1957-02-06

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House,
Ottawa,
February 4, 1957.
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Wednesday, the 6th February, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to a certain bill.
X have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative).



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Small: 1.	How many railway-highway crossings were in Canada as of December 31, 1954, 1955 and 1956?
2.	How many, giving the number in each province, for each of these years, are classified as: grade separation (underpass or overpass), gates, bells and automatic signals, watchmen, unprotected?
3.	How much was paid out of the railway grade crossing fund, and how much was contributed by the municipalities, the railways, and the provinces, for grade separations (overpass and underpass), and railway diversions, designating each project, in each of the years 1954, 1955 and 1956?
4.	How much was paid out of the railway grade crossing fund, and how much was contributed by the municipalities, the railways, and the provinces in each of the years 1954, 1955 and 1956, giving the number in each province, for gates, bells and automatic signals, watchmen?
5.	How much was paid out of the railway grade crossing fund, and how much was contributed by the municipalities, by the railways, and by the provinces, in each of the years 1954, 1955 and 1956, giving the number of units in each province, for the maintenance of grade level crossing protection and grade separations?
6.	How many grade level railway crossings were ordered closed by the board of transport commissioners in each of the years 1954, 1955 and 1956?
7.	How many new grade level railway crossings were approved by the board of transport commissioners in each of the years 1954, 1955 and 1956?
8.	How many grade level railway crossing accidents occurred in each of the years 1954, 1955 and 1956, and what was the number injured at (i) protected (ii) unprotected crossings, and what number were killed at (a) protected; (b) unprotected crossings, in each of the years 1954, 1955 and 1956?
9.	How many project applications were approved in each of the years 1954, 1955 and 1956, giving date, location, and class of protection; how many of these projects have been started, giving date and location, and how many project applications have the board received, during each of these years and not passed on, up to December 31, 1956?
10.	Has the federal organization been created or set up to co-ordinate law enforcement of advance warning, standardization of signals and equipment, at level crossings for the prevention of accidents?
11.	Have any of the provinces set up any organization to co-operate with the federal government to enforce the laws pertaining to the prevention of accidents at railway crossings?
veterans' land act loans, prairie provinces

Question No. 81-Mr. Quelch:
1.	How many veterans in each of the three prairie provinces obtained loans under part I of the Veterans' Land Act?
2.	How many of these veterans, by provinces, (a) have repaid their loans in full; (b) are in arrears for one year; (c) are in arrears for one year or more?
3.	What was the total amount loaned to these veterans, and (a) what amount of principal has been repaid; (b) what is the total amount of arrears of interest; (c) what is the total amount of arrears of principal?
4.	How many veterans have obtained loans under part III of the act?
5.	What is the total amount of these loans?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister tell the house whether or not the permit in connection with the export of 24 jets to Israel was cancelled? If so, was it at the request of the Israeli government? What were the circumstances in connection with refunds, if any, to be made by Canada in consequence of the fact that Israel is not now to accept delivery?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the export permit was suspended by the government of Canada for the reason that the situation in the area was too critical to warrant shipment of arms into that area to anyone.
The arrangement for the purchase of jet planes was made between Canadair and the government of Israel, and at the request of the government of Israel the contract was liquidated. I am not sure of the exact terms but, as I understand the situation, the Israelis

inquiries of the Ministry paid the out of pocket expenses of Canadair on these particular planes up to the time the settlement was made. The planes themselves were turned back to the R.C.A.F. under a contract for exactly the same type of plane that was current at the time. The expense to the Israeli government was not great in proportion to the size of the order.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question. On what date was the export permit suspended? Was it made at anyone's request? Why did the government find it necessary to adopt this attitude after having granted the export permit in order to provide for the supply of jets to permit the defence of Israel? Why did the government change its attitude and when?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, my memory is reasonably good but I cannot remember dates offhand.


John George Diefenbaker: Approximately?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say even approximately. The permit was suspended when Israel moved into Egypt on an aggressive expedition. The suspension of the export permit was action taken by the government of Canada. Perhaps I should say the suspension of the export permit was taken on the initiative of the government of Canada because one of the conditions on which the export permit was granted was that the planes would not be used except for defensive purposes and Israel at the time of the suspension was committing an act of aggression. The cancellation of the order for planes was made on the initiative of the government of Israel. As I say, the government of Canada was not a participant in that transaction; that is, it was not a participant in the sale of the planes to Israel.


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps the minister
would allow me one further question. Did the Canadian government advise the government of Israel at the time it suspended this export permit that what was being done was because of what the minister described as an act of aggression on the part of Israel? How long after the Israeli forces moved forward was that suspension of the export permit taken?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would have to have notice of these questions. I could give my friend actual dates by consulting the records but I do not remember these dates offhand.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly the minister
could give further information tomorrow.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I would be pleased to.


INQUIRY AS TO CANADIAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbiil (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government made arrangements to appoint a high commissioner to Ghana, the new member of the commonwealth, when that new country comes into existence within a few weeks?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, no arrangements have been made, although the government is, as the house knows, sending a representative to the inauguration of the state of Ghana. The matter of representation subsequently is now under consideration.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to ask the minister because I was unable to hear his answer, although it was not entirely his fault. Did I understand the minister to say the government did not intend to send a high commissioner to Ghana? The reason I ask that is this: Is Ghana not intended to be a full-fledged member of the commonwealth?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Ghana is not a full-fledged member of the commonwealth until the state is set up. It has not yet been formally established. I said that, after that is done, the question of representation and the sending of a high commissioner to Ghana will be considered.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have another supplementary question. Since Ghana, when it comes into existence in a few weeks' time, will be a full-fledged member of the commonwealth, would it not be normal to send a high commissioner there just as others are doing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It might be desirable, Mr. Speaker, but there are cases where some parts of the commonwealth are not represented formally in other parts. I am not suggesting this would be one.


REFERENCE TO EFFECT OF UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does the minister agree with the opinion expressed by Ezra Taft Benson, the United States secretary of agriculture, in a letter to the editor of the Vancouver Herald and reported by the Canadian Press in today's newspapers to the effect that the United States fire-sale wheat

export policies have not hurt other wheat exporting countries including Canada, and has not affected sales abroad?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that this time I have read the Globe and Mail, which I think is the newspaper to which my hon. friend referred. Someone put a copy into my hands as I was coming downstairs to the house. I read the remarks of secretary Benson and I do not agree with them. I think that if Mr. Benson will consult his officers they will explain to him the views of the Canadian government in some detail because the views of the Canadian government have been explained to his officers through our continuing committee.
I noticed one other statement in the report. Although the government of the United States has reduced wheat acreage, the governments of other exporting countries have not reduced wheat acreage. If Mr. Benson will consult the acreage figures for Canada he will find that the acreage planted to wheat in this country has dropped from about 28 million acres at the end of the second world war to a little less than 20 million acres today.
[Later:!


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldi-Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of a statement he made a short while ago in the chamber to the effect that Canadian producers have reduced their wheat acreage. What factors does the minister suggest have prompted Canadian wheat growers to reduce their acreage?
tdr. Howe (Port Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I can only assume they found it more profitable to produce other grains, such as barley. The reduction of wheat acreage has been more or less fully offset by the increase in barley acreage. It is the producers' decision that brought about the reduction in wheat; it is not the decision of the government.


REPORTED SALES BY UNITED STATES TO JAPAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister comment on the report of the Alberta wheat pool that the United States for the first time has recently sold substantial quantities of high grade wheat to Japan? What steps are being taken to recover this and other markets which have already been lost?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have enjoyed a market for high grade wheat in Japan for several years. The reason United States wheat was sold in that market was that a 92 cent subsidy was applied to the wheat by the government agency concerned. The question is, do we in Canada want to follow the United States prices for export wheat down for the sake of holding that market? I might say that from the tender for wheat that resulted in the sale of a cargo of dark spring wheat we sold two carloads of No. 2 northern at a considerably higher price, so I do not think the situation is too serious.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[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 Veterans Affairs. Is it the intention of the government to bring in legislation to increase the war veterans allowance and to increase the permissible income ceiling to $2,000 a year for married veterans and $1,200 for single veterans and widows to conform with the request of the Canadian Legion?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the representations made by the Canadian Legion on this and other matters are still receiving government consideration.
ILqter;]


WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE
[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 Veterans Affairs.


An hon. Member:: Ah, a serious one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister giving consideration to the fact that war veterans allowance recipients over 70 years of age will not get the benefit of any increase in the old age security pension to be made at this session unless the ceilings on permissible income under the War Veterans Allowance Act are raised? Is consideration being given to raising these ceilings at this session for that purpose?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the same consideration is being given to this particular point in the War Veterans Allowance Act as is being

Inquiries of the Ministry given to the points referred to by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough).


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence if he will comment on the report appearing in the Vancouver Sun of February 1 which states that a senior government source has stated that the Canadian armed forces would be equipped with atomic weapons within approximately two years. This apparently is the first announcement of such a policy from an authoritative source.


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what constitutes a senior government source and I do not make a habit of commenting on speculative articles by newspaper correspondents. In view of these two considerations I think I should make no comment.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister confirm the accuracy of a press report of his interview yesterday with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce which proposed a scheme of "deferred income tax cuts"? In the report the chief of the delegation says that the minister complimented them for an excellent contribution to a difficult problem. If the minister confirms the report will he say whether this answer was meant seriously or whether it was just a dismissing pat on the back?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: The Minister of Finance believes in giving a pat on the back where it is deserved. I would recommend to my hon. friend and to every hon. gentleman in the house that if he has time he might read the brief of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce which was presented yesterday. It discusses the monetary and fiscal policies which they think appropriate at the moment. I think it is a well written document and it did include the recommendations my hon. friend mentioned, but I did not intend, in complimenting them, to be taken as selecting any one part of it as deserving of special commendation.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could the minister say whether pressure in the Success natural gas field of Saskatchewan is dropping off, endangering the supply of gas to Moose Jaw, Swift Current, Regina and other Saskatchewan points? If so, would the minister state whether the federal government will urge Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to come to the aid of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation and rescue Saskatchewan citizens from what appears to be another costly C.C.F. blunder?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have no information about the pressure of gas in the field referred to. The question is the first indication I have had that there is any trouble about gas pressures there. I may say, in reply to the second question, that to my knowledge Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited has been trying to make a contract to supply gas to Saskatchewan municipalities with the Saskatchewan Power Corporation for some months but entirely without success. I think no urging on my part would be required to enable the power corporation to arrange a contract for a reliable supply of gas from Trans-Canada Pipe Lines.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. When, in the course of his television appearance on Monday evening on "The Nation's Business", the Prime Minister referred to the need to assist "those members of our national family who are too young, too handicapped, too old to look after themselves", was he giving the Canadian people the assurance that something will be done at this session regarding family allowances, allowances for disabled persons and the old age pension?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
I was referring to existing legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do we take it from what
the Prime Minister now says in that negative tone that he is closing the door to action on these matters?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I am
not closing the door, but as usual government policy will be announced in the house before it is announced over the radio.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That will be a change of
policy.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question. In view of the government's expected half a billion dollar surplus and its ability to hand over $100 million to the Canada Council, does the Prime Minister not believe the time has arrived for an immediate increase in the old age pensions, veterans pensions and blind persons pensions in order to bring them at least to the point where their purchasing power is the same as it was when those pensions were first passed by every hon. member of parliament?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will do
my electioneering when a general election is called, and on the proper platform.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: May I
ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Has the minister seen the report in Maclean's Building Reports that the volume of construction in Canada during January was down by 42 per cent as compared with January, 1956? Does the minister think a decline of these proportions in any way satisfies the declared objectives of the Bank of Canada, and is the government giving consideration to what should be done in the face of such a decline in building construction?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, I have seen the report, Mr. Speaker, and the consideration which is being given to the problem of controlling inflation, while not stopping the desired growth of the country, goes on every day. The accumulation of evidence such as this with regard to the effects of a policy of restraint is welcome. At the same time, the minister and the government recognize that one cannot carry a policy of restraint to a point where it operates in a manner which one would not like and the most difficult decision that can be made will be made as to when the policy of restraint can be eased in order that the present excellent good times in Canada may be continued.
Inquiries of the Ministry



CONTROL OF INTEREST RATES ON CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government given consideration to the introduction of legislation at this session to control the exorbitant interest rates sometimes charged by certain business firms on instalment credit and conditional sales contracts?


Walter Edward Harris: I think the answer to that ought to be, Mr. Speaker, that if any such legislation is to be introduced notice will be given in the ordinary manner. Perhaps I could couple it with a question as to whether or not my hon. friend would recommend it?


Hazen Robert Argue: Very definitely, yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would consider this aspect when he is giving consideration to this question, of extending at least that measure of control to instalment credit as is now applied to small loan companies.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that it is generally predicted that the major portion of the electioneering will be done in the budget, will the Prime Minister give his assurance now that the budget will be brought in at an early date so there can be full and complete discussion; and that it will not be held back until the last hours before dissolution?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is usual for the Minister of
Finance to announce the date on which he will make his budget speech in the house. I have not inquired from him when he intends to make that announcement, and I do not think it is proper to regard the budget as part of electioneering.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I will ask the
Minister of Finance now: can we have an assurance that the budget will be brought down in ample time for us to have a full discussion?


Walter Edward Harris: I have not completed the work on the budget, and at the present time I cannot even hazard a guess as to when I shall deliver it.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: May I
ask the Minister of Finance two simple questions? First, is it his intention to bring down a budget at this session? Second, if he does will he undertake that the house will have, for consideration of that budget before dissolution, the eight days appointed for that purpose under the rules of the house?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, under ordinary circumstances I would expect to deliver a budget during this session of parliament, but as I said a moment ago the work is not yet complete; indeed it is hardly started. Under those circumstances, I could not say how long it would be before I would be in a position to notify the house that a budget would be delivered, and it would depend, of course, on how long the session lasts after that whether any engagement could be given that there might be time for debate. So, I think the question is not one that can be answered at the present time anyway, though it might be some time in the future.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask if it does not occur to the minister as being fundamentally unfair to bring in a budget on the very eve of dissolution, under such circumstances that there would be given to the house no adequate opportunity for discussion in the house of the budget proposals?


Walter Edward Harris: I rather thought questions were intended to elicit facts and not opinions.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This is a question of fact, so I hope the Minister of Finance will approve it. Did I correctly understand the minister to use words which could bear the interpretation that he would not actually introduce a budget at all in this session?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do not evade that question.


Walter Edward Harris: I have been asked that question twice already, Mr. Speaker. The Hansard record will show that I had hoped to introduce a budget during this session.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, the minister has not answered my question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to repeat it. Did the minister use words that could be fairly construed as meaning that he might not introduce a budget during this session at all?


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure I did not, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. From the questions directed to him in connection with the budget, would the minister get the impression the official opposition is very anxious to have an early election?


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I should also like to refer to some words which the Minister of Finance used which have been puzzling me a bit. I think he said that preparations on the budget were hardly yet under way. Am I correct in assuming that the minister's departmental officials are not busy in the preparation of the budget as yet?


Walter Edward Harris: I do not think I need go into the details as to how long and how much work is involved in preparing a budget. It has not been my practice to deliver a budget until I have received representations from a very large number of people and organizations in the country. Normally, these people expect to see me during November, December January and into February. This process has not been completed as yet, and that is what I had in mind when I said that the work had not begun. I was referring to myself, of course. The members of the staff are working throughout the year on the budget.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question.


An hon. Member:: Speaking of juvenile members.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: If the members of the opposition are sincere in their desire to have adequate time in which to discuss the budget, why not cut down our question hour?



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: May I address a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government received a request from the automotive trades association of Manitoba for an inquiry into wholesale prices and profits of Canadian oil companies? If so, what action has been taken by the government?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of the hon. gentleman's question just before I came into the house. No such request has been received in my office. I will make inquiries whether any such request has been received by any of my colleagues, but I know of none.

Inquiries of the Ministry POSTAL SERVICE	Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace): As



EXTENSION OF MAIL ROUTES IN RURAL AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: I would like to address a question to the Postmaster General. Will the Postmaster General be good enough to tell the house if the Post Office Department intends to follow the same practice as was followed just before the last election, namely extending mail routes in rural areas where there are less than four families to the mile?


Hugues Lapointe: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what was the practice to which my hon. friend refers, but there has been no change in the policy and the regulations of the Post Office Department regarding the extension of rural mail routes since I have been in charge.



INQUIRY AS TO RENEWAL OF TWICE DAILY MAIL SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: I would like to address a question to the Postmaster General. Has any further consideration been given to renewing the twice a day mail service as was formerly the practice, in view of the fact that once a day mail is costing the taxpayer a lot of money?


Hugues Lapointe: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the Postmaster General's statement a few moments ago that no consideration has recently been given to the resumption of twice a day mail delivery, will the Prime Minister explain his own statement to the Canadian Labour Congress delegation last week that the cabinet was considering the resumption of twice a day mail deliveries?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I will not explain those words. I think they are quite clear. Consideration is being given to the costs that would be involved in restoring at this time twice a day delivery in the postal service. There will have to be a comparison between the estimate thus arrived at and the estimate the hon. member for Peterborough had in mind when he said that the fact there was only one mail delivery a day was costing the Canadian taxpayer a lot of money. Those are considerations that have to be taken into account and that will be taken into account.
a supplementary question, will the Postmaster General please inform himself of the progress of discussions within the cabinet regarding his own department?	[DOT]


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister concerning the cost to the taxpayer. It is costing him money to rent boxes at the post office.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the Prime Minister not know that different business firms across the country have to send messengers to the post office for their mail two or three times a day, whereas it was delivered to them in the past?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not be at all surprised. During the whole time I practised law in Quebec, and that was over a great many years, we had a messenger who went to the post office after the ordinary time of arrival of each mail.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to address a question to a minister who always takes prompt action when a complaint is brought to his attention. Does the Minister of Transport know that employees of his department with the radio division in British Columbia have in recent months had to wait up to six months before receiving their overtime pay?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his words of commendation, and I should like to say that I shall have to investigate the matter. I cannot believe that there would be cases where employees would have to wait six months for overtime pay unless there were some particular reason for it, but I shall make inquiries and ascertain what are the facts.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister given further consideration to extending the five-day 40-hour week to cleaners and helpers employed by the department, as laid down by government policy? If not, would he give consideration to that?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Ralph Osborne Campney: I shall take the hon. gentleman's question as notice. I do not know just what stage the discussions have reached.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: I should like to answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for York West who inquired when work was to begin on improvements to the Toronto island airport and also when work was to begin on a new terminal building at Malton airport.
As soon as the agreement between the city of Toronto and my department for the transfer of the title of the lands at Malton and the development of the island airport has been signed and approved by the governor in council, my department will initiate action towards runway construction at the island airport. The first stage of this work involves the provision of a substantial quantity of fill which we expect to be available from dredging in that area by the Department of Public Works.
As regards the second question, my department has recently concluded a major extension of the present terminal building. The development plans in connection with a completely new terminal building are still under study and I am not yet in a position to make a statement as to when the project will be started.
Yesterday the hon. member for Peel also asked a question with regard to the taxes on Malton airport. I have been unable to obtain the information he asked for but if he will put his question on the order paper I will endeavour to secure the information that he desires.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York Wesl):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Since new facilities at Malton airport seem to be as far away as ever, would the minister investigate the possibility of having the contractor add to the housekeeping staff there to improve conditions which are continuing to give the city a black eye?


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think that the assumptions on which the hon. gentleman's question proceeds have any foundation in fact. The terminal building at Malton has been substantially extended, as he knows, and certainly meets present conditions more than adequately. How long it will continue to do


so is another question. I have told him already what our intentions are with regard to a new building. I do not think it is necessary to add anything further at this time. So far as the condition of the airport is concerned, on the few occasions recently that I have been there I have seen nothing which would justify the kind of implied complaint which the hon. gentleman has just made.


John Borden Hamilton: Would the minister investigate conditions there, and let us know if any improvement could be made?



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Translation):
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to answer a question put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Quebec West. I may say that, after taking this up with the management of the Canadian National Railways, I can add nothing to the information already given by my colleague the Minister of Public Works.


Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a further question of the hon. minister. As the minister responsible for the C.N.R., would he please attempt to get additional information in answer to my question of yesterday so that a definite solution may be arrived at without delay?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works and does not at all concern the Canadian National Railways, except in some incidental way. Any further questions of the hon. member in this regard should be directed to my colleague the Minister of Public Works.
(Text):



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resiigouche-Mada-waska):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Dickey:: Look who is back.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is the minister aware that thousands of unemployed people have been waiting up to six weeks or more for their first unemployment insurance cheques and that the delays are inflicting unnecessary hardship and suffering on thousands of needy families?


Hon. Millon F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I shall look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Is the Minister of Labour aware of the fact that the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska has advertisements in the paper at home asking any person who has trouble with their unemployment insurance to bring it to his attention?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am aware of the fact, Mr. Speaker.



CANADA-UNITED STATES    REFERENCE TO REPORTED RECORD DEFICIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the answer he gave yesterday to my question regarding last year's record trade deficit. The minister said, and I quote his words:
. . . exports were up about 11 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


George Harris Hees: -and imports were up about the same amount.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


George Harris Hees: My question is, is the minister not aware that, while exports were up 11.8 per cent, imports were up 21 per cent or nearly double, and that while exports to the United States were up 10.2 per cent, imports from the United States were up 20 per cent or nearly double? Does this not give an example of the minister's lack of knowledge of the important things that are going on in this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. gentleman consider that his question is an example of that which is allowed on orders of the day?


George Harris Hees: I think it was a misleading answer I received from the Minister of Trade and Commerce yesterday.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would he advise me why he gave the answer he did give me yesterday in reply to my question regarding the trade deficit, as it appears to have been a deliberate attempt to mislead the house and is obviously wrong?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is it in order for an hon. member of this
Inquiries of the Ministry house to put a question that implies there was a deliberate intention to mislead the house?


George Harris Hees: I said it appears to mislead.


Mr. Speaker:: I heard the expression that was used by the hon. gentleman and he used the words "as it appears to have been a deliberate attempt on the part of the minister to mislead the house". Now there were days when such expressions were declared unparliamentary and I would say there was a much closer check taken on the language used in this house until the end of the session of 1955. I think all hon. members know that since then the house itself has gone in a different direction with respect to language and on both sides expressions have been used which are not of the same standard of dignity that used to prevail in the past.
I must say there were periods in our history since confederation where such has been the case. The case that is now prevailing is not an isolated one. It just so happens that last evening I was reading something which appears in Hansard of 1891. There were words of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the language being used today compares with the language used on that particular occasion. I believe this is a matter which it is not for me to judge alone. If I were to say today that the expression used by the hon. member for Broadview is unparliamentary, then what about the many other expressions that I have heard used in this house about which no complaint has been made, whereas on other occasions when a complaint has been made it was considered by many hon. members to be unjustified. I would think that since there is talk of a dissolution of this parliament, we ought in the meantime to try to bear with one another, keeping the tradition at as high a level as possible until that time comes.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, bearing in mind what Your Honour said to the house, in order to ascertain if it is possible to get an answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees). In view of an expression the minister has used in discussing serious matters in the house


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Borden Hamilton: -and to know his true views, could the minister inform the house if he has begun losing any sleep over his $1 billion trade deficit with the United States?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Decatur Howe: I pay the attention to the questions asked by the juvenile member who represents Broadview that I think those questions deserve, and I have nothing to add.



INQUIRY AS TO OPERATION OF FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to someone who is representing the Department of Agriculture in the house. I have held this question for two days now in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and also his parliamentary assistant. I think I have to put it before you now, sir. It refers to the question of eggs. I asked the question last week and nothing has been done about it. The minister did not say he would do anything about it at the time; he evaded the question.
Some of my constituents are delivering eggs to the graders at a price of 26 cents. I understand the eggs sold on the market on the same day at 40 cents; the floor price is 38 cents. Is there anything the government can do or should do about this situation? The question is still open and yet nothing has been done about it.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will look into it and get an answer as soon as possible.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say whether the government has sufficient concern about the serious condition facing the poultry industry in Canada with respect to eggs to take government action to assist the industry?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be assured of the government's concern. I will take the question as notice and provide whatever answer is indicated at a later date.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question asked yesterday by the Liberal member for Queens (Mr. Matheson) about the work being done on the proposed causeway between Borden, Prince Edward Island, and Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick.

The situation is that the government of Prince Edward Island last year requested us to study the feasibility of a proposal to build a causeway from Prince Edward Island to New Brunswick, and we have done some work to that end.
This would be a project of major proportions. In estimating its cost an important factor will be the source of supply of suitable rock. The province specifically requested assistance in determining the possibility of obtaining suitable rock from the Cape Tormentine area.
On the basis of geological reports, test holes were drilled and samples sent to our testing laboratory in Ottawa. These cores have been undergoing tests but a full evaluation is not yet complete.
Concurrent with the laboratory testing, a field performance test has been established adjacent to the Canadian National Railways' dock at Cape Tormentine in which samples of the best stone obtained from the Tormentine drilling, as well as other local quarry material, are under observation. These tests were started last fall and will continue until the samples have been subjected to a full year's cycle of weather and sea conditions. The results of the field test will be a further check on the laboratory tests which are being reviewed at the present time.
In addition to the technical study, we are making a full financial and economic analysis. In this we have had the guidance of observations made in the preliminary report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. This study will include a forecast of the over-all economic benefits from a causeway as against the type of service now provided with the ferries. Arrangements are being made to have this financial and economic study carried out by the accounting and management consultant firm of Price, Waterhouse and Company with whom we have already had discussion.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is any action being taken by the government to increase the ridiculously low pensions of several groups of retired Canadian National Railways employees?


George Carlyle Marler: That question has already been answered this session. I do not propose to inform the hon. gentleman of an answer already given.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are going to keep on doing nothing.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Does the government intend to deliver the Alberta Indian Association petition to the Queen to its proper destination while the responsible hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) is cavorting in Newfoundland, or is this petition to be interred in the tombs of Ottawa files and mark another retrogade step in Canadian democracy?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, Canadian democracy has reached the stage when the provision in the Act of Settlement is no longer appropriate in respect of some kinds of petitions. I have not seen this petition. The usual practice, when a petition is sent to Government House, is for the staff to transfer it to the minister most directly concerned with the subject matter. It is done in that way because under the constitutional system the governor general now does not act without the advice of his ministers.
If the matter is one that can involve no doubt the minister may himself tender such advice as he feels certain would have the approval of all his colleagues because, in tendering the advice, he engages the solidarity of all of his colleagues, and when there is any doubt as to whether that would be objected to by any of his colleagues the matter is brought to their attention in a meeting of cabinet for a decision as to what advice should be given.
Now, I have not seen this petition. I am under the impression that it is a petition founded upon the assertion that is being made many times by representatives of the original inhabitants of this part of the North American continent, that they are not subject to Canadian laws but they are allies of Canada. Well, now, a petition that would be based upon that foundation would not be submitted to Her Majesty with any recommendation that it should be recognized because the position that is taken by the government is that all the inhabitants of Canada are subject to Canadian law.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Carl Olof Nickle: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister please give the house and the country assurance that he himself and all the members of his cabinet will give study to this particular petition which I am sure, if he reads it, will result in conclusions somewhat different from his remarks? May I ask this further question? Does the Prime Minister consider that when there is any danger of lack of solidarity within his cabinet any individual cabinet minister can set himself up as a censor of the Queen's mail?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, when a petition is sent to Government House for transmission to Buckingham Palace that is not the Queen's mail. Those petitions are not automatically sent to Buckingham Palace and it would, I think, be a very embarrassing practice to send futile petitions to Buckingham Palace merely because it was somebody else's fancy that such a petition should go to Her Majesty. There has to be some discretion exercised in the matter of transmitting those petitions. If that were not to be done, a petition could be addressed, as I know that some are addressed, directly by the petitioner to Buckingham Palace. Frequently such petitions come back to us here from the Queen's secretary to inquire whether that is a petition that is being transmitted on behalf of the petitioner by the Canadian government.


Carl Olof Nickle: In view of the Prime Minister's description, which implies the futile position of the petition, are we to understand that the petition has been in the government's hands for the last ten days and has not yet been examined by any member of the cabinet except the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?


George Harris Hees: Is that right? Question.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not
going to discuss that matter here at this time. My attention was called to this matter by the hon. gentleman the other day. I have been making inquiries about it and I know that when the petition was received there was an opinion sought from the Department of Justice and that opinion was given by the deputy minister of justice only yesterday.


Carl Olof Nickle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister give assurance that the cabinet will give consideration to this petition and from its consideration of this petition bring before this house at this current session an amendment to the Indian Act of 1951?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I will give no such undertaking to the hon. gentleman.

Canada Council CANADA COUNCIL



PROVISION FOR ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE ARTS, HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 5, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East)-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a Canada Council for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences and further to provide inter alia that
(a)	the Minister of Finance may, out of the consolidated revenue fund, pay to the council the sum of fifty million dollars to constitute an endowment fund for the purposes of the act, and
(b)	the council shall establish a fund to be called the university capital grants fund, to which shall be credited the sum of fifty million dollars, to be paid to the council by the Minister of Finance out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, before the resolution carries there are one or two questions I should like to ask the Prime Minister. As reported on page 977 of Hansard of February 5 the Prime Minister had this to say:
In connection with one estate the statement had been made more than once by the deceased during his lifetime that he was not making provision during his lifetime or apt to make any under his will for benefactions to public institutions because the succession duties were so high, the proportion of his estate which would be taken in succession duties, if it were thought fit, could be employed on the recommendation of the government by parliament for like purposes.
The Prime Minister then referred to another individual who apparently had indicated that he wished to make a contribution. Would the Prime Minister indicate to the house whether there was any paper or will or statement of any kind other than a verbal statement to that particular effect? The reason I ask that is that I am sure this same gentleman must at some time or other have contributed quite properly and to a great extent to possibly his church or other charitable organizations. Is the government prepared to recognize those gifts to such institutions in the same way?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, I was merely saying what I had in the back of my mind in view of the fact that there had been a substantial windfall in the shape of unusually large succession duty collections. I was not suggesting that there had been any testamentary disposition or any recommendation in writing or anything of that kind. There could not be because the amounts collected as succession duties go into the consolidated revenue fund and cannot be taken out of that fund without a vote of parliament.


Frederick George Hahn: One other question in respect ito the endowments we have today. Is it the

intention to include all endowments to institutions of learning and for scholarships and so on being administered today under special funds in the Canada Council and have only one source of administration?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No consideration has yet been given to what might be done about other funds. For instance, there is no present intention of diminishing the grants to the national research council. There is no present intention of diminishing-on the contrary there is a declared intention of increasing-grants for vocational and technical training.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there is one particular point I should like to deal with arising out of something the Prime Minister said yesterday which I think should be clarified. First of all may I say that as the committee is aware this group is in full support of this legislation. We hope it will not be long until the bill is passed and it will be possible for the government to implement it.
However, something happened yesterday which puzzled me. The Prime Minister knows that for a number of years I have tried to persuade the house, thus far in vain, to accept an amendment to the Income Tax Act with particular reference to the section of the act which prescribes secrecy so far as information obtained under the act is concerned. Every time I have introduced that amendment the Minister of National Revenue has endeavoured to make a strong case against' it by asserting vehemently that secrecy regarding information obtained under the Income Tax Act must prevail. I find that the provision in the Income Tax Act which has been quoted to me by the Minister of National Revenue is also contained in the Dominion Succession Duty Act, section 55 of which reads as follows:
(1)	No person employed in the service of Her Majesty shall communicate or allow to be communicated to any person not legally entitled thereto, any information obtained under the provisions of this act, or allow any such person to inspect or have access to any written statement furnished under the provisions of this act.
(2)	Any persons violating any of the provisions of this section are liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars.
I raise the question whether the Prime Minister did not violate that section of the act yesterday when he told us in considerable detail about two estates which he named as the Killam estate and the Sir James Dunn estate. He indicated the windfalls that had been obtained from those two estates. The Prime Minister then related those windfalls to the $100 million involved in this resolution, and went on to say that something over $50 million had been paid in from one of those estates.

I do not object to our getting this information. As a matter of fact I have been trying to get the income tax legislation amended so we could get this type of information. But on other occasions when we have asked for information in the hands of cabinet ministers, obtained by them under the provisions of the income tax legislation, we have been told every time that because of the secrecy provisions we could not be given the information. How does the Prime Minister explain the fact that yesterday in face of section 55 (1) and (2) of the Dominion Succession Duty Act he gave out information about the succession duties paid by these two estates?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. gentleman will find that technically I violated the statute, but I did not think I was doing that. I was simply repeating information which had been published pretty generally in the newspapers since the deaths of these two wealthy Canadians. I was not giving precise figures and I had not obtained precise figures. I was giving approximate figures which were known to the public and I am sure to every hon. member of the house. It was general knowledge that there had been unusually large payments in respect to succession duties.
Perhaps I should not have given any figure at all, perhaps I should have been content with saying that there were unusually large payments in respect of succession duties. I hope it will not cause inconvenience to anyone and I do not think it will. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it was not necessary to put any names on the record as everyone knew who those two wealthy Canadians were who had died in the period referred to.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, in the preliminary discussion of this resolution I was impressed with the emphasis the Prime Minister placed upon the importance of a teacher training program. Most of our teacher training programs are carried out in the smaller colleges, particularly the liberal arts colleges who concern themselves mainly with the humanities. I am wondering whether there is to be some specific regulation or some specific mention in the bill which will assure these smaller liberal arts colleges the consideration that is required under this new legislation.
The tendency is toward centralization, in education as in many other fields, and in every case these private endowments go to the larger centres of learning. Sir, the very nature of the work of the Canada Council, concerned as it will be with the humanities
Canada Council
and the liberal arts and sciences, would suggest that in a special way the smaller institutions devoted to this kind of activity will be taken care of.
I wonder if the Prime Minister would care to comment on how this may be managed by way of regulation or legislation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There will be no provision for the Governor in Council to make regulations concerning the way in which members of the council should discharge their responsibilities. I think the matter which the hon. gentleman has in mind will be taken care of because of its real merits in the light of the objectives which it will be the duty of the Canada Council to pursue.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I take it from the Prime Minister's comment that the Canada Council committee, then, will have complete responsibility for allocating both these funds; it will be a matter entirely within their jurisdiction.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Within the limits fixed by the statute. The capital grants fund can be allocated in a province only in proportion to the population of that province, though the allocation to the ten provinces need not be made in the same year or years. This is intended to be a provision for ten years, and it will be provided in the bill that the sum available will be divided in proportion to the population of the province; but there will be no requirement that each province should get its share at the same time. There will also be a requirement that the scheme which will receive part of the allocation of the grant attributed to a province shall be one that will appear to the Canada Council as worthy of encouragement; and it will be only a matching grant, that is to say, an amount equal to what will be provided by the institution itself from some other source.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I wish to comment briefly on the resolution before the discussion on this phase of the measure is terminated, and I want in particular to say what has been in my mind concerning the discussion which has taken place thus far, and whether or not the reservation which I made on January 18 will be continued.
I said at that time, when I spoke on this resolution, that I would have to reserve my judgment with regard to the Canada Council until I had given it much further consideration. In my mind particularly, at that time, was the question of priority; I wanted to find out whether or not the government intended, this session, to make any improvement in old age pension benefits and in certain other social security benefits. I said I thought that

Canada Council
this question was largely a matter of priorities. Whether I would support the setting up of the Canada Council now would depend on whether the government was, first of all, prepared to take care of these other matters which I believe to be of more importance to the people of Canada-to far more people than could ever receive benefits by reason of the Canada Council.
I have not changed my mind, because I have been able to obtain from the government no satisfaction in answer to the questions I have asked and to questions asked by other hon. members. There has been no indication whatsoever that the government intends to proceed this session to grant increased benefits to the needy people of this country, and because of that fact I still feel, Mr. Chairman, that we should not proceed with the setting up of this Canada Council until such time as those other important priorities have been attended to.
I still oppose going ahead with this scheme, and putting up $100 million of the taxpayers' money for the purposes envisaged in this resolution. I cannot feel we are doing the right thing by the people of Canada by denying them an increase in old age pension benefits, and war veterans allowance benefits in view of the fact that these benefits are now so far below the level which we had hoped would be maintained over the years. Today, as the Prime Minister knows and as his colleagues must know, the $40 a month received by an old age pensioner will buy no more than about $20 worth of goods and services; a pensioner is no better off today, with his $40, than he was with the $20 he was receiving before we made the increase.
I said in this house on January 18, and I repeat it, that before we go into this area of "frills"-and that is what this is-a frill -we ought to be taking care of some of the things which are more important to our people. But I have failed, thus far, to get any satisfaction from the government, and since I have had no reassurance on this subject I must say, now, that I am strongly opposed to the passing of this resolution and of the bill which will be brought in and dependent upon it.
I want also to say, Mr. Chairman, that I have to maintain my opposition with regard to the need for this proposal. There is no need to have a Canada Council for the purpose of distributing university grants or giving aid to universities. We have been able, in the past, to extend help to the universities of this country without a Canada Council, and we can continue to do it on an extended scale. There is no necessity for having a Canada Council in order to distribute scholarships. That has been done quite well, in the 
past, with the machinery we had; the whole difficulty lay in the amount of money which was being distributed in the form of scholarships and aid to students in improving their educational standards. I maintain that all we need do today is use the agencies which now exist, and see to it that the provincial rights are recognized and maintained. We can do that by making available any moneys that we feel we have for this purpose to university organizations themselves, to the departments of education in the various provinces and, possibly, to other existing agencies. While I am in entire sympathy with the idea of extending grants to the universities for capital and other purposes, and making available scholarships on a wider scale than in the past to worthy students, I cannot feel it is necessary to set up the Canada Council in order to do this.
So far as culture is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I must also maintain the position I took when I spoke earlier on this matter. You just cannot buy culture; you cannot substitute a "canned" culture for the real stuff that develops spontaneously out of the experience of the people, their hopes and the memories that come from their own hearts; and if any attempt is made to impose a culture of an artificial, "canned" type on the Canadian people I will resist it with all my strength. I say at the same time that it is wise for us to try to encourage the development of every phase of culture that we possibly can but I still maintain that you cannot overlook the fact that before you start on such a project you have got to take care of the actual needs of the people. I maintain that the greatest priority in Canada today is to take care of those people who are forced to live below the borderline of poverty. That is the reason I am taking the position I take today.
I am not saying that at some time in the future, if the government has looked after these other matters and if we have the money to spend, whether it be from windfalls or any other source, we would oppose the establishment of a Canada Council provided we knew fully what its purposes were and provided we knew that its objectives were sound and good. I am not saying that at all. But let the government first give us these other assurances and then we may agree with their desire to set up a council.
I should like to add a word in passing about one phase which I think was most unfortunate and about which I do not think the Prime Minister feels too happy having regard to the interpretation that the newspapers have put on it. I hold in my hand today's Montreal Gazette, and on the front page there is this heading: "P.M. Staggers

Commons-Dunn, Killam Estates Finance Culture." I did not place that interpretation on what he said but I do think it was unfortunate it was mentioned and I am wondering how many Liberals are going to go throughout the country in the election campaign and say to the people: "Now, do not worry about the Canada Council and the $100 million it is going to cost because the money is not coming out of taxation. Actually what has happened is that two great big estates have supplied the $100 million and it will not come out of the taxpayers at all." That is utter foolishness and if any of that sort of thing is done, believe me it is going to be exposed with all of the energy that we can command. I am just as sure as I stand here that that will be done in the campaign by some campaigners. I am not saying it will be done by the Prime Minister. I am not accusing him at all.
But let me point out this important thing. I think it is a dangerous precedent at any time to say that you have received a windfall from the estates of certain men who have died and therefore you feel that you have enough money to be able to do something in which these people were interested. They said they were interested in making bequests to certain things such as the development of culure in Canada and because they said so you say that you are sort of influenced to go ahead now that you have their money.
There is no more justification for taking that position than there would be if I were to direct that a thousand dollars which I may pay in income tax this year should be earmarked for the development of an athletic council in Canada to encourage participation in athletics. There is no more justification in the one case than in the- other. I do not feel I have any right whatsoever to direct the government how it shall spend the taxes it takes from me except through consideration of the general estimates in the house. I do have that right but with respect to directing that a part of what I contribute in the form of taxation shall be used for this or that purpose I say that should not have any relation' whatsoever to anything the government has in its mind as a desirable thing to do.
I wanted to mention that because in the forthcoming election campaign I do not want to hear any Liberals going across the country and saying to the people: "Do not worry about this at all because you do not have to pay for it. The money is coming out of Killam and Sir James Dunn, who are dead." I am issuing a warning because I know what has happened in campaigns before. I have 82715-65
Canada Council
been through them and that sort of thing happens all too frequently.
I want to make it abundantly clear that we oppose the passing of the resolution. If there is some satisfactory explanation of what the government is going to do with regard to social security measures when the bill is before us, we may change our minds at that time.
Let me utter one other word of warning.
I want to repeat what I said before. The government should be mighty careful about who constitute the personnel of the Canada Council and I shall not rest easy until I know who they are.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: There will be some Grits.


Mr. Follwell:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. When the Canada Council is set up will it be on the same basis with respect to receiving gifts as our charitable organizations? If an amount is given as a gift to the Canada Council or is left by way of a bequest in a will, will that amount be treated in the same way as charitable gifts are treated at the present time?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman will find when the bill is introduced that there is a clause making that provision.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I shall only be a minute. It seemed to me that the hon. member for Peace River covered everything except naming the Council the Killam-Dunn succession duty arts council. I do not think we should censure the Prime Minister for informing us of the method to be used in setting up the council. He was very forthright in telling us how the money is to be obtained. I am a little surprised at the method to be used because I inquired of him yesterday whether this might create a precedent. He indicates that he does not think so but I am wondering what method will be used in the future to take care of the deficits which I am sure will arise from time to time. Are we going to finance the council by waiting for more windfalls, if you want to use that expression, and making additions to capital account or will it be the government's intention to vote the sums required from time to time to make up deficits in the interest account?
It seems to me that is a fairly important question because as the matter stands now and having in mind the amount of money involved there may be many millions of people who have some claim on the bounty here with respect to the funds that are being used. They may be people who can say very rightly that they are not going to obtain any particular direct benefit although it may be

Canada Council
said that the country generally is farther ahead. I think that those people would expect that all that would be necessary would be a grant on an annual or some other type of basis to meet immediate needs. They can honestly say that the money in this case has come from the effort of many people possibly over several generations and why is it necessary that the whole endowment should be paid out of the funds of the 1957 fiscal year?
I therefore ask the Prime Minister if he has considered the possibility of financing the council on a year to year basis or some basis of that kind and whether he sees it as always being necessary to contribute capital amounts from which interest will be drawn to make up any deficit? If that should be the case, it seems to me that each year the taxpayer is contributing a lump sum which will be used over many years. As the hon. member for Peace River has said, there are people who will question the fact that, while they are on a fixed income at the moment such as old age pensions, veterans allowances and blind pensions, this amount should be set aside all in one year.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Last night I had the privilege of addressing a gathering in Ottawa in company with three of my colleagues from this house, one from each of the other parties. On that occasion the representative of the Social Credit party presented to the audience the principles upon which his party is founded. They were all extremely high minded aspirations towards civic virtue, and I felt impelled at the end of them to remark that about all I had been able to gather of the policies of Social Credit was that they were "agin sin". This afternoon, though, I find I have to amend that because I have read the speech delivered last night by the hon. member for Macleod and listened to the leader of that group this afternoon, and I discover they are "agin culture", and I suspect for the same reason, that both sin and culture have the habit of expanding human experience to a degree that would be alarming to those who find their best fishing in the muddy waters of ignorance.
I was very interested also this afternoon in the remarks of the leader of the Social Credit group who based their objection to the Canada Council on the ground that the government has not seen fit to raise old age pensions. I am at one with them in deploring the fact the government has not seen fit to reveal its plans, if it has any, in this regard. But I would be much more impressed with the sincerity of my Social Credit colleagues if I had heard them, on any occasion, 
voicing the objections that have come from this group to the manner in which oil companies and oil pipeline companies mulct the general public of this country of the tribute they draw from their operations. There has been not a word from these people. The oil pipeline companies can work little stock market rackets robbing the general public and reducing the possible revenues that might be devoted to the raising of old age pensions, but not a word comes from our Social Credit friends. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that it is a genuine revulsion against thought and culture that really moves them in this instance, and they have been able to find what they think is going to be a very useful political peg upon which to hang that genuine revulsion against knowledge and culture.
I noted in reading over the report from the United Kingdom the actions that our friends in Britain have taken with regard to an activity similar to that projected for the Canada Council.


An hon. Member:: In 1946?


Colin Cameron: 
Frederick George Hahn: Work it out on a per capita basis.


Colin Cameron: Oh yes, we will work it out on a per capita basis if you wish, although that will tell you nothing. What we can tell you is that hard pressed people such as the people of Britain, who have suffered in a way that no other people have suffered-


Frederick George Hahn: Well, they are centuries old.


Colin Cameron: Yes, they are centuries old, but they have suffered bitter losses in two major wars and a major depression, yet they are prepared to go ahead with this project on a more generous scale

than we are. The reason, Mr. Chairman, I suggest is that they have a better concept of the purpose of human life than is prevalent on the North American continent.
I have noted some of the comments in this house with regard to what is called culture.
I have noticed, for instance, comments from our Social Credit friends that we should not expect the state to endow these things. I recall that the hon. member for Peace River, on January 18, cited as an example of the fine, sturdy, individual enterprise that leads to success in the arts, the career of Mr. Raymond Massey. He suggested that Mr. Massey, this outstanding Canadian actor, had reached that point without having to be subsidized. I wonder what the prairie wheat farmers, who subsidized Mr. Raymond Massey in his climb to the top of the theatrical ladder, would say to that? What nonsense! Mr. Massey was subsidized, and subsidized from the pockets of the Canadian people, in a manner in which apparently some members of this house wish to avoid in the future.
We hear some rather pathetic statements in this chamber, and they do not all come from the Social Credit party. There was some criticism the other day of a certain C.B.C. program. I was rather interested in that criticism, interested in that fine outburst of hairy-chestedness in opposing a certain program of ballet. X did not see it myself. Right at the start I shall say I think I would have found 90 minutes of "Swan Lake" on T.V. a little hard to take. In the first place, I doubt whether T.V. is a suitable medium for ballet. In the second place, I am not particularly fond of the "Swan Lake" ballet. What struck me as pathetic was that this gentleman was opposing it on the assumption that he did not like ballet. The pathetic part of it is that he did not know whether or not he liked ballet because all he had seen was this particular example of a particular style of classical ballet.
If he were in the house this afternoon, I would suggest to him that there are examples of ballet that I believe would appeal equally to his earthy temperament as they do to mine. For instance, if he had been looking at Offenbach's "Gaiete Parisienne", he would have regretted very much if, for the gracefully waving legs of the ladies in the can can, there had suddenly been substituted the squirmings and writhings of the wrestlers about whom he was so anxious. He might even have gained the considerable pleasure from viewing Agnes de Mille's "Rodeo", where the ballet dancers use a western motif and exhibit a skill and physical control that is far beyond the capacities of any of those overweight phonies who writhe and groan 82715-65i
Canada Council
on the mats. As I say, I think it is pathetic that people reject a human experience from ignorance.
I believe the government is to be commended that they are taking one very slight step towards broadening the horizons of the Canadian people. I was rather struck with the suggestion of the leader of the Social Credit party that only a few people are going to benefit from the Canada Council. If I thought that for one minute, I would vote against it. The whole purpose of it is to create a climate of thought and knowledge in Canada that will enrich the lives of the people of Canada.
Surely that is the purpose of it, and surely that is a worthy purpose. My great regret is that we are devoting such a small sum of money in comparison with the sums we devote to other aspects of our society.
I want to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by suggesting that it is shameful hypocrisy to pretend that there is a valid reason for voting against this measure because the government has not as yet increased old age pensions, family allowances or any of the other social services which they ought to be increasing and which they would be well able to increase if they were following fiscal policies, which would be opposed by our friends of the Social Credit party, but fiscal policies nevertheless that would be designed to bring to the public treasury a very much larger share of the wealth produced by the people of this country.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, when the Prime Minister introduced the resolution on January 18 he had this to say, as reported at page 397 of Hansard:
We shall also be asking parliament to provide from the consolidated revenue sum a further sum of $50 million to be known as "the university capital grants fund" to be distributed by the council as a contribution toward the financing of specific building projects of which it may approve in the furthering of its general objectives-
The general objectives, of course, Mr. Chairman, are the furthering of the arts, the social sciences and the humanities. I continue with the quotation:
-to the extent of not more than 50 per cent in any one case, the contributions to be expended over a period of years-not necessarily in equal instalments of an equal fraction each year but by apportionment generally, to the institutions of the various provinces in proportion to their population.
A little farther down on the same page the Prime Minister said:
The federal government does not feel that it should be the sole patron of the arts, the humanities and the social sciences or the only source of capital for the universities.
From listening to the Prime Minister speak I got the definite impression that those

Canada Council
moneys were to be apportioned entirely for the furthering of studies in the arts, the humanities and the social sciences, but to make absolutely sure that was so I asked the Prime Minister a question the following Monday. At page 436 of Hansard I asked him the following question:


George Harris Hees: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the government intend to assist the universities in providing the greatly enlarged training facilities that will be needed to train the greatly increased numbers of scientists, engineers, doctors and dentists, of which this country is so critically short today, so that we may avoid a continuance of that shortage?
It was a perfectly honest, normal question, asking for information regarding the spending of this money. The Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, the government's intentions so far as they have been crystalized in decisions have already been announced to the house, and that procedure will be followed when other decisions are reached.
That is no answer at all. I continued:


George Harris Hees: Was not the government's decision in this regard announced on Friday by the Prime Minister when he announced there would be no assistance given to the universities except to provide extra training facilities for the arts and humanities?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If my hon. friend is of the opinion that he was given on Friday the answer to the question put this morning, I cannot see why he repeats it.
I cannot see why he refused to answer my question. I was still after information, and I said:
In reply to the Prime Minister's answer may I say this. It was my impression that he said that no extra facilities would be provided except for the humanities. I am trying to clear up the question as to the sciences and engineering.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope my hon.
friend will not lose too much sleep over his wrong impression.
In other words the impression that money would not be provided for the training of people in engineering, the sciences, medicine and dentistry was completely wrong, according to the Prime Minister on that day. Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, in answer to a similar question, the Prime Minister had this to say, as reported at page 984 of Hansard:


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is not intended to provide for the establishment of increased facilities for a greatly increased number of students in engineering, medicine, dentistry and sciences.
In other words, a week ago Monday the Prime Minister in answer to a perfectly simple question asking for information, told me that I was completely wrong in assuming that no money would be made available for training in the sciences, engineering, dentistry and medicine. A week later, he told me exactly the reverse. The reason I bring this up, Mr. Chairman, is that this is one more example, as I see it, of what

appears to be a deliberate attempt by a senior minister to mislead the house. One day he told me one thing, and the next day he told me I was foolish for having such an idea in my head.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Thank heavens the seals at last came alive. Then a week later, when he was explaining the resolution, he said that what I had assumed, and what he said I was completely wrong about, was correct. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would be good enough to explain why he gave me a completely misleading answer one day, and a week later said completely the opposite?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I gave no misleading answer to the hon. gentleman here. On Friday, January 18, we were discussing this resolution. It is not the practice on the orders of the day and, in my opinion, should not be the practice, to refer to debates in process on a day when that debate is not taking place.


George Harris Hees: Does the Prime Minister not believe that a member has the right to rise in his place before the orders of the day are called and ask the Prime Minister, or any other minister, a question to clarify something which appeared to him reasonably clear, but on which he wanted to get specific information, on a most important point? Does the Prime Minister not think that a member has the right to rise and ask for clarification of an answer?


The Chairman:: Order. I think the hon. member is forgetting the fact that we are dealing with one specific resolution at this time. We are not dealing with questions asked or answers given on the orders of the day. If the hon. member would direct his discussion, or his questions, to the exact resolution under discussion it would be within our rules.
We must remember that in committee we are governed by strict relevancy to the item under consideration, and I do ask the cooperation of the hon. member in directing his questions to this resolution which, after all though it is somewhat broad in scope, is directed to certain purposes to which we should direct our attention.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, my point is, did or did not the Prime Minister make two directly contradictory statements about the matter that is immediately under discussion in this committee? I claim he did.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: My answer is that I claim just as vigorously as the hon. gentleman claims the opposite that I did not

make two different statements. When I was discussing this resolution I was discussing its effect. The hon. gentleman was putting his question in general terms as to whether or not there would be anything done in respect of something that was not included in this resolution; and something is being done, and it will continue to be done, for our scientific investigation and aid to scientific investigation, for years. The national research council has been making increasingly large contributions and will continue to do so; but the hon. gentleman is not going to have me give answers to questions put in broad terms which will enable him then to say that I have been deliberately misleading the house.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I was not referring in my question to what the research council is doing. I specifically said in my question, is there going to be any assistance given to the council with respect to specific studies, and the Prime Minister said I was completely wrong in assuming that it would not. Then a week later he said exactly that. These are two completely contradictory statements.


John Horace Dickey: Read it again.


Mr. Hansell:: I have one question I should like to ask the Prime Minister, because it is one point in which I am particularly interested and particularly cautious about. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the intention of the Canada Council will be to publish literature and have the literature distributed to educational institutions such as public schools, high schools, universities or any other interested groups of an educational character?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I cannot say what might be done. I had not envisaged the Canada Council becoming a publishing house for desirable publications that might be distributed to schools. I would not be prepared to say that under the terms of the statute they would be precluded from doing something of that kind. The terms of the statute do not expressly provide that that may be done and I would be surprised if the council undertook to enter that field, though there might be some grants made to a university that had a university press, for example, to provide for the publication of something that would be looked upon as a matter of real value in promoting the study and enjoyment of the humanities, the social sciences or the arts. There was no attempt made to pinpoint everything that might be undertaken by the Canada Council in pursuit of the general objectives set out in the bill.
Canada Council


John Borden Hamilton: I think the Prime Minister intended to answer one question I asked him but was perhaps talked out of it. In connection with the possibility that deficits may arise in the future and more money be required, does the Prime Minister envisage adding to the fund as it is set out here or does he envisage only an annual grant?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Chairman. It was my view that if the council were provided with an endowment that would produce a specific sum that would be known to the council, it would have no excuse for incurring deficits and then coming and asking parliament to take care of those deficits. That was one of the advantages some of my colleagues in discussions with me saw in the proposed recommendation to make this an endowment. Otherwise it was feared that the council might become perhaps more generous-minded than it would suit the government to provide for in annual recommendations of votes to the council. We felt they should take the responsibility of administering this fund and disposing of it, and disposing also of any other funds they may have placed under their control for those purposes.
I would be much disappointed if they incurred deficits and then came back to us and said, "We felt this was such a good thing that we had to do it, and you should bail us out of the commitments we have made in this regard." I would hope the council would carry on in such a way that it would not have parliament faced with the fait accompli of commitments or debts having been incurred without provision for taking care of them having been made in advance.


John Borden Hamilton: I can understand from that explanation why there is nothing in the Prime Minister's mind covering future situations of that kind. I might ask him, then, if he has given any more thought to what he said yesterday about a method of scrutiny to ensure that such a situation does not arise. I think he said there was some method which would assure that we would be apprised of these expenditures and informed how the council was progressing from time to time.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am sure there are several ways by which hon. members of the house would find it possible to give full expression to their views about the proper administration of these funds. One method which would be strictly within the rules would be for any hon. member to put a notice of motion on the order paper that the reports of the council and the Auditor

Canada Council
General be referred to such and such a committee. Every time a motion is made to go into supply there would be, of course, an opportunity for discussing as a grievance- if an hon. member felt he had a grievance- the manner in which the council was discharging its responsibilities. There would be an opportunity for expressing commendation of the success being achieved by the council or in the alternative of expressing regret at their not having been able to make more progress in the promotion of these worthy objectives in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and the same would be possible in the budget debate. The Minister of Finance could be reproached for not having made a recommendation to parliament to increase the endowment or to increase the funds at the disposal of the council.
If in order to have the kind of discussion here that would maintain the interest of the public in the administration of the affairs of the Canada Council it proved necessary to have some kind of token item in the estimates, I am sure that could be arranged. I am sure there will be general agreement among all hon. members that it will be in the interests of the council and of the proper discharge of its responsibilities to have an opportunity for a discussion in the house as to what is being done and what should have been done and has not been done.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I have a question I would like to ask the Prime Minister in this connection, but before I do so I would like to comment on his remarks. One of the methods he suggested as an opportunity for the house to follow the activities of the Canada Council was for someone to put on the order paper a motion that the matter be referred to a special committee of the house for discussion. I want to say that I hope this is done; and though it is perhaps unlikely that the Prime Minister will still be here at that time, I would hope if he is that we would have a little better luck in this regard than we have had with some of our other demands to have items referred to committees.
I might mention the defence estimates as an example. For about three or four years, ever since the estimates committee was set up, we have asked to have the estimates of the Department of National Defence referred to that committee for consideration, but without success. One needs only to go back over Hansard to find innumerable instances when those of us on this side of the house have pressed for matters to be referred to a committee and have been flatly refused by the same right hon. gentleman who now stands 
there and says, "Well, we can always refer this to a committee if you ask for it."
Having made that observation on the Prime Minister's remarks, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if he could give the committee some idea as to the type of procedure that is envisaged for the council in dealing with this endowment in order to obtain the necessary interest which I understand is to form the basis of the grants.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, the intention is to choose competent, experienced investment businessmen to form part of the investment committee, with as members ex-officio the chairman of the council and one other member appointed by the council. It is not intended to restrict them to trustee investments but to leave to them the responsibility of selecting the kind of investments they would feel were safe and were sufficiently remunerative. It might very well happen that there would also be investments which would increase in capital value because of the present rapid development taking place in Canadian enterprise.


Daniel Roland Michener: Would the Prime Minister consider it appropriate if the council decided to invest their entire funds in Canadian government bonds?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the experienced investment men came to the conclusion that the best possible investment was in government of Canada bonds I would be quite surprised, because I know of many good investments which may not have the immediate liquidity of Canadian government bonds but which have provided not only a good income but a substantial enhancement in capital value. There was the feeling that an investment committee properly constituted might be able to make the kind of investments which would have the required degree of safety and would provide a reasonably good income, but which also would have prospects of growing up with the country.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, does not the Prime Minister see a certain inherent danger in such a procedure? You are taking $50 million of public funds and turning them over to a committee which no matter how good its judgment-let us assume for a moment that its judgment may be excellent-may very well find itself, as many other groups did in 1929 and subsequently, caught in circumstances completely beyond its control with the result that a large portion of its capital may be completely wiped out. At the same time, in the expectation that they will have an assured revenue over a period of years, they may have committed themselves to a continuing

program of expenditure for scholarships and other things, a program which will have hundreds or perhaps thousands of young people depending on revenue from this committee.
If there is an unfortunate turn of events- we do not need to go back to 1929; we can come forward to 1939, when with the advent of war the bottom was kicked out of the stock market for a while; we can come ahead to the present time when even government bonds have shown some of the widest fluctuations in all history-unfortunate results may follow. Does the Prime Minister not feel that there is great danger in establishing what appears to be a continuing program of grants and donations for cultural activities based upon revenues from sources which are not assured?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question which perhaps he could answer at the same time. I have been very interested indeed in the suggestion I gathered from the Prime Minister, that there is to be wide-open power of investment here. The Prime Minister referred to stocks growing up with the country and so on. I have been asking myself why this group should have this wide-open power as compared with, let us say, insurance companies.
If I followed the Prime Minister correctly, it is expected that they are to make investments very different from, let us say, what the government would make itself if it had money to invest. My question is, why should this wide-open power be given? It does introduce an element of adventure into the situation which perhaps is desirable, but otherwise it is hard for me to understand why this group which is not supposed to be essentially an investment group should be loaded with the responsibility of investing $100 million.
It has been suggested already that they might have to come back and say they had intended to grow up with the country but unfortunately one or two bad stocks had showed a considerable loss. If that happened I take it that we could not let the Canada Council down, and what would happen is that the council would have to come and confess its mistake and then ask the government to give it the money for what was needed. I suppose this is something which could more properly be dealt with when we have the bill before us and know its terms.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am sure the members of the council will have in mind all the considerations which have been mentioned by hon. gentlemen. I have not the
Canada Council
trepidation indicated by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace and the hon. member for Greenwood about the results. They are not going to be restricted to making investments of the character to which insurance companies and other trust institutions are confined. The council will have the assistance of this investment group but it will not be obliged to make all the investments recommended by the investment committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask if they are to have wide-open powers?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They are to have wide-open powers, but that will not prevent them from being as cautious as their nature and temperament would be apt to make them. It was felt that the boards of governors of the universities which have the same wide-open powers, except where they are confined by stipulations by donors, have not done a bad job throughout the years for the institutions which they were operating. I am confident that there can be investments made other than those listed in the restrictive lists available to trust companies under the act applying to them.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, is the Prime Minister in position to assure the committee that the operation of this fund will be a matter of public record and that the house will be supplied with information when the annual report is tabled as to the securities purchased and other operations carried on during the year?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is a provision requiring them to make a report on their operations during the year.


William McLean Hamilton: That is not quite what I had in mind, a report on their operations. Crown corporations make reports on their operations during the year and on many occasions it has proved exceedingly difficult to obtain even what we considered reasonable details going beyond the general picture of the operations. My specific question was this; whether the investment operations of the Canada Council -the investment of this $50 million fund, and the purchases and sales made-would be a matter of public record so members of this house may be informed of the facts in that connection.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon.
gentleman will find in the bill a clause that we consider is sufficient. If he does not consider it sufficient, there will be an appropriate occasion for discussing it further. A report of all the proceedings of the council under this act will be required.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since some members are saying "on division", shall we have a standing vote?
Resolution agreed to: Yeas, 101; nays, 5.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 47, for the establishment of a Canada Council for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 9, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the house for the kindness they showed me last Friday evening when they allowed me to call it six o'clock.
I rise in this debate at this time because of certain statements made by farm union organizations, and statements carried in the press such as the following: "A drop of 30 to 33 per cent in local poultry prices has occurred twice during the 1956 period as a result of eggs imported from the prairies or other areas into British Columbia". One might ask, what has that to do with the wheat board? The wheat board, Mr. Speaker, regulates the sale of feed grain outside the provinces and, as I understand it, the very fact that the wheat board has been set up by parliament and has regulatory power with regard to the selling of this grain does have a material effect on the cost of production of poultry, livestock, dairy and other farm products in British Columbia.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the main purpose behind this bill is to extend the life of the present wheat board act for another five years. I am quite satisfied, from present indications, that the hon. members of this house will support this particular bill.
We in British Columbia, particularly, realize the value of orderly marketing; we have other marketing boards in my province, and for a long time we have recognized the value not only of the wheat board but of other marketing agencies. However, I wonder whether the minister would be in a position later to advise the house as to the effect the wheat board, as now constituted, exerts upon activities which are dependent upon the grain


that goes through the hands of the board. I am talking of grain which goes into areas such as Ontario or British Columbia.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that before one decides to continue an act of this kind-an act which has been in operation now for a good number of years, working efficiently for at least one part of the country-we should be in a position to know exactly how it is operating in so far as the rest of the country is concerned. We should know what it does in the way of injuring, on the one hand, or of increasing and enhancing, on the other hand, productivity in other areas of the country. The prairie region is not the only one that is affected by this bill or by the implications of the act as it has been operated.
As I understand it, the operations of the act apply more directly to the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Grain farmers in those areas-and the minister may correct me later if I am wrong-are permitted to sell grain to other farmers within their own particular region without participation by the wheat board, but when other producers in other provinces require grain it would normally come through the wheat board under the terms of the act. They are permitted to sell grain for feed freely as long as it does not leave the province. However, when the grain leaves the province it is apparently a completely different matter.
Now, I ask the Minister of Finance, who took the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture through the house recently, a question with respect to that. I was interested in discovering whether the wheat board act applied in the case of grain grown in the Dawson Creek area, which I believe comes under wheat board regulations, and is hauled by rail by way of Edmonton to Vancouver. The minister was not sure whether or not that wheat would be subject to the wheat board regulations. He indicated at that time that he felt it would not be, because the grain is actually grown in the same province and is taken from the Dawson Creek area to Vancouver. If such is the case I would be pleased to hear the minister either substantiate or refute that statement because the Minister of Finance said he was not absolutely sure.
Common sense tells me that it would be perfectly legitimate and right to do so. The purpose in asking the question was to discover whether such grain carried from the Dawson Creek area through the province of Alberta and then into British Columbia would be eligible for the freight rate subsidy. Personally I see very little difference between paying the subsidy on such feed grain carried by rail and letting a trucker carry it from Dawson Creek to Vancouver and paying him

a subsidy lor doing so, thus reducing the cost of feed grain to the people of the lower mainland of British Columbia. That is certainly one question that causes us a great deal of concern.
During the course of the present session of parliament the procedure followed on the prairies for some time, whereby farmers within one province will sell feed grain to feed lots, poultry producers, dairy producers or neighbouring farmers at $18 to $20 a ton, has been drawn to the attention of the government. We on the lower mainland of the province of British Columbia have to pay $70 to $75 a ton for the same grain, and in some instances it is not nearly as good in quality.
I am particularly interested, as are the people of the lower mainland of British Columbia, in the effect of this policy. Here we have the development of poultry and dairy production on the prairies because the feed lot operators find they can get grain at a much lower price than we can in the lower mainland of British Columbia. The result has been that many of our producers have gone out of business. What effect does the operation of this act have on the farmers in the lower reaches of British Columbia?
The minister may dispute what I say about our farmers going out of business, but let me put the matter this way. In the last five years there has been a 20 per cent increase in the population of British Columbia, and under normal circumstances when the population increases industry within the area pretty well keeps pace. We did have a poultry industry and we still have a portion of it left. We did have a dairy industry and we still have a fairly good dairy industry. As far as hogs are concerned, I do not think we have a hog industry any more. Nevertheless, with the increase in our population we should have increased consumption of feed grains in the province.
To be more specific, I received a report from the feeds administration of the Department of Agriculture dated December 31, 1956. On pages 11 to 16 of that report there is a very clear indication of the situation with respect to the consumption of primary products in the province. For instance, in 1941- I realize I am going quite far back to show the picture-we purchased 9,519 tons of wheat, and from then on there was a substantial increase until the year 1947. In that year we purchased 131,964 tons of feed wheat. But each year since then there has been a progressive decrease in the amount of wheat purchased for feed purposes, until in 1956 we purchased only 65,830 tons of feed wheat.
Canadian Wheat Board Act In other words we purchased 131,964 tons in 1947, while we purchased only 65,830 tons in 1956.
The same thing is true of oats and barley. Taking the over-all totals, in 1941 we purchased 21,000 tons of grain and that figure rose to a total of better than 329,000 in 1947. Then it dropped to 162,381 tons in 1956, about half of what we purchased in 1947. I am sure it is very obvious that either one of two reasons is responsible for our using less feed grain in British Columbia. Either we are growing more in the lower mainland of British Columbia or in the Okanagan, or we have cut down on the production of dairy, poultry and other animals which consume this type of feed.
If the minister were to discuss this question with the Minister of Agriculture I am sure he would discover that what I have said is true, that since 1951 our population has increased by 20 per cent; yet over the past 10 years our purchases of grain to feed our poultry and livestock have fallen to less than half what they were. In my opinion we have a very difficult position, in that within the prairie provinces there is a marketing board which promotes the sale of feed grain to neighbouring farmers, poultry producers and others, with the result that these people have gone into poultry and livestock businesses in large measure.
I pose this question. What will be the effect on the economy of the country if the prairie grain producer finds himself in the position in which the Minister of Agriculture indicated he may possibly find himself in the very near future? You may ask me what statement I am referring to.
The statement was to the effect that all the prairie farmer needs is a year or two of bad or poor crops and he will not have any wheat to sell. As I see it, if the prairie farmer finds himself with a short crop he is going to have ready cash, cash which he would normally get by selling his wheat at these fire-sale prices of $18 to $20 a ton. If he has ready cash he is not going to sell that grain to his neighbouring farmer, the poultry producer or the feed lot in his area for $18 to $20 a ton; he is going to want $70 to $75 a ton.
In the meantime we in British Columbia have got rid of our record of performance chickens; we have got rid of our purebred stock, and since you cannot grow breeding stock overnight we are not going to have a poultry industry, a dairy or a cattle industry in British Columbia. If we do have an industry it will be such a small one it will be unable to look after the needs of the area. As I see it then, Mr. Speaker, we in British Columbia find ourselves in the
1034	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act unfortunate position of looking to the future with declining poultry, dairy and cattle industries because of the sale of these cheap grains between wheat farmers and livestock and poultry producers on the prairies. When that time arrives the wheat farmer who did require this cash, about which we hear so often in this house, is going to be in the position of being able to sell his wheat to the wheat board. Then the poultry producer on the prairies will be out of business, as will the cattle producer.
This can mean only one thing, Mr. Speaker. Before this act is extended for an indefinite stage-certainly it will pass this house, because we are all in support of it-the Minister of Trade and Commerce should set up a factfinding board to discover what effect it is going to have on the economy of the country as a whole. As I see it today we have a form of interprovincial dumping. It is not dumping in the true sense of goods being dumped from one country into another, but rather from a neighbouring province such as Alberta into British Columbia or possibly from Manitoba into Ontario. I am satisfied that the minister should have an examination made of this whole matter in the near future.
Now, once costs to the prairie farmer producing cattle and livestock go up to the degree I spoke of earlier, then he is going out of the poultry and livestock business. When he has ready cash he will do as he always has; he will become a grain farmer again. When he is in that position he is going to have to charge exactly the same price to the British Columbia producer. Then these poultry or livestock products, whatever they may be, will be shipped from the prairie provinces across the mountains, and we in British Columbia will have to pay the additional cost of refrigeration, the higher freight for carrying this type of product, and the handling charges which are considerably more than the handling charges for grain.
I indicated earlier that I believe in orderly marketing. I believe in this wheat board act. However, the British Columbia producer, who believes also in orderly marketing, is asking this question. Why is it not possible for the British Columbia poultry or livestock producer to get from his prairie counterpart, from the grain producers on the prairies, grain at the same price the prairie wheat farmer charges his neighbour, especially when these grains are going to be fed to animals? The fact is that it would be quite simple to give the primary producer in British Columbia or in Ontario a book the same as the grain farmer on the prairies has. It would be very easy to establish what 

he was doing with that grain. The act could provide for heavy penalties for misuse of the grain. It would not have to be sold by one producer to another, but it would make it possible for primary producers to get wheat and would give agriculture as a whole a lift, not only on the prairies but also in my own region.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would request-and I am quite sincere in this- that the minister discuss this matter with the government. Then the government could take the initiative and immediately set up a fact-finding board to determine:
(a)	The immediate effect on the poultry, dairy and livestock industries in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces, depending upon feed grains from those areas subject to the continuation of the wheat board act;
(b)	The long-term effect of continuation of this act in these same areas.
Further, I would request that the government take the initiative in immediately setting up this fact-finding board to determine the effect of a short-term or long-term continuation of the act in both heavy and light crop years on the prairies, and upon consumer prices in those provinces not directly affected by the wheat board legislation, that is provinces such as British Columbia or Ontario.
Finally, I would ask that the fact-finding board bring in a report to parliament at the earliest possible time with such recommendations as they might make with respect to modifications to the act as a result of their findings. I contend most seriously that the bread basket of Canada should be the boon and not the bane of the agriculture industries which are dependent upon it.


Mr. Rene N. Jutras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a few minutes to discuss this bill which is now before the house, a bill which appears periodically to renew the compulsory powers of the Canadian wheat board. Before commencing my remarks I should like to say I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition is not in his seat. This is not a criticism, because I fully appreciate the tremendous task that lies ahead of him and I appreciate that he must have great demands on his time. However, this is the first opportunity I have had of addressing the house since he assumed the leadership of his party and became leader of the official opposition in this house.
I did want to say to him that I was very pleased when he took over the leadership of the party, and I wish him a long stay in opposition. As a matter of fact I intend to

deal this afternoon mostly with the remarks he made in opening this discussion, and I shall make my contribution toward keeping him in opposition as long as I can.
In opening the discussion on this bill the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave a full review of the history and the early development of the Canadian wheat board. It is a good thing to have this information placed on the records of this house from time to time, because nobody can actually appreciate or fully understand the present set-up of the wheat board without knowing the early beginnings and the various stages of development through which it went.
After the Minister of Trade and Commerce was through the Leader of the Opposition thought he would add to what had been said, and he proceeded to put a new interpretation *-an interpretation which I thought was fantastic-on what actually happened in 1935 when the Canadian Wheat Board Act was enacted. In other words, he attempted to put the blame for the failure of the Tories in 1935 on the Liberal opposition of the day. I am fully aware that the Liberals in 1935 were a very formidable opposition. As a matter of fact they chased the government out of office and practically ran them out of the country; certainly they chased them out of the west, and they have never recovered since. But to suggest that the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, in the last few days of the session, held, as the Leader of the Opposition said, some discussions with the opposition as to what type of legislation he would bring in just before the election is to my mind rather fantastic, because actually that is not exactly what happened.
The whole record of what took place in 1935 is available for anybody to see. The question that arises is why would the Conservative government actually enact any legislation at all in 1935 if they did not believe in it? The truth of the matter is that in 1935 the Tories had no sympathy with the compulsory board in the first place, and they tried, apparently as they are trying now, to put the blame for their failure on the opposition. The fact of the matter is that the legislation was referred to a select committee of the house, and it was the government itself that demanded its own bill in the committee before it was reported back. Therefore, actually the Liberal opposition never had a chance to vote against the bill in the first place.
The opposition in 1935 were too smart to pull any chestnuts out of the fire for their Tory opponents. They left in the bill a great many sections that would have made the Canadian wheat board a complete monopoly 82715-661	!
Canadian Wheat Board Act as far as the movement and transportation of grain was concerned. I believe the sections of the act were sections 9, 10, 11 and 16. These sections would have made a completely compulsory board, but when the Conservative government proclaimed the act they very carefully left out all those sections and they were never proclaimed by the government. Actually they could not have been very determined to have a compulsory board in those days.
This has been the official policy of the Conservative party from 1935 right up to the present day, as far as I know. The last time this matter was fully debated at a Conservative convention was in 1948. I think a great many people in this country remember what happened at the 1948 convention. That was when the Free Press referred to this particular phase of the convention as the "doubletalk division". There was quite a row; the funny cat of the wheat board was let out of the bag and the famous resolution of the 1948 convention ended up in this way:
"We favour a return to the wheat board; that the wheat board of 1935 be revived in respect to those farmers who wish to sell their wheat to the wheat board"; but they add these words: "by any other means".
And then they had a long discussion as to whether it should be "any other means, alternative market or straight open market"; but that was the official Conservative policy up until the last convention. Of course I do not claim to know what took place there, but I have not seen or heard of any new resolution to take precedence over the last one.
In 1943 and 1949 the previous leader, Hon. George Drew, took the exact position that the Conservatives took in 1935. I have here just for the record a report of the speech of the then leader of the opposition in 1949, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen. He spoke at Melfort, Saskatchewan, on May 25, 1949, and I quote:	1	1 I
Outlining his party's agricultural policy at a Victoria day rally in this prairie town, Mr. Drew said the Progressive Conservatives believed the Candian wheat board, now the sole marketing agency for wheat, should revert to the 1935 status.
As I say, so far as I know, this has been pretty well the official policy of the Conservative party all the way down from 1935 to this day. I do not know whether any change was made at the last convention, but we shall probably hear about that during this debate or at a later date during the year.
The other day, while another member was speaking, the hon. member for Brant-Haldi-mand (Mr. Charlton) interjected what he thought to be the stand of his party on the Canadian wheat board. He interjected that if anybody wanted to know what their stand



' HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Wheat Board Act was all he had to do was to read the speech of the Leader of the Opposition at the opening of this discussion. I read the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on this question very carefully, and I must say in all frankness that if this is to be the declaration of faith in the wheat board it is not a very reassuring one.
The Leader of the Opposition proceeded to say again at page 893 of Hansard that he is for the Canadian wheat board. He said that during the operation of the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement-mind you, this is a five-year period-"the wheat board did not operate for the benefit of the western farmer". A little later on he went on to point out that the board was operating for political considerations in 1949, and that it was operating for political considerations in 1953. I would take it that by the same token the board must be operating under political dictation this year, because again this year it is making an interim payment, and there is likely to be an election this year as there was in the other years mentioned. Therefore, if it did not operate for the benefit of the producer from 1945 to 1949 and did not operate for the benefit of the farmer in 1949, 1953 and 1956, one would ask the obvious question. When did it operate to the advantage of the producer? That kind of support for the Canadian wheat board is hardly a declaration of faith in its operation.
I am afraid the official opposition have been doing this, not only now but in the past.
I think at the last session the present Leader of the Opposition was one of those who advocated very strenuously that a committee of businessmen be appointed as salesmen to be sent throughout the world to find more markets for our grain.
In effect that is simply to say that they want to take the sale of grain out of the hands of the Canadian wheat board.
John George Diefenbaker: Nothing of the sort; it was to get markets, not to deal with grain.


René Jutras: If the bulk of the responsibility for selling the grain is given to another body it is certainly not an indication in any man's language of faith in the ability of the board to sell grain. All in all there are too many people in this country and particularly in this house who constantly pay lip service to the organization and then proceed to criticize, damage and condemn its operations. Surely if the operations are not successful and are not working to the advantage of the farmer the organization cannot be a good one. There is no point in paying lip service to the organization unless you are ready to give it your support. I can understand certain criticisms being made, but when you criticize the very


essence of the operations of the board then it is a much more serious matter. This business of accusing the board of playing politics simply because it happened to make an interim payment during an election year is just plain nonsense.
I might remind the Leader of the Opposition that there was a member of his party who tried that several years ago. He was the first one to bring criticism of that nature into this house. That hon. member never came back after he made his criticism, and he heard a great deal about it in his own constituency. I am quite sure the producer would justifiably resent any criticism of that type. The argument that the board is playing politics because it borrows money to make a payment to the farmer-


John George Diefenbaker: Just before an election.


René Jutras: -does not hold water. It reveals that those who make that charge do not understand the operations of the board. The Canadian wheat board could never make a payment of any kind if they did not borrow. We started this year with a surplus of close to 500 million bushels of wheat, and if we have a crop similar to last year's we will be faced with a surplus of approximately one billion bushels. Even with an average crop it takes approximately three or four years to dispose of a surplus of that kind, and if you have a series of crops which are greater than average, such as we have had during the last three or four years, then the surplus cannot be disposed of in a period of under six or seven years at best. At that rate the producer would have to wait a long time before he could receive any payment. Of course it is untenable to argue that because the farmer received an interim payment it is an effort on the part of the government to obtain votes.
In the first place there is not a single farmer in western Canada who does not realize that when an interim payment is made it is money from the sale of his own grain. It is ridiculous to suggest that you can influence the farmer by telling him that the wheat board is making a payment. The farmer knows very well that the money does not come from the government or the treasury. He is fully aware that the money comes from the wheat board, and the farmer makes a big distinction between the Canadian wheat board and the Canadian government. The farmer has more sense than to believe that the money comes from the government. It has been the practice over the years to endeavour to space payments periodically as conditions warrant them. Surely we are not going to argue that because an election is pending the wheat board should withhold any payment to the

farmer. Anyone who suggests that the payment which has just been announced is for election purposes will be laughed out of the west.
Mention has been made of the United Kingdom wheat agreement. In dealing with this subject the Leader of the Opposition, as he has on many occasions in the past, attempted to leave the impression that this was entirely the responsibility of the government and that he and his party had not supported this agreement. He was very careful to time his remarks and to couch them in language to suit his convenience. He proceeded to decry the great losses under the United Kingdom agreement and concluded by saying, as I recall his words, "However, the contract was entered into".
The hon. member should have said that the contract was entered into in the first place and the Conservative party at that time supported the United Kingdom agreement. I remember it as if it were yesterday. For the benefit of those who were not here at the time I will place on the record the words of the leader of the official opposition of the day, Mr. John Bracken; and I quote from page 4811 of Hansard for August 14, 1946:
I rise at this time to criticize the government's wheat policy. But before doing so, let me say this, with respect to the United Kingdom wheat agreement. Any agreement such as this which tends to level out the inequalities, and the wide fluctuations of prices in the past, is a step in the right direction. Even this agreement is better than no agreement at all . . .
He then goes on to give some of his reasons for supporting the agreement. No one in the official opposition should now criticize the agreement. Every word of criticism spoken by the Leader of the Opposition rings false, because the agreement was passed unanimously with no dissenting vote at the time of its adoption.
While I am dealing with the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition I might say I was rather amazed at the way he treated the question of the United States fire-sale policy, or rather the policy of selling grain at cut-rate prices. He intimated that the Canadian government was not aggressive enough in dealing with our friends to the south. I think we all appreciate that the policy of the United States creates a very real problem under which it is difficult for our agency the Canadian wheat board to sell grain in the world markets. No one wants to make it any worse than it is. I would like to quote the contention of the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke in this debate on February 1, 1957, as reported at page 895 of Hansard:
Canadian Wheat Board Act
We supply the United States with a major portion of its needs to forge the shield of freedom. We are a have country and they are becoming a have-not country.
With all due reference I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that while perhaps the United States is becoming a have-not country, it is a long way from having reached that stage, and if anyone went to Washington today with that opinion in mind he would receive quite a surprise because they are still an extremely powerful country. The attitude expressed by the present Leader of the Opposition reflects perfectly the attitude of one of his ablest predecessors, who attempted to express an attitude of that kind in the thirties with disastrous results about which we all know. To attempt at this time to revert to the attitude voiced in those days will accomplish no good results and may very well cause a great deal of harm. An attitude of co-operation is still best, and I am confident that eventually, once they have put their house in order, our friends to the south are going to appreciate our problems more and more and will cooperate with us fully. Then we will be able to meet the situation.
I would not want the impression to be left that because of the fire-sale policy of our friends to the south the Canadian wheat board has been losing markets over the years. There came to my hand just this afternoon the latest report of the Canadian wheat board for 1955-56. This contains a table giving Canada's percentage of the world wheat export market. Starting from the end of the war the United States have been the largest exporters of grain, except in 1952 and 1953. Actually we are in no worse position today than we were in the years since the end of the war. Of course we were once a great leader and exceeded the United States by a wide margin before the war, but as we all know the United States at that time were not making any efforts to grow wheat. It is only from the war on that wheat production has been increased.


Edward George McCullough: Is it
not true that Canada has lost a percentage of the world export wheat market?


René Jutras: I have the percentages right here, indicating to what extent the United States were ahead of us.
1945		 1946			Per cent
1947 		
1948 		
1949 		
1950 		
1951 		
Then in 1952 we had 6.8 per cent more than the United States; in 1953 we had 7 per

Canadian Wheat Board Act cent more. In 1954 they exceeded us by 2.3 per cent and in 1955 by 4.4 per cent.


Edward George McCullough: Is that not a loss for 1954?


René Jutras: When you talk about a loss you have to take a comparison. You are using a comparison. If you take from 1945 to 1952 it will be seen that the United States had a greater share of the world market than we had. Then we recovered, and today they have only 4.4 per cent more than we have. Considering the conditions under which they operate, give-away sales and so on, I think it can be said that the Canadian wheat board has had a most successful operation and that the future is not as dark as some would have us believe. The picture is still a good one.
I have the figures for grain movements from August 1 to December 31 of last year. The clearings at the lakehead were 367 million bushels as compared with 267 million bushels the previous year. Deliveries at elevator points from the beginning of the crop year until January of this year were 251 million bushels as compared with 167 million bushels for the previous year. Exports were 187 million bushels as compared with 132 million bushels. In the case of wheat there was a 35 per cent increase; in the case of barley a 60 per cent increase. Those are the figures from the first of the crop year, August 1, 1956, to January of this year. If that trend continues this should be an outstanding year. If things should enter into the picture to cloud it there is still every indication that 1956-57 will be better than the previous year.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Would the hon. member put on the record the prices which the United States farmers received in those years as compared with the prices received by Canadian farmers, so we may make a comparison?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon. friend want it for each farmer individually?


René Jutras: The hon. member has as much time as I have to figure it out, so why does he not do it?


Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to have that with your figures so it will be available when people are reading your speech.


René Jutras: Obviously the hon. member was not listening or he would have known that I was simply dealing with the proportion of sales, which is an entirely different matter. If the hon. member wants to make a different speech he can do so. I forget what year it was, but during the discussion of the British
IMr. Jutras.]


Mr. Nicholson:: Would the hon. member deny that large shipments through Churchill would be an important factor in that period?


René Jutras: -if you base it on acreage, in Manitoba we have 15 per cent of the total acreage, while Saskatchewan has 52 per cent of the acreage and is getting 62 per cent of the deliveries. Alberta has 31 per cent of the acreage and is getting 24 per cent of the deliveries. I know you cannot cut it down to fine percentages, but what I am getting at is this. The hon. members from Saskatchewan are constantly criticizing and harping that they in that province are being treated unfairly. Actually all the figures disprove that contention, they are being misled as a result of following these quota figures only, figures which do not have the meaning that is given to them. The important thing is not how high a quota is but how much grain a farmer is allowed to deliver. That, after all, is what matters, and I say that on that basis there is no complaint to come from Saskatchewan members; they have had their share, and a full share.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: Can the hon. member state an instance when a Saskatchewan member has complained that the Manitoba quotas are too high?


René Jutras: Since you mention it, I certainly will. I have not an instance before me at this moment, but Hansard was cluttered up last session with examples. I will not say that the hon. member himself did not do it; certainly the hon. member for Assiniboia did, because that prompted me to get up and refer to this matter during last session. I certainly will look this up and give hon. members many instances of it. What
Canadian Wheat Board Act they did was point to the quota in Manitoba in relation to the average quota in Saskatchewan, and they did it on more than one occasion.
I am taking exception to that, because it was misleading. It is not a proper basis for comparison. The proper basis is, as I have said, the amount of grain the farmer is allowed to deliver. That is the real consideration, and that is the one which the board should consider above everything else.


Edward George McCullough: Should we adjourn the debate, Mr. Speaker?
I understand that hon. members must go to the other place at a quarter to six.


Mr. Speaker:: The proceedings are automatically interrupted by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod whenever the knock is heard. In the meantime, if the hon. member wishes to continue the debate he may do so. If no hon. member wishes to speak we can, of course, sit and wait.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, the other day the hon. member for Assiniboia pointed out that members of this party would vote for the second reading of this bill, which is to extend the life of the Canadian wheat board for another five years. Members of this party support the Canadian Wheat Board Act; as a matter of fact we would like to see the legislation made permanent, because we believe western farmers have so much to gain from the orderly marketing of their wheat. Indeed, we feel rather sorry that the government did not see fit to bring in legislation making this permanent in order to show the confidence they had in this type of marketing.
I would like, second, to point out that members of this group have indicated from time to time that we would like to see the Canadian wheat board handle other grain besides wheat, oats and barley, which are presently under its control. I feel, sir, that the Canadian wheat board has proved the kind of organization which western farmers have been demanding over the years. Those of us who have farmed in the west, and who represent farming constituencies, will remember the years prior to the operation of the Canadian wheat board when western farmers were at the mercy of the Winnipeg grain exchange. I can recall that each year, after the crop was seeded, reports would come out that there was a big crop in the making in western Canada. Away fell the prices that wheat would bring. As soon as the grain was ready to move to the elevators, wheat prices went down. That is why so much has been done over the years by organized farmers to try to find some method

The Royal Assent
by which they can sell their grain without speculation on the Winnipeg grain exchange.
Throughout the years the C.C.F. has advocated this type of orderly marketing.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
Bill No. 25, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1957.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 9, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
On motion of Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain) the debate was adjourned.

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue with this debate and then take the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources; then the two resolutions in my name which were announced for today, namely the Canadian Farm Loan Act and the Municipal Grants Act.


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