. I believe there is no magic formula. There is no easy answer to this problem; but I do say that the wheat board and the Liberal party are doing their best under difficult world circumstances. They are trying to get the best possible price for the western producer.


Mr. Knight:: I would like to ask the hon. member a question. I do not think he was quite fair in his allusion to the shoe factory and the woollen factory. He is a businessman. Does he consider that private enterprise in the same sort of thing, shoes or woollens, could have succeeded in Saskatchewan? Second, does he not know that these tiny little industries, which have been magnified in the east where, when you talk about a shoe factory, you talk about something big-


Mr. Habel:: Who tried it? The C.C.F.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My question is this. Does he not know that these little factories were simply built at the time of a terrible depression so we would have shoes and wool for our people, if they were necessary? Is it fair for him to say that these things failed in Saskatchewan because of socialist policies? Could these industries ever have succeeded under private enterprise in the province of Saskatchewan?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Well, Mr. Speaker, there was a time when I believed that socialist enterprises were necessary and desirable for my province, but after 10 years' experience I saw the way they operated and most of them went broke. There is quite a difference when a socialist company goes bankrupt and when a private enterprise company goes bankrupt. When a socialist company closes it is the taxpayers' money that has been lost, and millions have been lost in that manner in Saskatchewan. When a private enterprise company closes, the only people who lose are the shareholders.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I wish the hon. member would answer my question. Does he consider that private enterprise on a woollen mill or shoe factory, having regard to business and supply under the circumstances, could have operated successfully in the city of Moose Jaw?


Mr. Hosking:: Should we trust that kind of government to sell wheat?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: If a private company had closed, the only people who would have lost would have been the shareholders. I do not see any relevancy to that question.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the previous speaker a question. I take it from his remarks that he questions the advisability of an organized march on Ottawa. I would like to know if he would advise the permanent lobby which the farmers' union of Alberta have established down here at the present time.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I would say that I think every hon. member in this house regardless of his politics is sympathetic to the difficulties of the farmers, and I do not believe a march on Ottawa at this time is needed or desirable.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Alexander Smith: A supplementary question, if I may.


Henry Alfred Hosking: We are not in committee.


James Alexander Smith: Why
are not the farmers of western Canada right in sending down to Ottawa members of their own organizations to present to all members of parliament the position they are in in western Canada?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I did not object to that. I objected to a march on Ottawa.


James Alexander Smith: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. After this bill has been given second reading the house will resolve itself into -committee of the whole, at which time hon. members can ask each other questions. The hon. member for New Westminster.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hour I wonder if I could call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It appears that we do not have unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The opposition has capsized in this regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean the opposition on the government side.


Mr. Speaker:: I said the opposition in this regard.
On motion of Mr. Hahn the debate was adjourned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the minister tell us the business for Tuesday?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Wait till Monday.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, if it would appear likely that this bill would not be debated at any great length we might go ahead with it first; otherwise we will take the Canada Council and then the wheat board bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How does the minister expect to find out?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Through the usual
channels.


Walter Edward Harris: I express these things in public,
sir, in the hope that in private I can obtain some assurances, but I do this out of a lifelong feeling of optimism which is hardly ever matched by the circumstances.


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

Questions

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

Mr. Boivin: 1.	What Is the actual cost of old age pension paid entirely by the federal government without means test, for pensioners over 70?
2.	What would be the cost of such pension if the age limit was reduced from 70 to 65 years of age?
3.	What is the amount of the contribution actually paid by the federal government to old age pensioners between the ages of 65 and 70?
4.	What would be the amount of the said contribution if such pension were paid to pensioners of 60 to 65 years of age?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
1.	Estimated cost for complete year 1956-57 -$379,375,000.
2.	Estimated cost for complete year 1957-58 -$608,000,000, less $21,100,000 which represents the estimated federal share for 1957-58 of payments under the Old Age Assistance Act.
3.	Estimated cost of the federal share of old age assistance for complete year 1956-57 -$20,500,000.
4.	The cost to the federal government of paying old age assistance to persons 60 to 64 years of age would depend on a number of factors which could vary considerably from those which apply to persons 65 to 69 years of age. A great deal would depend on the requirements of eligibility to be applied, particularly the means test. Presumably a larger proportion of persons 60 to 64 would be employable. The extent to which persons in this age group who were in need of assistance would be assisted by unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance would have an important bearing on the number applying for old age assistance. With so many unpredictable factors it would be difficult to estimate with any degree of accuracy the cost to the federal government of paying old age assistance to persons 60 to 64 years of age.


BUTTER AND CHEESE EXPORTS
Mr. Cardiff: 1.	How much (a) butter: (b) cheese, was exported from Canada in 1956?
2.	To what countries?
3.	What was the price to each country?
Answer by:	Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and
Commerce:
1, 2 and 3. Canadian exports of butter and cheese, by countries, during the calendar year 1956, were as follows:
Item
Country
Butter	United Kingdom	
(Item 2700)	Dominican Republic....
St. Pierre and Miquelon
Alaska	
Germany East	
United States	
Totals....
Cheese, cheddar....United Kingdom	
(Item 2711)	Bermuda	
British Honduras	
Barbados	
Jamaica	
Trinidad and Tobago	
Bahamas	
Leeward and Windward Islands
Belgium	
Netherlands Antilles	
Venezuela	
United States	
Totals	
Average
Cwt.	Value	unit
price
	$	$
, 6	325	54.172	190	45.00, 1,295	80,490	62.15, 1	35	35.0019,843	743,012	37.44, 7	465	66.4321,154	824,417	38.97. 108,578	3,670,309	33.80. 286	10,843	37.91. 26	896	34.46. 47	1,912	40.68. 15	614	40.93. 6	307	51.17404	17,805	44.07. 202	8,933	44.221,156	39,773	34.41. 1	35	35.006	316	52 674,010	163,933	40.88114,737	3,915,676	34.13
Questions
Average
Item	Country	Cwt.	Value	unit
price
Cheese, n.o.p	United Kingdom	
(Item 2712)	Bermuda	
British Guiana	
British Honduras	
Barbados	
Jamaica	
Trinidad and Tobago	
Bahamas	
Leeward and Windward Islands.
Belgium	
St. Pierre and Miquelon....
Guatemala	
Haiti	
Honduras	
Mexico	
Netherlands Antilles	
Peru	
Venezuela	
Lebanon	
United States	
Totals	
	S	$
204	6,750	33.09117	4,552	38.91282	8,422	29.87209	6,496	31.08203	8,914	43.911,587	53,392	33.64484	20,113	41.5678	3,407	43.68396	12,799	32.32206	10,402	50.792	75	37.509	390	43.3383	3,012	36.295	195	39.0019	612	32.216	307	51-1710	553	55.3003	2,967	47.101	68	68.003,463	118,981	34.367,427	262,467	35.34
[The following item was passed in committee of supply]:


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
External affairs-
545. Loan to the United Nations Organization to help finance the clearing of the Suez canal, $1,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 4, 1957