1957-10-30

DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question asked by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) I now wish to lay on the table of the house copies of the exchange of correspondence between the dominion government and the provinces with regard to the conference to be held on November 25.


Hon. George C. Marler (St. Anioine-Wesl-mount):: Mr. Speaker, might I suggest that in conformity with past practice these might be printed as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that these documents be printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of correspondence referred to above, see appendix, pages 589-93.)



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Has the government any plans for the development of ports and harbours along the route of the seaway?
2.	What is being done at the port of Montreal? Are the plans as announced by the former administration being carried out? What plans are being evolved for the development of the south shore?
3.	Is this area to be taken over by the national harbours board? Are port facilities to be erected here for the expected increase in volume of trade?
4.	What is being done at the port of Trois-Rivieres?
5.	Is consideration being given to the construction of additional wharves and warehouses?
6.	Will the national harbours board provide cargo handling equipment at the port for vertical hatch loading and unloading, extra space on existing wharves and new docks?
7.	Is consideration being given to the construction of a grain elevator here?
8.	What is being done at the port of Sorel?
9.	Will the national harbours board provide cargo handling equipment at the port for vertical hatch loading and unloading, extra space on existing wharves and new docks?
10.	Are port facilities in this area considered adequate for seaway traffic?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in regard to part 1 of the question, perhaps I might give a reply under 96698-36
three headings. First, the national harbours board is giving active consideration to necessary harbour developments at Quebec, Montreal and Three Rivers. I may say I have had the pleasure of visiting all three of these ports and was very much impressed with the facilities now provided and with the plans for improvements and additions. Second, the development and plans for harbours administered by local commissions, that is to say Toronto, Hamilton and Belleville, are the responsibility of those commissions. Here again I was very glad to have an opportunity to visit both Toronto and Hamilton harbours recently and review the program of work to be undertaken at both points. In Toronto both the federal Department of Public Works and the harbour commission are undertaking additional works. At Hamilton the commission has a substantial program of works and, as previously announced, I propose to introduce legislation to authorize a loan to assist these works. In addition funds will be provided to public works to build a new low-level bridge across the harbour entrance and for certain other terminal development.
3.	The development of harbours other than those administered by the national harbours board or local commissions will be the responsibility of the Department of Public Works, which I understand has the matter under review.
In reply to part 2, the program of works at Montreal harbour, estimated to cost $57 million, is being carried out. The St. Lawrence seaway authority is constructing 4,000 linear feet of wharf above the Cote Ste. Catherine lock. Other developments will receive consideration as the need arises.
As to part 3, no action has been taken to extend the jurisdiction of the national harbours board, but this matter will remain under review. The policy of the government will be to provide facilities when the public interest so requires.
The reply to part 4 is that a contract has been awarded for the construction of an additional commodious transit shed.
In answer to part 5 I would say that in the normal course the government will give consideration to recommendations of the national harbours board for such new facilities as the growth of traffic warrants.
Part 6 is answered by the reply to part 5.

Questions
As to part 7, the grain elevator at Three Rivers is privately owned and its capacity has recently been increased.
In reply to part 8 I might say that the Department of Public Works recently awarded a contract for improvements to the east face of terminal wharf No. 1 at Sorel amounting to $47,204. Surveys and pre-engineering studies are continuing in order to have available the necessary information for recommendations concerning future expansion or improvements.
The answer to part 9 is that the provision of cargo handling equipment, additional space on existing wharves and new docks will be considered by the Department of Public Works should the need for such additional facilities be justified. At present the facilities at the port of Sorel appear to be adequate.
Part 10 is answered by the reply to part 8.


VICTORIA BRIDGE, MONTREAL-ST. LAMBERT
Mr. Chevrier: 1.	What was the cost of the Victoria bridge between Montreal and St. Lambert?
2.	What are the operating costs, operating expenses and profit and loss position in the last 25 years?
3.	What amount of tolls were collected on this bridge in the last 10 years?
4.	Will tolls be abolished on this bridge?


George Harris Hees: In dealing with question No. 5 I would like to answer parts 1, 2 and 3 together. As recorded in an answer by my predecessor, the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Marler), when he was minister of transport, to an order of the house tabled on July 13, 1955, it has never been and is not now the practice of the management of the Canadian National Railways to disclose financial details of the operation of the Victoria bridge. The management advise that this also is their position as far as the capital cost of the bridge is concerned.
This fact was well known to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) when, as minister of transport, he spoke on this subject in the house on February 23, 1951, as reported at pages 569 and 570 of Hansard of that date, when he said:-


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Harris Hees: -when he said:
As for Victoria bridge I cannot give you any idea of the amount collected since it is buried in the accounts of the Canadian National.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I think it is perfectly clear from the rules that answers are concise and are not expected to be political.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: What about questions?


Mr. Fraser:: Why bring up political
questions?


Mr. Speaker:: It occurred to me as the minister was giving his answer that he was going beyond the scope of an ordinary answer in referring to the knowledge of the hon. member at a certain time. That struck me as being somewhat in the nature of debate rather than answer.


George Harris Hees: As I was convinced that the hon. member for Laurier was only seeking information I thought I would remind him of some of the things he said in the house on this and other matters on past occasions as minister of transport.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Stick:: Carry out the rules of the house.


George Harris Hees: As to part 4, the management advise me that this matter is not under consideration at the present time. I might suggest to the hon. member for Laurier that he look back at that same speech and he will see his own views expressed at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: The rules are supposed to apply equally to all.


JACQUES CARTIER BRIDGE, MONTREAL-LONGUEUIL
Mr. Chevrier: 1.	What was the cost of the Jacques Cartier bridge between Montreal and Longueuil?
2.	What are the operating costs, operating expenses and profit and loss position in the last 10 years?
3.	Did the city of Montreal pay its share of the deficit in accordance with its tripartite agreement?
4.	Did the province of Quebec pay its share of the deficit in accordance with its tripartite agreement?
5.	Does the government intend to do anything about this?
6.	What amount of tolls has been collected on this bridge since the beginning?
7.	Does the government propose to abolish tolls on the Jacques Cartier bridge?


George Harris Hees: As to question 6, Mr. Speaker, the
answer to the first part is that the original cost was $18,571,308. With regard to the second part, the operating expenses between 1947 and 1956, inclusive, were $1,842,325. Profit and loss position shows a deficit as at December 31, 1946, of $11,439,297, and as at December 31, 1956, $9,338,148.
The answer to part 3 is yes, after litigation with respect to a portion.

As to part 4, the answer is that the province has paid in part and there remains unpaid $744,425, plus interest.
With regard to part 5, as the hon. member may be aware, the situation with respect to this matter has remained unchanged for several years. Directions were given in 1953, when he was minister of transport, that a petition of right be presented to the province of Quebec and a fiat sought. Accordingly the Department of Justice filed such petition, to which no response was received. The record does not indicate that any further action was taken to dispose of that matter.
The answer to part 6 is $22,670,794 to December 31, 1956.
With respect to part 7, as the hon. member knows there has been no change in the situation which existed while he was minister of transport, namely that the tripartite agreement, authorized by the statute of the province of Quebec, provided that the bridge shall be a toll bridge.


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order, if I may at this stage. The point is this. You have ruled on one if not on two occasions that the questions put by members to ministers should be short and to the point, and I think you have also ruled that the answers should be in the same form. I am not complaining more about the answers by the minister than I am about those made by the Prime Minister the other day, when on at least three occasions he rose in the house and, taking advantage of a question, spoke for at least five to six minutes. I think that is entirely out of order, and I think it applies to the answers the minister has given.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lionel Chevrier: I am speaking to a point of order. If I am out of order the Speaker will call me to order. I am speaking to a point of order now and I have the right to the floor. I was going to conclude by saying that the same latitude should be allowed to a member who asks a question as to a minister who answers it.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been well settled that a point of order should be raised at the time it is relevant to the question. With respect to the point relating to yesterday's proceedings, I do not feel it would be my duty to deal with it now. The point of order as it may apply to the starred questions, I take it, is not pressed by the hon. member. The questions themselves were very lengthy and the answers necessarily were lengthy. There was a point of order taken in the course of 96698-364
Questions
the answer, which was dealt with, and it seems to me that leaves nothing outstanding in the hon. member's point of order.


PIPE LINE CONSTRUCTION, NORTHERN ONTARIO   LABOUR TURNOVER
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What has been the total labour turnover for each of the four contractors' spreads on the natural gas pipe line west of Port Arthur in the period to October 1, 1957?
2.	What was the average number of men on each spread for each month from April to October, 1957?
3.	What percentage of the labour force on each spread was American, for each of these months?
4.	How many of the men who separated from the job on each spread were fired?
5.	What percentage of the Americans working on this section of the pipe line were in this country under a six months' permit?
Mr. Thomas M. Bell, Parliameniary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Mr. Speaker, this question requires several tables for an adequate answer, and as it would be difficult to read the tables to the house I would ask leave to place them on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member prepared to have the question made an order for return?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: The tables are not extensive. I would imagine that, with permission, they could be taken into the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to do as he has suggested?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Miller Bell: The answers are as follows:
1.	Hired	SeparatedSpread	A . .	. 1672	970it	B . .	. 977	645"	C . .	. 817	514a * As	D 	
of October	
890 23, 1957.	*3602.	Spread	May	June	July	August	SeptemberA	203	276	319	665B	112	183	300	353	332C	52	157	281	303D	3	120	266	368	3443. Spread	May	June	July	August	SeptemberA	35%	26%	21%	16%B	57%	56%	43%	37%	28%C	58%	58%	38%	26%D	100%	45%	33.5%	26.7%	26.8%
Questions
4.
Spread	May
A	22
B	50
C	127
D	81
5.	Approximately 95 per cent, on the basis of information supplied by the contractors.



PENRYN SECURITIES


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the president of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., ever hold any position with Penryn Securities Company or with Penryn Holding Company?
2.	Who are the present officers of this company?
3.	If the president of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., held any office in these companies, what were the dates of such tenure?
Mr. Thomas M. Bell, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
The answer is as follows:
1.	The president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited never held any position with the Penryn Securities Limited.
Mr. W. J. Bennett while chief executive assistant to the minister of reconstruction and supply was appointed secretary of Penryn Securities Limited, a private corporation, on December 5, 1945. This was a nominal position from which he received no remuneration. He held the position until April 25, 1952.
2.	There is no official record in the Department of Trade and Commerce as to whom the present officers of this company are. I am advised by the officers of the Secretary of State, companies branch, however, that at the time of the last annual return the following were named as directors:
Mrs. Alice M. Howe Clarence D. Howe Miss Ruth A. Thomson
3.	Answered by No. 1.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: May I
direct a supplementary question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the answer he gave to my question. He said there was no official record of the company referred to in the Department of Trade and Commerce. By statute or regulation should there have been a record in the department?


Thomas Miller Bell: It is a private corporation and such corporations have special privileges under the Companies Act. It is not an unusual situation.



COMMERCIAL FISHING LICENCES, B.C.-ROYAL COMMISSION

Mr. Barnett: 1.	Have requests been received for establishment of a royal commission to inquire into the question of licence limitations for commercial fishing in British Columbia?
2.	If so, from whom have such requests been received?
3.	Have representations been made against the establishment of such a royal commission and, if so, from whom?
4.	What steps has the government taken toward establishing such a commission; or what other action has it taken to deal with this question?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: The answer is as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	United fishermen and allied workers' union, Vancouver.
3.	No.
4.	The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the second part of the question, by regulation under the Fisheries Act and by administrative action the issue of fishing licences in British Columbia was restricted to Canadian citizens and exservicemen of the Canadian armed services, who also had to show on application for licence that they were bona fide commercial fishermen.



HUMANE SLAUGHTER OF FOOD ANIMALS

Mr. Broome: Is the government considering the adopting of regulations which will specifically require the use of humane methods in the slaughter of food animals?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: The Department of Agriculture is not, at this time, considering recommending to the government the adoption of regulations which will specifically require the use of humane methods in the slaughter of food animals. The question is under study by a joint committee of the Ontario society for the prevention of cruelty to animals and the meat packers' council of Canada. The services of a top ranking veterinary research officer of the Department of Agriculture have been put at the disposal of the committee to assist it in its study. Until this committee has reported we do not feel in the Department of Agriculture that we should make any recommendations.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


CABINET MINISTERS


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: Norih Centre):
1.	Are any cabinet ministers now directors of any companies, corporations, etc.?

2.	If so, which ministers, of what companies or corporations, and on what dates were any directorships presently held by cabinet ministers assumed?
3.	Have any cabinet ministers resigned any directorships since being sworn of the privy council?
4.	If so, which ministers, on what dates and from what companies or corporations?
Motions jor Papers
last two words "throughout Canada" should be dropped. This is agreeable to the hon. member.


George James McIlraith: The suggested amendment is agreeable to me.



HIGHWAY BRIDGE, CHATHAM-FERRY ROAD, N.B.

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Has a request for financial assistance toward the survey and construction of highway bridge across the Miramichi river between Chatham and Ferry Road, New Brunswick, from the provincial government of New Brunswick, and/or the town council of the town of Chatham, New Brunswick, the Chatham, New Brunswick, board of trade, or from any other group or individual, been received by the Prime Minister and/or the ministers of national defence, public works and transport?
2.	What is the policy of the government in connection with financial assistance towards construction of highway bridges, within provinces, other than trans-Canada highway bridges?



ORDNANCE DEPOT SITE, COQUITLAM

Mr. Regier: 1.	What were the total expenditures made by the government for, and on, the land purchased for an ordnance depot in the municipality of the district of Coquitlam?
2. What are the names and addresses of the recipients of this money and what amount was paid in each case?
3.	Has this property been sold? If so, to whom was it sold and for how much?
4. Did the municipality of the district of Coquitlam apply for purchase of this property?
5.	If so, what has been the disposition of this request and what are the reasons for such disposition?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that permission to amend be granted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion as amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 8-Mr. Martin (Essex East):
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the province of Ontario since June 10, 1957, with respect to participation by that province under the Unemployment Assistance Act of 1956.
Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I presume that this will be subject to obtaining agreement of the provincial authorities.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to that limitation, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?



POPULATION AND AREA STATISTICS

Mr. Fisher: 1. What is the mean population figure of Canadiai federal constituencies?
2 What is the mean area figure of Canadiai federal constituencies?
3.	Given a ratio of area over population, whicl ten constituencies had the largest fractions, whicl ten constituencies had the smallest fraction, follow lng the 1956 census?
4.	How many constituencies had a population o: less than 40,000 at the 1956 census?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Mcllraith:
For a copy of transportation order No. 107 of the district director of postal services, dated August 7, 1957, and sent by the Post Office Department to mail contractors throughout Canada.
Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this motion with the hon. member, and in order that the document may be properly and completely described the motion should read "district director of postal services, Ottawa" and the


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Lesage (Montmagny-L'Islet):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would he tell the house what progress is being made in negotiations with the state of Maine toward reaching a reciprocal agreement with regard to unemployment insurance?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: As I understand it, in the past the state of Maine has not been agreeable to entering into any agreement in this regard. Some efforts have been made within recent months in the same field, but as yet they have not been acceptable. It is a matter in which I am vitally interested, and the efforts on our behalf will not be stopped.

Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION TO GUARANTEE PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisfa-Twillin-gate):: I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries if it is his intention to introduce legislation, similar to that of which the Minister of Agriculture has given notice, to provide guaranteed prices for fisheries products?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a matter of government policy, and when a decision is made it will be announced to the house in due course.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister not think the fishermen are just as deserving as the farmers?



CONTAMINATED OYSTERS AND CLAMS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising out of a newspaper article in the Vancouver Sun of October 28, which indicates that clam and oyster sales have been stopped in the greater Vancouver area.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Would the hon. member repeat the last part?


Frederick George Hahn: Which indicates that clam and oyster sales have been stopped in the greater Vancouver area. What steps have been taken to guarantee that wholesalers have not sold any of these contaminated oysters and clams in the prairie provinces and other parts of British Columbia.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I will have to take that question as notice.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the statement of Mr. A. Beasley, chief of the View Royal fire brigade, appearing in the Victoria Daily Colonist of October 23 in connection with the recent fire on the Song-hees reserve which cost the lives of two Indian children, in which Mr. Beasley stated that the Indian affairs branch carries out no
inspection of chimneys and other fire hazards on the reserve and that the Indian agent at Duncan had failed to reply to four letters written by Mr. Beasley in regard to fire protection on the reserve?
If so, can the minister inform the house as to the correctness of Mr. Beasley's assertion that no inspection is carried out, and can he tell the house whether his department is considering entering into agreements with municipalities contiguous to Indian reserves to ensure fire protection on the reserves?


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker,
since receiving from the hon. gentleman notice of his intention to ask this question, for which notice I thank him, I have had inquiries made of the director of the Indian affairs branch. Unfortunately I have to tell the hon. gentleman that neither I nor the director had noticed the news report to which he referred. Inquiries are being pursued immediately by the director in order to get the full facts. Until an answer is received I am not able to give the hon. gentleman any further information, although of course I cannot at the moment accept the statement which I understand was made to the effect that the department is not co-operating and does not carry out inspection. However, I will give a full report as soon as the information is received.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I inform the house of the position with regard to the immigration case in Montreal which was the case put by way of a question by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) on October 22.
As the house knows, this case has been proceeding for a good many years and involved charges of conspiracy against four individuals. The charges against the four individuals concerned were quashed and the individuals were acquitted by Judge Willie Proulx of the court of the sessions of the peace in Montreal on Monday, October 21.
In the province of Quebec 15 days are allowed within which to enter appeals in the case of indictable offences. After consideration of the legal questions involved the agent of the Minister of Justice, with the approval of the attorney general of the province of Quebec, was instructed to enter appeals to

the court of appeal of Quebec. The agent of the Minister of Justice is proceeding accordingly.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I ask this question of the minister because of the statement made by Premier Frost in Toronto yesterday. Has the minister received from Premier Frost a letter asking for the repeal of the section of the hospital insurance act requiring that six provinces introduce plans before there is federal participation in costs? If the minister has received any such letter in this respect, would he be willing to table the correspondence, and is he willing to accept Premier Frost's suggestion?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any such letter. I would say that actually this is a matter of government policy. As a consequence I do not feel that I could announce at the moment whether or not the suggestion would be accepted if I had received such a request.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Was the premier of Ontario speaking for the federal government when he said that provision of the act was frustrating the Diefenbaker government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Will it be announced on television?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The questions asked in the house must, of course, relate to matters under the jurisdiction of the ministry in this house and not of some other government.



ONTARIO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare what is the attitude of his department with regard to the announcement by the Ontario hospital services commission that it does not intend to provide outpatient diagnostic services for the people of Ontario, as provided for by an act of this parliament.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is similar in character to the question which has just been asked. As I understand it, it is really a question about the activities of a commission which is not subject to the jurisdiction of this parliament or government. It is an Ontario commission.


Stanley Haidasz: My question was with respect to the attitude of the department of health, that is to say the federal Department of National Health and Welfare.


An hon. Member:: That is a matter of policy.


Mr. Speaker:: My point is this. The federal department of health cannot be expected to have an attitude with respect to the responsibilities of another government. It is not their responsibility.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has this government had any discussions with the province of Ontario concerning proposed federal contributions toward the cost of treating mental and tubercular patients in that province?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice. I could not say at the moment whether we have or not.



REPORTED REQUEST FOR MEETING OF PROVINCIAL MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he has yet had an opportunity of considering the question which I put to him a week ago, with regard to the request of the minister of health of Manitoba for a conference of all the provinces and the federal government in the matter of the hospital insurance act?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think, Mr. Speaker, my answer would be the same as I gave at that time, and that was to the effect that we are giving very intensive consideration to the whole matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as this is an extremely important matter may I ask a supplementary question. Is my hon. friend in a position to say today or perhaps

Inquiries of the Ministry tomorrow whether such a conference would of the costs were borne by the federal gov-be held before the general conference with ernment. I will have to check on that and the provinces on November 25, or would let the hon. member know, it be held simultaneously with the larger
conference?	SHIPPING


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that at the moment, because I do not know.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is about to ask the question of which he was good enough to send me a copy, may I say that I endeavoured to get in touch with him to advise him that the only part of the question which seemed to me to come within the practice of this house was that part which asked whether a certain report would be tabled. If the hon. member will limit his question to that request for information he may proceed.


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: think I can do that, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he will make available to this house and publish the report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police dealing with the charges of bribery and conspiracy in the granting of forest management licences in the province of British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice that he intended to raise this matter today, though he has not raised it in the rather extended form in which he originally intended. In reply I think I can only advise the hon. gentleman that my understanding is that this report was made at the request of and provided for the government of the province of British Columbia. That being the case, it rests with that province and with that authority as to whether or not the report will be made public.


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: May
I then ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister say whether or not the federal government paid for that report and investigation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that as notice. It is my impression that the major portion of the cost of investigation was borne by the province but that some



M. V. &quot;BURIN&quot;    EXTENT OF DAMAGE AND INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would he inform the house as to the extent of the damage suffered by the C.N.R. coastal boat, the motor vessel Burin, and what steps are being taken to prevent any interruption in this coastal service?


George Harris Hees: I would like to thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I have been in touch with the management of the Canadian National Railways and am advised that in the early morning of October 29 the motor vessel Burin grounded in the vicinity of North Harbour, the most northerly port of call in Placentia bay. All passengers have been taken ashore and S.S. Glencoe has been ordered to go to the assistance of the ship, which appears to be in no immediate danger. No information is available yet as to the extent of the damage incurred.



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER    IMPROVEMENT OF FACILITIES DURING WINTER SEASON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augusle Mallais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport or to the Minister of Public Works. What steps are now being taken to improve navigation facilities on the St. Lawrence river north of Quebec during the coming winter season?


George Harris Hees: Every year, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transport employs icebreakers to look after that problem, and it will be done again this season.


Auguste Maltais: May I address a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the Minister of Public Works received any representations regarding the increasing difficulties encountered by winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river north of Quebec, and what steps are to be taken to improve the dock facilities at Pointe-au-Pic, 90 miles below Quebec city?


Mr. Green:: I do not think we have had such representation, but I will make inquiries for the hon. member.



FACILITIES TO BE USED AT SAULT STE. MARIE LOCKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Since there are no definite plans to prepare the Canadian Sault locks for deep sea draught vessels, can we assume that the United States locks at the Sault are to be the future passageway of such vessels going to and from lake Superior?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take that question as notice.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour relating to the situation mentioned yesterday. I wonder if the minister would undertake to recommend to the government that it pay the transportation and other related costs of those employees at Kitimat, particularly those with families, who find it necessary to leave Kitimat as a result of the recent action of the Saguenay-Kitimat Company in completely closing down its operations?


Michael Starr: In
answer to the hon. member's question I may say that the lay-off of approximately 1,500 persons came very suddenly and apparently as the result of a decision by the Aluminum Company of Canada to suspend the expansion program which they had originally scheduled for this time. I can promise the hon. member that my officials will study the situation with a view to ascertaining what action may be most effectively taken by the unemployment insurance commission in respect to declaring the area a labour surplus area.
I can say immediately, Mr. Speaker, that the officials of the unemployment insurance commission in Kitimat have already been given instructions to process as quickly as possible claims for people who have been laid off, and I can also assure the hon. member that every facility of the unemployment insurance commission will be placed at the disposal of these people.


Frank Howard: May I then ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could advise whether there
Inquiries of the Ministry is any provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act or some similar act to allow for the payment or the advancing of money for transportation costs.


Michael Starr: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are investigating the possibility of declaring this area a labour surplus area, which automatically provides for the payment of transportation for people who wish to go to other places to get employment.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Does the minister differentiate between civil servants and casual labourers employed by his department with respect to regulations regarding their employment?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I am not certain as to the implications of that question, but there are of course different sets of regulations governing civil servants who are permanent employees and those who are casual. I could not spell out the differences now; perhaps if the hon. member wishes a more detailed answer he would be specific in his request and put a question on the order paper so that I could give him a complete answer.


William James Henderson: Perhaps I can be more specific, Mr. Speaker, if I ask the minister this question. Do the regulations outlined yesterday by the Minister of Transport with respect to the political partisanship of casual labourers employed by the Department of Transport also apply to casual labourers employed by the Department of National Defence.


George Randolph Pearkes: I would like to take that question as notice, and I will look into the matter.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. I presume he has had ample time to study the answer given yesterday by the Minister of Transport. Is he now prepared to answer my question?


William McLean Hamilton: I thought my answer yesterday covered the matter. As I remember it, I said I would
562	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry study the remarks of the Minister of Transport and see whether they applied.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Do they apply?



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National
Defence): While I am on my feet might I give a reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson). The hon. member asked whether Canada is to be included in the agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States, as reported in the press of that day in Washington, to divide the responsibility for development of future atomic weapons and to share information obtained in their separate research and development. I would refer to the joint statement issued on October 26 by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, which states as follows:
The President of the United States will request congress to amend the atomic energy act as may be necessary and desirable to permit the close and fruitful collaboration of scientists and engineers of Great Britain, the United States and other friendly countries.
I assume when the hon. member speaks of an agreement it is to this statement that he refers. It will be noted that the President is to request congress to make amendments to allow the collaboration of scientists and engineers from not only Great Britain and the United States but also other friendly countries. We are sure that both the United States and the United Kingdom regard Canada as a friendly country, and therefore we would be included in any arrangements which might be made under these amendments.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alisiair Siewarl (Winnipeg Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister assure the house and reassure the country that the government does not contemplate suggesting an increase in the indemnity of members of parliament?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer this question in a way that would suit even the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). The answer is no.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Will it be announced on TV?
U-,ater:l


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, lest there be any misunderstanding about my brief answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North when I answered by a simple negative, let me say that there has been no consideration of the matter and there is no intention to increase the indemnities of members.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Rich-mond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister offer any indication to the residents of Inverness-Richmond, who are presently without satisfactory television service, that the application of station CJCB-TV, Sydney, to establish a satellite station in the Inverness area will be reconsidered and subsequently approved?


George Harris Hees: As the hon. member has not given notice of his intention to ask this question I shall have to take this as notice and check up on that matter.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. What steps are being taken or what research is being done by the Department of Agriculture to check the insects that attack rape plants?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. Active research on the control of the insect pest species attacking rape is in progress at two science service laboratories in western Canada. Work formerly carried on at Brandon has now been transferred to the laboratory at Winnipeg. The Manitoba work has been confined to establishing the identity, distribution and abundance of the insect species involved leading up to a forecasting system. A more intensive program is being directed from the Saskatoon laboratory.
The bertha army worm is the most important pest of rape in Saskatchewan in recent years. Each year surveys are carried

out to forecast the abundance of moths and the potential of outbreaks and damage in each district. The Saskatoon laboratory uses radio, newspapers and direct contact with district agricultural representatives to inform farmers of the hazard. In districts where the infestation is likely to be severe special attention is paid to extension work via the agricultural representatives.
A satisfactory chemical control of bertha army worm has been developed. This involves the application by aeroplane of D.D.T. in diesel fuel oil at 10 ounces per acre in two to three quarts per acre. This control method is used extensively and is well known by both farmer operators and custom aircraft spray applicators. It is common practice for the custom applicators to be in constant touch with the Saskatoon laboratory and to keep supplies of the necessary materials on hand. Investigations are being continued on the potential usefulness of newer insecticides for the control of this pest.
Other insects of importance in rape production are the red backed cutworm, beet-webworm and the red turnip beetle. In Alberta some fields were destroyed by red backed cutworms in 1957, and this insect can be of importance if it occurs in outbreak proportions in Saskatchewan. Work is still in progress on the chemical control of beetweb-worm, and progress depends upon the availability of infestations suitable for field investigation. The red turnip beetle is of potential importance, particularly in the spring. No work is at present in progress at Saskatoon on the control of this insect on rape, but investigations carried on elsewhere have shown that effective control can be obtained with D.D.T.



STATEMENT ON STEPS TO ASSIST PRODUCTION AND MARKETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Comiois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, on October 28 the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) asked the following question:
I would like to address a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys or to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whoever is in a position to answer it. What steps has the government taken to increase coal production and marketing in Canada so that our coal mining industry might have some relief from its present depressed condition? Especially am I interested in the coal mining industry in western Canada.
In reply I would say that the long-established policy of subvention assistance has been continued which provides for the movement of Canadian coal to markets in central Canada within economic limits. Under this
Inquiries of the Ministry policy a market has been provided for all the maritime coal produced at reasonable costs, and further assistance beyond this limit to maintain the Springhill collieries. In western Canada the Saskatchewan mines have enjoyed an increasing market, as shown by their output. The Alberta and British Columbia mines are faced with severe competition from Canadian oil and gas produced from wells in the area. Subvention assistance has recently been further extended to enable the mines to develop new markets in western Ontario and increased assistance provided on exports to countries other than the United States.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister inform the house if it is a fact that the Moncton-Shediac railway now operated by the Canadian National Railways is to be abandoned?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I received no notice of this question. I will inquire of the Canadian National Railways and advise the hon. member tomorrow.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the fact that in the selection of workers for the construction of the post office building in Sorel the federal employment bureau has been completely by-passed, and that discriminatory political patronage is practised on a large scale? If so, what does the government intend to do about it?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to look into the situation.



WINNIPEG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me a question concerning the old post office building in Winnipeg. He wanted to
564	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry know what would be done with it when the new building was opened. The answer is that the old post office building and the annex will be declared surplus and turned over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.



MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In the light of the reply given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) the other day to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) as to the role of the municipalities at the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference, and in the light of the serious unemployment situation facing us this fall, especially out on the west coast, is the government giving any consideration to reactivating the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: That obviously would be a matter of government policy.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I have been informed that the government had already disagreed with the preliminary plans prepared by Quebec Home and Mortgage Corporation for the construction of a causeway from the rear of the Verdun auditorium to Nuns' island because such plans do not provide any passage for navigable pleasure boats.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Gérard Yves Leduc: Would the minister tell the house if the matter is still under study, and would he also comment on the possible dangers and inconveniences for the residents of the city of Verdun and the vicinity if the proposed causeway were to be built, namely the dangers of flooding and pollution of the waters?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: It would be more appropriate to put the question on the order paper.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond asked me whether any agreement had been reached with the province of Nova Scotia for the construction of a breakwater-causeway between the mainland and Port Hood island. The answer is that, while negotiations are under way, no agreement as been reached as yet.



NOVA SCOTIA-NEW BRUNSWICK    REQUEST FOR COPY OF REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) asked me about the presentation of the Montreal Engineering Company report in regard to the requirements for power and the location of power plants and interconnection lines in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and whether copies would be made available to the house.
The report, Mr. Speaker, by the Montreal Engineering Company, as my hon. friend knows, was commissioned by the Northern Canada Power Commission in order to investigate the best location of thermal power plants to serve the needs of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and the probable extent of plants that might be required in the immediate future having regard for interconnection lines that should be built. The report has been received and copies have been provided to the governments of the two provinces.
The hon. member asked if it would be made available. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that it is not intended to make the report public at the present time. It is my view, as minister in charge, that it would not be in the public interest to divulge the professional advice tendered by the consulting engineers while a number of arrangements are still pending. This is also the view of the governments of the two provinces concerned. I am sure that if my hon. friend were in my position he would be of the same opinion.


Jean Lesage: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister believe that these reports, which have been supplied by that company, should

be made known to the governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia before they are made known to the members of this house?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I would certainly suggest that if we are going to arrange any proposition between the governments of those provinces and this government they certainly should have them to study them.


An hon. Member:: Before this house?


Jean Lesage: Since the report is being
paid for out of moneys voted by this house, does the minister not believe that members of this house should be entitled to the reports before other governments?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet should know by this time that there are certain matters which in the public interest should not be divulged until all the matters in the report are dealt with.


Jean Lesage: In the party's interest, you
mean.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I think two supplementary
questions to the original question are sufficient.


Mr. Claude Richardson (Si. Lawrence-Sl. George):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if I may: I do not know what the rules are about supplementary questions, but the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond is the one who posed the original question and did not ask any supplementary questions at all. I wonder, in those circumstances, whether you would reconsider your observation and allow him to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I would be glad to. I did
not realize the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond had initiated the question. Briefly, the rules with respect to supplementary questions are that supplementary questions are limited to clarification of the answer, and usually one supplementary question either indicates that there will be a clarification or that there will be a debate. In this case it seemed to me the matter was moving in that direction; therefore I took the liberty to stop the hon. member. I give him the floor now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My supplementary question to the minister is this. In the light of the fact that similar studies on thermal power, made in 1954 by Professor Christie for the dominion coal board, were made public and were the subject of wide public discussion, would he not now reconsider his decision not to make these
Inquiries of the Ministry further reports available which, I am sure, will enable the citizens of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to reach some important judgments about thermal power in those provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may say so, that I think illustrates the difficulty of extending supplementary questions, because the only result of the hon. member's question is that he makes certain observations which are out of order, and asks the minister again if he will reconsider. The minister has already answered. However, I leave it to the minister if he wishes to answer again.



MARITIME PROVINCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister advise the house whether consideration has been given recently to the development of nuclear power in the maritime provinces?


Henry Joseph Murphy: Are you not
interested in the east as well as in the west?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: He does not want to give consideration to New Brunswick.


Mr. Brooks:: What consideration did your government give in 22 years?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker,	I rise on a	question of
privilege, which is this, sir. A question was asked by the hon. member who rose to speak just before I did, and no answer has been given to the question. Perhaps the minister did not hear the question; I do not know. But I think there should be an answer by the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I might say a word, my hon. friend seems to be suffering from his embarrassing discomfiture of yesterday. The question was asked in such a way that it could not be heard. I know I tried to hear it and could not. Then, subsequently, another question was asked. My hon. friend should just hold himself a little.


Lionel Chevrier: Why didn't you answer the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Are you on the same question of privilege?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In the question I asked the minister I was seeking information concerning the maritime provinces. I feel that as a member of this house I have the right to ask such a question.
566	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Question.


An hon. Member:: You did ask it.


Mr. Speaker:: Undoubtedly the hon. member has the right to ask a question, but he has no right to insist upon an answer. It is entirely optional to the minister who is asked the question whether or not he answers. There is no doubt about that. If the hon. member's question was not heard perhaps he would like to repeat it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Would the hon. member repeat his question? I am very sorry, but I did not hear the end of it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Has the government in recent months given any consideration to the development of nuclear power in the maritime provinces?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Certainly we have. It is always under consideration.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister prepared to make a report on what has been done in recent months about this particular problem?


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Pierre Gauthier: Not interested in the east.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the report appearing in the Abbotsford, Matsqui and Sumas News to the effect that the Department of Transport would take over the operation of the Abbotsford airport from the Department of National Defence on April 1, 1958, will the minister make a statement to the house relative to the changeover and its effect upon those presently employed by the Department of National Defence?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. Negotiations are under way at the present time between the Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence regarding the future operation of Abbotsford airport by the Department of Transport as an alternate to the Vancouver international airport. These negotiations have not been finally resolved, although it is hoped that the arrangements will be effective April 1, 1958.


Regarding the personnel to whom the hon. member refers, I have been advised by the Department of National Defence that Abbotsford is on a care and maintenance basis and has been used for summer training. There are no civilians employed by the R.C.A.F. at this station.



FISH-STATEMENT AS TO NEWFOUNDLAND EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['The Solicitor General made some comments on that.\n(Translation):']
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) asked me, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
What action, if any, is contemplated by the government regarding Newfoundland Associated Fish Exporters Limited, otherwise known as Nafel?
The answer is that Newfoundland Associated Fish Exporters Limited is at present operating under the terms of P.C. 1954/957. If and when any change is made hon. members will be informed.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monimor-ency):: May I ask the Prime Minister a question. Following the statement made by the ambassador for Ireland to Canada last Sunday, October 27, as reproduced by the Ottawa journal, Le Droit, may I ask whether it is true that the government has decided on the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the report. After reading the report I will be in a position to give the same kind of answer the former prime minister used to give to that question.


Mr. Bourgei:: The Solicitor General made some comments on that.
(Translation):



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Neree Arsenault (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In Hansard of October 29, 1957, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) is reported as stating:
I did not do as did the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) who, after being returned as an independent, on the very day after the election proclaimed himself a Conservative member.

I would like to have this comment corrected, Mr. Speaker, as it is utterly untrue. In fact, on May 4, 1957, at New Carlisle, I was unanimously chosen as Progressive Conservative candidate at the official convention. On nomination day, I stated that I was a Progressive Conservative candidate and I was elected as such last June 10.


Wilfrid Lacroix: You ran your whole campaign as an independent candidate.
(Text):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Bourget: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Have reports been made to the department regarding the construction of a bridge between Three Rivers and Ste. Angele in the province of Quebec?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know of any such reports, but I will make inquiries.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Peter Stefura (Vegreviile):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I have not given him notice but perhaps he may be able to answer it. Would the minister comment on the steady decrease in the price of hogs on the Canadian livestock markets, and does the government intend to introduce legislation this session which would tend to stabilize the price of hogs?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, it was indicated in the speech from the throne and is further indicated by the resolution printed in today's Votes and Proceedings that we intend to bring in legislation to stabilize the prices of agricultural products. As far as the price of hogs is concerned, I think the hon. gentleman probably knows that the decline that has taken place in the price of hogs during the last month to six weeks is the sort of thing which has been going on for many, many years when the heavy fall run of hogs has come on the market.
Grain
(Translation):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Langlois (Berihier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General. Is it the policy of the Post Office Department, in awarding contracts to rural mail carriers, to disregard the lowest bidder?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, our policy regarding such contracts is to award them to the lowest bidder in all cases where it is possible to do so in a regular way.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Even if they are involved in politics?
(Text):



MEASURE TO PROVIDE CASH ADVANCES ON FARM-STORED GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 29, consideration in committee of Bill No. 14, to provide for advance payments for prairie grain prior to delivery thereof-Mr. Harkness (for Mr. Churchill)-Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Mr. Argue:: Mr. Chairman, ordinarily the practice in connection with these bills referring to agricultural matters has been to send them to the agriculture committee for study and consideration. We, of course, did not make that suggestion in connection with this bill because we did not want to hold up the proceedings of the house or the bringing into effect of the measure itself. But in so far as the general field of cash advances and agricultural policy are concerned, I think it would be greatly to the advantage of the members of this house, and to the agricultural industry of this country, if we could have a meeting of the agricultural committee during this session to discuss some aspects of a general agricultural program.
I wonder if the government has considered whether the wheat board officials might not be brought before the agriculture committee during the current session to give a report of their stewardship, and to allow members to inquire into the grain situation at this time. It seems to me there has been a very serious drop in export markets and grain sales. Grain prices, if anything, have been weaker in recent months. Furthermore, there is the whole question of procedure in regard to interim and final payments. I think that

Grain
when the agricultural industry is in such a bad way the minister and the government might give some consideration to having the agriculture committee meet to discuss the grain situation as well as the general agricultural situation in this country.
I wonder if the minister would care to say whether or not it is the intention of the government to have the agriculture committee meet during this session?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the agriculture committee will be set up in due course and the government will be glad to give consideration to the request of the hon. member for Assiniboia with regard to having the officials of the wheat board appear before the committee for some discussion and investigation into the present grain situation.


Mr. Hansell:: I did not speak on the second reading of this bill because I spoke during the resolution stage. Now that we are in committee, I should like to ask the minister to clarify one point. I have received some letters from individual farmers who are not too fascinated with this measure, if one can judge by the content of their letters. It appears that they may be under a misapprehension as to what it is going to cost to administer this measure. Of course, they assume it is going to cost something, and that the wheat board will have to pay it which, of course, means that the farmers of Canada as a whole will have to pay the shot whether or not they take advantage of it. In the house we have been given to understand that the administration costs, so far as the farmers are concerned, will be almost infinitesimal.
I wonder if the minister would care to make that point very clear? Perhaps he would rather wait until we are farther along with the bill, but if I can I should like to answer my farmers with regard to the cost in terms of the percentage of the cost of a bushel of wheat. If they think it is going to cost several million dollars, psychologically that seems like a lot of money. But if it is going to cost one-hundredth of a cent per bushel, that is infinitesimal. I wonder if the minister could inform the wheat growers on that particular point?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would be glad to do so. I am sorry to learn there is any misapprehension in regard to these matters. I thought I had made it very clear when I spoke the day before yesterday in introducing this bill for second reading. The administration costs which will be incurred by the elevator companies in issuing cheques to farmers, and the necessity of having to take on extra staff in order to handle and process applications,

are going to be assumed by the elevator companies. The three western wheat pools, the United Grain Growers and the line elevator companies agreed to assume these administration costs which they, themselves, would be incurring in carrying out the administration of this measure. The administration costs which the wheat board will be paying are those which are concerned really with the issuing of forms, the printing of those forms and the extra staff required to process the forms when they are returned.
The administration costs of the elevator companies on the one hand, and the wheat board on the other, would be extremely difficult to sort out from their general administration costs and therefore it was felt- and these people agreed-that the most practical way to handle this matter was for the elevator companies to assume the administration costs that they incurred as a result of operating this scheme and the wheat board to do the same. These administration costs are not going to be large. I think the estimate of the wheat board so far as their administration costs are concerned is somewhere between $100,000 and $125,000.
I should like to point out to the hon. member that any talk about millions of dollars of costs so far as the wheat board or the farmers are concerned is incorrect. The only costs that the farmers will have any part in at all in connection with this legislation will be this amount estimated at $100,000 or $125,000. The hon. member will find in a subsequent clause that one of the methods by which the wheat board might meet these administration costs is dealt with.


Ernest George Hansell: Can we assume, then, Mr. Chairman, that the administration costs will amount to merely a fraction of a cent per bushel?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it would be an extremely small fraction. As I say, the only costs the farmer will have any part in at all will be this $100,000 or $125,000 assumed by the wheat board.


Mr. Gardiner:: On that point, may I say that when my hon. friend suggests that these administration costs will not be very high, will that not depend a great deal on the responsibility which the policy of the government or the legislation itself places upon the elevator companies, whether they be pool or privately owned?
I would think that if the responsibility for losses is made to apply to those who are going to buy the grain, either they will have to go to considerable expense in order to make absolutely certain that they are not responsible for those losses or they will have

to be extremely careful about the advances they make. I should like to know just how that is going to be avoided. I should like to know how the placing of so much responsibility on the agent or on the elevator company is going to affect the amount of the advance that goes out.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I dealt with this matter fairly fully the day before yesterday when I indicated that the elevator companies have indicated their willingness to assume 10 per cent of the loss on any particular advance or on every advance that they make up to an over-all total of one-quarter of one per cent of all the advance which result from loans that any particular company made. That was arrived at as an amount which would give them a sense of responsibility in making the advance. It was considered that it was sufficient for that purpose so that the agents or the elevator companies would not, we will say, enter into wild competition with one another to put out advances. At the same time it is not sufficient so that it is going to impose a heavy burden on the elevator companies.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, I think it has been said that as a result of this bill providing for cash advances to the western farmer $100 million to $150 million a year would become available to the farmers of the west. I think this will strengthen our economy in the east as well. I think it was stated in the speech from the throne that all farmers will get a fair share of our national income. I hope this promise will be carried out in connection with the primary producers in the other seven provinces. I live in the Niagara district. We have much fruit there. Often the fruit rots on the ground and because of marketing conditions and because of the lack of storage the farmers there cannot dispose of their fruit. I hope they will get the same consideration as is being given to the western farmers. I may say that I support this bill in the hope that the farmers of Ontario, the fruit growers of the Niagara district and farmers everywhere, for that matter, will get similar consideration.
There was just one point in connection with this bill which I do not think was brought out. Government members and other members of the house said that this was emergency legislation. If this is emergency legislation, why does the government not treat it as such and put a time limit on the bill of, say, 12 months to 18 months? It seems to me that we cannot here assess the needs of the farmers of the west three or four years from now.
Grain
I recall that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce criticized us severely because our government was not selling more wheat. I think it is fair to say now that they are selling considerably less wheat then we were selling last year.
I refer to the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce went to England, presumably to sell wheat. At that time Britain placed an order with the United States for a considerable shipment of wheat. I certainly do not think the Minister of Trade and Commerce was very successful in selling wheat on that particular trip. I hope he is more successful in the future. I also sincerely hope that our government will make every effort to come to a better understanding with the United States with regard to their methods of wheat marketing so that they will not put us at any disadvantage in our wheat marketing. Certainly we have traditional markets and it seems to me that the United States are making inroads into those markets.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am glad to hear the hon. member for Welland say he thinks that this legislation will be of general benefit throughout Canada. I am sure that it will. I do not want any misapprehension, however, to be left in the mind of anyone that $100 million or $150 million is being given to the western farmers.


William Hector McMillan: I did not say that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I know that the hon. member for Welland did not say that but he mentioned $150 million. I want to make sure that there is no misapprehension along that line. This money is being put out in the form of an advance. We expect that the average length of time that it will be out before it is returned is about six months.
In view of the statements which were made in this house yesterday and the day before by some hon. members, particularly the member for Quebec-Montmorency, I think the impression may have been sent abroad that $100 million or $150 million was being given to the farmers of western Canada.


William Hector McMillan: I did not mean to imply that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I know that. I know that the hon. member for Welland did not say that. However, as I say, some other hon. members yesterday made statements which would leave that impression. I want to make it absolutely clear that no such thing is contemplated or is going to take place.
The hon. member for Welland asked why there was no time limit on the bill if it is emergency legislation. The reason there is no time limit on it is that we believe this

Grain
legislation should remain on the statute books and be available whenever there arises a situation such as the one we have at the present time. A situation such as this has arisen before. In fact, we have had it for the past three or four years. I refer to the inability of the farmers to deliver their grain in the fall of the year and a consequent shortage of cash. With the amount of surplus wheat we have at the present time there is no question that we are going to have difficulty along that line for at least the next couple of years. That is why there is no time limit on the bill. It is needed not only this year but it will be needed next year, and it may be needed at various times in the future. We therefore think it should not have a time limit but should remain on the statute books.
There was one other thing I wished to mention. The hon. member made a statement which was made yesterday and which I refuted yesterday, namely that we are selling much less wheat than did the previous government. I put the figures on the record yesterday and I am not going to repeat them. However, the period in which there was a really big drop in the sales of wheat during the last two years was in January, February, March, April, May and June of this present year. The figures for each of those months are very much under what they were in the year before. In some cases they are approximately half. In the case of June and May they are just over half as much as they were the year before; in the case of April they are considerably less than half as much as they were the year before; in the case of March they are about three-quarters; in the case of February they are about two-thirds or a little bit more than two-thirds; and in the case of January they are about two-thirds also. That is where the big drop in our wheat sales took place, namely in the period from January to June. Since that period the sales, although they have not been quite as high as they were last year, have been up fairly close to that point and we are hoping that they will constantly improve.


Mr. McCullough:: Mr. Chairman, I refrained from speaking to this bill both at the resolution stage and again on second reading. However, I do not want it to be taken that I have not an extremely great interest in this bill. I am one of those who over the years fought for this very thing. I intended to refrain from speaking at this time. However, I do not think I should miss the opportunity when the question was raised this afternoon with regard to this being a type of emergency program.
I want to point out to the government that I believe I already see some self satisfaction
[Mr. Harkness. 1
on the faces of its members and I detect a sort of feeling on the part of the government that there is cause for satisfaction because it is considered that this bill meets to a large extent the emergency in western Canada. I took the trouble to get from the dominion bureau of statistics the amount of the increased debt which has occurred in the three prairie provinces with which this bill might have to do and I found that in the period from 1945-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. This is the sort of speech which I think perhaps might have been out of order even on the second reading but I believe there is no question at all that it is out of order in committee of the whole. I think if the hon. member has any questions to ask in connection with the clause of the bill with which we are dealing he should ask such questions but he should not go on with his speech on what we might call general agricultural conditions and the relative position of the farmers, cash-wise, to what it was sometime in the past.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, I might say that I am quite familiar with the rules of the house and that one of the previous speakers speaking on the second reading went quite wide of the rules of the house in my opinion. However I shall now refrain from continuing with my remarks in this regard. Sufficient to say that I welcome this legislation; it will of course meet the immediate needs of the western farmer who perhaps has not been able to sell any of his grain. However, if this $150 million is divided amongst farmers the effect will be that the average loan will be somewhat less than five or six hundred dollars.
Now I would point out to the minister and also to the government at this time that this amount of money provided in loans under this bill has already been used up in amounts owing to the various people from whom the farmer has either obtained his fuel, his groceries, et cetera and also in respect of taxes. I therefore hope that the government will still regard this as a matter of emergency and will bring in their other program of price support.
What I had intended to ask the minister was this: since the elevator agents are the means by which advances are going to be made to the farmers, will it be necessary when the farmer goes to a certain elevator and makes application for a loan that he should make delivery of his grain to that specific elevator? In other words, would he have a choice subsequent to making application for his loan of going to some other elevator if he so desired?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out firstly that these are not loans; they are advances. Secondly, the answer to the question is no. That is why the endorsement appears in the permit book. The man may make delivery at any elevator into which he can get his grain.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, I have been home since this measure was before us in the resolution stage and I regret that my absence prevented me from being here last night to register my vote. Had I been here I would certainly have voted for the amendment.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to say to the hon. member who is now interrupting me that he should remember that there is no farm member from the province of Manitoba representing the Liberal party, which used to have such solid support. With six Liberal members voting against this measure last night my hon. friend is going to have trouble coming back next time because the people in his riding who are going to sell their produce to the people on the prairies will say they have to have something better than what they are getting.
I was asked by the farmers to say that they do appreciate the fact that this legislation is a big improvement over what we had before us last year but I was also asked to convey to the minister that the farm people do not expect this to be any solution of their problem. It is going to give them a little more cash than they had a year ago but I would point out that no public service is a reform and when the member for Quebec-Montmorency suggests that the taxpayers are voting $150 million, there is no such thing. It has been estimated that the interest is going to cost the taxpayers of Canada well under $10 million and I think it is pretty obvious, with all the major wheat producing countries having some sort of subsidy program and with the United States having 400 ships used to transport their wheat to India as part of a give-away program, something better than $10 million from the taxpayers of Canada to meet this crisis might be expected.
I think the minister, having in fact recognized it is a crisis, might well have included the cost to the wheat board of performing their necessary services and also the costs of the grain handling companies. I think, having admitted that this is a national problem, that it is not created by the Canadian people but is forced upon us by our competitors all over the world, the
Grain
minister might have considered making his government more popular still by including the administrative costs as a charge. He mentioned that it was not a large sum but I am sure that whoever will be here in a couple of years' time will think that the minister's estimates were way too low. I wonder if the minister has a calculation to show how much it would have cost if he had included enough to cover the administrative costs and the costs which the elevator companies will have to incur in connection with their work. Has he those two figures available?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I should like to correct a mistaken impression which I think the member for Mackenzie has and which I do not want the general public to get; that is that this is going to cost the taxpayer $10 million. It is not going to cost the taxpayer, we estimate, more than between $2 and $3 million. That is the amount of interest. If there is $100 million put out, the average length of time we estimate it might be out is about six months, as I explained two days ago, and therefore the cost will be something just over $2 million. Now if there is $150 million put out the cost will be something just over $3 million so I do not want any mistaken impression to get about that this is going to cost the taxpayer $10 million.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I was using the figure which the minister used when he was speaking in the French language in reply to the member for Quebec-Montmorency. However, I am glad to have this correction made at this time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The interjection I made when I used this figure of $10 million was because the hon. member for Melville had said the amount of the loans would not be more than $10 million. I said that on the basis that he had remarked there would not be as much put in as had been put into the loan system before and, therefore, on that basis, he was contending that the amount of this advance would not be more than $10 million. That is why I used that term in speaking in French.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend did not really say that when he was speaking. He indicated that I had intimated that there was a possibility it might not be any more. Now my hon. friend is sort of leaving the impression that I definitely said it would not be any more but I am very pleased that at this time he is correcting my hon. friend from Mackenzie. Now if he has recently told the farmers out west that they were going to get $10 million in interest paid under this bill, I can

Grain
quite understand why they were very enthusiastic about it. I would suggest if he made any such statements out there, such as he made in this house a few moments ago, he ought to go back and correct them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If I have made any statement which attributed something to the hon. member for Melville which he did not say I apologize for it and with regard to the statement or interjection which I made in French -since my French is not too good-I cannot guarantee exactly what I did say.


Mr. Habel:: It was a good effort.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, my question is addressed to the minister as an easterner and he probably has good and sufficient answers to deal with questions of this nature. Clause 2 (1) (j) reads:
"producer" includes, as well as an actual producer, any person entitled as landlord, vendor or mortgagee,-
I am wondering if this should not be extended to include paper title so there could not be two claimants for these benefits?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, we are not yet dealing with that clause so I do not think we should refer to it at this time. I might point out to hon. members that in the committee of the whole we cannot deal with the bill on a clause by clause basis until the first clause has been carried. Until such time we are precluded from dealing with subsequent clauses.


Mr. Denisel:: Mr. Chairman, the question on which I am rising is practically a question of privilege. Since I have been brought into this discussion I feel I must speak at this time. I thought there had been sufficient discussion in the last two days to render it unnecessary for me to get up and say I am in favour of this bill.
I come from St. Boniface which is a semirural semi-urban constituency. As the electors of St. Boniface know very well, I am keenly interested in agriculture. I did not think I would have to rise and say so but the hon. member for Mackenzie insinuated that perhaps there were no Liberals in Manitoba who were interested in agriculture and this is absolutely false as he well knows.


Pierre Gauthier: They keep repeating it just the same.


Louis Deniset: An impression has been created in this house by the C.C.F. party that the Liberal party is not interested in the farmers of western Canada and this also is completely untrue. The only thing that was correct in what the hon. gentleman said was that I was not a member of this house prior to June 10. Apart from that, however, his remarks had

no basis in fact and I wish to state at this time that I am extremely interested in agriculture and so is the Liberal party.
I would like to point out to the government the problem created by tax sales. Hon. members are probably aware of the great number of tax sales occurring throughout the province of Manitoba. The danger exists that most of this money will go back to pay arrears of municipal taxes. The municipali-ities will give the money to the banks and this will mean that not very much money will flow back from the west to the east. I therefore agree with those hon. members who have said that this is purely and simply an emergency measure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have a brief comment to make at this time. On October 24 the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) asked the Minister of Agriculture if in view of the reference in the speech from the throne to the government's intention of introducing a measure dealing with the stabilization of farm prices would it not be desirable to bring in this measure at the earliest possible moment? His question also suggested that legislation providing for the stabilization of farm prices might also be dealt with before the debate on the speech from the throne was concluded as is the case with the bill we are now considering and the various amendments to social legislation introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I am rising at this time simply to ask the Minister of Agriculture if in view of the importance of this question and the obvious interest in the subject indicated in all quarters of the house the request of the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) should now be given some consideration, particularly in view of the fact that he described the situation in the district from which he comes which, as in the case of the district from which I come, works a hardship on the primary producer. In my own constituency the corn growers, soybean growers and soft wheat growers are experiencing difficulty, as is the case with the farm community in general at this time. In view of this situation and on behalf of primary producers all across Canada I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture could not give us some assurance as to the decision of the government to deal with this matter at the earliest possible moment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I am very much aware of the difficulty which the farmers in my hon. friend's area have been experiencing this summer due to floods and other natural hazards as well as the difficulties they encounter in disposing of their products at favourable prices. I would just

Grain
remind the hon. member that in answer to a question raised this afternoon I said that this farm stabilization resolution appears in today's Votes and Proceedings and if he looks it up he will find it there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I saw it there.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It will appear on the order paper tomorrow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you very much.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think I can agree with the suggestion that this resolution should be brought down as quickly as possible. I know there is other important legislation before the house both in the resolution and bill stages and certainly we in this group would agree to postponing further discussion on the speech from the throne to assist in the speedy passage of some of this emergency legislation.
Earlier this afternoon the Minister of Agriculture said that generally speaking since August 1 our exports of wheat have not been too much below our exports for last year. I have in my hand the report of the board of grain commissioners as at the close of business on Wednesday, October 23 which arrived in my mail today and which contains what I believe are the most up to date figures.
Overseas clearances for wheat to date are 57.9 million bushels as compared with 67.7 million bushels for the same period a year ago. Other grains are also listed. Just a trickle of oats is being exported. Our exports of barley this year have been 5 million bushels as compared with 16 million bushels in the same period a year ago. The grand total of overseas clearances for all grains including wheat, oats, barley, rye and flaxseed from August 1 to October 23 this year is 66 million bushels as compared with 85.6 million bushels in the same period a year ago which indicates a drop of 19.4 million bushels from last year.
I am not disputing the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture because it is also correct. I think you can best compare a fall period to a previous fall period rather than to a winter or spring period and I think the situation as it exists is unsatisfactory. There has been a substantial worsening in our export picture, not as compared with the past spring but as compared with our exports of one year ago.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister what is the constitutional situation regarding this bill. Does the wheat board have a prior claim on the grain when
it is delivered over a province in its collection of, we will say, hail insurance? At the present time in Alberta, as the minister knows, when a farmer takes out hail insurance and signs a note and delivers the grain the elevator companies have a claim against that grain and the payment is made on the first delivery of the grain after the initial quota has been delivered. Will that claim for hail insurance take precedence over advances?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this matter is dealt with in a later clause and I think the proper time to discuss it would be when we have reached that clause. In answer to the hon. member's question, however, I would just point out that liens of that sort will be paid out of the advances as they are made in exactly the same way as they would be paid out of the initial payment on the initial quota. In other words, the advance is actually part of the money the farmer is going to receive for his initial payment and it will be dealt with in exactly the same way. I am sorry-I should have referred to his initial payment. I did not mean the unit quota to start with; that is out.


Victor Quelch: I asked the question because I had read clauses 10 and 11 and it did not appear to me that that point was very clear.


Mr. Siuder:: It has been intimated that the cost to the public of Canada under this system of advances will be somewhere between $2 million and $3 million, mostly made up of interest to the banks, as I understand it. I would like to have from the minister an approximate figure of what interest has been paid by the farmers to the banks under the old interim financing act. It will be recalled that the former government was under severe criticism for providing legislation that was described as catering to the banks, in that the farmers were obligated to pay five per cent interest on their loans. I would ask the minister whether he thinks that the banks are not being catered to if they are to receive through this legislation $2 million or more in interest without accepting any obligations whatsoever in any way, shape or form? Will the minister give a definition as to what legislation he thinks might be catering to the banks?
The other point I should like to suggest is that in the discussions that have taken place at various times, mention has been made of the mess the former government made of things and the problem it left on this government's doorstep with respect to wheat. That is not what was said before June 10. However, I should like to refer

Grain
back to around 1935 when about 300 million bushels of wheat were left on the government's doorstep at that time by the Conservative government and the new government in turn did a very fine job in handling it under difficult conditions.
Another point I wish to emphasize is that under the interim financing legislation the loans that the farmers received were unattachable. If this is not an extension or an improvement in regard to the amounts of the loans that the farmers received under the interim financing act I should like to know why these loans are not also unattachable?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The answer to the last question is: these are advances, they are not loans. They are advances on the initial price which the man is going to receive during the crop year, and as such they have to be treated in exactly the same way as the money that he would normally receive if he were able to deliver his grain. That is the reason for it.
The hon. member seems to be very concerned about the position of the banks in regard to this matter. I noticed he interjected in the debate yesterday the word "banks" once or twice. Now, I do not know just what his general idea is on this but the banks are lending the money which will be used for these cash advances. The banks are lending the money to the wheat board at 4J per cent. The normal bank rate for ordinary borrowers going in to borrow money from the banks at the present time is 54 per cent and 6 per cent. Therefore, the banks actually are doing very well by this scheme and by the wheat board in the rate at which they are lending this money.


Irvin William Studer: I agree they are doing very well in a different way.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to enter into any discussion at the present time. I rise merely to point out that for a number of years the Social Credit members have contended that there should be advances on farm-stored grain. They have also contended that there should be approved farm storage facilities erected on the farms or in areas very nearly contiguous to farms.
While this measure is a step in the right direction, it is our opinion that as we go on applying it and seeing it work we shall find deficiencies in it which we at the present time cannot foresee or recognize. Some of the danger spots that we see as Social Crediters, we will develop as we go forward and come to the appropriate clauses. I would just point out that as far as I and my constituents are concerned we are all in favour
[Mr. Studer.l
of advances on farm-stored grain and we are also in favour of the construction of approved storage facilities on the farms.
As far back as November 17, 1953, I made a speech, which is to be found in Hansard, in which this matter is entered into in considerable detail. Again on June 10, 1955, I made a speech in which this matter is developed in considerable detail. We believe that if appropriate measures in respect of finding approved farm storage are taken they will enable us to deal with many problems similar to the one which was raised by the hon. member for Essex East. We see no reason why grains of all kinds, which are more or less indestructible, cannot be stored and kept for use in case of a serious emergency, if we only take precaution to build approved farm storage and pay the farmer what he ought to have for the grain as soon as it is put into that approved farm storage.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: I do not want to delay the work of the committee. I come from a constituency in Montreal which certainly has no wheat growers, but I voted in support of the bill last night and I can approve of it for at least two good reasons. One, it has been suggested that it is emergency or relief legislation. Second, whatever will help a large section or segment of the Canadian economy will help other people.
The only reason I rise is to again put it to the minister, in support of the view which was spoken to briefly by the hon. member for Welland, whether this is, as the minister said in his answer it would be, as I understand it, available or needed for two years. If this is emergency or relief legislation, even though there are two groups involved, one, the wheat growers of Canada who themselves are taxpayers and, two, those who are not wheat growers but who are taxpayers, speaking for the taxpayers generally, including the wheat growers, should we, as a matter of general policy, in enacting legislation, whether it is of this character or not, if it is emergency or relief legislation, put it on the statute books as a permanent piece of legislation or, instead, for the foreseeable future which the minister, with the guidance of the members of his own side or representing all other parties in the house who are essentially wheat growers, can foresee as the period during which this emergency or relief measure is required?
Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I would believe that the majority of the people in the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George, if they studied the problem as it has been put before the house, would say, surely, it is not $100 million or $150 million lent or even advanced to the wheat growers of Canada; it is the

Grain
cost to the taxpayer of $2 million or $3 million plus administration costs plus, I would suppose, in the natural circumstances of life, a few loans or advances which will not be met. If that is so then we, as taxpayers generally of the country, are going to have a cost of $2 million or $3 million in one year.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the government, in its initial stage in office after some 20 years, should consider very carefully whether emergency or relief legislation should be placed upon the statute books of Canada as a permanent piece of legislation.


Mr. Si. Laurent (Quebec Easi):: Mr. Chairman, I have a question to ask the Minister of Agriculture. He told us yesterday that there had been telegrams exchanged with the pools and those who would be the agents of the wheat board in making these advances, and that the telegrams indicated they were quite prepared to co-operate with the government in carrying out the legislation and even to assume up to 10 per cent of individual losses as were not anticipated but as might be experienced up to a maximum of one-quarter of one per cent of the total amounts advanced by the respective organizations.
As I read the bill, there is no provision in it dealing with that matter, and I have considered the bill rather carefully. Is it the intention of the minister to have some provision in line with the statement he made in proposing second reading of the bill yesterday included in this legislation? The legislation will be the only document that will determine the respective rights of those who will be concerned in the matter. I understand there is provision whereby agreements can be made with banks or with others for the administration of the act but is it intended to rely upon the fact that before it becomes operative such matters can be covered by agreements with those who will be acting as agents for the wheat pools?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition may I point out that section 9, subsection 2, provides that the board may make such arrangements and enter into such contracts or agreements as the board considers necessary or advisable for the administration of this act. It is under this section that the board will have the power to enter into agreements with the elevator companies with regard to what losses may be assumed or anything else along that line. This is in line with the wheat board act under which the wheat board enters into arrangements or agreements with elevator companies for them to act as agents of the board in purchasing grain. Of course,
one of the reasons why the 10 per cent and the one-quarter of one per cent are not laid down definitely in the legislation and are covered under the right or power of the board to make arrangements or contracts is that experience might show that these were not proper figures. When the legislation is made use of next year a different agreement from the one which has been entered into tentatively already between the board and the elevator companies might be necessary or desirable.


Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East):: Then it is not intended to have any obligation by virtue of the legislation binding on those who will be acting as agents for the wheat board?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, that is correct.


George Carlyle Marler: Does the minister not think that the section to which he has just referred rather suggests the carrying out of arrangements contemplated by this legislation rather than arrangements which seem to me from reading the bill to be entirely foreign to the purpose? The purpose of the legislation is to make advances. I fail to see how section 9, subsection 2, to which the minister referred a moment ago, could be given the rather broader meaning which he seems to be giving to it at this moment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, the agreement or contract which the board will make with the elevator companies is in line with the type of contract they have been making with them for years past to act as agents of the board in buying grain. Of course, the particular form of that contract might, as I said, vary from time to time and from year to year.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Board may make advance payments.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wish to present an amendment to this clause and it will be in these terms:
That clause 3 of the bill be amended and that the following be substituted for subclause 4 of clause 3:
"No person who has received an advance payment under this act in any crop year and who is in default in respect thereof is, until his undertaking in respect thereof has been fully discharged, entitled to receive another advance payment in the same or any subsequent crop year."
The purpose of this change is to make absolutely certain that disentitlement flows from default and not from the failure to deliver grain. The explanatory note prepared by the legal officers of the crown puts the matter this way. The purpose of the amendment is to allow a producer who is not in

Grain
default and who, through no fault of his own, has been unable to deliver enough grain to fulfil his undertaking, to obtain a new advance in a subsequent crop year if he has sufficient unpledged and undelivered grain as security. The new section, of course, prevents a person whose undertaking is in default from getting a new advance until the default is remedied.
I think this matter was raised by one or two hon. members during the debate on second reading. They suggested that the possibility might exist that a man who had only been able to deliver 4 bushels of his quota or 5 bushels of his quota instead of 6 bushels and thus had been unable to repay his advance might be precluded from getting a loan in the subsequent year. The purpose of the amendment is to make certain that that situation does not arise.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: I was very
pleased to hear this amendment-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Excuse me. I should like to have one of my colleagues move the amendment.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I so move.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Chairman, before the amendment carries I want to commend the government for introducing this amendment because if it had not been moved a very serious defect would have existed in this clause in that the farmer, through no fault of his own, would have been deprived of the benefit of receiving an advance in a subsequent year because of his failure to deliver grain.
I am rising more specifically to deal with this first mention of threshed grain in storage. I should like the minister to correct an erroneous opinion that existed, in the first place I believe, in the weekly Winnipeg Free Press. This newspaper stated that the advance would be made only on grain threshed from this year's crop. I think the implication is that a farmer who may have 300 specified acres and who has a considerable backlog of grain, and who decided he would go out of wheat production completely, would not have any grain threshed in this crop year. I should like the minister's assurance that the measure applies to any grain in storage on the farm and not specifically to grain that is threshed in the particular crop year in which the advance is given.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If I might just answer that question now, I would say there is no question at all but that any grain which the farmer has in storage on his farm, whether it is grain from this crop year or three crop years ago, is eligible for the cash advance or

can be considered as security for the cash advance. I think that clears up the matter definitely.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I just wanted it cleared up because of the erroneous newspaper report.


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Before we pass on to the next clause, I wonder if the minister would consider qualifying that word "storage". I would suggest that some word should be included to ensure that the storage be reasonably weatherproof. I do not know whether or not it is intended that cash advances should be made on piles of grain lying in the open or in the type of bins which have no roof. Sometimes this type of storage is required temporarily on the prairies. I wonder if the minister would consider qualifying the storage with such words as "reasonably weatherproof".


Douglas Scott Harkness: The matter of putting into effect a system something like that which exists in the United States under which grain is put into what they called approved storage, which is mostly steel bins and then having people come out and inspect this storage, seal the door, and so on, was considered. However, we came to the conclusion it was impractical so far as a scheme of this kind was concerned. It would be extremely costly and slow and would hold up the issuing of the advances. We did away with that, therefore, and as long as the man has grain on his farm, it is the farmer's responsibility to store it. He has undertaken to deliver it, and it is this undertaking to which we hold him.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: May I point out that there might be serious criticism of advances being made on wheat in open piles; that is all I was suggesting. I was not suggesting that the storage be approved, but that it be acceptable farm storage, not necessarily steel bins. The grain could be stored in wooden bins or any bin that would be weatherproof; it is just a suggestion.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the question raised a few minutes ago with regard to the effect of the provision which is here and the relating of it to the fact that the 6-bushel quota is a limiting factor in the plan, am I not correct in saying that this does limit the amount upon which a man can get an advance to the six bushels per designated acre? There was no limitation of that kind before, that is a man could secure a loan equal to half the value of his grain; no matter what amount was handled he got up to $3,000.
I would think from reading the bill and from listening to the discussion that there is a further limitation. While no mention is made

of the fact it must be this year's quota, even if it is grain from three years ago which the farmer still has on his farm, he is not able to deliver more than the amount which would be covered by the quota for the year, up to six bushels to the acre. I think that would be correct.
While I am on my feet, I should like to say a word with regard to the suggestion made a few moments ago from the other side of the house. If this were a long-term storage plan, I think what the hon. member said would be absolutely necessary. But those of us who do farm in western Canada know it is quite customary, particularly I think in the area from which the hon. member from Kindersley comes, for farmers to have insufficient storage to take care of all the grain they grow in bumper crop years. It would not be a proper carrying out of their activities if they attempted to do so.
They may have enough storage to take care of grain in an average year which would be the average between the years when they grow very little because of drought and the years when they grow considerable because of good crop conditions. These farmers may have a considerable amount of grain stored out in piles. It is customary now to put these piles in much better shape than they were a few years ago. A man can get ordinary ply-board today and make a wall around the wheat to keep everything away from it. This keeps the grain in much better shape. If the farmer had to put a roof on that he would be put to an expense which would not be reasonable in connection with a measure of this kind. I agree with the minister that that would not be warranted in connection with this legislation. It would limit the number of farmers who would draw assistance from it and I would be inclined to agree with him on that particular point.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The question which the
right hon. member has asked, as to whether the effect of this measure is not more limited than the effect of the loan legislation introduced by the previous administration, I think is answered in this way. Theoretically it may be more limited but practically it is just the reverse. Under the loan legislation which his government introduced, during the period for which I gave the exact figures on second reading some $700 was the amount of the average loan, and for the second period the amount was $600. Under this legislation the amount which the farmers will be able to secure, we think, will be considerably in excess of that average.


Hazen Robert Argue: In so far as the question the hon. member for Middlesex West asked as to whether under this legislation there should
Grain
not be a provision requiring storage of a certain type, I might say I agree with the minister and the hon. member for Melville that that is not at all necessary. This legislation provides for certain advances against deliverable grain. While there may be some grain out under the snow, and some farmers have grain under the snow, I think any farmer who has grain exposed has probably many thousands of bushels in adequate storage. He has some grain under the snow because he has filled all his granaries, filled his barn and probably part of his house. He has run out of money, so he has to dump the rest of the grain out in the open field.
In the United States, of course, they have a system of inspecting the grain on which a loan or an advance can be made. This system has worked out very well. It is entirely different from our system, for one reason because the United States loan or advance is $2 a bushel and the advance here is 50 cents. If you offered the farmers of western Canada the United States system or this system I am sure they would accept the United States system even though the United States system required storage of a certain kind.
The man with grain under the snow, if he could get $2 a bushel for it would be able to put it in very excellent storage. Of course, in the United States system there is provision for the payment of storage if the grain is not accepted by the federal agency within the year in which the loan is made. I think the storage is 16 cents a bushel a year. Hence the two systems are not comparable at all.
I want to express to the minister my pleasure that the amendment that was presented has been moved. As I understand it,-and this was the point I was complaining about last night-this amendment will overcome the complaint I had made, namely that if at a local marketing point at the end of July a quota is available of only four bushels, a farmer who wishes to deliver six bushels and retire his advance and who has not been able to do so through no fault of his own will now be able to go to the elevator agent and get an advance for the next crop year on an additional six-bushel quota. I believe that is the effect of the amendment. If that is true, then it means that this is the first indication by any government that the government is prepared to provide the farmer with some money on the basis of what over the years, I take it, will work out to be a guaranteed delivery of six bushels an acre. At least it is saying that as far as the advance is concerned the farmer each year under this legislation will be able to get 50 cents a bushel provided that he is not in default and so on. If that is the intent of the amendment, I think

Grain
the amendment is extremely valuable and that it strengthens this legislation materially. It means-and this is not very much-that a wheat producer will be able to get an advance or an income of not less than $3 an acre per specified acre. It is very little but it is just a little bit more than he has had in recent years as far as a guarantee is concerned.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, the remarks that have just been made by the hon. member for Assiniboia go much further, in my opinion, than there was any necessity for going in discussing this particular section when he says that this legislation provides more than was ever provided before or makes some provision that was never given before. The government, of course, was not directly responsible in the same manner previously as it is now under this measure, to the extent that interest is now being paid by the government rather than by either the wheat board or by farmers in general. But the provision under the old bill was that it did not matter how much wheat the man had or what year he produced the wheat, he could go to the bank and, assuming that he was entitled to get $3,000, all he had to do in order to get that $3,000 was to prove that he had $6,000 worth ' of wheat on his farm. At that point he was not limited at all by any suggestion that this year's quota had anything to do with it. I can understand that there are some reasons for putting on the limitation that is now on, but nevertheless it is there. The farmer now is assumed to get one-half, as the argument went on second reading. Fifty cents a bushel is not half the price of No. 1 wheat. Fifty cents a bushel is considerably more than half the price of No. 6 wheat. Hence there is just a possibility-depending on what grades of wheat the man has-that 50 cents may be more than half. But let us assume that 50 cents a bushel is one-half, and I assume that what the government was attempting to do when they set this price was to advance approximately one-half.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes; to strike an average.


James Garfield Gardiner: To strike an average that would be approximately one-half. Our legislation simply said it was one-half of whatever grain a man had on the farm; that the amount of security he had to have was twice as much as the amount of money he could get. In effect it is the same intention. I still maintain that under that form they had then there is not as great a limitation as there is under this legislation because there is a further limitation beyond that based upon the quota which a man had for this year.
There are here in this house members from the west who know that there are many

reasons why farmers have grain on their farm. Some kept grain on their farms because the marketing of it, even at the time when they could market it, perhaps brought them more cash than they needed to have for the time being. It had some effect on income tax and other matters. There are some who are in that position. We also know that a farmer who has had one or two crop failures may find himself in quite a different position, and that even although he has a few thousand bushels of wheat sitting on his farm, he is needing cash now perhaps as badly as is the man who went along, delivered during the time and spent the money and so on. He is in difficulties. I say that this limits that man when he comes along now and attempts to market his grain.
I do not need to go into all the different examples one might use. I simply say that the man who came along with any amount of grain in his bins which was valued at over $6,000 could borrow $3,000, regardless of his acreage and the amount that he could deliver under his quota for this year. But now he is going to be limited further to whatever he could have delivered under his quota this year and the prices that are set for that acreage, 50 cents for wheat, 20 cents for oats and 35 cents for barley. I merely state that again because of what has been said by the hon. member for Assiniboia to the effect that previously there really never was as much offered. I think that under certain circustances more was offered.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think
perhaps I had better say that my right hon. friend still talks as though this were a loan on the same basis as the loan system which his government had in effect. Again I must reiterate that it is not a loan, it is an advance. It is part of the initial payment which the farmer would receive during that crop year as he delivered his grain and would be paid to him before he actually delivers his grain. That puts it in a very different position than if it were a loan.
As to the contention put forward by the hon. member for Melville, he himself said two days ago that only time will tell whether his contention is correct or whether mine is correct. I therefore do not think there is any use of our spending any more time on that particular matter. I would also point this out to him. If he thinks that this legislation is not as good as the previous legislation or that it does not provide as much opportunity, we will say, to the farmers to secure cash as did the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, I can say to him that that act is still on the statute books and if any farmer wants to take advantage

of that act he is still free to do so. He is not cut out of that act. He has therefore lost nothing as far as that act is concerned. However, he has gained the advantage of this act.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am prepared to agree with the minister. As I say, I would not have carried on the argument any further as between the minister and myself. But when an hon. member from another constituency which is not too far away from my own rises in his place and says that the situation is such and such, and that there never was as much offered before, I think it is necessary for me to answer that statement. That is all that I was doing.


The Chairman:: Shall clause 3 as amended carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 as amended agreed to.
On clause 4-Contents of application.
Victor Quelch: I should like a word of explanation from the minister. Does he anticipate that when a farmer goes to an elevator and signs an application he will then and there receive payment or does he anticipate that the application in some cases will have to be okayed by the head office before payment is made?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think that is a matter which is up to the elevator companies to some extent. The intention is that it should be paid at the time. I would presume that is the practice which most elevator companies will follow but it may be that some elevator companies would want to refer it to their head office before they paid out any money. I do not know.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Would there be any occasion in an instance like that where an elevator agent would have to go down and inspect the grain on the farm to see whether the application could go through?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, that again is I think up to the individual elevator company. If they think it is necessary for the grain to be inspected on the farm by their agents, of course that is done at their expense and that is their preference. The intention however is that the money will be in the farmers hands just as quickly as possible and we presume that in most cases it will be paid promptly by the elevator agents.


Charles Edward Johnston: Just on that point, Mr. Chairman there may be individual cases where the farmer may be delayed for quite a considerable time in getting this payment and I would like to know if I am right
96698-37J
Grain
in thinking that when he makes an application, which is in effect an affidavit he would be responsible for it and should therefore get his money unless, as the minister says, there is some unusual circumstance surrounding the transaction.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think that is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: I just want to raise one point with respect to a remark made by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, on I believe two different occasions, to the effect that the farmer will get the cash from the elevator agent. This is not the method by which it is done in the bill. It says "cash purchase tickets". He does not get cash from the agent, he gets it from whomever is the paymaster.


Douglas Scott Harkness: With respect to what the hon. member for Melville has said as to the meaning of the word "cash" in that form, what he would get is a negotiable instrument for which he could secure cash at any bank and most stores in his area.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the point; he must cash it at the bank.


Mr. Lambert:: 
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, it might be either. This clause is intended to provide particularly for the case of a man who, we will say, was entitled to an advance of $2,000. He might think he would only need $1,000, so he goes and gets an advance of $1,000; then sometime later in the season he decides he needs the other $1,000, so he then applies for it. It is to make sure that he will be in a position to do so that this provision is made.


Norman Platt Lambert: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I think there should be some clarification there as to whether it is in a particular crop year or in a previous year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It could be either and it is also to take care of an instance such as I have mentioned where there is a carryover from one crop year to the next. In other words at the end of the crop year a man may only have been able to deliver four bushels of his quota and had therefore not been able to discharge all of his advance.

Grain
He will then be in a position to go ahead and get the advance during the next crop year in spite of the fact that this had not been discharged.


Norman Platt Lambert: In other words it is perfectly clear that he must not make any declaration as to any previous fully liquidated advances. This says:
Whether he has received a previous advance payment, and if so, particulars thereof and the amount of undelivered grain in respect of which the previous advance payment was made.
I say on the strength of the minister's explanation it is quite clear that he has to furnish no particulars as to previous liquidated advances.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman, the
reverse is the case. He is entitled to $3,000 in the form of cash advances in any particular crop year and therefore we have to have the information in his permit book as to what cash advances he may have received in the crop year prior to the time when he makes his application, no matter whether it is liquidated or not.


Norman Platt Lambert: In that crop year?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In that crop year, yes.


Norman Platt Lambert: Not previous years.


Irvin William Studer: It is assumed that if an individual makes an application to an elevator agent and is refused, it does not preclude him from interviewing and shopping around until he finds an elevator agent who would be agreeable.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely correct. He can go to as many elevator agents as he likes.


Hazen Robert Argue: On that point Mr. Chairman it has to be the same marketing point.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is the delivery point, yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: Where he made his delivery.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Undertaking by the producer.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Chairman, sub-paragraph (b) says:
(b) upon default, he will repay to the board the amount in default, without interest prior to default but with interest at 6 per cent per annum after default.
Now there may arise a case-I admit it is possibly a far-fetched idea-where a man would die or cease farming operations and the default might run along indefinitely. Has consideration been given to making provision whereby default long overdue can be charged against the title of the land in the form of a caveat.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, consideration was given to that point, but in view of the differences between the provincial laws in the three prairie provinces and the different types of security which are already secured or are registered against the land and so forth, it was not considered that this would be a practical proposition.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer the minister to the subparagraph (a) which reads as follows:
(a) he will, after completing delivery under the unit quota and as soon as other quotas or other permission given by the board enable him to do so,-
I would like to ask the minister this question: What other permission given by the board enabling him to do so did he have in mind at the time he drafted that particular portion of the bill?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as an example of the others that are mentioned, there would be the special quotas or permission in regard to malting barley and there may be other circumstances of the same kind.
Clause 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Joint producers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On clause 6 Mr. Chairman, I have certain amendments which I would ask my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, to move. Clause 6 will be amended by making the present clause 6 "Clause 6, subsection (1)" and adding the following new subsections:
(2)	An application by two or more producers may specify the shares of the advance payment to be paid to each.
(3)	Where an application by two or more joint producers specifies the share of the advance payment to be paid to each such producer, and subsequently the undertaking is in default, a joint producer who pays to the board an amount that is in the same proportion to the amount in default as his share of the advance payment is to the total advance payment, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum after default, is, notwithstanding anything in this act, relieved of his obligation to make any further payment to the board in respect of the default.
I might say in explanation of that that the purpose of the amendment is to relieve a joint producer from his obligation on default to pay more than his proportionate share of the balance of the money due.
The landlord is entitled to one-third of the crop and therefore he is entitled to one-third of the advance. You may have the sort of situation where, we will say, an advance of $1,500 is given of which the landlord receives $500. The tenant might then by some dishonest means dispose of the 3,000 bushels of grain against which that advance has been made. It would be impossible for

him to deliver and the tenant after dishonestly disposing of the grain might depart from the country.
Under the provision as it existed it could have been possible that the landlord in such a case would have become liable for the whole $1,500 advance which had been made which of course would not have been fair and equitable. Therefore this amendment has been introduced to ensure that in the case of a joint producer of that sort, whether he be c landlord or any one else, he will not be liable for the repayment of more than the amount he receives initially in the event default does take place. I might say further that if this amendment had not been put in it might well have been that a considerable number of landlords would not have been prepared to sign applications and tenants would thus have been precluded from securing these cash advances. To ensure to the extent that we can that all tenants would be able to secure these cash advances we are moving this amendment.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I must say that from my first reading of this clause I thought it much broader than the minister explains is the case and in reading it carefully now I think probably I was interpreting it in a broader way.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did the same thing to begin with and that is why I had to introduce the amendment.


James Garfield Gardiner: Clause 6 reads:
Where two or more producers are entitled to deliver grain under one permit book-
I was interpreting it much more broadly than that. What would be the position of cooperatives where probably more than one farmer has a permit book but all the members have common interests? Then too, there is the question of how it would affect a partnership. Is each person in a co-operative in a position to receive an advance up to $3,000 or will there be just one advance of $3,000 to be distributed among a number of members? I would think that this clause does not go so far as to deal with co-operatives, partnerships or arrangements of that kind and if it does not is there any clause in the bill which does meet the situation? On the other hand, is there any necessity for it; is there legislation elsewhere that provides for these groups?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the person entitled to receive the advance of $3,000 is the producer or producers named in the permit book. The maximum advance is $3,000 as far as any one permit book is concerned.
Grain


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume there is provision in the wheat board act for how co-operatives and partnerships are to be dealt with. We have quite a number of these arrangements in the west. I recall we had to make some special provision for them under some legislation and I was just wondering whether they are covered by this bill.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The officials tell me that while there are co-operatives most of them are corporations and the question is handled from that point of view.


James Garfield Gardiner: And are they entitled to more than one permit book?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In most cases just one, I think.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the Minister of Agriculture grasped the full significance of the question raised by the hon. member for Melville. The situation is that if there were ten families belonging to a co-operative they would be limited to $300 per family under the proposed legislation. Until this crisis developed that situation was not too serious because the cooperative farmer or the farmer who was a member of a partnership expected to be able to deliver all the grain eventually and they were entitled to just one permit book, but with the existing situation where we have a large volume of grain piled up in some areas to limit co-operative farmers-and there may be as many as ten families dependent on one book-to $300 each is simply forcing these people out of business.
The same thing applies to partnerships. There have been a number of cases where two, three, or four farm families have formed a partnership in order to survive the result of the situation caused by the high cost of machinery. They are now placed in an impossible position if there is to be just one permit book for a partnership. For example, I have in mind a three-family partnership that has a large volume of grain on hand and only one permit book. Could the minister state what consideration has been given to making the advances on a family basis rather than on the permit book basis?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This whole scheme is tied in with the permit book system and we think it is only practical and workable because of this tie-in. In effect the permit book system constitutes the only security that exists for repayment of these advances and therefore any changes that might be made in order to take care of co-operatives and partnerships which hon. members have mentioned would have to be made as a result of a change in the general existing permit book system and whether this

Grain
could be done or whether we would consider it practical to do so, I just do not know.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder if the minister is able to say whether it will be possible under the regulations to review this problem. It is obvious that this was not a problem at the time the permit book system was first introduced but it is a problem right now. I would think that as long as the grain was there as security it should be possible for each of the ten families in a co-operative to receive the maximum amount. If they are limited to a total of $3,000 they will not be able to survive and will be forced off the farms.


Douglas Scott Harkness: All I can say is that if the co-operative or partnership-or whatever the hon. member had in mind might be-is entitled to one permit book under the present wheat board act and the existing permit book system it will still be entitled to it and also to the $3,000 cash advance. In the same way, whether or not there are ten families involved they are entitled only to the unit quota of 300 bushels of wheat and so on. This is a matter to which we will be glad to give further consideration but I cannot say anything further on it than I have already said.
At the moment it is essential for this scheme to be tied to the permit book system. Any defects in the permit book system which create an inequity, we will say, so far as deliveries which the member involved can make are, of course, just as apparent in this advance legislation as they are under what you might call normal delivery regulations.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, let us get back to section 6; let us for a moment examine just exactly what a joint permit holder is and some of the practical reasons why permits have been taken out jointly. There are some good and simple reasons why permit books are applied for jointly. One is that the income tax department, I am told, uses Canadian wheat board records in the initial stages and also for subsequent payments in determining or assessing a farmer's tax. The other reason, of course, is that it facilitates distribution of subsequent wheat board payments. That is the reason why many permit books are taken out jointly. I can see that this clause would possibly be workable in the case of individuals, landlord and tenant, and so on. But we must remember that many joint permit books are taken out in the name of an individual farmer and a provincial government or a municipal government. In Alberta they are taken out jointly with special areas, and so on.

The clause reads:
Where two or more producers are entitled to deliver grain under one permit book, no advance payment shall be made unless all such producers named in the permit book jointly make the application and execute the undertaking-
I know that some of these municipal governments are hard pressed for money but I do not think they would be willing to undertake a joint application with an individual farmer for these advances.
When the permit books are taken out the elevator agent usually asks you this question: "Is there anyone else interested in the grain or crop that is growing on the land that is specified in the permit book?" And when you tell him that there is someone else such as the department of lands and forests, special areas, or some other individual, then it becomes a joint permit book; but in practice, when you go to sell grain with this permit book there is no specific share designated and any one party can sell anywhere from one per cent to 100 per cent of the grain. Certainly, it would appear to me that if we leave this section in the bill then, unless those governments and other parties I have mentioned are willing to undertake to execute the application jointly the tenants are certainly going to be precluded.
In looking it over and being familiar with the practical application of what happens when there is a joint permit book, I would like to recommend to the minister that until and unless some changes are made in applying for a permit book so that in that permit book there are definite shares designated when you take it out he should delete this clause altogether.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, we cannot delete the clause altogether because this system would not work. In regard to the difficulties which are envisaged by the hon. member, I would say to him that anyone who has an interest in the delivery of the grain, or in the proceeds from the grain which has been grown on that farm, becomes a joint signer of the application and is classed with the producer and therefore his claims are protected in that way. If he does not want to take any advance all he has to do is sign the agreement with the tenant, we will say, on the farm getting the advance. He does not have to take any advance himself if he does not want to and then he would have no liability for repayment if a default took place.
The way the system will work is that the cheques will be made out jointly, if it is requested in the application that that be done; or it may be requested in the application and specified that the cheques will be

made out individually, we will say, two-thirds to the tenant and one-third to the landlord if the landlord has a one-third interest in the grain grown and the tenant two-thirds. Therefore, I think the difficulties which were envisaged by the hon. member were all looked after either in the legislation itself or they will be in the regulations which will be drawn up as provided for in this legislation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I can see that in the repayment the share is designated; but it seems to me that if we leave this in here and if there are some landlords who are either unwilling, or unavailable to the elevator agent, to sign the application the tenant will not be able to take advantage of this unless he can obtain his signature in the first instance when applying for the advance.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is quite true, Mr. Chairman, that if the landlord refuses to sign the application the tenant will not be able to secure cash advances; but it is essential that the landlord, or whoever else has an interest and right to secure a share of the grain produced on that land, sign the application otherwise the scheme would fall through.


Norman Platt Lambert: I should like to make one point on this because for some years past I have represented unpaid vendors, people who have retired off the land and sold their land on a crop-share basis. There have been far too many occasions where those people have been left completely at the mercy of the purchaser as to whether payment was made or not. The excuse was always that the grain was not marketed. I feel that here is an opportunity for those people. I can assure hon. members that the cases of hardship in that instance are almost as difficult as those who bought land or who are tenants on the land. Many of those people are old and sick and they now have an opportunity to get some of the money to which they are entitled. I feel that this is a method by which they can get protection- they have notice-when the advance payments are made; otherwise they might not, because hon. members will see in other sections of the bill provision is made for liens on the grain and one thing and another. The grain is completely dissipated and they must wait another year. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the wording of the clause remain as it is.


Charles Edward Johnston: May I say a
word on that? From what the minister said a moment ago it seems to me that there may be considerable difficulty as a result of this clause. The minister indicated a moment
Grain
ago that if there were a landlord and a tenant the landlord might be entitled to one-third and the tenant to two-thirds of the cash advances. But in the case where the landlord refused to sign the permit book, no matter how urgent the need was for the tenant to get his share of the cash advance, he would be prevented from getting it. It would seem to me it would be rather easy to have an amendment to this section as to permit the tenant to get at least his two-thirds of the cash advance whether or not the landlord wished to take advantage of his one-third; otherwise you could get a landlord who might say to his tenant, "Well I do not need this money; I am just not going to sign away my right."
I can understand quite well that this may happen. If the landlord happens to be ornery, let us say, the tenant is put in such a position that he would not get any relief under this legislation no matter how greatly he needed it. I would think that the minister should have another look at this. Possibly he could let the clause stand until tomorrow and see if it cannot be amended in such a way as to relieve this difficulty. If it has to go through this way then it will have to but if this situation can be relieved in any way I think that every effort should be made to amend the clause in order to avoid this predicament.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Bow River is labouring under fears which are not justified. There is no advantage to the landlord in refusing to sign the application and there are considerable advantages to him in signing it. By signing the application he loses absolutely nothing and cannot lose anything. On the other hand, he gets his share of the crop and really his only interest in the land is to get his share of the crop. He gets paid for part of his share of the crop immediately instead of having to wait several months for payment. That immediately reduces his risk and it gives him money in hand which he can use for other purposes. It is all to his advantage to sign the application. Now that this amendment has been introduced so that there is no chance of him having any liability for any money except the money he actually receives I do not see any reason why he would not sign. Why should he refuse to sign? Self-interest and everything else, particularly his interest in keeping on good terms with his tenant, would all lead him to sign. I do not think the hon. member needs to be afraid on this point at all.


Charles Edward Johnston: It might be that no trouble would arise but I think there would be instances where the landlord just would

Grain
not sign and under those circumstances I cannot see why it would do any harm at all to include a clause that would protect the tenant. As the minister says, it would appear that everything would be in the interest of the landlord to sign but there are landlords who just do not want to sign these things no matter whether it seems to be to their advantage to do so. In that case the tenant would be penalized and I do not think that should be allowed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The simple answer as to why it cannot be done is that if you tried to do it in that way and give the tenant an advance on the two-thirds of the grain which he is entitled to deliver and to get the initial price for, you would have to segregate the grain. In other words, you would have to go back into the business of sending somebody out to the farm to see that the grain was segregated on the farm and take only security on the two-thirds share which belonged to the tenant and leave out the one-third share which belonged to the landlord. It would make the thing impractical and, as I pointed out before, I cannot see any reason in the world why the landlord would refuse to sign. The advantage is all to him if he does sign.


Mr. Jones:: Could the minister tell us what would be the effect on an application under this section if a producer happened to die after the permit book was issued and before the advance was made?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The legal adviser tells me that the executor of his estate would then sign the application.


Henry Frank Jones: I expect, of course, that that would be the case after the executor or administrator of the estate is appointed, but quite frequently there is an interregnum due to many causes. Could some provision be made either here or in the issuing of permits to cover that situation?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, the length of the interregnum would probably not be long in most cases and if there was a real emergency to secure cash he could always act under the Bank Act.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the tenant has
an interest in the grain and I certainly cannot go along with the idea, if we are going to make cash advances available to people who have an interest in grain stored on farms, that the tenant, in order to obtain an advance must be dependent on whether or not his landlord will permit him to do so or will sign his application with him. Inasmuch as the tenant has the grain he should be able to go individually and get his advance. If

this clause is going to be left in the legislation, then I think the minister should give serious consideration to making some changes in the application for a permit book so that it will clearly designate the shares of the tenant and the landlord in the grain because then the amount of the advance could be determined in accordance with the shares so designated.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 as amended agreed to.
On clause 7-Amount of advance payment.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, there is an
amendment to clause 7 consequent upon the amendment made to clause 3. It is simply a matter of clarification. I would ask my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to move it for me.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I move:
That subclause 1 of clause 7 be amended by deleting therefrom, in line 14, the words "in the same crop year", and adding thereto in line 12 after the word "applicant" the words "has in storage otherwise than in an elevator and".


George Carlyle Marler: May I ask what is the purpose of the amendment?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is simply to bring this
clause into conformity with clause 3 as amended.


George Carlyle Marler: In other words, to contemplate advances in more than one crop year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the first point in
connection with it and that is why we are taking out "in the same crop year".


George Carlyle Marler: What are the words that
are added? I am afraid I could not hear the chairman.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The words are: "has in
storage otherwise than in an elevator and". Those words come in immediately after the word "applicant". The subsection would then read:
Subject to this section, the amount of an advance payment to a producer in respect of the grain deliverable under the permit book specified in the application shall be the quantity of threshed grain (irrespective of its grade and excluding grain deliverable under a unit quota) that the applicant has in storage otherwise than in an elevator and undertakes to deliver to the board, less any undelivered grain in respect of which a previous advance payment was made, multiplied by . . .


George Carlyle Marler: I understand.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

On clause 10-Lien on grain.
Peter Stefura: This clause reads:
Where the board has made an advance payment to a producer, the board has a lien for the amount thereof on the grain in respect of which the advance payment was made.
A question arises here as to whether the lien will be on all the grain the farmer has in storage or whether it will be just on the six bushels per acre quota. The minister has mentioned that the hail lien will take precedence over this lien and I was wondering whether or not some of these provincial liens, municipal tax liens and other provincial liens would take precedence over this lien for the advance. What will actually happen is that the farmer will get these cash advances and he will just pay off his liens. He will not have any more cash than he had when he started.
Not only will that be the case, but if the lien covers all the grain held on the farm he will not be able to sell grain or obtain a further loan from a bank. Let us say a farmer has a ten bushel to the acre crop. He will not be able to get a loan on the amount over the 6-bushel quota. I think that word "grain" should be qualified to mean the amount of grain this lien actually covers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It covers the grain on which the advance is made. In other words, if a man has secured an advance of $3,000 on a security of 6,000 bushels of grain, that is what is covered and that is the grain on which the lien exists.


James Garfield Gardiner: Supposing a man has 10,000 bushels and he is able to get an advance on only 6,000 bushels. There has never been any separation made of the grain and perhaps he has the 10,000 bushels in one pile or in one bin. Unless there has been a separation of the grain, is the lien on the whole
10.000	bushels or is it only on some portion of it that is not designated?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is on the 6,000 bushels. From a practical point of view, this is the situation. If he had 10,000 bushels, he would be at liberty to take 4,000 bushels out and feed it or sell it or do anything else with it. But if he takes out some of the 6,000 bushels, in other words, if he gets down below the
6.000	bushels then he becomes liable for the penalties mentioned here because he has been selling some of the grain on which he has obtained an advance.


James Garfield Gardiner: Assuming he needs an advance on the other 4,000 bushels, is the whole
10.000	bushels tied up in such a way that he cannot go to the bank and get an advance on the other 4,000?
Grain


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, he would be at liberty to segregate the grain himself if he wanted to. So far as the wheat board is concerned, if he has taken an advance on 6,000 bushels of grain, in other words taken an advance of $3,000, the board has a lien on 6,000 bushels of grain. If he sells some of that 6,000 bushels or otherwise disposes of it he puts himself in default and is liable for the penalties provided. If he has 10,000 bushels, he can do anything he likes with the other
4,000	bushels over and above the 6,000 on which the advance has been made and which are security for that advance.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not worrying about either the wheat board or the banks, for that matter, or any other person, but here is a man who owns 130,000 bushels of grain which is in one pile on the prairie. I know many who may have 20,000 bushels in that way, and if a man is not able to deliver his wheat, if he is in difficulties, and he can be -it is all very well for some of my friends to say that he is not in much trouble if he has that much wheat; sometimes a man who is in that position is in more trouble than the person to whom he owes money-if he does get an advance, whether he has 12,000 bushels or 14,000 bushels, then he is not able to go to the bank and borrow against that amount which is over and above the amount covered by the lien. He is not able to borrow until he has cleared up the whole situation with the wheat board.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman, anyone v/ho has 20,000 or 30,000 bushels of wheat will never get into any trouble under this measure. He will always have the 6,000 bushels which acts as security for the $3,000 he has had as an advance. What he does with the remainder of it is his own business.


James Garfield Gardiner: But after he has cleared up his business with you? You go to the bank with that lien and see how much money you will get.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have made an advance on the 6,000 bushels, and what he does with the rest is his business. If he can get a loan from a bank or from anywhere else, it is all right; it is his business.


Peter Stefura: Does this lien take priority over the liens for municipal taxes or some of the other liens we have in the province of Alberta?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, we believe that we have got around all the difficulties in connection with liens, such as thresher liens, hail insurance liens, municipal tax liens and so forth, by providing when the advance is issued that it will be dealt with

Grain
in exactly the same way as if the farmer had delivered the grain and received his initial payment on it.
As hon. members know, out in our country each elevator agent has a list of the farmers' names, and under each name he has a notation of the liens which are against that man. If there is a municipal tax lien of $200 and the farmer comes in with a big load of wheat, for which he is to receive $400, the elevator agent gives him $200 in cash and the other $200 he pays to the municipal district to cover the taxes. Exactly the same thing will happen in so far as these advances are concerned. When a farmer comes in to obtain a cash advance, the elevator agent looks at his list just the same as he would if the farmer were delivering wheat. Then the agent pays him off accordingly and the persons who had liens are thereby looked after. When it comes to the actual delivery of the grain, these lien holders have no claim against that particular grain on which the advance was made because they have already been paid.


Peter Stefura: I am not quite clear on this. For example, in the municipality from which I come a farmer must pay his taxes by the end of November. Suppose he has already obtained a cash advance and at the end of November he does not pay his taxes. The municipality sends out the sheriff to seize the grain. Now, which lien has priority, this lien or the municipal tax lien?


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the wheat board lien were taken out first, which would be the case, it would have priority over the subsequent lien.


Peter Stefura: I understand that in the province of Alberta the municipal tax liens come before any other liens.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Actually, in the province of Alberta they do not, they come after threshers' and several others.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid the minister is treating this legislation in the way one would treat any piece of legislation that simply deals with selling something upon which there is a lien. However, that is not the purpose of this legislation. The purpose of this legislation is to make cash available to the farmer. These liens which are filed with the elevator agents, in most cases, represent more than the farmer would receive from these advances. A lot has been said about the average amount of the loans that were obtained under the interim financing act. They averaged around $600, $700 or $800, but the farmer will not obtain any more under this measure. The other day the

minister put figures on Hansard to indicate that most of the farms are small farms, and the average farmer will not be able to get more than that amount under this legislation.
He goes to the elevator and the first thing that is taken out is an amount for his taxes. In many cases that can be $400 or $500. Then if there are some other liens in addition they are taken out and he is sent home without any money at all. That is not the objective of this legislation. The objective of it is not to pay the accounts that the man could pay if he had marketed his crop, the object of the legislation is to put some cash in his hands so that he can carry on until such time as he can deliver his grain and get cash, and that means going to the merchants in the village with whom he deals and paying cash for what he buys. He cannot pay cash if he has paid it all out in taxes which were overdue and so on. I suggest this provision limits the benefits far more than I had hoped it would.


Charles Edward Johnston: When I was speaking the other day I made reference to the unfair position in which the farmer was going to find himself. I had special reference to section 18 of the act. However, I see now that it also applies to this section 10, as has just been pointed out by the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Melville. I pointed out the same difficulty yesterday when I was speaking, namely that this legislation was primarily intended to give assistance to the farmer to pay those bills which are most urgent, such as a grocery bill or a doctor bill, to buy clothes for the kiddies and so on. This legislation is not going to give him that advantage. Not only are the liens or taxes to have priority but the government itself has priority if the farmer has borrowed under the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act.
If you take out all these obligations that have been piling up on the farmer back over all these years,-if he has any arrears of taxes; if he has borrowed money under the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act and if he owes other obligations which have liens attached to them-then the farmer is not going to get anything at all out of this advance.
As the minister pointed out to us the other day,-and I referred to the matter yesterday, -about two-thirds of the farmers of the western prairies have about 300 acres or less which will qualify for this advance. That means that they are not going to get more than about $900 at the most. When you take out the obligations where he has given security by liens, the farmer is just not going to have anything to take home with which

to pay the groceryman or the butcher or to buy much needed clothes for his family for this winter.
Surely that was not the intention of the act. When the minister was speaking the other day on this bill he went on at some great length to point out how urgently this money was needed by the farmers at this time because they could not pay their bills, and he said this legislation is going to be of great help to them. Now the minister says that the farmer is just being placed in the same position as that in which he would be placed if he were getting his initial payment. That is not true at all. If he were getting his initial payment, he would be getting $1.40 and he would have some money to do something with. But here he is going to get only 50 cents. There is a great deal of difference between 50 cents and $1.40.
If the government really intended that this legislation was to be of some assistance to these farmers who now find themselves in need of some cash, surely they should give the farmers some consideration in this regard and these liens should not have priority over this cash advance. I am not suggesting for a moment that the farmer should get out from under his obligations. However, I am suggesting most emphatically that he should have an opportunity to provide for his family first. I want to make that point clear. This is an emergency. It is something that has arisen. The farmer is just desperate. Surely we are not going to allow this so-called emergent measure to deprive the farmer of the opportunity of buying those necessities for his family and of paying the proprietor of the small grocery store or the small butcher shop or those others who have been financing him over this period. If something is not done we are going to find that many of the farmers will be disappointed in this legislation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The logical end of the sort of argument we have just been hearing would be that there is no advantage at all to the farmer in being able to deliver his crop because he owes debts and as he delivers his crop in the normal course of events the
Grain
debts that he owes are subtracted from his deliveries by the elevator agent. That is the logical end of this argument, namely that if he has debts there is no advantage to the farmer in delivering his crop, that he might just as well not deliver it. This argument really is that there is no advantage in his delivering half his crop, because essentially that is what he is doing, or at least he is getting paid, we will say, on the basis of delivering half or as though he had delivered half his crop. The advance payment, in the average case, will amount to approximately one-half of what he would have got if he had been able to deliver the whole six-bushel quota which we expect is the amount the farmers will be able to deliver this year.
The hon. member's argument simply amounts to a statement that if the farmer has debts there is no advantage to him in delivering grain. I just cannot see why anyone should carry on an argument of that kind. Inevitably where it leads you is to the conclusion that if the farmer has debts he should be given an advance whether he has debts or not and that his debtors should be just forgotten about. I do not think you can do that, particularly when the debtors are probably the people who threshed for him, the people who gave him hail insurance, the municipal district to which he pays taxes and so on.


James Garfield Gardiner: Six o'clock.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what is to be the business for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall continue with this bill. Then we shall take the resolutions standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, then the resolutions standing in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and then the throne speech debate.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question, pursuant to standing order.
96698-38J
[Stage Direction]
Questions