1957-03-26

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hunter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance which I asked yesterday in his absence. First, will the minister comment on the dispatch in yesterday morning's Gazette stating that Mr. Gordon Ball, president of the Bank of Montreal, has called on the government for a prompt "public announcement that no fundamental changes in the Canadian banking structure are contemplated without the fullest possible investigation of what might be involved"? Second, will the minister say what form of investigation will take place? Third, can the minister comment on the statement in the Gazette dispatch which says that Mr. Ball "has approached Finance Minister Harris about Mr. Coyne's proposals outlined in the Bank of Canada's report earlier this month"?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asked this question yesterday. I was regrettably absent, but I was notified of it by my staff. Later in the day, I issued a statement to the press which hon. members might have seen, but which I feel I should read into the record. The statement is made in this form:
I have not seen the text of Mr. Ball's statement, nor has a copy yet reached my office. I have, however, seen extracts which have appeared in today's newspapers.
In his annual report, the governor of the Bank of Canada made a reference to the wide fluctuations in the chartered banks' general loans as well as in their investments in longer-term securities and in insured housing mortgages, and expressed the view that it would be desirable to explore means of encouraging a greater degree of stability and continuity in these forms of investment. He made it plain both in his report and in prior and subsequent talks with the top officials of the chartered banks that no radical, fundamental or early changes in the banking structure were contemplated. He went on to say in his report that "the possibility of a gradual approach" toward making some distinction between personal savings and the commercial lending field "would seem to be worthy of study
and discussion". The approach suggested for discussion, as I understand it, would reduce rather than increase the central bank's present influence over savings deposits which are at present of necessity treated in the same way as commercial deposits.
In any case no "radical", "fundamental" or "precipitate" actions relating to the structure of Canadian banking have been suggested, nor are they contemplated by the government.
I think that is sufficient comment, Mr. Speaker, on the statement issued by the president of the Bank of Montreal. In answer to the other question asked as to the approach that the president made to me, I may say that approach consisted of a statement by Mr. Ball that he felt the question that the hon. member for Greenwood asked of me earlier this month, and my answer, in which I said that any discussion of this kind and any changes would be recommended by the government, if by anyone, in the normal way of amendments to the Bank Act, had not sufficiently emphasized the fact that none of these things could occur without government recommendation to the House of Commons, followed by action of the house in either accepting or rejecting these proposed amendments. I wish, therefore, to make it quite clear that what has happened is that the governor of the bank has suggested for discussion certain questions and that the government does not intend to make recommendations along those lines to the House of Commons. Should any recommendations of that kind be made on future occasions, they would be subject to full discussion both in the house and in the banking and commerce committee, and would have to be taken by way of amendments to the Bank Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I point out to the
minister he has not actually answered the first two questions, that is the suggestion that this matter be inquired into, and secondly the method of so doing.


Walter Edward Harris: I am afraid I do not understand. Any inquiry as to the wisdom or otherwise of the course being suggested would be by way of debate on a recommendation by the government, as I understand it. As I say, no such recommendation is being made.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But has not the suggestion been made to the minister that there should be an inquiry? I, myself, suggested that the banking and commerce committee might be summoned for this reason. Is there

Inquiries of the Ministry no suggestion emanating from the minister except that the general question will be dealt with in a proper manner? That is what the minister is saying. Is there nothing more definite that can be said?


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure my hon. friend would be the first to disapprove of any other course than the government accepting as policy a certain course of action, recommending it to the house and then having a discussion here.



INQUIRY AS TO SURVEY OF POPULATION FIGURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister yet received from the dominion statistician the survey of population figures required to be furnished to him as soon as possible after February 28, 1957, under the 1952 tax rental agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Prince Edward Island?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Speaker.



ALLEGED FAILURE OF &quot;READER'S DIGEST&quot; TO PAY EXCISE TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue supplementary to a question and answer on March 7. Has Reader's Digest yet made any payment with respect to the tax on advertising in non-Canadian periodicals? If not, what is the present status of the matter?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of Naiional Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, my last information is that the assessment has not yet been paid, and the matter has been referred to the Department of Justice.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I ask a
question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Both the Toronto and Montreal morning newspapers report that the Minister of Fisheries announced in British Columbia that the government has approved of extending aid up to $300 million to the [Mr. Macdonnell.l
province of British Columbia for the development of power on the Columbia river if problems currently under consideration are satisfactorily resolved. Would the minister say if this is in fact government policy, and if a firm decision to that effect has been reached? If so, would he inform the house as to the important details of that policy?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, a number of members have given me notice of their intention to ask questions about the same subject. They were the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Jones), the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud).
I believe, sir, that the best way to deal with all these questions is to read into Hansard the text of the statement which was handed to the press in Vancouver yesterday by the Minister of Fisheries. Before reading this statement I should say I have learned from the Minister of Fisheries this morning that in his statement he never mentioned any figure of expenditures, and particularly the figure of $300 million. If I can have your indulgence to read it, sir, here is the statement:
In 1955 parliament passed the International River Improvements Act giving the federal government jurisdiction over works constructed on rivers crossing the international boundary, and over the flow of water from these rivers across the boundary. The purpose of the act is to assure maximum power development in Canada from such rivers, and maximum power return to Canada from downstream power development in the United States as a consequence of water storage in Canada.
The international joint commission has endeavoured to negotiate an agreement on the division of these downstream benefits, but little progress has been made. To expedite a settlement, the government of Canada and the government of the United States entered into direct negotiations at Ottawa on March 19 this year. An early agreement will speed up industrial development in both British Columbia and the northwest states, and will save the Fraser river fisheries from the threat of power development.
Once agreement is reached on the division of power between the two countries, it will be the responsibility of the provincial government of British Columbia to decide whether privately owned or publicly owned agencies are to develop this power on the Canadian side, and to distribute the power received from the United States in return for downstream benefits derived from Canadian water storage.
This project will be a vast one, entailing large-scale investment. Normally power development within a province is the responsibility of the provincial government. Parliament, however, has given the federal government a measure of jurisdiction over the Columbia river as an international stream, so the federal government has a measure of responsibility, too, which it has accepted so far by spending almost $5 million on engineering surveys.
If, after international agreement has been reached, the provincial government should decide

on public development of this great power potential and need assistance in financing, the federal government will be prepared to assist in the same way that it has joined with the government of Ontario in constructing the interprovincial gas pipe line across northern Ontario, and has offered to assist the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to build an interprovincial power grid linking the thermal power plants of Nova Scotia with the hydroelectric power plants of New Brunswick. Such assistance is not indirect, by way of subsidies, grants or guarantee of bonds, but by direct participation either in joint crown companies or federal crown companies doing specific sections of the development. Since this project will unquestionably be self-liquidating the provincial government can over the years buy out the federal government's interests in the usual way.
The most obvious advantage in this course is the fact that the federal government can finance such work at considerably less interest charges than either the provincial government or private power companies, with consequent savings to the consumer.
This is but another example of the way the federal government is willing to encourage sound economic development in every part of the nation.
I should add one word. It is that when the Minister of Fisheries speaks of linking the thermal power plants of Nova Scotia with the hydroelectric power plants of New Brunswick he is oversimplifying it a little. In both provinces you find both sorts of plants, and the aim is to link them. I should also add that it should not be understood from this statement that the possibility of the diversion of the Columbia river to the Fraser river has been abandoned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask two supplementary questions. May we take from what the minister has said here today that this statement represents firm government policy; and second, what would be the situation if it should be decided that the power development on the Columbia should be under private enterprise?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Fisheries said, subject to the qualifications I have mentioned, is government policy.


Mr. Rowe:: What are the qualifications?


Jean Lesage: If the provincial government decides it is better to have the power developed by private enterprise it will be developed in that way and not by the federal government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would there be any assistance under those circumstances?


Jean Lesage: The provincial government is the first jurisdiction responsible for its natural resources so it will be up to the provincial government to decide if it wishes the development to be made either by private enterprise or by the federal government or by the federal government with the
Inquiries of the Ministry provincial government under an authority like the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a spontaneous supplementary question and I do so with great glowing pride and justifiable satisfaction.
Does the minister realize that this policy of co-operation with the federal government with respect to the development of the Columbia river was first advocated in this house by the hon. member for Kootenay West supported by the far-seeing group of colleagues surrounding him?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I do not know since when this has been advocated but I know that since 1953, when I assumed charge of water resources in the department, and in the time of my predecessor these questions were the subject of very serious study and not only of speeches.


Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Would the $300 million figure credited to the Minister of Fisheries be construed as a figment of the imagination of one of the newspaper men who may have received a copy of the minister's statement, or could we construe this as a figure which resulted from any supplementary comments which may have been made by the Minister of Fisheries to the written statement he gave the press? If the former, does the government disown it, and if the latter does the government endorse the figure?


Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to please answer the question I directed to him earlier, because $300 million is still a lot of money.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi.



SAINT JOHN RIVER DEVELOPMENT


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the minister. I understood him to say that the federal government would assume a measure of responsibility over the international rivers if the provinces decided on developing them. He also mentioned the fact that they were
2686	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry assuming some responsibility tor the development of thermal power between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. My question is this. If the province of New Brunswick decides that it needs to go ahead with the development of the Saint John river will the same policy be held by the government that they would give assistance to the province of New Brunswick for the development of the Saint John river?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, about eight days ago I received from Premier Flemming a letter enclosing the engineering data about possible storage on the Tobique river and the building of a third hydro unit at Beechwood. This has been the subject of study since and I replied this morning to the premier of New Brunswick. I do not believe it would be fair to either the premier or the subject matter itself if I tried to give a resume of this correspondence which involves complicated and difficult engineering data.
I knew that because of the interest that has been shown in the house in this subject questions would be asked about it so at the end of my letter to Premier Flemming this morning I said that I expected questions-especially from the hon. member for Royal-and that I felt I would have to table the correspondence.
The letter was sent this morning and in all decency I think I should wait for a few days before tabling that correspondence which will be a full answer to all the questions that the hon. member may ask concerning the development of the Saint John river and especially with regard to a third unit at Beechwood and storage on the Tobique river. I have nothing further to add at this time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That was not the question I asked at all, Mr. Speaker. The minister said they would assist British Columbia to develop the Columbia river, and I was asking if they would do the same thing for the Saint John river in New Brunswick, which they have already refused to do.


Jean Lesage: I do not agree with the hon. member when he says we have refused to help. I should like to ask the hon. member to what specific development on the Saint John river he refers.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I refer to the only one that has been considered of any great value, and that is the Beechwood development. However, that is only part of the full development of the Saint John river and the government has refused to help with Beechwood. I want to know if they will help with the development of the Saint John river as it progresses.


Jean Lesage: The government has not refused to help with Beechwood. The two first units at Beechwood are about to be completed by the province with its own means. That is something that is past. The policy announced in the budget speech and the statement by the Minister of Fisheries refer to things to be done. That is why I mentioned the third unit at Beechwood which has not been started. I am afraid the hon. member is not too anxious to have this information and correspondence tabled because it will not help him very much.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I must say that I take exception to the assumption of the minister. He knows better than that.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has an application been made by the authorities of the Saint John, New Brunswick, general hospital for a grant from the federal government to assist in the construction of new hospital bed accommodation? If such an application has been received, can the minister say whether the federal government has decided to make a grant toward this hospital?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Application has been received and the government has decided that in accordance with the terms of the national health program it will make a grant of $350,000 to the Saint John general hospital.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The same as is done in the case of every hospital in Canada under the same circumstances.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Every hospital application is examined on its merits and, while that is the usual grant, a grant is not always made to every hospital.



FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising out of his reference to hospitals yesterday. Can the minister say when the government is going to increase its grants per bed for capital construction of hospitals so the grants will be more in line with the actual cost of construction today?
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my hon. friend is not aware of the great significance of these grants to date which have resulted in co-operation with the provinces in the provision of some 70,000 hospital beds in the last nine years.


Mr. Lennard:: That is not answering the question.
Mr. Pallet!: May I address a supplementary question to the minister. Would the minister kindly answer the question that was asked?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, the fact that my hon. friend is laughing clearly indicates that he does not expect any further reply.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that according to the minister's own department the cost of hospital construction has increased by 80 per cent since the last increase in the grants, is it not time now for an increase in the federal government allowances?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I indicated last night that the fact the federal government, in the past seven or eight years, has expended some $200 million in aiding provincial health services is an eloquent answer to the question put by my hon. friend.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the minister answer my question? In view of the fact there has been an 80 per cent increase in the cost of hospital construction since, and there has been no increase in the grants by his own department-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not the intention of the federal government to increase its grants which, as I have indicated, have been substantial.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister noted or been informed of the increased costs of hospital construction in the last ten years? If so, is he prepared to recommend an increase in federal grants on a proportional basis?


Mr. Speaker:: The question has already been answered.


Harold Edward Winch: No, it has not been answered.


Mr. Speaker:: I listen to all questions asked and answers given and when one minister gives government policy, because of government solidarity, that is the answer of the whole cabinet.
Inquiries of the Ministry



STATEMENT ON PAYMENTS TO DOCTORS FOR. VISITS TO INDIANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. Robertson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: On Thursday last the hon. member for Peterborough directed the following question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare:
Can the Minister of National Health and Welfare say whether the Indian health branch of his department intends to increase its fees to the medical profession for visits to Indians from the present rate of 50 cents in some cases and $1 in others? I have a case before me where an average payment of only 67.5 cents a visit was made to a physician for visits to Indians. Does the minister not agree there should be a standard rate?
The Indian health services provides preventive medical care and essential treatment for those individuals within Indian and Eskimo communities who are unable to provide these services from their own resources. The current Indian health services schedule was distributed in 1955. It is at present being reviewed against the various provincial tariffs and revision of some items may be indicated but in general I am satisfied that the Indian health services tariff compares well with what is actually being paid on account of indigent responsibilities in most parts of the country.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, further in regard to the answer-


James Joseph McCann: The clock is going.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know, and so is the Liberal party.


Mr. Fleming:: Going out like a light.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Further in
regard to the answer given to me by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to the visits of members of the medical profession to Indians in hospitals, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he feels that 50 cents a visit is sufficient to pay a doctor as a fee for visiting Indians in hospitals when the regular fee is $3, and sometimes in serious cases these doctors have to make trips to the hospital at night?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to what has already been said by the parliamentary assistant.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is still 50 cents.

Inquiries of the Ministry CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION



INDIAN AFFAIRS-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION IN LUBICON AND FORT VERMILION AREAS, ALTA.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if he will have some of the officials of the Indian affairs branch make an early investigation of the condition of the Indians in the Lubicon mission area and the Fort Vermilion area in Alberta. I would ask him particularly if he would confer with the Minister of National Health and Welfare with a view to arranging a continuation of family allowances to those Indian families which have been cut off recently.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the result of a private communication from the hon. gentleman which reached me yesterday I asked for a report on this situation this morning. I will be governed of course to some extent by the kind of report I get and how recently a previous investigation was carried out. There might be no useful purpose served in having another investigation right away as it may be the information is available already. I must say that I am not personally aware of any Indians having been cut off from family allowances, though it might easily have happened without my being informed.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence if any guided missiles are being presently manufactured in Canada under licence, or have licences been granted for the manufacture of missiles?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the only guided missile presently being manufactured in Canada under licence is the Sparrow, for which we secured the right from the United States as announced a few months ago. There is no other guided missile being manufactured here at the present time.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: May I direct a further question to the Minister of National Defence. Are guided missiles, apart from the obsolete Sparrow, to be made available to Canada by the United States and, if so, will this be on an equal basis with arrangements made by other NATO countries?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As I have just said, the only guided missile which has been made available to us under arrangements with the United States is being made in Canada. I would assume that if and when we desire to acquire any other guided missiles from that country, satisfactory arrangements could be made.
As to permission for the use of United States guided missiles by NATO countries generally, as far as I am aware each NATO country is free to make its own arrangements with the United States, and some of them,
I understand, may be doing so. So far as we are concerned we are in the same position, and I have no doubt that if we desired to obtain the right to acquire any other guided missiles from the United States we would obtain the same consideration, at least, as might be given to those other nations.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Are any
negotiations under way just now?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that some hon. members, in their enthusiasm to put questions, are not waiting for recognition.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house what other NATO nations, if any, are manufacturing this missile under licence from the United States?


Ralph Osborne Campney: None, as far as I know.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I want to find out if any negotiations are under way just now between Canada and the government of the United States with the intention of Canada's securing any missile other than the Sparrow.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works of which I have given him notice. In view of the fact that the National Housing Act calls for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to undertake to make a loan to the home owner applicant who has had two or more refusals from finance lending institutions, why is C. M. H. C. today refusing to extend this right to applicants having two such refusals?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, that is hardly a correct interpretation of the National Housing Act.

There is no provision in the statute which requires the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make a loan to a home owner. Section 40 does provide that when in the opinion of the corporation a loan is not being made available to a person the corporation may then make a loan to such a person. To test whether or not a loan would be made by lending institutions, the corporation requires at least two refusals from lending institutions.
In the second part of his question the hon. member referred to what he alleged to be refusal on the part of C. M. H. C. to exercise the right to lend to applicants having two such refusals. I may reassure him that Central Mortgage is now making more direct loans by far than it did a year ago. Up to March 15, 752 applications from prospective individual home owners were received, and were being processed. This is more than ten times the number for the same period last year.


Frederick George Hahn: Is it not true that the Department of Public Works is erecting public buildings in some areas where C. M. H. C. has refused loans?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I just can't put that together. I don't understand the question.


Frederick George Hahn: I will rephrase it then. Is it not true that in the area in Vancouver, where the government is building a new public building, we are today refusing to lend money through C. M. H. C. under the National Housing Act?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how one part of that question follows the other. I think the hon. member had better speak to me privately.


Frederick George Hahn: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. I have taken the time to write this one out so I am sure he will understand it. I usually do not have too much difficulty in this regard, but the Minister of Public Works does not seem to be ready to give information. In recognition of the answer the minister gave to my earlier question, and in view of the fact I understand he has failed to give a firm answer to letters addressed to his office-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Frederick George Hahn: -regarding this problem, would the minister make an early report on the
Inquiries of the Ministry number of loans which were granted under N. H. A. in the cities of New Westminster, Vancouver and North Surrey, British Columbia?


Robert Henry Winters: I would suggest that the hon. member put his question on the order paper.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. I had intended to ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, but apparently the Minister of National Defence has the information regarding guided missiles. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a press report from Castle Harbour, Bermuda, received today which states that the Secretary of State for External Affairs at a press conference this morning in Bermuda expressed his uneasiness at the intention of the United States to provide guided missiles to the United Kingdom, and expressed the fear that such unilateral action would undermine the solidarity of NATO? Can the minister inform the house if this reported position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs correctly represents the attitude of the Canadian government?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no intention of commenting on the speculations that have come out of Bermuda in the last week or today or yesterday. When I have the full statement and know the facts I may be prevailed on to comment. I have seen so many comments on so many phases of these matters, with so many conclusions drawn, that I imagine I am as much at sea as the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just like Liberal policy.


Colin Cameron: Is the minister not aware that this is not speculation but a press report from a press conference in Bermuda?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When did press reports cease to be speculation?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That may be a distinction without a difference.
2890	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry IRRIGATION


SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Fisheries in connection with the development of the Columbia river basin, can the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources now announce with equally great pride and glowing satisfaction that the federal government is prepared to finance the South Saskatchewan river dam project on the same financial basis?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard the proposed South Saskatchewan dam project described as a self-liquidating project.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. D. Wylie (Medicine Hat):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is it the intention of his department to build a new post office in the town of Redcliff this year?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that from memory. I will have to take the question as notice. I have received quite a number of questions from hon. members along the same line. On March 8 the hon. member for Peterborough asked a question about the old post office building in Peterborough which has now been vacated. We plan to phase the work so it will be demolished at a time when it will make the greatest contribution to winter employment.
On Thursday last the hon. member for Calgary South asked me about the stage of development of the proposed post office building in Calgary. The situation there is that negotiations for the acquisition of this property have been completed with the Canadian Pacific Railway. The site has an approximate frontage of 345 feet on Ninth avenue by a depth of 140 feet on First street west. We are to remove and replace existing services on the property, and agreements covering these are now in course of preparation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I
address a question to the Minister of Public
[Mr. Campney.l

Works. While the building is left standing there, will it be possible to have the clock running?


Mr. Weir:: Can you not wind your watch?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I just wondered whether the minister could say if the clock could be put into proper operation, because it is standing still now.


Robert Henry Winters: I will look into it.


Carl Olof Nickle: First of all, I should like to thank the Minister of Public Works for the answer he has now given me in connection with the Calgary post office. But in order to avoid spending public money on property the Canadian government does not own, may I suggest the minister change his answer to read First street west, and not First avenue.


BROCKVILLE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hayden Stanton (Leeds):: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister inform me what progress is being made with reference to selecting and obtaining a site for the new federal building proposed for the city of Brockville?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave
me notice and I have the answer, but I think this is the kind of question that should be put on the order paper. We have not completed our investigation of the site. When we do we intend to have discussions with the town planning board, but we have not yet been able to do that. It will be some two or three weeks before we are in a position to talk to the planning board.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I should like to
direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is it unusual to have so many requests from the official opposition for great expenditures of public funds in their ridings?


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL REVENUE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I dislike detaining the house but I want to ask the Minister of National Revenue an important question. Is the blue book issued by the Department of National Revenue on the principles and rules respecting pension plans still an official document of his department, or has it been relegated to the dustbin?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, the contents of the
book to which the hon. gentleman has reference are being revised, and to my knowledge the new revision has not yet been given to the public.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked me if I would make inquiries of Mr. Justice Spence as to the date when the report of the royal commission on the coasting trade of Canada would be ready. I wish to inform the house that I have now communicated with Mr. Justice Spence, and I am informed that he expects that the report of the commission will be ready in the early summer and he hopes it will be printed by the end of the summer.



TRENT CANAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver East asked if I would inform the house why the markings on water buoys have been changed on certain waterways in Canada from white to black, and he mentioned the Trent waterway in particular. In 1947, ten years ago, as the result of an inspection of channel markers on the Trent, it was noted that the colour of the port-hand spars was white while the rules governing buoys and day beacons adopted uniformly throughout the Dominion of Canada required the use of black spars on the port-hand.
Resulting from this inspection, instructions were issued in 1947 to change the white port-hand spars to black on the Trent canal. This was done and the canal charts were changed accordingly and ever since port-hand spars have been painted black.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, with regard to these buoys being changed from white to black, after they were changed to black in 1947-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: -there were objections and I wondered whether the minister knew that at my request reflectors were put on these black buoys so they could be seen at night.


Harold Edward Winch: Is it not required that there be reflectors on black buoys?
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Carlyle Marler: Not according to the rules which I have here.


Harold Edward Winch: Under international rules.



MERCHANDISING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zapliiny (Dauphin):: Has the
Minister of Justice received a recent request from the Canadian association of consumers for an amendment to section 369 of the Criminal Code in order that effective action may be taken with regard to trading stamps? If so, is it the intention of the minister to recommend an amendment this session to this section of the act?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no; therefore no answer is required to the second.


Edward George McCullough: I should like to direct a question supplementary to that asked of the Minister of Justice by the hon. member for Dauphin. Has any representation been made to the minister in connection with the widespread use of trading stamps? If so, does the minister intend to take any action to discontinue the use of these stamps?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, it is no secret, I am sure, that many such representations have been made to the government and to myself as Minister of Justice. The position we have always taken I think may be expressed in these terms which I have used in replying to various people who had written to me in this connection. The parliament of Canada first enacted laws prohibiting the use of trading stamps in Canada over half a century ago in the year 1905. When recently in 1954 the parliament of Canada enacted the first over-all consolidation of the Criminal Code parliament retained in this new consolidation the law against trading stamps which had been enacted in 1905 and has been in effect ever since. Parliament did this notwithstanding the fact that strong representations were made by those favouring trading stamps to the effect that this law should be repealed. Instead of repealing this law, parliament retained it.
No court in Canada has held that this present law against trading stamps is either invalid or unenforceable. Indeed, there cannot be such a decision until there is an unsuccessful prosecution under the law. Pending such a prosecution we do not wish to ask parliament to amend the law until we shall have been informed in what respect

Inquiries of the Ministry the courts consider it to be invalid or unenforceable, that is until we know in what respect it should be amended.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Haldimand):: should like to address a question to the Postmaster General. What are the regulations regarding the sending of anonymous or threatening letters through the royal mails?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: Well, as a matter of general principle it is generally not encouraged. However, it must be understood that the Post Office Department has no means of knowing whether the letter contained in an envelope which is mailed as first class mail is an anonymous or threatening letter. The recipient of such a letter brings it to the attention of the postal authorities and then an investigation is made immediately, both by the investigators of the department and the police authorities in an effort to try to find the source of the letter.



ALLEGED REFUSAL OF CHARTERED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldf-Melfort):: Has
the attention of the Minister of Finance been drawn to press reports to the effect that the chartered banks are refusing to finance the wheat deal with Poland, recently announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce? Is this refusal part of the retaliatory measures being taken by the banks against the government's tight money policy?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen any of these reports, and if I had I doubt very much if I would come to the conclusion that they were by way of retaliation.


Edward George McCullough: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister say that the government is prepared to take steps to finance the wheat deal with Poland in view of the fact there is some press comment that negotiations may break down as a result of the action of the chartered banks?


Walter Edward Harris: Once again, I am not aware
of the press report. In so far as the sale of wheat to Poland is concerned, I am sure [Mr. Garson.I
the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be glad to answer any questions that might be asked.



CRIMINAL LAW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Can the Minister of Justice tell the house whether or not the report being prepared by the chief justice of the high court of Ontario regarding insanity as a defence to a criminal offence has been completed? If so, will it be tabled during this session?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: To my knowledge the printing of it has not yet been completed.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
lord's DAY ACT
On the orders of the day:
Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should like to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for York-Humber on March 21 last. She said:
In view of the fact that practically all the news media in Toronto are to be prosecuted under the Lord's Day Act, which was created by this dominion government, would the minister say whether the federal government will take part in the court action either in defence of the act or as an observer?
My reply is as follows. The Lord's Day Act is part of the criminal law of Canada, the responsibility for the enforcement of which rests with the attorneys general of the provinces under the express terms of the British North America Act. The validity of this act has long since been sustained by the judicial committee of the privy council, and consequently no occasion arises for the Attorney General of Canada to intervene in defence of the act or as an observer in the prosecutions recently launched in' Toronto to which the hon. member for York-Humber refers.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY CAUGHNAWAGA INDIAN RESERVE    REQUEST FOR SETTING UP OF CLAIMS COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnetf (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I wonder whether the minister will explain to the house what he meant when he told me yesterday that the government has given an undertaking to facilitate a reference to the exchequer court

for the purpose of determining what is an appropriate compensation. Did the minister mean by this that the government had given an undertaking that they were prepared to provide counsel and to underwrite the costs of the reference to the exchequer court if that seemed necessary? Can he explain just what he meant by that statement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to explain, because when I read Hansard this morning I was not very well satisfied with the clarity of the answer I had given and I blame no one but myself. There is some doubt in my mind as to whether, in view of the fact that the transaction resulting from the expropriation is between the St. Lawrence seaway and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, acting in trust for the Indians, an individual Indian would be able, as a matter of right, to go into the exchequer court. That is why the government assured the Indians that, whether they had that right or not, their cases would be referred to the court for adjudication if they asked to have it done.
However, no case will reach that stage before the point has previously been reached when the department for which I have the responsibility has reached the conclusion that the compensation offered is fair. Therefore it seems to me that if any Indian wants to take advantage of this offer of reference to the exchequer court after we have satisfied ourselves that the compensation is fair, he should take his chances like any other litigant.



SUGGESTED ACTION BY COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PROCEDURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norlhumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the many and varied questions asked which are not of an urgent nature or of national importance, will the committee on rules and procedure consider taking away members' privileges of placing questions on the order paper?


Edmund Davie Fulton: A typical Liberal question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Take away more rights.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, it has occurred to me on more than one occasion that hon. members opposite, having read their questions in Hansard, would themselves feel that they could have put them on the order paper and saved a lot of time of the house in discussions which, while not more important, perhaps nevertheless could be going on, and the time of the staffs of the 82715-171
Grain
various departments could have been spent in finding the answers to the questions.
The only consideration that I think a future committee of the house might give to the question period would be more clearly to define it than the definition which we attempted the last time we were considering the rules. I do think, however, sir, speaking as one of the members of that committee only, that some consideration ought to be given to seeing to it that questions that could be answered in the normal course by a written question and a written answer ought to find their way there rather than be spoken to here in the house.



PRAIRIE GRAIN PRODUCERS INTERIM FINANCING


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. E. Harris (for ihe Minister of Trade
and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 263, to amend the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, 1956.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, is it not the intention of the parliamentary assistant to make a statement and, in particular, to answer the questions which his minister undertook on March 14 to answer when the bill was called for second reading?


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamenlary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the resolution covered the principle of this legislation very fully, and there is nothing that I can add to the statements which were made by the minister at that time. In so far as the questions referred to by the hon. member for Eglinton are concerned, they are questions of detail which will undoubtedly lead to some discussion of those details. It was our view that this would be very much better handled at the committee stage of the bill, and I think much more to the satisfaction of the members than by dealing with them in a statement on second reading. For that reason we suggest these matters be left to the committee stage.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the information that was asked for and should have been available when the resolution was considered in committee on March 14 is not available now. It was understood that it would be available now and it ought to be available now so that so far as it calls for discussion on the second reading there would be full opportunity now to review it and discuss it.
Sir, the resolution preceding the introduction of this bill was considered in committee on March 13 and 14. The bill conforms with
the resolution which, following a division of

Grain
the house, was reported and the bill introduced. So far as Her Majesty's loyal opposition is concerned, our position with respect to the measure was stated at the resolution stage and is a matter of record in Hansard of March 13 and 14.
It is the same position that this party took when the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act was under discussion in this house a year ago and it is the position which we had taken for years prior to that. Our position and policy is one in favour of cash advances on farm-stored western wheat.
The minister in his opening statement on March 13 admitted that only limited use has been made of the facilities available under the act. The limited use is best illustrated by the further information elicited from the minister as reported at page 2202 of Hansard of March 14 when he said in reply to questions:
The loans in the first year of operation were 10,326 for an amount of $7,893,830.32. In the second year, up to January 31, 1957, the number of loans totalled 5,034 for an amount of $3,498,011.67.
I asked at that time for a statement as to the distribution of these loans among the three western provinces, but that information was not forthcoming. It is quite evident by simple arithmetical calculation that the average loan in the first year the act was in effect was $766. In the current year the average loan is $695.
We are not in a position to judge the significance of the increase in the maximum loan intended by the present bill from $1,500 to $3,000 because the question I asked on that occasion as to the number of loans of the maximum amount under the present act, namely $1,500, was not answered. The minister did not have that information so the house is hardly in a position to judge now whether there is any particular efficacy or value promised by the amendment which now proposes to increase the permissible maximum loan from $1,500 to $3,000.
Sir, the problem remains and can be very simply stated. Western Canada is suffering from a cash shortage. At the same time western Canada has a huge accumulated surplus of unmarketed wheat which can only be marketed through the Canadian wheat board. In the face of this situation and this continuing problem the policy of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is one in favour of cash advances on farm-stored wheat.
That position was clearly stated by the Leader of the Opposition, speaking in the discussion at the resolution stage when with reference to the policy that we advocate he said, as reported at page 2188 of Hansard of March 14:
It is recommended by the Gordon commission; it is demanded by various farm organizations other 
than the farm union; it is something which can be brought into effect without the possibility of loss, for there is only one market in which the farmer can sell his wheat.
And further, at page 2189, he stated the policy of the Conservative party in these words:
We believe that the only salvation for the western farmer, with his markets lost and his wheat therefore unmarketable, is that there should be cash advances. Second, we believe that every encouragement should be given to the farmer to provide his own storage, and that in the provision of such storage additional write-offs should be permitted when determining the amount of his income tax. We believe that under proper circumstances there should be provision for cash advances on farm-stored grain similar to the system in effect in the United States.
There is one other feature of the present bill which also makes it unpalatable to Her Majesty's loyal opposition. The present act fixes a ceiling upon the rate of interest which may be charged upon bank loans to qualify for government guarantees. That maximum interest rate is 5 per cent. Indeed, when the measure was under discussion in this house a year ago the opposition took issue even with a maximum as high as 5 per cent having regard to the fact that a government guarantee was to be attached to the loans.
The government now proposes to remove that maximum and I ask the house to give serious consideration to the effect of the removal of that maximum. The reason is perfectly clear. The inevitable result and the obvious intention of the government in proposing the removal of that maximum is that the interest rate may be raised.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce at the resolution stage engaged in a lot of transparent quibbling and shilly-shallying on this subject. He was invited to make a frank statement as to the real reason and purpose behind the proposal for removal of the maximum and in the midst of his quibbles the suggestion was made that there would be great uncertainty and no one could determine at this stage what the interest rate might be six months hence. Sir, that is not the point at all. The minister said, as reported at page 2202 of Hansard:
Frankly, the government feels that this is not the time to establish a maximum rate for a period that begins some months hence.
He said further, as reported at page 2203:
... I think any man would be foolish to negotiate today for a rate which will apply next autumn and which might be obtainable at a lower figure at that time.
There is a first class example of governmental shilly-shallying, for all that the act does today is to fix the maximum. There is nothing today to prevent a government guarantee of such a loan at a lower rate of

interest than 5 per cent if it conforms with the other requirements established by the act. The only purpose that could be served by the removal of the statutory maximum is to permit an increase in the rate and that is why I say the minister's remarks on this subject were transparent shilly-shallying.
The minister also said, as reported at page 2203:
I hope the interest rate will go down.
And later he said:
I am hoping we will get a lower interest rate by autumn.
If the prospect is for a lower interest rate there is no need to remove the maximum now fixed by the act upon the interest rate. I do not think that any person is likely to be fooled by this kind of shilly-shallying to which we have become long accustomed. The only reason that could prompt the government to propose the removal of that maximum is that they are fully expecting and contemplating an increase in the interest rate. They accept the fact and are now proposing to remove from the act the one fetter that there is upon the interest rate. The maximum is going to be removed entirely by the present bill. That is an additional reason for us to dislike the bill, and even if that feature stood alone it would be sufficient reason for us to dislike the bill.
Our position on the charging of interest on advances was stated by the Leader of the Opposition in speaking on March 14, as reported at page 2189, when he said:
Here the farmers find themselves once more handed a proposition requiring them to pay interest on their earnings.
Later on he said:
There was no justification for interest being paid in the first place, and there is no justification for an additional amount being paid.
Our position is unchanged. We believe in cash advances on farm stored wheat as the only policy to meet the needs of western Canada and the continuing problem that is created there by reason of the failure of the government agency to sell the accumulated surplus of wheat.
Instead the approach of this bill is all wrong. This is the kind of bill that ought not to have been brought forward. The kind of bill we asked for last year and are continuing to ask for now is one that will grapple effectively and sensibly and realistically with the problem. Such a bill should make provision for cash advances an farm-stored wheat. For these reasons we oppose the bill.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested in the brief remarks made by the parliamentary 82715-171J
Grain
assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Dickey). I think the hon. member must be pretty naive when he suggests that at this time we are discussing something which is not of tremendous importance and that the details could be better discussed in committee. That may be true, but if we give second reading to this bill we are giving our nod to the bill.
It is rather interesting to hear the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) speak on behalf of the official opposition. It would appear as though he has replaced the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) as the agricultural expert of the official opposition. However, it would appear to me that the hon. member is not fully acquainted with farm problems and this is indicated when he speaks about cash advances. On reflection I think he will agree that when the official opposition is proposing cash advances those cash advances should be on farm-stored grain and not confined to wheat. It should be the right of the farmer to make application for a loan as indicated by the farm organizations.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member will agree that the subject matter of the present bill is confined to wheat and that is why my statement was confined to wheat. If the hon. member is looking for the position of this party in regard to grain in general he will find it set out in the statement of the Leader of the Opposition from which I quoted today and which referred to farm-stored grain.


Edward George McCullough: I thank the hon. member for the clarification of his statement. We in this party have always believed that the farmer is entitled to cash advances on farm-stored grain. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) introduced the resolution preceding this bill he gave the house his conception of the legislation in the following words, as reported on page 2196 of Hansard of March 14 as follows:
Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a misconception about what we are trying to do. It has been assumed that the bill to follow this resolution will change the complexion of western agriculture from being in the distressed state in which we are told it is now, to a state of great prosperity.
In my opinion that is the understatement of the year. I was concerned that no private members of the Liberal party rose to their feet during the resolution stage and took part in this important debate. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is thousands of miles away and I suggest that this would be a good opportunity for them to participate in this debate and say what they think in

Grain
respect to cash advances and this bill which in effect permits the farmer who has produced grain to go to the bank, make his statement and then after practically getting down on his knees get an advance on his year's work.
So far the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang) who sits over yonder has not taken part in this debate, and neither have the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer), the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) and the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). I believe that those hon. members would have ideas in connection with this important matter and they should get up on their feet during the closing days of this session and place those ideas on the record and indicate their support of us who are trying honestly to place the problems of the western farmer before this house. Their inactivity, their apparent complacency and political impotency have resulted in other hon. members, particularly those from eastern Canada, not being able to appreciate the plight of the farmer, particularly the farmer in the west. I suggest to the hon. members that in the next day or two they get up and express themselves on this important legislation.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Without fear of retaliation.


Edward George McCullough: The
hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) says "without fear of retaliation". I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce has to some extent used the big stick in this house. When he introduced the resolution he said he was going to place this legislation before the house to see how it went. We in this group are glad to help expedite this legislation, but we do not want this house or any member in it to have a false conception about how we feel about this legislation. We think it is a third-rate answer to the request of organized agriculture throughout Canada. It is not true, as was indicated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he introduced the resolution, that this legislation conforms to the will of organized agriculture throughout Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is simply a death-bed acceptance by organized agriculture of an opportunity to get some cash into the farmer's hands.
There would appear to be a misapprehension throughout Canada in respect to what we and other members of this house who sometimes speak on behalf of agriculture, particularly western agriculture, think should be done. Some hon. members appear to think of the farmers as asking for a hand-out. Nothing could be further from the truth. I remember in an earlier debate this session

the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking) made the statement that beggars cannot always be choosers in connection with wheat. The farmers are not beggars. All they are asking is that they be given a fair and equitable deal. I have a bone of contention to pick with some of these people who sit in high ivory towers. I have here an article which appeared in the Leader-Post. Reference is made in this article to an address made by Dean A. G. McCalla of the University of Alberta faculty of agriculture in which he is reported to have used very blunt language to a farm organization. Dean McCalla is reported to have said:
Behind the demands of the militant farm organizations is the assumption that farming is a special, almost sacred "way of life"; that those who follow it deserve special treatment; that the state should carry them if they cannot make their farms pay.
I am greatly surprised that an educated person would make such a statement. The farmers do not want to be in a special category. As a matter of fact they have been the forgotten people throughout the years as far as successive federal governments are concerned. As far as we are concerned we want to put on the record that it was only after the farmers of western Canada plowed the wheat fields and began the production of agricultural commodities that other parts of Canada became prosperous. We are happy to have that state of affairs and when we are asking for justice and policies which would incidentally benefit all Canada we do not want to be classified as peasants or beggars looking for hand-outs.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that farmers' delegations coming to Ottawa usually get a fine reception from all parties and from the cabinet, and perhaps they go home feeling elated and thinking they have left a good impression. Very likely they believe that as a result of that they can expect some just and fair consideration of their problems. I have here a clipping from the Star-Phoenix of March 19, 1957, headed:	"Harris Impressed, But Budget Does Not Show It." I just want to quote one short paragraph:
R. V. Mitchell, Blucher, a member of the recent farm union delegation which presented a brief on agriculture to the federal cabinet, said Mr. Harris had remarked to the delegation that there was "no segment of Canada more in need of fair treatment than the prairies". However, when his budget came out it appeared he had forgotten this opinion.
That is how it seems to some of us, Mr. Speaker. We have received a lot of sympathy; we have received many indications from people in important government positions that they know the farmers' problems;

but we have nothing forthcoming of an important legislative nature by means of which those problems could be solved.
Under the legislation before the house today it is proposed that farmers who go to the banks may be granted loans, after they have committed themselves and made financial statements, at the discretion of the banker. I think all farm organizations will agree that the present legislation does not entitle any farmer to a loan; it will still be a matter for the banker concerned to decide whether or not any particular farmer should get a loan. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is completely inadequate.
But before I go into the merits or demerits of this specific proposal I would like to indicate some of the problems which face farmers at the present time. Just the other day I had a letter from a farmer who lives about 50 miles from my home, and he intimated that at this date 75 per cent of the crop is still on the farm. As a matter of fact, one-third of all marketing points in Saskatchewan are still on a two-bushel quota. That means that these farmers, as far as the sale of their grain is concerned, have only a few hundred dollars with which to carry on. This problem confronts the businessmen as well as the farmers and it is distressing to go into various towns of western Canada and see business people who have tried to carry on with large unpaid accounts on their books-people who have tried to "carry" a lot of these farmers without interest charges in an effort to help them in a difficult situation. Some of these businesses are going into liquidation because they cannot get any credit from the wholesalers, since they, too, are "on the spot".
Mr. Speaker, we have stated over the years that we need permanent legislation to meet this problem. We need it because the situation has been such, in the last five or six years, that there is a great carry-over from year to year of the farmers' grain. I would like to point out to the house that whether a farmer is securely established or not it takes about $500 to store 1,000 bushels of grain properly on a farm. If the grain is put into cheap or improper storage it is likely there will be a tremendous loss on that grain. In my opinion it takes 15 or 20 years of good farming before a farmer can put himself into a financial position where he can store a full crop on his farm and be able to finance it himself. The young farmer, the veteran coming back from a war, is in no position to do that sort of thing. Thus, we have the problem of building proper storage facilities in which to house the grain until it can be sold.
Grain
In connection with this, the minister said at the outset of his remarks, when he introduced the resolution prefacing this bill, that this measure had quite completely met the requests of organized agriculture in Canada, and he added that he was very happy that such was the case because he had never brought before parliament a bill which he felt was more in line with what had been demanded by the farm organizations. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this is not the case. Here is a letter which was addressed to Mr. Zaplitny by Mr. Rudolph Usick, a Manitoba farm union official, and I wish to quote a portion of it. He says this:
Since the prairie grain producers interim financing act is up for amendment in the House of Commons I thought I should mention a meeting of ten organizations held in Saskatoon on Friday, March 1.
These ten represented the three pools, the three federations of agriculture of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and the United Grain Growers.
At this meeting a resolution was passed and sent by telegram to Messrs. Howe, Gardiner, Harris and St. Laurent. No press release was issued because they wanted the government to have an opportunity to study the proposals.
Further on, the letter says:
It was because we could not agree on a united plan of cash advances that the following resolution was passed:
Resolved, that while we do not agree that the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act is the most satisfactory method for making money available on grain that cannot be delivered, however in view of the late date in having a more satisfactory plan for cash advances adopted at this session of parliament this committee recommends to the federal government the inclusion of the following amendments:
I am going to read this, Mr. Speaker, because these amendments are important, and they are in no way in conformity with what this bill proposes.
a.	That the basis for loans be set at $4 per specified acre up to a maximum of 800 acres.
That would mean, Mr. Speaker, that there would be a maximum loan of $3,200. And this is the only clause of the resolution that the bill conforms with:
b.	That the time for advancement of loans be set ahead to September 1.
It continues:
c.	That credit unions and treasury branches be empowered to advance loans.
d.	That interest rates be as low as possible, and in any event not higher than those paid by the Canadian wheat board.
This bill, of course, proposes that the interest rate should be set by order in council, and there can only be one reason for that provision being in the bill, namely, that there is a great possibility that the interest rate will be higher.

Grain
The important point is, of course, that these organizations say they have not changed their views about asking for cash advances. I note, also, that on March 12, 1957, the three western Canadian wheat pools met in Ottawa and asked the government in clause 5 of the resolution they passed for a reduction in the interest rate on grain loans. There has never been any change on the part of organized agriculture in its demand for cash advances. They probably feel, as we hon. members of this house feel, that if this government does not see fit to provide for cash advances through legislation they will take advantage of the loans, because I can tell this house that there are a lot of desperate farmers in western Canada to whom a loan will be necessary if they are to put in their crops this spring.
Again, in order to show the house that the policy of the wheat pools has not changed, I have here the wheat pool policy of 1956, and I just want to quote one paragraph from it:
The current problem of a shortage of farm cash was considered as soon as the annual meeting opened. The delegates went on record in favour of a system of cash advances against farm-stored grain to be paid out by the Canadian wheat board through elevator companies with the federal government assuming the interest on loans involved.
This was given top priority in the agenda of the convention, which indicates that it is a very important matter to the western pool organizations. That policy has not changed, nor has the interprovincial farm union council changed its attitude on cash advances.
This was presented to the government at a meeting in Ottawa on February 19, 1957, and clause 7 of their recommendations reads as follows:
That a permanent system of cash advances be established on the basis recommended in previous submissions, in order that farmers will have the means to meet their annual obligations-also, that provision be made for accelerated depreciation on grain storage buildings built by farmers.
Last year the interprovincial farm union council indicated in their brief what they were asking for and this is what they had to say about cash advances for grain, as found at page 14:
For several years there has been a growing need for some system of interim financing for farmers who find themselves financially embarrassed, while they have harvested a good crop of grain. As a solution to the problem, the interprovincial farm union council during the past months, has strongly advocated a system of cash advances on farm-stored grain through our grain marketing agency, with the federal government absorbing the interest and administration charges.
It is probably not well known among eastern members of parliament but under the operations of the Canadian wheat board the

farmer has been footing the bill at every step in the marketing of his grain. The farmer pays from the time the grain goes into the elevator. If the grain is kept in a commercial or pool elevator, immediately the cost of that storage comes off the final payment to the farmer. When the grain is moved by box car to the lakehead, to Winnipeg, the freight is all charged to the farmer. The cost of every step in the movement of farm grain is charged to the farmer.
It is interesting to point out too that when we talk about an initial price of $1.40 a bushel for farm wheat that is the price at the lake-head or at the Vancouver export point and all freight charges to that point are deducted from what is paid to the farmer. In addition, there is the fact that very seldom is his wheat graded No. 1. Therefore the problem is that the income of the farmer has dropped over the last three or four years while his costs have risen and he has been caught in such a cost-price squeeze, plus the fact that he has had low marketing quotas, that he is in a desperate position in trying to finance his operations.
I think this legislation is rather an insult to the farmers of western Canada who are trying to do a good job, and, incidentally, have done a good job. They are in no position except to agree with the type of marketing we have. The problem of selling the grain rests with the federal government, and I believe we would have got rid of a lot more grain if the government had adopted some of the proposals we in this group have advocated over the years such as barter trade and taking more local currency for our exports of grain.
As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) agrees with that, or he did in 1953 because he is reported in the Moose Jaw Times-HeralcL of July 2, 1953 as having said:
Mr. Howe must assume a large amount of responsibility for the loss of Canada's traditional markets in Britain for farm products. Actually he has mishandled the trade portfolio in a way that could only spell ultimate tragedy to thousands of western farmers.
We feel that if the government would undertake some of the plans which the United States government has undertaken through the Commodity Credit Corporation such as barter trade deals it would be a great help. One significant deal made by the Commodity Credit Corporation was with Brazil. Over the next four years Brazil has agreed to take 18,000 tons of United States wheat in exchange for Brazilian commodities. The federal government has seemed to shy away from that type of agreement.
It was with some satisfaction that I heard the minister announce in the house that

Poland has been given a credit and no doubt will be buying more wheat from Canada on an extended credit basis. I am very happy to see that the government is moving in the direction which some of us on this side of the house have been advocating over the years.
There are some features of cash advances compared with bank loans which I should like to bring to the attention of the house. First of all, the farmer would be entitled to a cash advance. He would be able to go to the bank and would not have to depend on the decision of the banker with respect to whether or not he was credit-worthy. He would not have to make commitments as he does under this legislation and he would be entitled to a loan. I favour the suggestion of the interprovincial farm union council that the farmer should be allowed up to $3,000 or $4,000 by way of a loan. I have never been in favour of having the government try to underwrite types of farming which might be described as syndicate farming or big operations, but I do think it would be of advantage to all of Canada to have a program which would sustain the family farm and allow the farmer to be able to pay his bills, thus sustaining the local merchants.
As far as the repayment of cash advances is concerned, it would be almost automatic. When the farmer's grain was sold the sale would be recorded in his permit book at the elevator and therefore repayment would be almost automatic. I have already put forward some of the arguments against bank loans. I have mentioned that if farmers who need money are not credit-worthy they will probably go to a bank and be turned down even in spite of this legislation. Another factor is that in Saskatchewan alone there are 1,100 marketing points and only 350 chartered bank offices. That means in many cases that the farmer who wants to get a loan has to travel 50 to 60 miles, meet a banker whom he probably does not know and make an application for a loan. It is understandable that no great use has been made of this legislation over the past two years. The reason is not wholly that the farmers do not need money. The fact is that the whole operation of this legislation makes it difficult for the farmer to obtain a loan.
I believe that at some point we have got to see to it that the farmer is entitled, the same as any other worker in the country, to payment for the work he has done and there must be some system by which he can get an advance on his grain. Some members went to Washington and examined the system in that country. I think it has tremendous advantages over the proposal contained in the legislation or over the system whereby the
Grain
farmer must wait until he has delivered his grain to the Canadian wheat board to receive the initial payment.
In the United States the farmer delivers his grain to the Commodity Credit Corporation when the corporation calls for it. If the farmer cannot deliver it immediately it is harvested he is allowed to put it in proper storage and he can get an advance on it representing about 90 per cent of parity.
Finally, I say that the minister cannot muddy the waters in the fight for cash advances by saying that the farm organizations have in any way changed their demands for such advances and are now ready to accept bank loans. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am suggesting that there are different ways by which cash advances can be made to the farmers which would in no way jeopardize the Canadian wheat board. I have said before and I repeat that it would be very simple for the federal government to make funds available to the Canadian wheat board so that when the farmer went to the bank and asked for an advance the advance would be one made by the Canadian wheat board. When wheat was delivered to the elevator it would be entered in the farmer's permit book and this would pay back 50 per cent of his loan. The other 50 per cent of the proceeds from the sale of the wheat he would receive in cash and he would continue on that basis until the loan was repaid.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the representations made on behalf of this group will not be taken in this house as an indication that we are asking for a handout for the western farmer. We are asking for simple justice. I do hope that the hon. members for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang) and Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer), as well as others, will join us in our long fight for action to obtain a little bit of simple justice for the western farmer. I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce):
That Bill No. 263 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to provide a permanent system of cash advances on farm stored grain.


Mr. J. A. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: During the discussions which took place on the resolution which preceded the introduction of this bill, on several occasions we in this group pointed out many reasons why we were opposed to this particular measure. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) introduced the resolution to the committee, he pointed out that the resolution had received the support of the farm organizations of western Canada, the three wheat pools of western Canada and the United grain

Grain
growers. He pointed out that these organizations had not only endorsed the principle which he proposed to place in the bill, but had also recommended to him the exact terms which would be included in the bill.
This morning I received in the mail a copy of the latest edition of the "Alberta Wheat Pool Budget", which was printed in Calgary on Friday, March 22. Apparently the "Wheat Pool Budget" is not quite so enthusiastic over the terms of this bill as the Minister of Trade and Commerce would like us to believe. On March 22, they had this to say:
The new measure would answer two of the main criticisms of previous legislation-
They mean the maximum amount of the loan, which would be increased from $1,500 to $3,000, and secondly that the loan would be made available to the farmers in the early fall under the new legislation when it had not been made available in the early fall under the previous legislation. The article goes on to say this:
However, a third main objection that the interest rate at 5 per cent was too high has not been met.
I would take it from this statement in this wheat pool budget that the Alberta wheat pool had not endorsed all the terms of the bill which has been introduced, even though the minister says that they had. The "Wheat Pool Budget" goes on to say this:
While the rate of interest will not be announced until later there has been nothing to indicate that it will be lowered.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, it has been indicated in this house on more than one occasion there is a very definite indication the rate of interest will be raised.
The wheat pools of western Canada have urged that the interest rate be lowered claiming that loans of this nature are not inflationary. In most cases the money secured is used to pay debts already contracted and not to buy consumer goods.
Borrowing is not a solution to the prairie farmers' problem today but for many it is a necessity when they cannot market their grain. They should not be forced to pay large interest charges on top of their many other expenses. The wheat pools contend that the interest on loans made under provisions of this act should be no higher than that paid by the Canadian wheat board on the money it borrows to carry grain.
I felt that in this statement the Alberta Wheat Pool has been very definite in its criticism of this particular legislation. It is pointed out that the farmers of western Canada should not be asked to pay a high rate of interest on the money which they are forced to borrow, through no fault of their own but because of the faulty marketing policies that have been pursued down through the years by our present government.
We in this group are still of the opinion that this is the wrong type of legislation to

be introduced at this session. This legislation is inadequate and unfair to the farmers of western Canada. We feel that the only suitable answer to this problem of surplus grain in western Canada is a system of cash advances on farm stored grain. This has been our stand before and it will continue to be our stand until the government gets busy and moves grain out of the west and places it in the hands of the people in the world who need it.
The minister pointed out that farm organizations had failed to bring forth an alternative plan to this system of loans. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, and through you the Minister of Trade and Commerce, this question. Whose responsibility is it to introduce legislation? Surely, the minister does not intend to tell us that his government failed to introduce legislation dealing with cash advances just because the farm organizations of western Canada failed to reach complete agreement in every detail of a proposed scheme. This particular bill is known as the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act. Now, the word "interim" means just one thing, temporary. The bill had the same title last year and was an interim financing act, a temporary measure. I submit that the situation which makes this bill necessary will continue and will not be capable of being classed as temporary if this government, or the government which replaces it, pursues the same marketing policies as those being pursued by this government today. Why has the government failed to advance a permanent, positive policy which would ensure those engaged in all phases of agriculture a just return for their labour? Why are the grain farmers still to be called upon by this government to finance the surplus grain we have in Canada?
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of western Canada made a limited use of this legislation last year. They made use of it because they were forced to do so, not because they wanted to do so. They had to go to the banks and borrow because they could not market their grain and receive cash returns. It is true also that in my own province of Alberta many farmers, through government policy, have been forced to sell their wheat at a greatly reduced price in order to get money. I know of instances where wheat of good quality has been sold for 65 cents per bushel. This legislation with which we are dealing now was of no value to the farmer who had to go out and sell his wheat at that greatly reduced price. Upon many occasions we in this group had made suggestions to the government as to how the surplus grain problem could be

handled. We have suggested, for example, the construction of permanent, government-owned terminals. We have asked that the policy of off-site storage be continued and extended.
I was somewhat amused, Mr. Speaker, when I read a report of the activities of a Liberal candidate in the province of Alberta in the wheat pool budget of March 15. Here is the short article as it appears in this particular budget:
Dr. Gordon Burton, farmer-economist and Liberal candidate for the Macleod riding-
I might point out that the Macleod riding is very capably and efficiently represented at the present time. I continue:
-in the coming election, suggests that the federal government should put up temporary bins with a capacity of 75 million bushels as a means of coping with the large stocks of grain that have accumulated in the prairie provinces.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit that that is not a new suggestion. We in this group, and other groups on this side of the house, have suggested to the government many types of emergency measures that could be taken. However, we have always impressed upon the government the fact that something of a permanent nature must be done to enable the farmers of western Canada to receive their fair share of the national income.
This particular proposal made by a Liberal candidate in the province of Alberta is not new; it is not one that has been adopted by the present Liberal government, even though it had been suggested to it. To me, this statement of this Liberal candidate simply means that even Liberal candidates in western Canada recognize the fact that this government has failed to deal efficiently with the surplus grain problem and has forced the farmers of western Canada to carry this burden.
This government has failed to adopt marketing policies which would induce importing countries to buy more grain from Canada. It still refuses to accept the currency of other lands; it still refuses to engage in barter deals, and so forth. The government has refused to accept recommendations made by the farm organizations and by members on this side of the house to institute a system of cash advances on farm-stored grain; nor will the government agree to construct permanent terminal storage space or expand the policy of off-site storage. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is the government's only solution and it is definitely inadequate to meet the situation.
In reading the Ottawa Journal last evening, Mr. Speaker, I was very much struck with the report contained in that particular paper
Grain
of the reaction of certain people in Nova Scotia to the remarks which were said to have been made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair). The Minister of Fisheries is reported as having said:
There is "no point in subsidizing an industry merely for the sake of providing employment".
The Minister of Fisheries was dealing with the coal industry. Does he not know that the agricultural industry is also a depressed industry and that 16 per cent of the people of Canada who are engaged in agriculture receive less than 7 per cent of the national income? Surely, no one will argue that the majority of the farmers of Canada are prosperous. Are we to accept that the government policy, which was enunciated by the Minister of Fisheries, to the the effect that all uneconomic industries, which I assume would include agriculture, must eventually be closed down? In closing, Mr. Speaker, I submit that if the government continues to pursue the policies, or the lack of policies, that it has had in regard to agriculture over the next few years, it will not have to close down the agricultural industry because the farmers themselves, of their own accord, will be forced to stop doing business.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the debate continues
may I submit it strikes me that the amendment that has been moved is in the form of an alternative proposal. Perhaps the hon. member who has moved the amendment has overlooked the fact that what is before the house is not the act that is cited as the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, 1956; it is an act to amend it, and it is amending it only in this particular, namely, the one relating to extension. I think the hon. gentleman should consider that when he moves a reasoned amendment in the form of an alternative proposal, namely, the introduction of legislation to provide a permanent system of cash advances on farm-stored grain, it has to be moved as against the formula contained in the main act, and not in the amending act which relates merely to the extension as indicated in section 13 of the main act. The hon. member for Calgary North.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I spoke on this legislation at considerable length when it was at the resolution stage and made my position and that of this party quite clear in regard to it. Therefore, I see no purpose to be served by repeating the arguments that I made at that time that were, as a matter of fact, to a large extent a repetition of the arguments I made a year before when this legislation was first introduced. Therefore, I do not propose to speak at length in regard to this measure.

Grain
I must say also that both last year and this year the position of this party in regard to the matter has been made so clear that I was quite at a loss to understand the somewhat snide remarks which were made by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) in regard to the speech made by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) at the start of the second reading of this bill. The hon. member for Eglinton, as I think the hon. member for Moose Mountain knows, is the man in this party who particularly looks after matters pertaining to trade and commerce, and as this particular legislation comes under the Department of Trade and Commerce and is in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I think it was very much in order that the hon. member for Eglinton should have spoken on the measure. As a matter of fact, he spoke on it very well and very sensibly. The idea of trying to make rather nasty innuendoes about his having become the chief farm spokesman of the party, and things of that sort, I think were in very poor taste indeed.
As far as the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Moose Mountain is concerned, it is practically the same amendment which I myself moved last year when second reading of this legislation was up for consideration. Under those circumstances, of course, I think it must be quite clear that the members of this party will support the amendment. Essentially, I have risen in my place only to make my position in regard to the amendment clear.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like hon. members
to give me their views on whether they think the amendment is in order because I am inclined to believe that it is not. 1 understand this discussion may be adjourned at five o'clock; but should it be called for a vote I would have to make a ruling, and perhaps we could have a discussion on the matter of order at a later time. But before it comes to a vote I would certainly like to be enlightened as to the opinions of other members because in my humble opinion this amendment is not in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would you like to hear a few words now on the propriety of this amendment? I noted what you said a few moments ago as to the bill that is now before us, it being a bill which amends a statute passed in 1956. It seems to me, sir, that cognizance has to be taken of the fact that unless the bill now before the house is passed the statute that was passed in 1956 expires. In other words, what is before the house, though you technically referred to it

as an amending bill, would continue in effect a statute which otherwise would expire.
The purpose of my colleague's amendment is to state that in our view the bill proposed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce should not be read a second time; in other words, should not be passed. We propose an alternative to the proposition of extending legislation which otherwise would expire. That alternative, of course, is the one spelled out in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough).
We contend that our authority for moving an amendment of this kind is contained in a citation which no doubt is open on your lap right now, citation No. 657 in Beauchesne's third edition, which says:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution:	or otherwise opposed to its progress; or
seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of judges.
Then there follow two or three citations that develop the point and make it clear that an amendment of this kind must imply opposition to the motion for second reading and must state some alternative. They also make it clear that an amendment of this kind cannot anticipate amendments which could be made to the main bill if that bill got into committee.
It is our contention, sir, that the government's bill and the proposition in my hon. friend's amendment relate to the same subject, namely the needs of the farmers in western Canada, but that they offer solutions to that problem which are quite separate and distinct.
The proposal in the bill put forward by the minister is that legislation which would otherwise die be continued for another year, legislation which guarantees loans made by banks to farmers. The alternative proposal put forward by my colleague is that instead there should be introduced legislation to deal with this matter by means of establishing a permanent system of cash advances on farm stored grain. There have been many instances of amendments of this kind being moved. I suppose the score is about even; about half of them have been allowed and about half of them have been refused. It seems to me, however, that this amendment is in the category of the kind that have been allowed in that it presupposes opposition to the main motion. It is also in that category because its substance is in the same general

field and yet proposes a solution which is different from that proposed by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman at this point. On the general theory as to the type of amendments which may be moved on second reading of the bill I think he and I will not have to quarrel. I take it that he anchors his point on the fact that in his view this is a bill which continues the main act, and therefore he feels he can move to this amending bill the same type of amendment which he could move were the main act again before the house. His anchor is the clause that continues the main act. I think that is the hon. member's point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is correct, sir. If the government's bill were not before the house -shall I say if the government's bill is defeated-the so-called main act dies and no longer exists. In other words this is just a short way of reintroducing the main act with certain changes.
Your Honour is aware that this bill does more than merely continue the existing statute in the same form. It does make one or two changes regarding the interest rate and the maximum amount of the loans and so on.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the hon. member argues the amendment is in order because of these words in paragraph (b) of the amending section, 13(A):
... on or after the 1st day of September, 1957 and before the 1st day of June, 1958-
-which are substituted for the words in the main act?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the main basis of my contention.


Mr. Speaker:: I am satisfied and I thank the hon. gentleman for the explanation he has given. I shall give further consideration to the matter and give my ruling later.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that I made rather extended remarks during the resolution stage of this bill I feel that because of a number of statements that were made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) when he presented the amendment to the bill a few days ago I should now rise to correct what I believe was a misinterpretation he placed on some of the things contained in it.
First of all I would like to concur wholeheartedly in what was said a few moments ago by my colleague the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) when he challenged the Liberal members from western Canada-
Grain


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that these challenges to hon. members on various sides of the house while it may be done by one member should not be encouraged because whatever words are being uttered in that direction certainly cannot be relevant to the subject matter on the second reading of this amending bill.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I imagine that the Liberal members from western Canada will thank you for your intervention.


Mr. Sluder:: Who believes a Socialist? No one in Canada.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Rather than argue the reason why the government was not in favour of cash advances-


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that he should also thank me for having given him the opportunity of speaking to the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does he not have the right to do so?


Irvin William Studer: Look at all the Socialists coming in at once.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, rather than the government arguing through the minister that this legislation was not desirable from the government's point of view the minister based the reason for opposing it on the fact that it had not been supported by farmers in general and in particular by the farm organizations of western Canada.
Looking at what the minister said on March 14 it appears he bases his whole argument for introducing this amending bill on the fact that the proposals contained therein had been agreed to by farm organizations in western Canada.
He went on to say-if I may be permitted to paraphrase his words-that he was very happy to be able to introduce a bill which had the wholehearted support of farm organizations in western Canada. He went on to say, as reported at page 2196 of Hansard:
We were asked to enact this legislation by every farm organization in western Canada.
Later on the minister had this to say:
This resolution just deals with one matter, and that is the matter of the unanimous request from every prairie farm organization.
During the resolution stage I placed on the record a copy of the telegram which had been sent to the minister by the prairie farm organizations and which said in effect that they were not happy with what was being proposed in the amendment, that nothing short of cash advances would satisfy the

Grain
needs of the western farmer. However, believing they were not going to get cash advances at this session of parliament they set out certain recommendations and according to the minister's statement those left the impression that the present amendment contained all the things requested by the farm organizations. That is not borne out by the facts. I am not going to place the telegram on the record but I should like to indicate what was recommended by the farm organizations. The points they suggested to the minister should be in the amendment in lieu of cash advances were as follows:
That the basis for loans be set at $4 per specified acre up to a maximum of 800 acres.
That the time for advancement of loans be set ahead to September 1.
That credit unions and treasury branches be empowered to advance loans.
That interest rates be as low as possible and in any event not higher than that paid by Canadian wheat board.
In answer to those requests we have the minister's statement that these organizations wanted larger bank loans made available, $3,000 instead of $1,400. I submit that they asked for nothing of the kind. They asked for $4 per acre up to a maximum of 800 acres. There is no similarity between that request and what we find now in the innocuous amendment contained in Bill No. 86. When a farmer applies for a bank loan he is not asked how many cultivated acres he has, he is asked how many bushels of wheat he has, and then the loan is calculated on the basis of 8 bushels per acre up to a maximum now of $3,000.
I would like to suggest to the parliamentary assistant that he should table the reply of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the telegram received from the farm organizations. We understand that there was a reply and I think in fairness to the house it should be tabled. I believe it would be most revealing.
Getting back to the matter of the increase from $1,500 to $3,000 as set out in the amendment, I have done a little calculating and I should like someone, possibly the parliamentary assistant, to prove to me just how the average farmer, the farmer whom the minister said last year he was setting out to help, is going to benefit from this increase from $1,500 to $3,000.
Take a half-section farmer, and there are a good many of them in western Canada, and give him 300 cultivated acres which is certainly not stretching the point. When he markets his unit of 300 bushels he can only qualify for a loan of $900. On the other hand, if you take a three-quarter section farmer and give him 440 acres out of the

480 acres, with which I do not think anyone will quarrel, the largest amount he -could possibly borrow under the amended act would be $1,460. The average of those two loans is $1,160. We know from past experience and from figures placed on Hansard by the minister that the average of the loans made under the present legislation was only $764. It is impossible to expect that this amendment which raises the amount from $1,500 to $3,000 is going to help the farmer whom the minister was so anxious to help when he introduced the bill last year.
Nothing is said about interest rates. We know what has happened during the past few months; we know that interest rates have been increased by three-quarters of one per cent to the elevator companies which are handling and marketing the farmers' grain.
That simply means that the farmer is going to get $2 million less in his final payment when he receives it for the wheat which he markets. Over the past few months there have been several increases. The government has said that these increases in interest rates are made to fight inflation, but what they are doing here is simply to take away with the one hand $11 million in increased interest rates to the elevator companies which must go out and borrow tremendous amounts of money in order to market and handle the farmers' grain. Those costs are passed on to the wheat board and the wheat board charges them back in the final payment to the farmer. The result is that the farmer's purchasing power is cut further and further. In this amendment we are faced with the fact that interest rates can be set at the discretion of the governor in council and those would be the rates the banks would charge on these loans. We are dubious about this. We believe that interest rates are going to be increased.
I was disturbed at the argument used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to discredit bank loans. He said that the businessmen of this country are anxious to see cash advance legislation introduced, that they have an ulterior motive. I submit that the small businessman in western Canada is part and parcel of the agricultural set-up. It adds nothing to the argument of the minister to suggest that it is the businessman who is trying to force the hand of the farmer in asking for cash advances. The businessman is placed in an untenable position. He must provide credit at no cost. It is a great embarrassment for the farmer customer to have to ask for it and we know it is a financial strain on the businessman to give that credit.
We hope the government will reconsider this legislation and will accept the amendment

2705 moved. We are convinced that the legislation before us has no value and will be of no value to the farmers who are in great need. Therefore we hope the government will give further consideration to the implementation of cash advances as one way in which this situation can be remedied.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I do hope the amendment will not be ruled out of order, because it does give us an opportunity of indicating exactly what we want, and of indicating it in an active way by a vote. The amendment as it now reads, if it should be decided that it is in order, is:
That the bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to provide a permanent system of cash advances on farm-stored grain.
That is what we in this group want. We don't want to run a farmer into more debt when he has assets he wants to dispose of. We say he should be able to receive cash for the grain which the wheat board must eventually take from him.
Mr. Speaker, let me just pose a question or two for the sake of provoking some thought. Why is such legislation as this thought by the government to be needed? There is only one answer to that, namely that the farmers are in straitened financial circumstances. All right. That poses another question. Why are the farmers in straitened financial circumstances? Have they been unsuccessful in their farming? I don't think so.
The fact of the matter is that the farmers of western Canada have been extremely successful. They have been so successful in the operation of their farms that they have been able to bring about these surpluses in grain, or what we call these surpluses of grain. So we find successful farmers, now, who have no cash. That is the position. Is that any fault of their own? I believe the fault lies in the fact that the only selling agency through which a farmer can market his grain has not been able to dispose of this wheat.
I am not going to be too harsh with regard to the Canadian wheat board, because we recently read that the Canadian wheat board has exceeded, in its sales, the amount it has been able to dispose of in previous years. Nevertheless we have what might be termed a surplus and, on the other hand, we have what might be said to be a starving world. That is the picture. We are told by competent authorities that nearly half the world, including some iron curtain countries, is still at a starvation level. These are the nations that need to be fed; these are the nations that need our grain. Yet the Canadian wheat board has not been able to dispose of our wheat in such
Grain
a fashion that these starving nations could be fed with the vast abundance of grain that we in Canada have produced.
That poses another question. Why is this so? Once again the responsibility must be placed upon the shoulders of this present government, because they have not instituted financial policies capable of moving this grain to the countries which need it. As my colleague from Battle River-Camrose has said on a number of occasions, and as I myself and a number of others in this group have pointed out, the fact that the government will not change its financial policy and accept foreign currency for our exports is one reason why we have not been able to dispose of our surplus.
I would just like to say a word with respect to this so-called surplus. I have mentioned on several occasions, and sometimes taken the chance of being misunderstood, that we do not have a surplus of grain. That, of course, is hard to put over to people who may drive along our country highways and find grain piled up in the middle of fields. But, as I point out, the term "surplus" is a relative term. When we use the term "surplus" we must ask "surplus to what?". If we say it is a surplus over the amount the Canadian wheat board has been able to dispose of, then of course we have to say that we have a surplus. But if we ask ourselves whether it is a surplus over what the world needs in order to be fed, then I say we have no surplus.
Mr. Speaker, I ask another question. Sometimes questions provoke a good deal of thought. This question is a pertinent one. What is land for if it is not to grow crops? My hon. friend from Bow River says land can be used to bury you in.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: I was thinking of the Liberal party, and that is what is going to happen to them.


Ernest George Hansell: I am glad my hon. friend qualified that statement.
What is land for, if it is not for the purpose of growing foodstuffs? Why does a farmer go out and plant his grain if he does not expect to get a yield? I notice in the Gordon report they say one reason for the surplus of grain we have in this country is that over the past number of years we have had exceptionally good weather. I am not so foolish as to attribute the surpluses to the weather. I am one of those who do not believe that nature plays very many tricks; eventually nature can be relied upon. Imagine a farmer going out and putting in his crop and then, during the summer months, when we have had fine weather, rain and sunshine, going out and looking over his crops and

Private Bills-Divorce
finding that there is a prospect of reaping 30, 40 or even 50 bushels to the acre-imagine him turning away in sorrow and saying, "Oh, my goodness, I hope this good weather does not continue, because if it does I am going to have too much grain."
We would say such a man would be very foolish. The fact is that the farmer is there to raise crops. He hopes he will get fine weather and a good yield.
There is only one marketing agency through which he can market his wheat. We are all in favour of the wheat board because it has done an admirable job for the farmer. Nevertheless it is a government agency, and the only agency through which a wheat farmer can market his crop. The farmer has done his job by raising the crop. Now he cannot dispose of it; he has no cash, and the government turns round and says, "Well, we know our agency is the only agency which will take your wheat, but we won't take it because we have too much now." The farmer says, "What am I going to do?" and the reply he gets is, "We are sorry, we cannot help you; but we will submit some legislation whereby you will be able to borrow money from the bank, provided you pay the cost of it." This is tantamount to the farmer paying interest on his own grain. He is in the unfortunate position of having no cash because he has done an excellent job.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that it is five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Henderson for the second reading of Bill No. 230, for the relief of Joseph Ricardo Bou-ziane.
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, this particular case, the petition for relief of Joseph Ricardo Bouziane, was heard before subcommittee No. 3 of the other place. The chairman' of the committee was Senator Cameron from Alberta, and the other members of the committee were Senator Gershaw of Alberta, Senator Hodges of British Columbia and Senator Smith of the province of Nova Scotia. According to the evidence of this young man who appeared before them, at the time of his marriage he was 18 or 19 years of age. At the time he appeared before the committee he was 20 years of age. He is a member of the Roman Catholic faith and so is his wife. He is a mechanic by trade.
[Mr. Hansell.l
The record shows that this young man was married on August 27, 1955. His wife gave birth to a child on December 19, 1955. He says their difficulties began about three months after the wedding, in other words around November 19, 1955. This means that their difficulties began about a month before the first child was born. In the transcript of the evidence I find the following;
Q. Relate to the honourable members of this committee what happened after your marriage? A. Well, it began about three months after the marriage.
Q. What did? A. She started going out and we started having little fights. About three months after the wedding-
I repeat that he again emphasizes that the time was about three months after the wedding, which was one month before the child was born.
-I used to work very much at night till about 11 o'clock in the evening and come home, and many times she was not there and I had a hard time to find out where she was during the evening.
Q. Do you mean a hard time by talking to her or by seeking her out? A. Talking to her and seeking her out.
Q. She would not give any account where she was? A. No, she wouldn't. Then I started to follow her around and see what was going on and find out; she was going out with different men, and quite often-
Q. How did you find that? A. Some friends told me, and I also followed them myself.
It is rather incredible that a month before the birth of her first child a woman would begin to go out with other men, and that she would refuse to account for her absence when asked to do so by her husband. He testified further that when the baby was four months old his wife left the house. That was on March 18, 1956. He says he did not know where she had gone, and in the evidence I find the following:
Q. Continue relating to the honourable members of this committee your personal observations. A. On March 18, 1956 she left the house and she came back a couple of days later just to get some clothes and leave again.
Q. Where was the baby in the meantime? A. The baby she took with her at the time. At first I didn't know where she was living, and finally I got a phone call from her she needed money, and she was living at her sister's place, and I decided to give money for the child. I was paying $10 a week from March 20 approximately until July-
I would simply like to comment on the fact that she left him on March 18 and he did not know where she was living, but nevertheless he started to pay her $10 a week only two days after she left him. It is hardly believable that he did not know where she was living and would yet be paying $10 a week for the maintenance of the youngster. Then he goes on:
-and then in July the child was very sick and she brought it over to my father's who is a doctor in Montreal, to take care of him. We had to send

him to the hospital for a couple of days, and brought it back and the child has been with me ever since.
Q. Since that date that the child was brought back has she been to live with you? A. No, definitely not, she has not been back to see the child or anything.
In the first place we feel that since this young man was married at such a very early age and was only married for such a short time-in fact he was only married a little over a year when he petitioned the other place for a divorce-obviously there was not too much of an effort at reconciliation. In the second place, it is very hard to believe that a young woman will run out on her husband, take the baby with her and because of the baby's illness bring it back so the husband's father, who is a doctor, can look after the baby and then desert the baby completely and never once come back to see her child.
I notice that again the detective agency is the Reliable detective agency. Mr. Etheridge, who I understand is the owner, is one of the witnesses. Mr. Etheridge is only 41 years of age, and it is most regrettable that a young man of 41 who has so much of his life ahead of him should be wasting his life in enterprises such as this. The detective agency should be subjected to the most thorough investigation.


Mr. Byrne:: You are wasting our time.


Erhart Regier: The hon. member for Kootenay East says that I am wasting his time. If he is concerned about saving the time of the house he might rise in his place and tell the house what efforts he has made to relieve the house of this responsibility. I am sure the people of his constituency would applaud him for any efforts he may have made in that respect. Because I feel there has not been enough effort made to preserve this marriage, and also because I believe the Reliable detective agency bears some further investigation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson):
That Bill No. 230 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
Private Bills-Divorce
Johnson (Kindersley)
Johnston (Bow River)
Jones
Knight
Knowles
Leboe
Low
MacLean
McCullough (Moose Mountain)
McGregor
Nicholson
Patterson
Poulin
Quelch
Regier
Smith (Battle River-
Camrose)
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Winch Zaplitny-37.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Aitken, Miss
Anderson
Applewhaite
Ashbourne
Batten
Bell
Benidickson
Bennett
Brooks
Brown (Brantford)
Brown (Essex West)
Buchanan
Carter
Casselman
Cavers
Charlton
Eyre
Fairey
Ferguson
Follwell
Forgie
Fraser (Peterborough) Garland Garson Green Harkness Harris Harrison Hellyer Hollingworth Howe (Wellington-Huron)
Huffman
Hunter
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough) Lennard MacKenzie MacNaught Macnaughton McBain McCann
McCubbin
McCulloch (Pictou)
Mcllraith
Mclvor
Mang
Marler
Matheson
Michener
Mitchell (London)
Mitchell (Sudbury)
Monteith
Murphy (Lambton West)
Nesbitt
Nickle
Pallett
Philpott
Pickersgill
Proudfoot
Prudham
Purdy
Rea
Reinke
Richardson
Robertson
Robinson (Simcoe East)
Rowe
Schneider
Shipley, Mrs.
Small
Stanton
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Tucker
Tustin
Weir
White (Hastings-Frontenac)
White (Middlesex East)
White (Waterloo South) Winters-79.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 244, for the relief of Waltraud Feronika Thorwart Servay.


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, before approving the principle of this bill I desire to move, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson):
That Bill No. 244 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Private Bills-Divorce


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the house ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



ELIZABETH KRAWCHUK YOVDOFCHUK RIPCHINSKY

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 245, for the relief of Elizabeth Krawchuk Yovdofchuk Ripchinsky.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



GWENETH VERNICE BLACKMAN WATERMAN

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 246, for the relief of Gweneth Vernice Blackman Waterman.


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


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should advise the house that this is the 207th divorce bill to reach the House of Commons this session, and I understand there are ahout 200 more on the way.
I would like to make a few comments about the evidence supplied to members of the committee in connection with this case. The petitioner in this action was married in 1941 and has a child 14 years of age. The questioning in the other committee, in part, was as follows:
Q. And did you obtain your final judgment in separation? A. Yes. I did.
Q. Were you granted custody of the child? A. Yes,
I was.
Q. Now, since that period of time has your husband supported you and the child? A. No, he has not.
Q. Have you been working? A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have you lived with your husband since January, 1946?
A. No, I have not.
Q. When did you consult your attorneys about this present petition?
A. In November, 1956.
The following questions, I think, are extremely important:
Q. Is there any collusion or arrangement between you and your husband to obtain this divorce?
A. No, there is not.
Q. Have you in any way connived with this-
-Miss so and so-
.-to take your husband away from you so that you could present this petition?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Is there any condonation or forgiveness on your part?
A. No.
The only witnesses called in this particular case were the petitioner, the husband, and the corespondent. The husband was called and gave his full name, age, address and occupation. He was asked if he could identify the

lady sitting on his left, and he was able to identify her as his wife. He was asked if he knew another lady and he replied that he did. The questioning was as follows:
Q. How long have you known her?
A. About three years.
Q. Are you living with her today?
A. That is right.
Q. And are you still living with her as man and wife?
A. Yes.
He proceeded to indicate where he is living with the young lady in question. I should explain, of course, that before he was asked these questions he was addressed by the chairman of the committee, His Honour Senator Golding, as follows:
Witness, in compliance with the evidence act, R.S.O., 1950, chapter 119, section 8, I have to give you this warning. If you have been subpoenaed to attend this hearing it was your duty to attend, but now that you are here it is my duty to inform you that you are not liable to be asked or bound to answer any questions tending to show that you are guilty of adultery unless you have already given evidence in the proceeding in disproof of the alleged adultery. While you are not liable to be asked or bound to answer any question tending to the proof of your own adultery you have a right to do so if you see fit. That is your right and privilege; in which event what you say will be told voluntarily and not under any compulsion.
He was then asked:
Q. You understand that?
A. Yes.
Q. You are willing to make a statement?
A. Yes.
The corespondent was called and asked if she knew the gentleman in question, and she replied that she did. She was then asked:
Q. Is that the gentleman right behind you here?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. Three years.
Q. Are you living with him today?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you still living with him?
A. Yes.
She was asked if she had lived with him as man and wife for the last three years to which she replied that she had. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that since this is apparently a new type of procedure in connection with the granting of divorces the appropriate committee of this house should follow the practice established by the other chamber of seeing some of these petitioners.
I am at a loss to understand why such a small number of members from the province of Quebec are willing to support us in these amendments we are bringing before the house, which do not ask hon. members at this stage to pass final judgment until the people involved come before the appropriate committee. I think it would be only fair if all hon. members of the house, regardless of what their final opinion might be in connection with a case of this sort, would support
Private Bills-Divorce
amendments such as the following one I propose to move to Bill No. 264, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough):
That Bill No. 246 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



PAULINE MARGARET PATRICIA SYLVESTER MCLEAN

William Gilbert Weir: second reading of Bill No. 247, for the relief of Pauline Margaret Patricia Sylvester McLean.


Edward George McCullough: This is a very sad case. I see there is some humour expressed in the house, Mr. Speaker, but there are some people who view these unhappy marriages with a good deal of concern.
I rise at this time because, as I say, I feel this is an unfortunate situation. In the first instance, the young woman who is the petitioner in this case has applied for a divorce, I suppose of necessity, of course, because she and her husband have proved to be completely incompatible. The petition is by Pauline Margaret Patricia Sylvester McLean, and she is seeking divorce from Maurice Allan McLean.
She married at the age of 15 or 16, apparently in the year 1950. Within two years, according to the evidence presented in the other place, there were differences between her and her husband. She was questioned with regard to this situation by one of the senators, as follows:
Q. When did you quit living with your husband?
A. In 1952.
Q. Would you please state why?
A. He was not behaving properly and he was drinking very heavily, and he was seeing other women.
Apparently the first act of infidelity took place shortly after they were married. I would like to point out that there have been two children of this marriage. Donald, aged 6 and Michael aged 4. I am certain that since every hon. member of this house is concerned about the situation facing parliament with regard to having to deal with these divorce cases, there will be particular concern about this case where two small children are involved.
Apparently the husband had been sending this young woman certain sums of money, recently at least, without a court order having been obtained. Immediately after the couple were separated the wife took her husband to court in order to force him to make some contribution to her and her children's keep. But at the present time, apparently, as far as I have been able to gather from the evidence, the husband is now giving some assistance to his wife merely out of concern for the children and not as the result of a court order.

Reading the evidence in this case I feel, Mr. Speaker, that one would have to be presumptuous to accept some of the evidence given in trying to establish adultery. It does seem to me an indication that the hon. members of the other place must surely have come to the conclusion that here was a marriage which had proved to be unsuccessful, that no good could come from trying to resolve the difficulties of those concerned, and that a divorce should therefore be agreed to. There was no investigating officer. A young man, a friend of the petitioner, was apparently the person who drove with the petitioner to a motel, following the petitioner's husband.
After the lights went out in the motel, according to the evidence, they entered the motel. The door was not locked. They proceeded to the bed and found these two people in bed. Apparently there was no word spoken between any of the four people present. I can only come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that here is a case which would suggest that the petitioner as well as the respondent were quite agreed that a divorce should be obtained, and were quite happy about it.
However, I do think this case calls attention to the fact that in Canada this situation of broken marriages has reached the extent of being a national tragedy, and though we are dealing at the moment exclusively with this bill, it is proper to suggest that we should have some type of pre-marriage counselling by competent people, particularly of young people entering marriage, by means of which we might dispose of some of these problems we have to face in parliament by reason of these divorce petitions arising in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland, which have to be heard by this assembly.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this case should be sent to the committee on miscellaneous and private bills. A similar motion was turned down with respect to three other private bills which have come before us-


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Edward George McCullough: I wish to say that I disagree with the ease and rapidity-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair. May I remind hon. members that at eight o'clock we shall resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris (for Mr. Howe, Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 263, to amend the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, 1956, and the amendment thereto of Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain).
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for me to understand why no Liberal member from the prairie provinces has said a good word for this legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I was out of
the house for a while this afternoon, but on my return I believe Mr. Speaker was on his feet ruling out of order a similar observation by another hon. member, and I think I must follow that ruling.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have your authority for ruling that a member has not permission to observe that no Liberal member from the prairie provinces has a good word for the legislation. I was not here when the exchange took place this afternoon, but I cannot think of anything in Beauchesne that would prevent a member from doing so.


George Carlyle Marler: That does not mean it is not there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You cannot impute motives.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Surely the hon. member has heard of the law of relevancy. We are discussing the second reading of a bill entitled "An Act to amend the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, 1956." The fact that one hon. member or another speaks or does not speak is, in my opinion, certainly not relevant to the principle of the bill, and I would be forced to rule accordingly.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have limited time and I shall accept your ruling. I want to emphasize that the wheat producers of Canada are facing the most serious crisis in Canadian history, and I think hon. members who are aware of that problem have a responsibility to stand up in the house and indicate whether or not they consider this particular measure is adequate.


An hon. Member:: We shall consider it seriously when you do.
Grain


George Carlyle Marler: Get down to the business of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what we are waiting for the Liberals to do.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have in my hand a clipping from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix which gives the Minister of Finance a headline in these words: "Harris Impressed But Budget Didn't Show It, Farmer Says." The article is a very interesting report by Mr. Mitchell, one of the farmers' union delegates here recently. He quotes the Minister of Finance as saying:
. . . there was no segment of Canada more in need of fair treatment than the prairies.
The article goes on to quote Mr. Mitchell as saying:
However, when his budget came out it appeared he had forgotten this opinion.
The article reports Mr. Mitchell as commenting in this way on the Minister of Finance:
... a young man, very straightforward, not like the rest of them, who when asked a question came straight to the point. He said. "C. D. Howe is a hard man."
The article reports Mr. Mitchell as mentioning that a member from Quebec had remarked:
Gentlemen, I am going to be frank with you. We are so tired of dishing out special favours for the west that we hate the sight of you.
The article does not give the name of the member from the province of Quebec. I am sure it was not one of the genial members who sits on this side of the house. The article goes on to say that before they parted the Quebec member apologized, shook hands with them and promised to read the brief.
A year ago, Mr. Speaker, this crisis was so serious that the Toronto daily Star sent one of their able reporters, Robert Nielsen, out west by plane to try to get some first-hand information as to whether or not this was a matter that deserved the attention which the C.C.F. and other members on this side of the house indicated it should receive. Mr. Nielsen travelled extensively across the prairies. While he was out west he visited my constituency and had a conversation with Mr. Rediger who was returning from hospital. I point out that the conversation with Mr. Rediger resulted in Mr. Nielsen reaching this conclusion, as found in the Kelvington Radio of February 10, 1956:
His resentment fans out in several directions, at the federal government which has refused to pay him for farm-stored grain; at the railways at the politically dominant and favoured "east."
The article continues:
Rediger broached a theme that was to be stated politely but firmly by nearly every westerner I talked with. He contrasted the position of the prairie farmer, at the mercy of the world market for his income, with the happy state of workers

Grain
and managers in eastern industry, sheltered by tariffs which jack up the farmers' living and operating expense.
"It don't seem right", he said. "Millions of people in the world are hungry and need our wheat. They'd buy it too, if we'd buy their goods".
According to the article Mr. Rediger concluded that all this is foretold in the Bible and worse is still to come, so there is not much comfort in that. According to Mr. Nielsen the position on the farms at several places was very critical. The article continues:
Nowhere on the farms or at the elevators did I hear a kind word said of the federal government's plan for five per cent loans through banks on farm stored grain, up to a maximum of $1,500. A farce-said Harmsworth. Why should we pay interest on our own money? The farmers hereabouts take the view that they have done their work, harvested the crop, and should be paid for it-not asked to go deeper in debt.
So, Mr. Speaker, if a year ago an eastern paper like the Toronto Star considered it sufficiently important to their readers to send Mr. Nielsen to the prairie provinces, I think members of the house should face up to the situation and decide whether it is as serious as Mr. Nielsen found it was last year and as we have tried to represent.


Edward George McCullough: It is
worse now.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: As the hon. member for Moose Mountain says, it is worse now. The last census informs me that around 5,000 people have left my constituency in the last five years, nearly 10 per cent, while the population of Canada was going up. We know why. We know that in our own province the young chaps leave the farms to go down to Moose Mountain constituency in the oil fields.


An hon. Member:: Oh, I thought he was a farmer.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Well, the farm boys go to work in the oil fields in Saskatchewan because they find that their returns are so far out of line with the returns from farming.


An hon. Member:: You have everything.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, we have oil in Saskatchewan, but I am talking tonight about the farm crisis. We are not going to solve the farm crisis by giving the farmers permission to borrow more money on their own grain and forcing them to pay higher interest.
The last time I went west I ran across a young chap who was on his way up to the D.E.W. line. He had signed a contract, he informed me, to spend 18 months at a salary of $1,000 a month plus a bonus of $5,000 at the end of the 18 months. If he stuck it out for a year and a half he had $23,000

available. If he quit before then he did not get the bonus, and he had to pay his return transportation.


Mr. Goode:: You and I should not be here at all. We should be up on the D.E.W. line.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This young chap had a much more attractive return than the farmer. I think because this program worked out by the federal government creates prosperity in the central areas of Canada, we should have some support from more of the Liberal members who represent rural ridings all over Canada.
There has been some criticism of our suggestion that the federal government should go into this program of paying cash for a very real Canadian resource that is going to be used some day. I am referring to our wheat. We cannot expect our 200,000 wheat farmers to carry all their operating expenses and provide storage for all grain on their farms until there is a world famine, or until countries like the United States go bankrupt, or until other countries which are engaged in programs subsidizing the production of agricultural products decide to change their policy. We have had a policy of subsidizing Canadians for a great many years.
During the supper recess I got some of the information that was made available by the government of Saskatchewan at the time of the Rowell-Sirois commission hearings. I find that commission counsel was a Canadian who was not so well known at that time as at present. I am referring to Louis S. St. Laurent, Esquire, Q.C., who was counsel for the commission. The case for Saskatchewan was presented by the attorney general of the day, Mr. Justice Davis, more recently the Canadian ambassador to Japan.
Mr. Justice Davis made an excellent case in pointing out what the tariff policy of Canada has meant to the prairies in particular. He also pointed out what the western provinces have meant to our eastern economy. Between the years 1906 and 1920, as he stated, the Canadian Pacific Railway netted over $388 million on their western lines, more than twice as much as they netted on their eastern lines. If you take the period 1922 to 1926, again the Canadian Pacific cleared more than twice as much on their western operations as on their eastern. They had cleared $146 million. So, Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit that as a result of the failure of the government of Canada to deal with this national problem, our farmers are being forced to leave the farms, to abandon the land they think should be used to produce food for our own country and for our neighbours abroad. We are doing a real disservice.

Mr. Justice Davis referred to a study the late Norman Rogers had undertaken for the province of Nova Scotia some years ago to indicate what a tariff policy means to a country. Dr. Rogers said that a tariff duty is a tax and a subsidy and he pointed out that the automobile industry would serve as an excellent example.
This industry is located entirely in the province of Ontario, and receives tariff protection at rates varying from 20 per cent to 40 per cent under the general tariff. Presumably it would not exist without tariff protection. Who pays the subsidy? Well, clearly it is paid by the consumers of automobiles in Canada. In Nova Scotia in 1930 retail sales of motor vehicles amounted to $13 million by most conservative estimates.


Frederick George Hahn: On what page is that?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is on page 88. A conservative estimate of what this cost the people of Nova Scotia is $2,183,150. Dr. Rogers made a very interesting analysis to show what each province in Canada, except Newfoundland which was not a province at that time, had received and had paid as a result of tariffs. The table is as follows:
	Tariff	Tariff		
subsidy	costs	Net gain Net loss	Province	per	per	per	percapita	capita	capita	capita$	$	$	$P. E. Island ...	. 5.32	23.20	17.88Nova Scotia ...	. 18.50	30.78	12.28New Brunswick 19.91	31.58	11.67Quebec 	. 46.23	35.20	11.03	Ontario 	. 64.32	49.17	15.15	Manitoba 	. 28.44	41.69	13.25Saskatchewan .	. 3.55	31.71	28.16Alberta 	. 11.22	38.15	26.93British Columbia 32.03	54.36	22.33I want to	emphasize, Mr.	Speaker,	that
the province that fared the worst of the nine provinces was Saskatchewan. Our net loss was $28.16 for every man, woman and child for every year up to the time Dr. Rogers did his analysis. The provinces of British Columbia and Alberta are second and third, with Manitoba fourth. The only two provinces in Canada which benefited as a result of tariffs were Quebec, with a net gain of $11.03, and Ontario with a net gain of $15.15.
Now, it has been considered a desirable Canadian policy to have a tariff structure that placed each year a burden on the people in all parts of the country, and instead of the government collecting this revenue and making it available these very substantial amounts have gone into the pockets of the large corporations, which again are located in central Canada. Therefore I submit that for the government of the day to come to parliament and seriously suggest that the way to deal with this crisis is to permit
Grain
farmers to borrow $3,000 instead of $1,500, and permit them to pay a higher rate of interest than 5 per cent on their earnings on their own farms, is an insult to them.
I want to put in a word for the people who service the farmers. The storekeepers, the municipal officials, the doctors, all the people who are dependent, directly or indirectly, on our wheat economy are fighting for their very survival. We have had before parliament on a number of occasions legislation in connection with the interest rates charged by the small loans companies. Apparently in our larger cities people can get out of trouble temporarily by going to the loan sharks and paying 20 per cent, 30 per cent and 40 per cent per annum for temporary accommodation.
Well, we do not have these services in our rural communities; therefore the small town storekeeper is obliged to advance credit to his customers who are honest citizens and who have grain on their farms. The storekeeper cannot take the grain; the banker will not take the grain; the wheat board will not take it, and a very critical situation is developing. The storekeepers have not been in the habit of charging the interest rates that the large departmental stores charge on their credit sales. The small town merchant is not organized to run a large credit department, as is so common in the larger department stores in the larger centres. Therefore these storekeepers in these small areas are finding themselves confronted with an impossible situation in getting sufficient cash to meet their commitments with their wholesalers.
I mentioned previously that the problem of arrears of taxes is having a very direct effect on the maintenance of schools, hospitals and other services. In my constituency I have parts of 14 rural municipalities. The arrears of taxes in these rural municipalities have gone up in the last three years from $750,000 to $1,500,000, and that poses a very real problem. The communities that normally would be paying as they go have been forced to build up overdrafts at the banks by paying too large a percentage of their revenue to meet interest charges.
If the government of Canada would follow the pattern of the government of the United States and make cash advances available to the farmers who have grain on their farms it would help alleviate this very critical problem. However, that in itself will not be the final answer. Somehow or other we have to recognize that the people who are producing food in Canada are supplying as necessary a service as the young chap who goes up to

Grain
the D.E.W. line and gets $1,000 a month tor his services, plus a bonus of $5,000 at the end of a year and a half.
The Gordon commission informs us that since the end of the war our farm population has gone down from around 25 per cent of the total Canadian population to about 15 per cent, and they expect that in the next 25 years, though our over-all population is going to increase, the farm population will go down to just over 7 per cent. I think that is a great calamity when, as Mr. Rediger said, there are a billion people in the world who are hungry and who would like to get a chance to use some of our surplus food, while the present program calls for starving our farmers off the farms, and forces them to buy in a highly protected market, the highest priced market in the world, and to sell their products in competition with countries which are using public funds in a very generous way to support their farm people.
I have mentioned previously that the food bank program alone in the United States puts into the pockets of their farmers as much as $23 for every acre that is not seeded to wheat. We remember the situation back in the 1930's when farmers were being paid more not to grow food than they were to grow it. I am not suggesting that we embark on a program to pay our people for not growing food, but I am suggesting that Canada cannot afford, in the year 1957, to leave the people on the farms in the maritimes, in central Canada, on the prairies and in British Columbia in the position where they are getting a diminishing share of the national income while the rest of our economy boasts of record-breaking corporation profits all along the line.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope this amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Moose Mountain will get the support of prairie members, who so far have not had a good word to say for this legislation. By their silence they have demonstrated that they are not prepared to go back to meet their people and be accused of having stood up in parliament and said that the farmers are satisfied with the deal they are getting; that this proposal is the best that can be expected from the parliament of Canada.


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage I do not intend to again cover the ground that we covered at the resolution stage. As hon, members will recall, members of this group went into some detail to point out to the house the views and attitudes of western farm organizations and western farmers on the proposal of bank loans versus cash advances. It was put on the record in a conclusive way to indicate

why farm organizations and farmers overwhelmingly favour the principle of cash advances and oppose the principle of paying money on our own wages.
It was interesting to note that when this subject matter was introduced at the resolution stage the members of this group played a major role in the debate. I think that is understandable, since we are representing the western provinces and are concerned with the welfare of the farmers in that area. I think we should go into some little detail in dealing with the problems which exist in western Canada, and in analysing the legislation which the government has introduced as a means of solving those problems.
It is not news to any member who has listened to the matter we have debated in the house that we have a terrific carryover of grain on the farms of western Canada. It is common knowledge that the quotas are very small indeed, and that farmers are being caught in the cost-price squeeze.
I notice there is a lot of interest on the part of hon. members from other parts of Canada in this subject. That was apparent last year when we were discussing it at the resolution stage. I recall one instance when the leader of this group observed that so much attention was being paid to it that he moved that the house rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. There were so few members on the government side of the house that the C.C.F., with the support of the other opposition groups, were able to defeat the government on that motion.
I noticed that an equal interest was in evidence again this afternoon, when at one time I counted approximately 13 government members attentively following the debate. So I want to take the opportunity of explaining this matter in some detail in order that they may be able to deal with the subject with open minds.


Mr. Argue:: Open is right.


An hon. Member:: Open at both ends.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: The need for cash advances has been developing over the last five years. This is not a problem that has pounced upon us over night. Farmers have found that with the bountiful years the carryover of grain on the farms has increased tremendously, and as that carryover has increased the deliveries of grain from the farms have decreased.
A few years ago the government followed the policy of having a uniform quota for all marketing points in western Canada, which meant that farmers had the same opportunity of obtaining some returns from their grain.

Last year, because of the difficulties in transportation which the transport controller was not able to resolve, it was deemed necessary to allow a variation in quotas. What happened in effect was that some marketing points were allowed to deliver 5, 6 or 7 bushel quotas while others were held down to a 2 or 3 bushel quota because of the shortage of box cars.
I think the core of the problem can be found here, and we should analyse it. Is it fair to ask a farmer, who under today's circumstances is denied the opportunity of delivering the same amount of grain as his neighbour at a different marketing point, to pay interest on the money he has to borrow from the bank because he has been denied the opportunity of delivering his grain? Perhaps fairness is not a characteristic the Liberal government deems worthy of consideration, but it is of serious concern to the farmers who are suffering financial hardship because of their inability to market their grain.
With this unequal quota position on the one hand and the very low delivery position on the other-and it was pointed out that the majority of marketing points in Saskatchewan are on a 2 bushel quota or less-we have some appreciation of the problem. The solution the government has advocated for this problem is that of providing guarantees to the banks so that loans may be made to farmers up to the amount of $3,000 at an indefinite interest charge. I think we should analyse each of the qualifications in the bill quite thoroughly.
In the first place the farmer is not being given the bank loan as a right. He has to prove to the banker that he is an excellent risk, otherwise he will be denied a loan. That is one of the most serious objections to this procedure, because the farmer who needs the loan most is the one who will be denied it.
Those farmers who through diversification or luck have been able to grow crops which are more readily saleable have little or no difficulty borrowing from the banks on the security of section 88, and indeed bankers encourage them to borrow under that section rather than under the bank loan legislation because it gives them flexibility in the repayment of their loans.
This legislation proposes that the maximum loan be increased from $1,500 to $3,000.
I do not know of what advantage this will be. I think it is a matter of catering to what the Minister of Trade arid Commerce assumed was the resolution passed by the farm organizations, when they requested a cash advance of $4 an acre on a maximum of 800 acres, amounting to $3,200. Apparently the Minister of Trade and Commerce got
Grain
this confused with the figure of $1,500 which was contained in the former legislation. It was pointed out by the hori. member for Humboldt-Melfort that increasing the maximum amount of the loan from $1,500 to $3,000 will be of little or no benefit unless this legislation is altered to give the loan to the farmer as a right.
It was indicated in the discussion at the resolution stage that the average loan was slightly in excess of $700 during the first period, when the maximum loan was $1,500. This is an indication that perhaps the figure of $1,500 was not at fault but rather that the legislation itself was inadequate.
In reply to a question I asked at the resolution stage the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated that a farmer must have a quota large enough to allow him to deliver $6,000 worth of grain to be able to qualify for the maximum loan. This simply means that a farmer would have to have approximately 600 acres, which is far beyond what the average farmer can ever hope to achieve. The average farmer in western Canada falls into the three-quarter section' category, with a quota on approximately three to four hundred acres, so we have a measure of deceit creeping into this legislation. The government implies that a farmer can get a loan of up to $3,000 when in effect he is limited by the acreage and the anticipated quota in the year of delivery.
The third aspect of this legislation which makes it particularly obnoxious is the interest rate. Iri discussing this matter with the Minister of Trade and Commerce the farm organizations, after the frustration of hoping for something better and being denied it, have implied in conclusion, "If we cannot have decent legislation in the form of cash advances the least the government of Canada could do would be to decrease the interest to the lowest possible rate".
What has the government done? It has left the interest rate flexible so it may be increased at the will of the government in order to keep pace with the ever-increasing interest rates charged by the Bank of Canada. Since the wheat board is paying 4f per cent interest and the elevator companies are paying over 5 per cent, I will wager that if the interest rate of 5J per cent charged in the previous period is unsatisfactory, on the basis of his security the farmer will be paying 6 per cent, which is the interest rate the banks charge under section 88 of the Bank Act, which allows farmers more complete freedom of repayment; or perhaps the rate will be even more.
If you weigh the three government solutions against the problem you will readily

Grain
appreciate that they fall far short of resolving it. The solutions offered by the government will not assist the farmer to carry on his operations. The fact that the date of application has been set at September 1 is of little consequence, I submit.
Usually at that time of year the farmer is not in a position to know what his crop will be. He must deduct his unit quota and other deliveries which often occur at the start of the year. At some marketing points there is a 1-bushel quota at the start of the crop year, and at others there would be one unit and sometimes two units which would be deducted from the amount of the loan the farmer is to get. That would not give the farmer enough cash to pay his store bills.
Consideration must be given to the position of the average merchant in western Canada.
I want to pay a sincere tribute to the merchants I have dealt with, and indicate my appreciation of the work they have done and the energy they have expended in serving the public. I recall the thirties when our farmers were in a serious financial position, and I remember how the merchants gave them financial assistance wherever possible. Those situations and circumstances are being repeated today. We find the businessman advancing credit to farmers so they may buy groceries for their families. He is making these advances on the understanding that as deliveries of grain increase he will be repaid. The same thing is true of those merchants who are providing services to the farmers, the implement companies and others who play a role in the community and whose livelihood is dependent upon agriculture.
It is submitted that a system of cash advances would provide the solution which is generally desired, and would be effective as a part of our agricultural program. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said that if all western farm organizations could agree on each item of a proposal for cash advances he would consider it. He has taken a page from the book of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has laid down so many provisoes in connection with his hospitalization scheme as are propitious before an election that he hopes that by jockeying them around action will not have to be taken by the government. I suspect the Minister of Trade and Commerce is doing the same thing.
If the minister were to ask any single farm organization what they favoured, he would come up with a system of cash advances. There may be one or two organizations in western Canada which are posing as farm organizations and which are disinterested in
[Mr. Johnson (Kindersley) .1
this proposal, but I do not see why they should be able to block legislation which would be beneficial to the farmers of western Canada.
I do not think it is up to me to work out all the details of a system of cash advances.
I have worked out enough details; I have discussed this often enough with pool officials, with farmers and with farm organizations, to realize that a workable scheme could be developed. I know that certain Liberal members from Saskatchewan will say that we already have a system of cash advances in the form of bank loans. As he was able to elucidate bank loan legislation and convert it into cash advances, I imagine if the minister wanted to exercise the same kind of dexterity in working out a formula for cash advances he would be able to do it quite successfully.
It would be quite simple to work out an arrangement whereby the farmer would be granted a certain percentage of cash advance on his unsold grain sufficient to give him an opportunity of getting the same cash return that is available to his neighbour or to other communities in western Canada. That is the essence of fairness in the proposal of cash advances. It could be extended to compensate the farmers for the failure of the government to build adequate inland storage, which would have greatly increased the returns to the farmers and at the same time would have placed many millions of bushels of wheat now in surplus in a position where it could be stored for future needs and future sale. A system of cash advances could be built up to that.
I was gratified to notice that when the hon. member for Moose Mountain moved his amendment it was accepted docilely by the members of the government. I suppose that in a place such as this House of Commons, which is dependent upon debate to influence the attitude of various members, we have been completely successful in convincing the government of the desirability of accepting our amendment. I notice the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not here to give the signals, so I assume that members of the government will listen to the debate which is taking place and be able to make up their own minds accordingly. If supporters of the government are by some strange means stimulated to express the views of their constituents and are able to convince members of the government that a system of cash advances is not desirable, then I suggest that hon. members should be free to make up their own minds.
I do not think any member from Saskatchewan or from western Canada would

dare to stand up in the house and speak against the amendment which we of the C.C.F. have moved. They would not dare do it because they realize that it represents the desires of farmers in western Canada. Farm organizations have been explicit enough; farmers have been explicit enough, and so I can only assume that the arguments which have been put forward by members of the C.C.F. have convinced members of the government that we should in fact take a step in the continuing process of orderly marketing by accepting the amendment which has been moved, requesting the government to give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to provide a permanent system of cash advances on farm-stored grain.
After such legislation has been introduced we will then have an opportunity to begin to resolve many of the problems confronting agriculture. We will have an opportunity to try to iron out some of the income differentials which exist as between areas in western Canada. It will be a long step toward providing agricultural security.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Moose Mountain is a simple one in principle. It is:
That Bill No. 263 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to provide a permanent system of cash advances on farm stored grain.
The reason we, along with farm organizations and farmers across Canada, support cash advances rather than the government's policy of bank loans is well known. We believe that a system of cash advances would provide money to the farmer as of right in the fall when he needs it. As long as the farmer had grain on his farm which was in reasonably good condition and in reasonably good storage, he would be entitled as of right to such advance.
Under this legislation, at the very time western agriculture has more grain on hand than it has had at any time in the recent history of the prairie provinces the government treats the farmers almost as though they were bankrupt. The government is saying to the farmers when they have had a series of good crops, when they might expect, in the ordinary course of events, that they would have some money in their own bank accounts, but when they are faced with storage congestion and inability to move their grain, "We are going to do nothing to enable you to solve your problems but rather 82715-172
Grain
we are going to compound them, perhaps, by providing heavier debt obligations at high interest rates."
The legislation placed before the house last year had nothing to recommend it, and this legislation has, in some respects, even less to recommend it because the interest rate last year was statutory; it was fixed in the bill. This time, however, the interest rate is not stated in the bill but is to be left to the governor in council to determine. Over the years, step by step, this government is removing many of the rights of parliament. We see once again in this bill a further indication that the government wants to be allpowerful, that the government wants to legislate not by parliament but by order in council. In this case one can only assume from the present condition of higher and higher interest rates that this is a backdoor recourse to camouflage a forthcoming increased interest rate to agricultural producers. At a time when producers are facing severe financial burdens, the governments intends to add to those burdens.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce is well known throughout Canada. He is a famous man in many parts. His reputation is becoming more and more widespread, and one of the things he is becoming best known for is his determination to acquire for himself more and more power, more and more authority; to take authority away from parliament, give it to himself, and then recommend to the governor in council that certain action be taken. Judging from the record of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the past he has seldom if ever failed when he has determined that something should be done. The Prime Minister is little match for the Minister of Trade and Commerce when the latter desires to do something. The government cannot stand up to this man, and neither can the Liberal party.


An hon. Member:: Neither can the C.C.F.


Hazen Robert Argue: Correct; neither can the C.C.F. and neither can parliament itself. Certainly the western grain producers cannot. There is probably only one man who has any real authority in Canada today who is fundamentally opposed to a system of interest-free cash advances, and that is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. But he is so allpowerful in this government that he is able to thwart the desires of western grain producers, the desires of opposition parties in this house and, I would think-I would hope- the private desires of a great many hon. members on the government side of this house.

Grain
In all the experience I have had in talking to farmers and speaking to farmers' organizations I have yet to hear one farmer, or to hear of one organization, being in favour of this kind of legislation in all its aspects, and opposed to a system of cash advances. The Minister of Trade and Commerce does not worry too much about what kind of stuff he puts on the record; whether or not it is strictly in accordance with the facts causes him little concern.


John Horace Dickey: It may be true of you, but not of him.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, we hear from the
minister's parliamentary assistant, who has adopted the attitude of the Liberal party; that is the attitude of silence with regard to this measure. And it is little wonder that the attitude of the Liberal party should be one of silence, because this bill is so at variance with the desires of a great many people in this country.
The minister's explanation was inaccurate and misleading in many respects, and the parliamentary assistant has done nothing to make it clearer. I refer particularly to the statement at page 2161 of Hansard of March 13, 1957, where he spoke as follows:
The three wheat pools, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the united farmers and a great number of local organizations have asked that this bill be passed, and have asked in the exact terms in which the bill has been drafted.
That statement is not correct. That statement cannot be substantiated. There is not a farm organization, I warrant, any place in Canada which has asked for the legislation in the precise terms which this bill has provided. They did not ask for legislation that would leave it to the discretion of the banks to decide whether or not a farmer could receive a loan. They asked that something be given to the farmer as of right. They asked that the interest rates be low, lower than 5 per cent. Not a single farm organization has said, "We want the interest rates set by the governor in council." So the farm organizations have not asked that this bill should be passed in its present terms.
As a matter of fact they did not ask for the bill at all, because when they had a meeting recently, according to the secretary of the Saskatchewan farmers' union, the farm organizations passed the following resolution:
Resolved, that while we do not agree that the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act is the most satisfactory method for making money available on grain that cannot be delivered, however, in view of the late date in having a more satisfactory plan for cash advances adopted at this session of parliament, this committee recommends to the federal government the inclusion of the following amendments:
(a)	That the basis for loans be set at $4 per specified acre up to a maximum of 800 acres.

Hon. members will note it says "that the basis for loans be set at $4 per specified acre". That provision is not in the bill; it is not mentioned at all.
(b)	That the time for advancement of loans be set ahead to September 1.
That provision has been accepted.
(c)	That credit unions and treasury branches be empowered to advance loans.
That provision has not been placed in this bill. Once again the government is discriminating against the credit unions. The government does not allow the hundreds of credit unions on the prairies to play a part in a program of guaranteed loans on grain. The farmers do not wish to have their loans from the banks; they do not want interest-bearing loans at all. They want cash advances. But if they are to choose between loans from the credit unions and loans from the banks as provided by this bill, there is no doubt that the farm organizations will support an extension of this legislation to include credit unions.
Why should the government not encourage credit unions? 1 think credit unions are one of the best developments in the financial field which have taken place in Canada this century, and I suggest that such a worth-while development should be encouraged wherever possible. I believe that the credit unions, in their experience, have probably lost less money than the chartered banks of this country. The history of credit unions shows that their losses are almost negligible, and there would be little or no risk to the national treasury if the government extended this legislation to include credit unions.
But the government would not do that. It would not follow the recommendations of the farm organizations. Yet the minister says the bill has been drafted in the exact terms requested by the farm organizations.
Then I come to the fourth provision that is requested. It is in these words:
That interest rates be as low as possible and in any event not higher than that paid by the Canadian wheat board.
The Canadian wheat board has had the interest rates it has to pay increased in recent months. The board too has become a victim of the government's monetary policy. But even so, even though its interest rates have been going up, the Canadian wheat board has been able to obtain money at an interest rate lower than farmers can get under this legislation. The farm organizations asked that interest rates be reduced by providing a ceiling so they would not be greater than the interest rates paid by the Canadian wheat board.

This session of parliament has before it a number of very worth-while measures affecting many regions and groups in this nation. There is a measure before the house to increase prairie farm assistance; but I think any fair minded person looking over the government's program in total for this session cannot help but come to the conclusion that the agricultural industry is the forgotten industry of the nation. If it were another industry the government would not hesitate to rush in with subsidies in order to help. It would not hesitate to bring in closure motions to force advances of $80 million and so on, but when it comes to the agricultural industry the government forces a higher interest burden on the backs of western producers.
I am sure the amendment before the house will be supported by the members of the opposition parties, and I would think unanimously. I would express the hope that members of parliament on the government side of the house, particularly those members of parliament who represent prairie graingrowing constituencies, will consider these issues very carefully. I believe that if even as few as half a dozen of them will stand up in their places and vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Moose Mountain, then the Minister of Trade and Commerce will have to stop, look and, I would hope, listen.
I believe the only thing standing between the producers on the prairies and cash advances is the ingrown and slavish loyalty of western Liberal members to the party whip. I suggest that parliament today is suffering because members of the house-


John Horace Dickey: It is suffering at the moment.


Hazen Robert Argue: -on an amendment such as this will so often not stand up and vote as their constituents would wish them to vote. I am completely convinced that at least 98 per cent of the people of the prairie provinces support cash advances as opposed to bank loans. I believe that. I have never heard a person oppose cash advances, except in this house or other representatives of the Liberal party.
I do not think the amendment now before the house should be considered as a want of confidence motion that will endanger the life of the government. Certainly if a few members of parliament from the prairies decide to vote for the amendment it will have no effect on the position of the government. The government has such a large majority that if all the Liberal representatives from the prairies, including those who represent urban constituencies, stood up and voted for the amendment the government, if it wished to 82715-172i
Grain
do so, could still defeat it by a very large majority. But the very fact that they would stand up and be counted on an issue that is fundamentally important to the welfare of a very large section of this country would, I suggest, within a few months result in the government, no matter what government may be in power, bringing such legislation before the house to be placed on the statute books of the country.
It is not just the farm organizations that are so much in favour of cash advances. As has already been mentioned this evening, local businessmen have just as much interest in this kind of legislation as the people who belong to farm organizations and represent the farmers. When a farmer is unable to sell his grain it is difficult for him to finance his business; and because of the generally tight marketing situation farmers by the hundreds, yes, perhaps by the thousands, are being forced to give up the occupation that is their first choice.
But difficult as it is for the farmers when they are unable to market their grain, I would say if there is any group that is in as bad or a worse position for the same reason it is the small businessmen, the independent dealers, the local merchants, the corner grocery store, the garage operators, the implement and oil dealers. These business people throughout the whole operating season very often have advanced credit to their customers at no charge, without interest, and they find themselves placed in a very difficult position when the grain cannot be moved at a rapid rate and farmers at the same time are not able to obtain a cash advance on their grain.
As a result many small businessmen have themselves had to go to the banks to borrow money and pay interest on it in order to meet their inventories, in order to pay cash to their wholesalers, in order to give interest-free credit to their friends and neighbours, their customers, who are the agricultural producers. When the farmer gets a good crop in this kind of situation and cannot pay his obligations the merchant must go on paying substantial interest charges on the credit he has advanced to the grain producers. Therefore I suggest that the whole matter of cash advances is fundamentally important to the economic life of the prairie provinces.
I have welcomed the recent indications from the government that the long-standing plight of the maritime provinces is being investigated and studied, and there has been an indication that action will follow. I welcome that. No doubt the money to pay for the necessary measures will come from people who live in all parts of Canada, but I think that as Canadians we should endeavour to provide a Canadian standard of

Grain
living to people in all parts of the nation. When an area is depressed over a long period of time it behooves the government to undertake steps that will provide a fair share of the economic production of the country to the people who live in that region.
I suggest that along with studying the economic problems of the maritimes the government should be studying the economic problems of western Canada. The government are failing to take action, as we have asked, to solve the grain situation, and they are not easing the problem in other ways. They are making the problem more difficult.
They are allowing new horizontal increases in freight rates to add a further freight burden to the people of the prairies. A subsidy that was placed in the estimates, I believe back in 1952, of $7 million to provide for the maintenance of trackage, the so-called link between the industrial areas of Ontario and Quebec and the west, is still $7 million and is unable to play its part in levelling out freight rates today as it was in 1952 because of inflationary rises in costs and because of further horizontal increases in freight rates.
I suggest that legislation to put money in the pockets of the farmers is fundamentally necessary to the welfare of western Canada.
I suggest it would be of great advantage to people in all parts of our nation.
I have read from time to time that there is difficulty in the farm implement industry, and that there is difficulty sometimes in obtaining markets for our automobile production. There would be no underemployment, if I may use that term, in the farm implement industry if the government had legislation to solve the economic problems of the farmers of this nation. The fact that the government has failed to meet the needs of the agricultural producers, plus the fact the agricultural producers are not able to obtain their share of the economic production of this nation, results periodically in stresses, strains and hardships in other industries.
Let no one think that although the marketing year has become advanced, there are not at this time huge surplus quantities of grain on the prairies in the farmers' hands. Marketings have been up this year over last year. Exports have been up to date in this crop year over a comparable period in the last crop year. But about January 1, the beginning of this calendar year, a change in the export picture became noticeable. While our exports up to that time had been more than in the same period last year, about that time our rate was lowered. Since January 1 we have exported-these figures

were up to date just a few days ago-39 million bushels of wheat this year as compared to 53 million bushels of wheat in a similar period last year.
If one reads the grain publications, if one attempts to read between the lines of government statements, I suggest that anyone who has any knowledge of the Canadian grain business today cannot help but be concerned with the very severe drop in the export of Canadian wheat since the beginning of the calendar year. People who have knowledge of the grain business cannot help but be concerned about prospects for the future. While we got off to a good start in this crop year, we now hear it said rather frequently that the chances are that when July 31 comes, unless there is a change in the export climate in the meantime, present indications would suggest that we will export less wheat this crop year than we exported last year. I think that would be a very serious development for all Canada.
I have in my hand the most recent wheat review setting forth the exports of the various exporting nations during August to January last. The United States in that period exported 251 million bushels of wheat, and Canada exported 145 million bushels; the United States exported 106 million bushels more than we had. When one looks at the statistics for a comparable period a year ago one finds the United States exports were 119 million bushels and Canadian exports were 116 million bushels. In other words, a year ago we were exporting almost as much wheat as the United States. This year there has been a very tragic lag in the export of Canadian wheat.
When we have asked the government to do something about it in order to put some cash in the farmers' hands, they have said it is the United States program that is blocking the sale of Canadian wheat and there is nothing the Canadian government can do about it. They have been telling us for months, and for years that the Canadian treasury could not hope to compete with the United States treasury in a so-called subsidized export program.
However, just a few days ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce said in this house that the Canadian farmer had been for two years competing with the United States treasury in the export of wheat. The minister was not only prepared to say that he had been competing, but he was prepared to make an announcement that increased the burden on the western producer by saying there should be a cut in the price of wheat going to the mills to be milled into flour for export. Was it a subsidy on export flour paid for by the

treasury of this country to compete with the United States treasury? No; it is paid by the producers out of their meagre income, out of their standard of living. After the government have said they are going to force the farmers to provide a subsidy in competition with the United States treasury, a few days later they come along and tell us they are providing a means whereby they can increase the interest burden on the western wheat producers through a guaranteed bank loan legislation.
Then, after long and detailed negotiations, an agreement for the sale of wheat to Poland was announced in this house. I think every member in the house welcomed the announcement; farm organizations welcomed it. The government said it was prepared to have the credit guaranteed by the Export Credits Insurance Act. Then the Polish representatives had to go to Canadian banks to get the money in order to buy Canadian wheat.
I believe a question was asked in the house today by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort as to the position of the Polish wheat deal; whether credit was being made available and whether if the chartered banks had refused to make credit available it was a method by which the chartered banks were retaliating for the government's monetary policy. I was not in the house at that time, but I am informed the Minister of Finance replied that there was no question of retaliation.
Well, retaliation or not, it is a sorry state of affairs when the chartered banks of this country, in the face of a guarantee given by this parliament in connection with a grain transaction that parliament believes to be in the interests of this nation, are in fact flying in the teeth of parliament and the expressed will of the Canadian nation by saying, "No credit".
What are the government going to do next to the grain producers? Are they going to make the grain producers bear the cost o subsidies for the export trade, load on them a higher interest burden when they are unable to sell their grain, then fail to follow througl with their own legislation in an expeditious manner so this deal might go through and huge quantities of grain on the prairies might be moved to market? We really need a market. For many weeks now there has been an embargo on grain going east; an embargo of longer duration than last year; an embargo of a serious nature.
I would suggest that even though agriculture may be diminishing in importance in an economic way, even though it may not form the same proportion of the gross national product of the country at this time as it did
Grain
in past years, the movement of wheat east is important to the economic life of Ontario and Quebec, the city of Montreal and other port and harbour facilities. I suggest that every person in Canada has a stake in having the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce look at this problem to make certain that within a matter of hours this deal should go through, since parliament and the Canadian people have agreed that credit should be made available to Poland so this grain may be purchased.
I have no hesitation, Mr. Speaker, in voting for this amendment and at every stage opposing legislation which, instead of solving problems that producers now face, stands in the road of a fundamental solution to those problems. I suggest the time has arrived when the government should take a look at this bill. The government should withdraw the bill and present legislation to this parliament before the house is dissolved which will make it possible for farmers, when they harvest a crop, to get some money and not be forced to go cap in hand, without any rights, to banks where very often they have not done business for many years, to ask almost in the role of a beggar for loans on which they have to pay a substantial interest charge.


Mr. Rene N. Jutras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I did riot intend to take part in this debate, and certainly not this evening. Let me say before I start that I am not rising because of the repeated invitations of our socialist friends in the house or, for that matter, because of their threats. I am rising for one particular reason. Obviously an attempt is being made by the socialists and to some degree by the other party to their right throughout the country, particularly in the western provinces at the moment, to try to discredit the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I had heard that it was going on out in the country, but there was a clear demonstration in the house this evening that the members of the socialist party are trying to propagate this idea throughout the country.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Where were
you during the pipe-line debate?


René Jutras: I want to tell my hon. friends from that particular party that no amount of sniping on their part or any of their remarks will in any way diminish the reputation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He is by common agreement one of the greatest Canadians who ever lived. He has made one of the greatest contribution's during both wartime and peacetime. Let me tell my hon. friends of the socialist party that in spite of what they say, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has made one of

Grain
the greatest contributions to the cause of the grain growers in western Canada, and no amount of misrepresentation on their part will take that away from him. He has been disposing of our grain crops in this country for a great many years. He has gone through very difficult times to dispose of those crops, and in spite of the very heavy competition that my hon. friends complain about, and rightly so to a degree, from our United States friends to the south, the Canadian wheat board, with the advice of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, has been able to keep its pace and its place in the export markets of the world. That in itself is a great accomplishment, and nobody can take that away from him.
Out in the country my hon. friends complain that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is a tough character, that he is a very busy man and has too much to do. The fact remains that he has a tough job selling the grain in the world today. It is not an easy job, and we are fortunate to have the Minister of Trade and Commerce to handle the job. I defy anyone in this house to produce anybody who would be better qualified than the Minister of Trade and Commerce to do that job. There is certainly nobody in the official opposition who could undertake the job he has at the moment.


Mr. Cardiff:: How do you know?


René Jutras: I know from past experience. The record speaks for itself.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You don't know anything
about it.


An hon. Member:: Because we have never had a chance to find out.


William Earl Rowe: We would let free enterprise have a chance; we would not do it all ourselves.


An hon. Member:: We saw what you did
in the 1930's.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order.


William Earl Rowe: We would riot try to do it
ourselves.


René Jutras: I did not know so many people were so anxious to get into the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Neither did we.


René Jutras: As I say, Mr. Speaker, it is
very unfortunate that anybody should try to discredit the minister on that score. He has been misrepresented. He has been represented as being unsympathetic to the cause of the western grain' grower, and that is not true.


Mr. Hodgson:: You lost the British market.


René Jutras: The record does not bear that out, and in a near period all this will be made quite clear to the Canadian people and the people out west, and they will be able to judge for themselves. I am not going to enumerate here this evening everything the minister has done for the cause of western agriculture but, as I say, there will be a time to bring this out.
I have noticed that on this particular bill my socialist friends without exception have taken great exception to what is being done, and have set themselves up as the official interpreters of what the farm organizations want.


Edward George McCullough: I read it into the record.


René Jutras: Yes. I suggest that anybody can read their representations, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce can read as well as any hon. member in the C.C.F. group. I think he has as good an understanding of the English language as any of them. If some of them, and particularly the hon. member for Moose Mountain, will read the speeches he made on this resolution, they might find a few surprises, because I am sure even the farm organizations would not agree with all the interpretations the hon. member placed on them. For instance, the hon. member for Moose Mountain said the farm organizations had capitulated to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I doubt very much whether they would agree with that. As a matter of fact I am quite sure they would be the first to deny it.


Edward George McCullough: I did
not say that.


René Jutras: That is what you get when you say too much.


Edward George McCullough: On a
question of privilege-


René Jutras: Sit down; you will get your turn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. The hon. member for Moose Mountain says he is rising on a question of privilege.


Edward George McCullough: My
question of privilege is that the hon. member said that I had said the farm organizations had capitulated. What I said was that certain officials of the farm organizations, in my opinion, had capitulated to the request of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


René Jutras: I am quite prepared to accept that change if it is any different from the

interpretation I placed on it. It just goes to show that you are admitting you talked too much when you said that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member addressing the Chair?


René Jutras: A while ago the hon. member for Assiniboia made a long oration on the fact that the federal government is opposed to the credit unions participating in this legislation. Of course he should know that is entirely wrong. On many occasions the government has made it clear-and the Minister of Finance made it quite clear to the house not so very long ago-that it was not opposed to the credit unions participating in this legislation.
He did say they had discussed this matter with the credit unions, that they had attempted to work out the technical difficulties involved and that they are still working on it, and he did make the statement on more than one occasion that if the technical difficulties could be resolved they were quite prepared to allow the credit unions to make loans under the provisions of this act as the banks do.
There was no need to make this long speech about the government being opposed to this measure, because the government is not so opposed; and the hon. gentleman, being a member of this house, no doubt was present when the minister made the remarks to which I referred. The hon. member should have known better than to clutter the records of this house with that kind of misleading information.
There is another point I wish to emphasize. The amendment which is before us is absolutely meaningless. The purpose of the amendment that has been proposed is to kill the bill that is now before the house. There is no need to talk for days about the bill presently before us because, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has explained over and over again, its purpose it to meet the existing need for credit.


An hon. Member:: How?


René Jutras: Nobody has said that the farm organizations want this and nothing else, but neither has anyone ever suggested that one absolutely eliminates the other. You are trying to confuse two things that are quite different. As the title suggests, this is an interim and temporary measure designed to meet an immediate situation. We hope there will be no need for it in years to come. We hope the situation will clear itself. This is a new condition as far as agriculture in Canada is concerned. We have always had surpluses, but we have always been able to deliver.
Grain
It is quite possible that the present situation will develop into a permanent situation. There is no doubt in my mind that if this should prove to be the case the government will meet the situation, as it has always met all situations as they have arisen. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has not said that he has a closed mind with respect to this matter, or that he has closed the door and will not consider farm credit or cash advances on farm-stored grain. The matter is presently under consideration by the government.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You are pretty confused, aren't you?


René Jutras: That subject is certainly under consideration at the present time. You have only to read some of the speeches made by the Minister of Finance on this subject to find that they deny everything you have said and completely belie the impression you are attempting to leave with the farmers out on the prairies.


Edward George McCullough: Nonsense. They just prove everything we said is true.


René Jutras: Will you hold your peace? We have heard you; you have talked too much already.


Edward George McCullough: What about you?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Address the Chair.


René Jutras: All this amendment seeks to do is kill this bill, and it does not replace it with anything. All it says is that the government should give consideration to cash advances. I can tell you that the government is now and has been for some time giving extremely serious consideration to some form of cash advances.


Alfred Claude Ellis: And doing nothing about it.


René Jutras: The government does not need direction from my socialist friends on that or any other score. This problem has existed for some time, and not only is it being given consideration by the government but it is being studied by the farm organizations. The form it will take will depend to a degree on conditions as they exist next fall and in the future. The point is that by killing this bill you do not improve the situation; indeed, you make it worse.
When the farm organizations were asked what they thought of the present bill they suggested that certain amendments should be made. They suggested first that the amount should be increased. They suggested $3,200, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce made it $3,000. They also suggested that the

Grain
time should be extended to September in order to include all the crop year.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What about the interest rate?


René Jutras: Wait a moment; I cannot say three things at the same time. I will get to it. Since you have interrupted me I will repeat what I have said. The first suggestion offered by the farm organizations was to raise the amount. The government increased the amount. The second suggestion was to extend the time to make it coincide with the crop year, and the date was moved to September. Third, they asked to have the lowest possible rate, and the minister has left the rate to be determined by the governor in council. It is the intention of the government, I am quite sure, to try to obtain the best possible rate.
It is one thing to say you should have a very low rate, but if you get it too low then the farmers will not be able to obtain loans and the legislation will not be operative at all. There is a middle course to be followed in this regard, and I am satisfied that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the government will strike the lowest possible interest rate they can negotiate with the banks which will still allow the legislation to be effective.
Any other scheme involving free loans or free advances through the wheat board or any other body are schemes of a permanent nature. If we discover that we must live for a few years with a huge surplus on our hands, then we will have to face up to the problem of developing some scheme of that nature or perhaps one similar to that in the United States; but that would represent a complete change in our system of marketing grain. We have always tried to dispose of our grain as fast as we could, and have endeavoured to reduce our surpluses to the minimum. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, conscious of the fact that we had a larger surplus than usual and that it was exerting an unfavourable pressure on the grain producers, proposed last year that the government pay the carrying charges on all the grain that is in surplus in the country, and this is still in operation.


Mr. Quelch:: In excess of 178 million bushels.


René Jutras: Yes, in excess of 168 million bushels.


Victor Quelch: No, 178 million bushels.


René Jutras: As far as the producer is concerned this means that even if the grain is kept in storage for two, three, four or five years his price is not affected. The

price does not go down. This removes one of the biggest worries that confronted the farmers and frees the hands of the Canadian wheat board, who are now in a position to sit back and wait for a favourable sale. They do not have to unload the grain in desperation. Under the old system where storage reduced the price every year there came a point where they had to sacrifice the grain. It was either a question of getting rid of it or seeing it deteriorate.
As it is now the hands of the wheat board are free and the price will remain constant. This is one of the biggest worries the farmers had and now it has been removed. I am satisfied that if the situation continues the government will come forward, as the minister has stated on more than one occasion would be done, with a system to alleviate adverse conditions again through some scheme that will be discussed with the Canadian farm organizations, as was done in the present case. Though it may not meet all the demands or requirements, I am confident it will be a scheme that will meet with the general approval of all the farm organizations in that regard, just as the government has tried to meet their wishes over the past years.
No amount of effort on the part of my socialist friends on the other side of the house in an attempt to discredit the Minister of Trade and Commerce will change that picture. This amendment is meaningless. It is simply designed to kill the bill. We are endeavouring to improve the existing bill. This one does not invalidate the other. You can have this credit through the banks and still bring in another bill at a later time if you want to. I do not see the point of the amendment at all. The amendment is a purely political move on the part of the socialists in an effort to make some political hay in Saskatchewan.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, at last the long silence has been broken and we have heard from a spokesman who seems to be more concerned with the credit of the Minister of Trade and Commerce than the matter of cash advances to farmers. He has accused members of this group of trying to discredit the Minister of Trade and Commerce. If expressing our opposition to what the minister is proposing constitutes discrediting the minister, then of course we will have to plead guilty. If by discrediting he means that we are going about slandering the minister, then of course he is quite wrong. As a matter of fact on many occasions, perhaps more often than the situation warranted, members of this group have given a great deal of credit to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We have given credit where

credit is due, but we are not here to polish apples for the Minister of Trade and Commerce as obviously some hon. members are.
I am not surprised that the hon. member for Provencher went to such pains to attack the C.C.F.-


René Jutras: I assure you there were no pains.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: and to toady up to the minister, because as a matter of fact I think he and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have a great deal in common. I believe both of them have gone as far politically as they will ever go.
We have been wondering at one thing in the hon. member's speech; that is the new announcement of policy he has made tonight. He may not realize that he has made a pronouncement tonight which runs contrary to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated repeatedly in this house. The hon. member for Provencher said tonight that the minister has an open mind on this question and that the government even now is considering the matter of cash advances. Yet we have heard from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, not only this year but during the debate last year the categorical statement that as long as he is minister he will not consider cash advances.
That is on the record. I should like to know who is speaking for whom. It seems to me that every time the Minister of Trade and Commerce goes fishing we make progress. The fishing must be pretty good off Bermuda these days, and I hope he stays a while because already during his absence some of his supporters are beginning to play the maverick and are jumping over the traces by making pronouncements which do not agree with the policy of the government or the policy of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am afraid the hon. member for Provencher will get himself into trouble by trying to interpret what is in the minister's mind, when the minister has said absolutely the contrary when making a speech in this house.
Let me refer to what the minister said on March 14, as reported on page 2197 of Hansard. These are his words:
I come forward with a bill in the exact form in which I was asked to have it passed.
He was asked by whom to have it passed? Some of the members who support the minister have been trying to pretend that the farm organizations asked for this kind of a bill. We have put on the record repeatedly resolutions passed by the three prairie wheat pools, by the interprovincial farm union and by other organizations which disproved that claim. As a matter of fact even on the basis 82715-173
Grain
of the resolution which was sent to the minister on March 1 and which he pretended he was carrying out; even that much diluted version with which the farm organizations in their desperation finally had to agree, is not being carried out because the only change in the bill before us is to increase the maximum amount to $3,000 and move the date ahead to September 1.
Nothing at all is done about the other points which were mentioned in the resolution which came from Saskatoon. For example, the first point was that loans should be made on the basis of acreage, $4 per acre with a maximum of 800 acres. This bill does not attempt to do anything of the kind. The principle of this bill is simply that if a banker decides that he wishes to make a loan to a farmer on whatever security the farmer may have, which may include grain but not necessarily so, the banker will make that loan and the government will guarantee it. It has nothing to do with acreage, it has nothing to do with any specific amount per acre, and it does not give the farmer the right to obtain any amount of loan at any time. All it does is guarantee the banks that they will not suffer losses if they make loans. Therefore it does not fulfil that recommendation.
Then there was a request that the interest rate be as low as possible, and in any event not higher than that paid by the Canadian wheat board. What is the government doing about that? Instead of bringing down the interest rate, which is the only way in which that request could be interpreted, they are leaving it to the government in council to set it as they see fit. There is every indication that the rate is going to be more than the present 5 per cent. So even on the basis of the very mild request of March 1 neither the government nor the minister is including in the bill what the farm organizations were asking for.
I come back to the minister's statement:
I come forward with a bill in the exact form in which I was asked to have it passed.
It is certainly not in the form in which the farm organizations asked that it be passed. Who asked the minister to do this? I think the cat is out of the bag, because we have an indication that it is the private members supporting the government who come from the prairie provinces, and particularly the spokesman from Manitoba who spoke tonight; they are the ones who are responsible for this mess which is before us today. It is upon their advice that the minister has presented this bill in the exact form in which they wanted it.

Grain
I ask the hon. member for Provencher if he can go back conscientiously to the farmers of his constituency, read this bill through clause by clause and say it is in the exact form in which he asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce to present it to the house. Will he be able to ask them if they are satisfied? I doubt very much if he will do that.


René Jutras: The hon. member asked me a question; let me answer it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: do not think I have the right to permit the hon. member for Provencher to answer, because if the hon. member for Dauphin resumes his seat then I cannot see him again in this debate.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to violate the rules of this house, but I would suggest to the hon. member for Provencher that he will have an opportunity to reply if he wishes to do so. We are now dealing with the amendment and when that is disposed of, if the bill is still before the house he can reply at that time. I ask other hon. members from Manitoba; I ask the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Weselak), the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir), the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) for that matter, whether they will be satisfied to go back and say to the farmers in their constituencies that the bill as it now reads is in the exact form they recommended to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will they accept that responsibility? I am sure they will not. They will beat about the bush, they will make excuses, they will-


René Jutras: We are not socialists.


Hazen Robert Argue: What are you?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That is no recommendation for the hon. member. They will beat about the bush, they will make promises as the hon. member for Provencher has started to do tonight on the eve of an election. He comes to the house and for the first time says the government is now considering cash advances when we have been told again and again by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that as long as he occupies that position he will not give the matter any consideration.
Who is telling the truth? It is time we had one story from those Liberal sources. Let them get together and make up their minds which way they are going, and having worked out a policy let them come to the house and have the courage to support it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: It
was intimated at the time this amendment was proposed that the amendment would be looked at again to determine whether or not it fell within the rules of the house.
It is not necessary to go very far to look for precedent and for a decision on that point. At page 155 of the Journals of this house for 1956, under date of February 14, 1956, an item reads as follows:
The order being read for the second reading of Bill No. 82, an act to provide for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver all their grain;


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) moved: ,-That the said bill be now read the second time.
And the question being proposed;
Mr. Harkness, seconded by Mr. Dinsdale, moved in amendment thereto,-That Bill No. 82 be not now read the second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the introduction of legislation which will provide for cash payments on farm stored grain.
Delivering his ruling, Mr. Speaker went into the matter at some length. I do not think it is necessary for me to read the two full pages. He did say:
It is a reasoned amendment and a reasoned amendment must oppose the principle of a bill; it must be relevant.
The bill now before the house deals with credit, with the lending of money, whereas the amendment deals with cash advances.
Mr. Speaker said later, on page 156.
I am basing my remarks today on principles, and I am prepared to state them to the house. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has doubted the point I made with respect to relevancy. There is no question about relevancy. I have before me May, fifteenth edition, and at page 508 there is the following:
"The principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such motion."
This is the chapter dealing with the second reading of bills and amendments thereto, and in saying that May refers to page 400 of the same volume where I find the following:
"The fundamental rule that debate must be relevant to a question necessarily involves the rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed."
The bill under discussion at that time and the amendment under discussion at that time are, I think the house will admit, so very close to the principle and the wording of the bill under discussion and the amendment under discussion at the moment that I have no alternative but to adopt as my own the last two lines of Mr. Speaker's ruling on that occasion, on page 157, which read:
Much to my regret, for the reasons I have given and the authorities I have cited I must rule the amendment out of order.


Edward George McCullough: I must appeal your ruling, sir.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Mr. McCullough, Moose Mountain, appeals from the ruling I have just given. The question before the house is, shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained. Those who are in favour will say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Apple whaite):: Those who are opposed will say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: In
my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: 


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
To the motion for second reading of Bill No. 263, an act to amend the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, 1956, Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain), seconded by Mr. Bryce, moved in amendment as follows: That Bill No. 263 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to provide a permanent system of cash advances on farm stored grain.
The Acting Speaker ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it was not relevant to the bill now before the house since the amendment proposed that consideration be given to the introduction of legislation to provide for a permanent system of cash advances on farm stored grain, whereas the bill, on the other hand, proposed to authorize and govern guaranteed bank loans for a limited period. Whereupon Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain) and others appealed to the house from the ruling of the chair.

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we will resume the budget debate tomorrow and possibly continue it on Thursday, though there is a matter of supply I may have to bring before the house.


[Stage Direction]
It being eleven minutes past ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

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

Mr. Balcom: 1. What is the total amount ol grants paid to date hy the federal government to municipalities under section 23 of the National Housing Act?
2.	To which municipalities and in what amounts have such grants been paid?
3.	Does the federal government participate in the cost of civic redevelopment studies by municipalities?
4.	If so, which municipalities are in receipt of such assistance and in what amount?
Answer by: Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister
of Public Works):
1 and 2. The federal government has entered into agreements with three municipalities to assist in the cost of acquiring and clearing blighted or substandard areas. The details are as follows:
	Amount of	Disbursements
Municipality	Maximum	to March 1,City of Toronto	Federal Grant	1957(a) Regent Park North 	
$1,362,000.00	$1,349,087.14(b) Regent Park South 	
1,839,937.00	NilCity of Montreal 	
2,467,587.50	NilCity of St. John's, Nfld	
15,000.00	Nil
3 and 4. Yes, the federal government Act, for urban redevelopment studies. Details through Central Mortgage and Housing Cor- of grants approved by the governor in council poration may make grants to municipalities to date are as follows: pursuant to part V of the National Housing
University of Manitoba- For an urban renewal study of a central	Approved	Disbursedarea in the city of Winnipeg	
City of Vancouver- To survey physical and social conditions in the older sections of the city of	$12,600.00	$10,524.16Vancouver 	
City of Toronto- To carry out an inquiry and formulate a program for urban renewal in the city	16,000.00	Nilof Toronto	
City of Saint John, N.B.- To carry out an urban redevelopment study	15,000.00	15,000.00of the city 	
City of Halifax- To carry out an urban redevelopment study	11,250.00	10,000.00of the city 	12,000.00	5,435.17


NAVAL TRAINING ESTABLISHMENT, CHARLOTTETOWN  TENDERS
Mr. Matheson: L Are tenders being called for the new naval training establishment at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island?
2.	If so, will the grading job be included in the general tender for the building construction?
3.	How much of the land around the building is to be graded?
Answer by: Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Defence Production:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Approximately 50 to 60 feet around the perimeter of the building.


GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT, 1936-56
Mr. Kirk (Aniigonish-Guysborough): What was the gross national product by fiscal or calendar year, 1936 to 1956 inclusive, for (a) all of Canada; (b) province of Nova Scotia?

Answer by: Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
1 (a) and (b).
Gross national product, 1936 to 1956
Calendar
Year
1937
1939
1941
1943
1945
1947
1949
1951
1953
1955

Canada
millions of dollars
		4,701
		5,355
		5,233
		5,707
		6,872
		8,517
	 10,539
	 11,183
	 11,954
	 11,850
	 12,026
	 13,768
	 15,613
	 16,462
	 18,203
	 21,474
	 23,255
	 24,473
	 24,336
	 26,916
	 29,866
There are no figures available of gross national product by provinces.
Questions


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Fulton: How much money has been (a) paid; (b) committed, to date, from the federal treasury for construction of the trans-Canada highway between Mile 238 (Lytton, British Columbia) and Mile 430 (Sicamous, British Columbia), since the inception of the trans-Canada highway program?
Answer by: Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):
(a)	$7,283,063.15.
(b)	$13,361,109.14.


GORDON COMMISSION LEGAL COUNSEL
Mr. Lennard: 1.	Who is the legal counsel of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects?
2.	What is his salary or remuneration during the course of his being so employed?
Answer by: Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):
1.	J. B. Claxton.
2.	$125 per day. Employed 59 days. Total paid, $7,375.00.


LONDON BUILDING, SASKATOON  RENOVATION
Mr. Knight: What was the total expenditure on renovation and construction of the London building In Saskatoon in the period 1950-1956, inclusive?
Answer by:	Mr. Bourgel, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:

Wednesday, March 27, 1957


BANKING AND COMMERCE
[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hunter.