1957-02-07

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with two articles in the current issue of the Financial Post. Is it correct, as reported in these articles, that the Prime Minister recently sent a letter of protest or objection to the President of the United States against the give-away program of the surplus agricultural products of the United States? If so, when was that letter of protest sent? Has the President replied to it?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I saw the two items in the Financial Post to which the hon. gentleman has referred and I was very much surprised to see them. I do not think I should either confirm or deny that there have been any such letters. There are occasions when it is necessary for those who have responsibility to have confidential conferences, and this method of publishing certain statements and then getting a confirmation or denial would make the system of confidential interviews or confidential correspondence lose practically its whole value. If there is a statement that there has been confidential correspondence and that it is not to be disclosed, there are people who are so suspicious as to think there must be something to hide in that kind of correspondence. I think it is highly desirable that those who are in responsible positions can have these confidential communications without there being this publicity that is not helpful to the ultimate results that are sought to be achieved.
I am sorry that I feel I should not comply with the hon. gentleman's request to either confirm or deny what is in this report. I have had confidential communications, either orally or in writing, on many occasions concerning many different subjects with the President of the United States. There is nothing that should be hidden in those confidential exchanges, but they were directed to achieving results which would be more difficult to achieve if there could not be these
frank, confidential exchanges of views. I am quite sure if I attempted to publicize things that both the President and I consider as confidential it would destroy the basis upon which we have been having these confidential exchanges.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this goes further than that. On January 24, 1957, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when asked whether there had been any protest, used these words which appear at the bottom of page 589 of Hansard for that date:
We do not file our protests in writing; we file them through the committee.
The question as to whether or not there was a protest made to the President of the United States is one in respect of which this house has the right to information. This is not a personal conversation, this is a protest on behalf of the people of Canada, if indeed such a protest was made; and for the Prime Minister to take the stand that when it is convenient not to give information to parliament the method of going about it is simply to make a protest-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: *-in a whisper is not in keeping with the rights of parliament. I ask the Prime Minister once more for this information, because too often throughout this session the house has been denied information to which it is entitled.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I made no official protest as Prime Minister of Canada to the President of the United States.



FACILITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS IN IRON CURTAIN COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Are there any iron curtain countries whose ports are open to the traders from our nation or from any of the free nations to which traders could ply to negotiate purchases in those countries?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: So far as I know, every Russian port is open to ships of the world just as Canadian ports are open to ships of the world.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Solon Earl Low: I did not make the question clear. Is it not true that Canadian traders in the ports of the iron curtain countries have to deal through a government corporation in most of those countries? If not, are there any iron curtain countries where ports are free so far as negotiations and purchases are concerned?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. I think all the communist countries trade through state trading organizations; at least Russia does. Sales and purchases are made through that organization.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to address two questions, one to the Minister of Labour and one to the Minister of Finance. I regret that I have not had an opportunity of giving notice of these questions. My first question will be directed to the Minister of Labour.
Is the minister aware of the serious labour situation in the city of Windsor? If so, is there anything the minister can do to rectify the condition?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that in the city of Windsor there are more applicants for employment in the present mid-winter period than there were at this time last year. It is reported to me that this is mainly due to a number of lay-offs some of which are indicated as temporary in the automobile industry and in the construction industry. In the meantime the national employment office in Windsor, in co-operation with an active citizens' committee for winter employment, are doing their best to find employment for those so laid off.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Ferguson Brown: Mr. Speaker, may I now be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of Finance? Has the minister been advised that the automobile industry is reported to be making an extensive lay-off of employees and are giving as the reason the excise tax imposed by the federal government on the sale of automobiles and the fiscal policies now in effect? If so, would the minister be in a position at an early date to state whether any changes are contemplated in the tax or fiscal policies?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: know it is common in Canada to assume that if certain taxes were reduced the cost of production would decline and there would therefore perhaps be greater employment. It is easy to suggest that excise taxes are the cause of unemployment. I would not want to say that was or was not the fact in the motor car industry, but if there are any effects of the fiscal policy being felt by the motor car industry in particular it should be borne in mind that taxation is very widespread in Canada, and in so far as it is possible to do so it is the desire of the government that taxation should be borne by the taxpayers in as proper a manner as can be devised.
With particular reference to the motor car industry I have already indicated, and the house on numerous occasions has discussed the question, what affects the sale of motor cars, or at any rate the delivery of motor cars, at this time from the manufacturer to the motor car dealer. I do have an announcement to make in that regard.
Automobile dealers are reluctant in this period before the budget to accept deliveries of cars from the manufacturers. At times when the tax on automobiles is reduced, dealers may have inventory on hand on which tax has been paid, and in order to avoid loss they naturally try to arrange to have on hand as few cars as possible.
To avoid or minimize disruption in the marketing processes in the industry I have decided to announce now my intention to recommend to the house later in the session a minor technical amendment to the Excise Tax Act which I think will solve the problem of the slow-down of car deliveries.
At present excise tax on an automobile is payable by the manufacturer when it is delivered to the dealer or, if imported, when the customs entry is passed. It is proposed to amend the law so that excise tax will not be payable until ownership of the car passes to the dealer. This change, which will be effective as from February 1, will enable the dealer to accept delivery of a car still owned by the manufacturer, but it will not be a tax-paid car until after title to the property has passed to the dealer. This seems to be a sensible arrangement in the case of large items such as automobiles, where the storage problem can be difficult. The ordinary rule calling for payment of tax on physical delivery will continue to apply to other items subject to excise tax.
I need scarcely add that this announcement of a proposal for a minor technical change in the law relating to the time of payment of tax can in no sense be regarded as

any indication of whether, in the forthcoming budget, there will be any change in the rate of tax on automobiles either up or down.


Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement which has been made by the Minister of Finance I wish to thank him very much, because it will certainly help to overcome a great deal of difficulty. I feel it was as a result of my pressing this matter.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Mr. Speaker, may I make a supplementary statement. As suggested by the remarks of the hon. member for Ontario to the Minister of Finance, I wish to state merely that I love him too.



REFERENCE TO PRESS REPORT OF STATEMENT BY MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['No, no.']
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's recent address in Toronto in which he was reported as having urged the Canadian people to spend less and save more, as an anti-inflationary measure, could the minister tell the house if it is the view of the government that the unprecedented capital expansion by private corporations is less of an inflationary factor than the expenditure on consumer goods by private citizens?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will allow me, this is precisely the type of question which, in my humble judgment, is a matter for debate. I know the hon. member is sincere when he puts it and he thinks he is within the rules but, in my humble view, if the hon. member looks at his question again he will see that he is not. He might ask, why do you single me out today, and he would be right. As a matter of fact I dislike doing so, but it is simply because I have just made a few remarks and I note that the question he is asking at the moment is precisely one which could be debated whenever the circumstances arise where financial policies and other matters related to them can be debated.
The answer of the minister to that question is perhaps just a matter of opinion, a matter of policy and comment, and it may very well provoke several supplementary questions. We are not asking for information respecting certain facts which according to our rules may be used later in the debate. Instead we are trying to find out opinions which would have to be voiced immediately during the question period. That is not the purpose of the question period.
Inquiries of the Ministry
As I say, I am quite prepared to allow all the latitude possible during the question period, and I believe I have done that. I would like to hear anyone in this house tell me that I have not given all possible latitude at question time since the beginning of this session. However, I would ask hon. members not to take too much advantage of the latitude I am prepared to give, and within reason to make our question time as interesting and informative as possible.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, is there any truth in the report coming out of the United Nations that Egypt will demand that the United Nations vote economic sanctions against Israel, or face indefinite delay in opening the Suez canal? If so, what will be Canada's action toward the loan of $1 million for the clearing of the Suez canal?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: We have no information to the effect that Egypt has taken the action suggested in my hon. friend's question. Therefore the second part of the question does not yet arise.


John George Diefenbaker: I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as to whether or not the government has taken any stand in regard to the questions that will be up in the United Nations within the next few days on the imposition of sanctions against Israel. Would he give the assurance that in so far as the application of sanctions is concerned, until Russia absolves her wrongdoing in connection with Hungary and lives up to the resolutions of the United Nations, Canada will give consideration before supporting sanctions as against Israel?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend
said this question will be up at the United Nations assembly within the next few days. If he has information to that effect I must say it is not in my possession. There is no statement yet that this matter will be up in the form he has indicated; it may or it may not, depending on whether the government of Israel accepts the resolution of last Saturday regarding the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Sinai.
Until this matter is before the assembly-if indeed it comes before the assembly-I do not think it would be advisable for me to state the position of the government in regard

Inquiries of the Ministry to it. The attitude the government would a few hours of the time it became known to have to take-and it would have to give the government that the Israeli army was the matter very serious consideration-would moving in significant force into Egypt, depend upon the form in which the question My hon. friend also asked whether the was put to the United Nations. Until we government of Israel was advised of the are clear on that point surely I could not suspension of the permit. I believe my hon, be expected to state the opinion or the policy friend the Secretary of State for External of the government in this matter.	Affairs would know about that.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he tell this house if he will recommend to the government that it take action similar to that announced by the government of Jordan yesterday, according to a press clipping sent to him with notice of this question, to halt the dissemination of Russian propaganda and literature in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In reply to my hon. friend I can only state my opinion that the policy of the government of Canada in an important matter of this kind should not be determined by newspaper accounts of what is supposed to have happened in the state of Jordan.
[Later:!


George William McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I can assure you I am merely asking for information and not trying to stir up any debate. Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs prepared to recommend that the Canadian government take action to halt the dissemination of Russian propaganda and literature in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there are laws in this country which govern the dissemination of information through the mails. When those laws are broken the appropriate action is taken.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked me two questions concerning the timing of the suspension of the export permit covering the export of F-86 aircraft to Israel. Canadair, the permit holder, was advised by telephone on the afternoon of October 29 that this permit was being suspended. The action to suspend the export permit was taken within


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the minister table the order setting aside the grant of the export permit? He undertook to do that yesterday, and I would appreciate it if he would see to it that it is done.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, concerning the export of F-86 aircraft, my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce has mentioned one aspect of that question which was asked yesterday which he thought I might be able to answer. The Prime Minister made a public announcement on October 31 that the government had that morning suspended all arms shipments to the Middle East. In that statement he did not express judgment on the Israeli action in Egypt, but related the suspension to the government's earlier decision to keep the matter under continuing review in the light of the Middle East situation.
The public announcement of September 21, 1956, relating to the decision to grant the export permit contains a paragraph indicating the approval which reads as follows:
This approval of Israel's request for 24 F-86's covers a period of six months, during which the planes would normally be made available and shipped. If at any time during this period political circumstances should change in a way which would warrant a cancellation or postponement of the outstanding part of this order, such action will be taken.
Such action was taken when the situation changed, and that suspension was brought to the attention of the government of Israel.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, why was not parliament told about the cancellation of the export permit? There was a general statement, but a debate took place in this house and nothing in particular was said about that matter. Why was that course followed? Possibly the minister could answer that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it was public knowledge, of course-


John George Diefenbaker: No, it was not.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and the action the government took occurred before that debate took place in this house.


John George Diefenbaker: No, no.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has it been brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour that unemployment insurance payments to some men laid off during the last railway strike varied greatly although these men have the same status and the same wage scale?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that has been brought to my attention. I am sure my hon. friend recognizes that, by the very nature of results related to the permissive earnings, there will be variation of benefit allowed for part of that group affected by the strike. If my hon. friend has some special complaints in mind I would be glad if he would send them to me.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, these are from Mr. R. H. Symons, social chairman, brotherhood of railway carmen of America, lodge 258. I will send this over to the minister.



REPORTED DELAY IN ISSUING OF CHEQUES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resligouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the minister's answer yesterday, which I could not understand because of the covering-up noises of the Liberals-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -to the effect that he did not know of the several weeks' delay occurring in the processing of thousands of unemployment insurance claims, will the minister tell us when he will get busy and do his job and remove the dagger held over the backs of the workingmen of Canada? The minister's do-nothing attitude is that of a saboteur of the rights of the workingmen of Canada, and I am not going to stand for it.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. gentleman should revise that language.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have been revising enough things around here; I want some action.


Mr. Speaker:: I am asking the hon. gentleman to revise the last part of his question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: How would you like to have it revised?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Probably by eliminating the words to the effect that the attitude of the minister is that of a saboteur of the workers of this country.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: To the thousands of people who are suffering all over this country I can assure you that this quotation of mine and these words need no retraction.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I must rise on a point of order. I heard the word "saboteur" used. I am sure no one but the hon. member would apply it to the Minister of Labour in any event, but I do suggest it is out of order, unparliamentary, and not to be placed on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: I would not want to have a discussion started on the exact words that have been used. I suggest that the matter be left in abeyance until I have had a chance to look at the transcript.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the Minister of Justice been consulted about the Alberta Indian Association's petition to the Queen? If so, when, and by whom?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have been consulted by my colleagues in this regard, but it is not customary for me to disclose any facts I gave to them, or to identify those who have consulted me.


Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. I can understand his reluctance to answer the first part of the question asked and say by whom he was consulted. Would he, however, answer the other part of the question and say when he was first consulted by his colleagues?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I apprehend that the Minister of Justice is under no responsibility to give any legal advice to the House of Commons. His responsibility is to give legal advice to the government and to his colleagues who seek it. In due course that advice may be the foundation of government policy. Government policy is brought down in the house, and the government takes full responsibility for it. But as I apprehend it.

Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Justice is under no responsibility to disclose any relations between himself and his colleagues in relation to that advice, as to when they consulted him, how they consulted him or any other such thing. For that reason I do not wish to answer my hon. friend's question.


Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. This does not concern his relations with the cabinet. Has the minister's advice been asked in connection with this Indian petition by any official at Government House? If so, when?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend's last question may I say this. I feel that not only is it proper to refuse to answer my hon. friend's question, but that it would be improper for me to do anything else. The relationship between the government and all the civil service in respect of any advice which is sought from the Minister of Justice is a relationship between solicitor and client, and I have no business disclosing any part of that relationship or any of the facts in connection with it in respect of the advice I give. When that advice is accepted by any official and it is passed on to his minister as the basis for government policy, the government, in the proper constitutional way, assumes full responsibility for that policy. Meanwhile, the information which my hon. friends seek is really not the proper concern of any member of this house, because it has to do with confidential relationships between solicitor and client.


Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary question to ask the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Mackenzie.


Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Since the minister has described the relationship of the Minister of Justice to his cabinet colleagues as that of legal counsel to client, does he not also consider that he is the legal counsel for the public of Canada; and in that latter capacity can he deny that an elected representative of the public of Canada in this house should have the right to ask him legitimate questions not concerning the nature of the advice he has given to his cabinet colleagues but rather simply as to whether or not he was consulted, and if so, when?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I hope if I betray any lack of appreciation for the fine points

of this long question which my hon. friend has asked me he will interrupt me and put me on the right track.


Mr. Knowles:: He will.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In relation to the second part of his question, which I think is the germ of the matter, my understanding is that the Minister of Justice is the legal adviser of the government. He is not the legal adviser of the House of Commons-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -and he is not the legal adviser of the people of Canada. If he were it would be rather hard on the poor lawyers, who pay a lot of taxes to the government out of which the salary of the Minister of Justice is paid, if he were competing with them and giving legal advice for nothing.
If my hon. friend had done me the courtesy of giving me notice of his question perhaps I could have meditated upon it and helped him out by giving an answer to the problem which seems to be bothering him.


Carl Olof Nickle: How about an answer now?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. I was just going to say I have had an opportunity during the interval of figuring out a way in which I perhaps can answer my hon. friend's question without breaking any of the solemn obligations under which I operate as Minister of Justice. I can say this to the hon. member, that in the matter to which he refers there has been no advice given by the Department of Justice or the minister of that department to anyone except another member of the government. There will not be any advice given by the Department of Justice or the Minister of Justice to anyone except other members of the government. I think that will probably clear up this dark suspicion which is in my hon. friend's mind and which he has not disclosed completely to the house.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: May I address a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the house whether the tolls in connection with the Canso causeway are imposed by the federal or the provincial government and, if they are imposed by the provincial government, whether the federal government shares in the revenue?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Trans- the minister stood up in the house the next port): The answer to the hon. gentleman's day and said the December 31 deadline had question is that it is the provincial govern- not been lifted and that no new agreement ment which imposes the tolls on the cause- had been entered into. I contend, therefore, way, and it is the provincial government that on January 31 the minister misled the which receives the tolls.	house.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On Thursday of last week, January 31, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in answering questions regarding Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, said, and I quote from page 826 of Hansard:
We lifted no obligations and we set no new deadline.
The reference was to the December 31,
1956,	deadline for the completion of the western section of the pipe line by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. Later in that same paragraph the minister said:
No new agreement was made and no agreement was lifted.
That was on Thursday, January 31. I have in my hand a copy of sessional paper No. 178 tabled by the minister the day before, which includes an agreement made among the government, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, dated January 30,
1957,	containing therein an extension to November 1, 1957, for the completion of the western section of the line.
My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that on Thursday, January 31, the minister made a statement to the house which, if the sessional paper tabled the day before is correct, was not correct when he made it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, is my hon. friend referring to my agreement or to a ruling of the board of transport commissioners?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am referring to the agreement which the minister tabled on January 30, a three-way agreement among the minister on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in the right of Canada, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. This agreement includes this clause:
Subject to delays due to force majeure, Trans-Canada shall complete the construction of the western section not later than November 1, 1957.
My question of privilege is that this new agreement dated January 30 was placed on the table of the house on January 30, yet


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the time for the completion of proof of financing of the project was extended. I do not regard that as an agreement. It was simply a unilateral act on the part of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister not realize that he tabled an order in council-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -P.C. 1957-122, which refers to an annexed agreement, and that that three-party agreement does include a very definite undertaking on the part of the three parties to the agreement. It was not just a word of mouth proposition. It was a very definite, binding agreement. I hope it is more binding than some of the agreements that have been entered into by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in the past.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There may be a technical violation. I have heard of technical knock-outs. Perhaps my hon. friend has one. Certainly there is nothing in that agreement affecting the guarantees of Trans-Canada with respect to the agreement with the government to build the western section of the pipe line. That was an extension of the time to prove the ability to finance the whole project.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize this cannot be debated. The agreement speaks for itself. What I was referring to in this new agreement-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -was not the extension of the time in which to prove financial capacity. What I was touching upon was the new agreement-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -as to a new deadline for the completion of the western section. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a supplementary question-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Keep the seals quiet.


Mr. Dickey:: Supplementary to your speech?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the provision in the agreement of May 8, 1956, that the government would support Trans-Canada's further application before the board of transport commissioners if Trans-Canada was not in default under that agreement, how does the

Inquiries of the Ministry government justify its support of Trans-Canada's application when it was at the time in default by not having completed the western section by December 31, 1956?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the extensions referred to were extensions of the time to prove ability to finance. Whether Trans-Canada had carried out its agreement with the government with respect to the extent of the pipe line that was laid in place as contracted is a separate matter that could always be brought before the courts, and would have been brought before the courts had the government wished to take over that section of the line.
The proof of ability to finance is one matter and the extension of time to be given for completion of the western section is quite separate. My hon. friend may not know it, but he is badly mixed up between the agreement to build the western section of the line and the time limit set for proving ability to finance the line. In any case he can know that the line will be built and is being built and that it will be completed, we expect, by the autumn of next year. It seems to me that consideration overrides any petty little points of debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. From what the minister says are we to take it that if this government across the way signs an agreement with two points in it, one of them can be ignored, and so far as the government is concerned it does not care?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it just a petty point if the government finds that one point in an agreement is ignored?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, that is only about the 82nd point of order that my hon. friend has raised, and it has the same validity as his other points of order.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO EXPORTS TO COMMUNIST COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As a result of the recent visit of wheat board officials to Russia and iron curtain countries, have any sales of wheat or other grains been made? Does the minister expect that as large a volume of grain will move to these countries this year as last?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, it has always been the practice of the Minister of Trade and Commerce not to discuss sales of wheat in the house. He is willing to discuss exports after the exports have taken place, but he never discusses sales. With regard to movements to iron curtain countries, may I say that we have a trade agreement with Russia which provides that a minimum of 15 million bushels of wheat per annum will be taken by that country. Negotiations are in progress with other countries but, as I said, we do not discuss negotiations for sale and we do not discuss sales.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina Cify):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Was the minister aware yesterday, when he replied to a question regarding the natural gas situation in Saskatchewan, that an agreement between Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and the Saskatchewan Power Corporation is in effect completed with only a few minor details to settle before final signature?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was not aware of that fact. My understanding is that my hon. friend is not saying the agreement is completed. He says that an agreement is in process of negotiation, and I am glad to hear it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: At page 1014 of Hansard of yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
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.
In view of that statement made to the house yesterday, might I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he apologize for misleading this house and casting an unwarranted slur on the reputation of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, have we not had sufficient of these charges of attempting to mislead the house? I do not like it, and I do not like to make such insinuations myself. The hon. gentleman suggests that in the answer given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce he was attempting to mislead the house.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Murphy (Lamblon West): It would not Mr. Ellis: Get more reliable sources of be the first time.	information.


Mr. Hees:: He does it all the time.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think these interjections should be withdrawn, Mr. Speaker. You said yesterday this was unparliamentary language and you hoped it would not be used, but that you hesitated to intervene. I would suggest to you there should be intervention and those continuous statements should not be allowed to go on the record. I have not been used to hearing these things in other sessions that were looked upon as being sessions approaching a general election.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise to answer the Prime Minister. If there have been petulant exhibitions and outbursts the Prime Minister and those associated with him should realize the reason is that each of the ministers of the government apparently is following the course of refusing to answer questions properly, or indeed of colouring the information given, tailored to meet their immediate needs.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: May
I say yesterday a question was asked in this house intended deliberately to mislead this house. I refer to the question regarding the gas situation in the province of Saskatchewan. There was no basis for that question.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Oh, yes, there was.


Major James William Coldwell: We all know that an agreement has been under negotiation. We also know from the minister himself that this line is not to be completed for months. Can you expect a provincial government to enter into an agreement with a company which has not yet proved itself financially able to build the line through which the gas would be delivered to the Saskatchewan corporation.
I say the question asked in the house yesterday by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) was a deliberate attempt to mislead the house and the people of this country. I say to you that it ill becomes someone who was elected here by the people he vilifies to do this kind of thing in this House of Commons.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the gas pipe line has been completed to the city of Regina and is capable of delivering gas in the area of Regina and west of Regina at any time anybody wishes to take delivery. I was not aware that negotiations for supplies of gas had been under way. The last information I had was from the general manager [DOT]of the-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am speaking of my source of information. My source was the general manager of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation. In the course of a conversation he told me the province would never sign the type of contract which had been presented to it by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. That was the last I heard of the matter.


Alfred Claude Ellis: When did you last have contact with him?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Three or four
months ago.


Major James William Coldwell: Do you suggest the government must sign a contract presented to it by a private company?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. One hon.
member has said that the parties are attempting to negotiate and another has said the parties have completed the agreement. Let it rest there.



STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER ON ASKING OF QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, referring to the expression used by the Minister of Public Works with reference to crossing bridges, may I ask if the minister has seen the figures indicating the decline in house construction contracts for the month of January, 1957, as compared with January, 1956? Does he not consider that a drop from\nInquiries of the Ministry $95 million to $21 million indicates at least a lack of a connecting link if not a bridge?']
Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to hon. members, for the good of all of us and I suppose for the good of parliament, that we should refrain at question time from engaging in debate. I have on previous occasions outlined the rules with respect to the asking of questions, and also with respect to the answering of questions. The minute we go beyond the reasonable limits of those rules and engage in debating certain questions and answers, well, what happens is that the atmosphere gets heated up and we have all kinds of interjections going across the floor of the house, because at this moment members are not entitled to make lengthy speeches to express themselves. They try to concentrate in a few sentences what they would like to say perhaps in 40 minutes. Therefore you have these capsule, concentrated expressions which really do not add any advantage to the house or to the members who express them.
I would ask hon. members within reasonable limits to keep within the rules. They know what they are; I am sure they do. Whether they want to follow them as they are is a different proposition. As far as I am concerned, once the question is put- first I have to listen to it-I look to the person to whom the question is addressed and in 99 per cent of the cases he is on his feet to reply.

Inquiries of the Ministry
My position with respect to question time is this. As long as it is the wish of many hon. members in the house to ask questions in which they include a great deal of debatable material and if it is the wish of those who reply, probably because of the type of question they get, to include in their answers a lot of debatable material, it is not to be expected that the person who put the question originally is not going to ask a supplementary question to get back precisely at the type of debatable material which was in the answer. Therefore it is a vicious circle, and it is enough to make anyone dizzy, especially the Speaker.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the minister's department or of the St. Lawrence seaway authority to start this spring long delayed amelioration and expansion work in the Three Rivers harbour?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, when the estimates of the national harbours board are before this house-


Mr. Dufresne:: There won't be any estimates.


George Carlyle Marler: -the hon. gentleman will have complete information with respect to this request.


INQUIRY AS TO RESEARCH INTO NEW USES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. In view of recent press reports indicating a further substantial decline in the production of coal in certain sections of Canada, will the minister at an early date bring the house up to date on the progress which has been made in research respecting the utilization of coal for other than normal uses?


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Yes, at the first
opportunity.
.	HOUSING


REPORTED REDUCTION IN LOANS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldl-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister

comment on a recent statement made in Vancouver by the president of the Royal Bank to the effect that housing loans have been reduced to a trickle?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I had not seen this report until my hon. friend sent it over to me a few moments ago. I think there is very little to add to what has been said already in the house. We recently took a step designed to put housing in a position to compete for a fair share of the mortgage money available in the market, and I have every reason to believe that step will meet with success.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimall-Saanich):: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that instructions have been issued to reduce the staff of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at Victoria, the reason given being that there is a reduction in the number of applications for loans?


Robert Henry Winters: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is always looking for ways and means to effect economies, and this is one way.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister have an immediate review made into the effect of the monetary and fiscal policy of increased interest rates and tight money policy of this government on the building industry of this country? If such a review is being carried on, as apparently is the custom of this government, when can we have the findings?


Robert Henry Winters: As the hon. member has stated, it is true that these matters are always under review. When steps are taken which reflect themselves in new policies, those are conveyed to the house in the usual manner.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Have any hon. members of the opposition parties requested the minister to stop the building of any projects in their respective ridings in order to make more building materials available for housing?


Robert Henry Winters: Quite the contrary. I am looking at a considerable number of hon. members opposite who have asked to have new construction projects undertaken in their constituencies.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Did the minister note a report in the Globe and Mail of yesterday to the effect that while residential construction is dropping off there is an

increase in industrial construction? What measures is the government taking to reverse this trend?


Robert Henry Winters: The answer to the first question is no, I have not seen the report. The answer to the second question, I think, is made clear by the steps we have taken to put housing in position to compete for a fair share of the mortgage money available.
I may tell my hon. friend that it is not part of government policy to compete with private enterprise. We think that to the greatest possible extent private enterprise should have an opportunity to do those things which add to the strength of the country's economy. However, having in mind the importance we in this party have always attached to housing we have taken steps from time to time to make the position of housing competitive.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, in the event the minister's optimistic predictions are not correct and there is a continued decline in home construction, will the government undertake to provide through legislation some method of maintaining home construction throughout the country?


Robert Henry Winters: We shall cross that bridge if we reach it.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the answers the Minister of Public Works has just given about competition for investment money, does the Prime Minister expect that those who need houses are going to be able to compete on anything like equal terms with big business for the available investment funds under the present arrangement?
Righi Kon. L. S. Si. Laureni (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, the expression "big business" is rather vague. Business that used to be big when I had more frequent relations with business has now been so far surpassed by other enterprises that I would not like to attempt to give a definition of just what is big business. I would be surprised if 6 per cent for mortgage money with insurance that amounts to a government guarantee would not be competitive with the rates that big business is paying on the securities being issued at this time.


Mr. Roland Michener (Si. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, referring to the expression used by the Minister of Public Works with reference to crossing bridges, may I ask if the minister has seen the figures indicating the decline in house construction contracts for the month of January, 1957, as compared with January, 1956? Does he not consider that a drop from
Inquiries of the Ministry $95 million to $21 million indicates at least a lack of a connecting link if not a bridge?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration which he may take as notice. A recent press report indicates that J. O. Probe of Saskatchewan has stated that 100 of the proposed immigrants from Hungary are refusing to settle in the province of Saskatchewan. Is that due to the fact that they have a general antipathy for socialism, and therefore object to settling in a province with that type of government?


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to suggest with all respect to yourself that you should apply the rules as rigorously to government members as you applied them to me a short time ago.



HUNGARIAN REFUGEES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration I would like to ask the acting minister if he is now in a position to reply to my question of February 1, regarding the telegram forwarded to the minister by the chairman of the Abbotsford and district citizenship council relative to comfort allowances for Hungarian refugees housed in temporary quarters in that area.


Walter Edward Harris: I will try to reply to that question tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.



INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he is now in position to state definitely whether the government will or will not participate in the international trade fair to be held in Montreal this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The only information I
can give at this moment is that the government will not participate. If there is in future any change in the situation I shall be glad to announce it in the house.

Inquiries of the Ministry HIGHWAYS



ALASKA HIGHWAY-POSSIBLE PAVING AND STATUS OF MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister inform the house if the government has decided on a policy in respect to any arrangements with the province of British Columbia which will facilitate the paving of at least the portion of the Alaska highway between Dawson Creek and Charlie Lake?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, no arrangements
have been made with the provincial government of British Columbia, nor are any discussions with the government of British Columbia being carried on with my department in that connection that I know of.


Bert Raymond Leboe: A supplementary question. Are the men used on road maintenance work on the Alaska highway considered to be in training?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The engineering staff is in
training, operating the highway and maintaining it, but most of the people working in that area are civilians engaged by the engineers to do the work required from time to time.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a completely innocent and proper question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture on July 13 of last year in this house that the officials of his department were examining methods of humane slaughter in other countries before the government would come to a decision as to its policy in this matter, can the minister inform me if the government is going to do anything about the question of humane slaughter before the general election?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I will discuss this matter with the officials of the department and see what sort of answer should be given to that question.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 6, consideration of the motion of

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 9, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter before the house this afternoon is the operation of the Canadian wheat board and the extension of the Canadian Wheat Board Act for the next five years. I may say there has been great misapprehension on the part of the Canadian people and, I believe, on the part of some members of this house with respect to the operations of this board.
I would like to say, first of all, that we of the C.C.F. party have endorsed this method of orderly marketing Canadian wheat over the years, and we support the proposed extension of this act for another five years. We do feel, however, that it would add to the significance of the government's support of this method of operating, and of selling Canadian wheat, if the minister could see fit to bring in a bill which would make the act permanent. We feel that the support of the western farmers and farm organizations is such that they are now completely sold on this method of marketing through the Canadian wheat board, and would support any action taken to make this legislation permanent.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, there is misapprehension with regard to this method of marketing wheat, and with regard to the fact that all the operations of the Canadian wheat board are paid for by the farmers themselves. The farmer pays the marketing charges; he pays for country storage and terminal storage; he pays the cost of the wheat board's operations and also the interest charged by the banks for the money used. In addition the farmers pay, out of the proceeds of their sales, for the grading of that wheat, for drying charges, and for all administrative costs. Thus, Mr. Speaker, I wanted it clearly understood at the outset by all hon. members who do not understand the operations of the board that the farmer pays for the Canadian wheat board; he pays the cost of this method of selling his wheat.
I think, sir, it would be well if I were to make a brief review of the history of the Canadian wheat board, because some hon. members may have the impression-and sometimes the impression has been created in the country-that the mint has been used excessively to subsidize Canadian wheat producers. That is completely erroneous. In 1935, when the Canadian wheat board was set up, a farmer had the choice of selling his wheat through the wheat board or on the open market. Ever since the early years when the Winnipeg grain exchange gambled

on the wheat crop, the farmers and their organizations had been trying to encourage the government to institute another form of marketing. The consequences of the old method of operation were that the western farmer often got a low price for his product. So from 1935 onward the farmers generally supported the Canadian wheat board and operated through that agency.
It was not until September of 1943, Mr. Speaker, that the wheat board became the sole marketing agency for western wheat, and it is somewhat significant to note that the price of wheat went up on the date the federal Liberal government decided, not by legislation but by order in council, to put all Canadian wheat marketing under the sole agency of the Canadian wheat board. As of that date wheat on the grain exchange had jumped the maximum of 14 cents, and they stepped in by order in council and put all Canadian wheat under the control of the wheat board.
That was the situation until 1948 when, of course, oats and barley were also brought within the sphere of the board's operations. We in this group support the organization and, as I have indicated, farmers throughout the country support the work the Canadian wheat board is doing. We have never at any time tried to indicate or promote measures which might in any way jeopardize this method of marketing. However, we do feel that the western farmer is caught in a cost-price squeeze.
Some days ago the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre tried to indicate that we in this group had been misrepresenting the situation of the western farmer. I do not think, myself, that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is in his seat at the present time, comes into this house and makes a statement about being out in Saskatchewan and driving with a farmer who owns a Cadillac, this should be taken as an indication that all western farmers are driving Cadillacs. Nor when we find the Minister of Agriculture saying that the only farmer in western Canada whom he found to be hard up was one who had to sell his airplane, should we take such stories too seriously. These are gross exaggerations of the present position of the western farmers and I daresay there are few if any farmers in western Canada such as those two gentlemen alluded to.
I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be more appropriate if instead of listening to such statements we were to listen to statements made by people who have the interests of the farmers at heart, and which perhaps deal with the situation of the western farmer more fairly.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I should like to refer to certain statements of Mr. Wesson, head of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. In the Western Producer of January 17 there is the following:
In point of fact the squeeze is becoming daily more pronounced as the differential between what the farmer sells and the goods he has to buy continues with every passing month to widen. Mr. Wesson, who is not noted for exaggerated or irresponsible statements in such matters, says flatly: "The continued high cost of things needed to operate a farm and to maintain the farm family is putting the farmer in an impossible position."
In my opinion this is conclusive evidence that the very reputable head of the Saskatchewan wheat pool has put forward the situation facing the western farmer concisely and definitely. I should also like to say that those of us in this group have tried to indicate that the prices of wheat and the other things the farmer has to sell have been going down generally since the war years and the cost of the things he has to buy has been going up, placing him in a cost-price squeeze.
In that regard it is interesting to note that during the period from 1930 to 1939 the farmers received 6.1 per cent of the national income. During the period from 1946 to 1954 inclusive the farmers' share of the national income dropped until they were only getting 5.6 per cent, even less than the average in the depression years of the thirties. Therefore it is obvious that today the western Canada farmer is in a cost-price squeeze.
I believe that the government has used the Canadian wheat board as a means to stabilize price levels in Canada and perhaps in some measure to stop inflation. I do not mean to say that the western farmer does not agree with this method of marketing but I should like to point out that the farmer took a lower price for his wheat during the war years and also during the four year period of the British wheat agreement under which Canada sold to Britain in the first two years 160 million bushels of wheat and 140 million bushels in the second two years at a price of $1.55 a bushel when on the world market the farmer could have got a much higher price.
In other words, during the war years and since the farmers have held the price line against inflation. It is also true that in the war years the farmer not only subsidized Canadian consumers by taking $1.25 a bushel for the 60 million to 70 million bushels of wheat consumed in Canada in the form of bread and flour but also as a taxpayer paid his share of the subsidy of 78 cents a bushel paid to millers during that period. Rather than the farmer crying for hand-outs, as the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) said on Friday last, rather than it being a case of those of us in this group

Canadian Wheat Board Act crying for hand-outs on behalf of the farmer, all that the farmer wants is economic justice.
It seems to me that something can be done about this problem. We have suggested that farmers should have parity prices. It seems ridiculous to me that consumers should have to take a trimming in buying a loaf of bread having in mind the price that the farmer is getting for his wheat. I noticed the other day that bread went up another cent a loaf in the city of Ottawa but the farmer is getting the same price for his wheat as he got ten years ago. As a matter of fact, there is only 3 cents' worth of bread flour in a 20 ounce loaf of bread for which the consumer today has to pay over 20 cents a loaf.
The farmer has not been getting a fair or equitable deal with respect to the prices of his wheat and the other commodities he sells. The Canadian wheat board is a good idea but that is no reason why we cannot make it a better organization. That is no reason why the government cannot undertake policies such as we have advocated which will receive the full support of the western farmer. I say that if the government refuses to do so and tries to fetter the Canadian wheat board so that it will not be a satisfactory marketing agency for western wheat there is no single thing which will do more to lessen the support of the western farmer for the wheat board.
We in this group have made certain recommendations and I will deal with them in a minute. First, I want to refer to exports of Canadian wheat. I think this is a serious matter. We have the finest wheat in the world but our sales have deteriorated and we have not got our share of the world market. In my opinion that is a serious matter for everybody in Canada, including consumers. Last evening the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) endeavoured to deal with Canada's percentage of wheat sales. As found at page 1037 of Hansard, he said:
Actually we are in no worse position today than we were in the years since the end of the war.
That is not a very satisfactory thing to have to say in the house. I think we should be trying to undertake policies which would result in our being in a more favourable position. Taking the figures found in the report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year 1955-56, I find that in the 1945-46 crop year Canada exported 373 million bushels of wheat, or 43 per cent of the world export trade. In 1953-54 we exported only 278 million bushels or only 32 per cent of the world export trade. Still dealing with those two years I find that in 1945-46 total world exports amounted to 868 million bushels whereas in 1953-54 they amounted to 
869 million bushels, a variation of only one million in world exports of wheat. Yet our export trade has dropped from 43 per cent to 32 per cent. Surely that is something that should concern the government when, as I say, we have the finest wheat in the world to sell.
With a group of members of the house I went to Washington two years ago and found that the greatest part of the large stocks of wheat in store under the commodity credit corporation in that country consisted of inferior, low grade wheat. We were told that much of the wheat was not fit for milling and would only be milled if there was a real scarcity of better milling wheat.
Many people have talked loosely about the method of disposal of the United States wheat crop. I recall seeing a news report last winter when the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) was in the constituency of Assiniboia. He was reported as having said that our suggestion that we should enter into the same kind of deals and contracts as the United States government was silly. I think the capitalist government of the United States is a pretty hard-headed type of capitalist government and I do not think they are following any methods in the disposal of their wheat which are not in the interests of the farmer and in the interests of the United States. Their policy for the disposal of wheat is not simply a give-away program. I should like to refer to public law 480 of the United States and, incidentally, there are three different methods for the disposal of wheat under that law.
For example, under Title I of Public Law 480, as recorded here in the Canadian wheat board report we find the following:
. . . surplus agricultural commodities may be sold for the currency of the importing country and the funds so acquired are utilized for market development, purchase of strategic materials, military procurement, purchase of goods for other countries, grants for multilateral trade and economic development, loans for economic development within the recipient country and international educational exchange.
It seems to me that in that type of deal there is much merit. Then, of course, under the disposal plan, Title II, we find the following:
Under this law surplus agricultural commodities may be donated to relieve famine and disaster to any nation friendly to the United States, or to friendly, needy populations without regard to the friendliness of their government.
Again it seems that these are worthy types of deals to enter into when any country has a surplus rather than have them spoil as they did in the thirties and I think they should receive the support of those who have the needs and the welfare of people at heart.


Mr. Thalcher:: We are not letting the surpluses spoil. We are selling for cash.


Edward George McCullough: You
are just not selling. That has been the situation in the past.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: We are selling for cash.


Edward George McCullough: I have indicated we have lost our percentage of world sales.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: We have not lost our percentage of sales. You are including what the Americans gave away.


Edward George McCullough: I am
going to deal with that matter in a moment after I have dealt with this one.
Under Title III we find this:
Under this law surplus agricultural commodities may be exchanged for strategic materials entailing less risk of loss through deterioration or substantially less storage charges; . . .
I think all these types of deals are to be commended. It concludes by saying under Title III as follows:
During the crop year 1955-56 barter programs played an important part in United States grain exports.
When hon. members try to mislead the public by saying that the United States wheat disposal programs are all give-away programs, I think that such a statement cannot be substantiated.


An hon. Member:: They are heavily subsidized.


Edward George McCullough: Those of us in this group have advocated certain things which should be undertaken by this federal government. I am going to say this. I do not feel that it is fair for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to hide behind the skirts of the Canadian wheat board. We know that the Canadian wheat board follows out the policy of this government. What we are advocating is that there can be complementary programs which will assist the Canadian wheat board to sell and to dispose of more wheat. These are the things that we have tried to advocate. I have here a list of eight things which I would recommend:
(1) That the Canadian Wheat Board Act should become permanent legislation; (2) that flax and rye should be included under the Canadian wheat board; (3) fair distribution of box cars; (4) cash advances; (5) farm storage payments; (6) parity prices for wheat; (7) ever-normal granary principle undertaken; (8) barter deals, acceptance of local currency and assistance to hungry, undeveloped and underprivileged people. As 82715-67J
Canadian Wheat Board Act I say these are policies designed to complement present policy and to help the Canadian, wheat board, not to hurt it,


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: But none of them would"' sell any wheat.


Edward George McCullough: The
hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre last Friday, Mr. Speaker, made what I consider to be a number of untenable statements. First, as reported at 914 of Hansard, he said, that the socialists from Saskatchewan usually lack the courage to come out and directly attack the wheat board. I think the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre should* be an authority on courage or the lack of it. First I want to say that it is well known in this house that the hon. member, after he defected from the C.C.F. party, sat as an independent to our left here. I do not know whether that was because he did not have the political maturity that he is now claiming in order to decide which way he was going to go. But after sitting as an independent for some months, he put up a political kite in the constituency of Moose Jaw in the general provincial election. He backed the independent candidate there, Mr. Speaker, who was an extremely popular man; and when that man was not elected, of course his political maturity took him to another place. During this time, of course, reports have it that advances were made by the Social Credit party and that there was a berth there for him. Again he could not make up his mind and so we find this hon. member, who last Friday had this to say in the house, now finally rests in the Liberal party, at least temporarily. I say this, Mr. Speaker, simply because this hon. member saw fit not only to sell my province short, in the words he used last Friday, but also my constituency. I feel I must answer him and some of the untenable statements he made at that time.
The speeches made by the hon. member, of course, over the years would probably show that either he had no political maturity then or there may have been some other reason.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: He may have smartened up a bit.


Edward George McCullough: I just want to say this. I do not want to question the hon. member and his integrity at all but I should say that there are many people who perhaps would do so and that his vacillating political maturity perhaps-


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I never vacillated. That is why I could not get along with the C.C.F.


Mr. Sluder:: He had some brains.


Mr. Blackmore:: Why did you join them in the first place?

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I wish I knew.


An hon. Member:: It was the only way to get elected.


Edward George McCullough: The
people will have to judge. It is interesting to remember that the hon. member was elected to this house in 1953 as a C.C.F. candidate. In seeking the nomination he made the following statement-I want to quote the hon. member because I want to be fair to him. I think he needs a great deal of fairness in this matter. He is quoted in the Moose Jaw Times-Herald of October 22, 1953 as follows-"When I joined the C.C.F. party originally,"-


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Five years ago.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I took the chair just a few moments ago but since I took it I have been wondering whether we were discussing an hon. member of this house or second reading of the wheat board bill. I wonder whether the hon. member would confine himself to the bill?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Let him go on.


Edward George McCullough: With all respect to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I intend to do so. But I should call your attention to the debate which took place in this house on Friday last as reported at page 914 of Hansard. The hon. member then made reference to certain crown companies and he attributed to us certain statements which I say are completely untenable and which he made in an effort to make it appear that we had in some way attacked the Canadian wheat board. I want to try to indicate to this house that anything we said in respect to that matter-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I was not in
the chair when the events to which the hon. member refers took place. As I say, I just took the chair a few moments ago and it was impossible for me to recognize that we were on a debate on second reading of this wheat board bill. I must ask the hon. member, under the circumstances, to confine himself now to a discussion of the principle of the bill.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On the point of order which you have raised, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. While the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre was speaking on Friday last I raised the question of whether the Saskatchewan crown corporations was a proper subject to be discussed in this debate. The occupant of the chair at that time gave permission to the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre to proceed and the understanding was that, in due course, members of this party should be permitted to go as far afield as the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre went on
[Mr. Blackmore.l
Friday. I suggest to Your Honour that you examine the words of the occupant of the chair on Friday and compare the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher' with the general line that has been followed by the hon. member for Moose Mountain.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I shall most certainly examine the record for last Friday, but at the present moment I am bound by the rules of the house. As I say, I could recognize on my entry to the house no relevancy whatsoever in the remarks which the hon. member was making in connection with this bill. Therefore, I am forced to ask him at this time to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, what the hon. member for Mackenzie said was correct. I would hope that you would find it possible to let the hon. member for Moose Mountain reply to my remarks on these crown corporations. I did make certain charges; I think they were correct. If there is an answer, I would like to hear it; but of course, that matter is in your hands.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is impossible for me at the present time to agree to such an extension of the debate. That could be done only with unanimous consent, and unless there is unanimous consent, I must apply the rules of relevancy which would certainly militate against the type of debate such as the hon. member is now conducting.
I understood him to say that he was going to quote from certain remarks made by the hon. member last Friday. I do not think I could disallow that but, if I recall correctly, he commenced to quote from some newspaper article of some years ago. That, in my opinion, would not be relevant to this debate.


Edward George McCullough: Mr,
Speaker, with all due deference to your ruling, I should point out to you that on Friday last, when the Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite) was in the chair, this question was brought up by the hon. member for Mackenzie. He said that if the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre was to continue -and, of course, I think he was digressing from the debate-it would only be fair to permit us to answer him, and on that occasion the Acting Speaker permitted the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre to continue. He did so, and dealt with the crown corporations of the province of Saskatchewan. I maintain that he placed untenable statements on the record at that time and I should like to reply to them. The hon. member also tried to indicate to the house

that the statements of us in this group could not be taken very seriously in respect of what we advocate in connection with the Canadian wheat board simply because he associated with our remarks in this house the fact that we had not been successful in the province of Saskatchewan in operating crown corporations. He therefore drew the conclusion that anything we advocated with respect to the Canadian wheat board would be improper.
What I was quoting from, Mr. Speaker, appeared in the October 23, 1952, issue of the Moose Jaw Times-Herald. This is what the hon. member is reported to have said:
When I joined the C.C.F. party-


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I learned a lot since then.


Edward George McCullough: I
should just like to quote this for the record:
When I joined the C.C.F. party originally I did so-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There seems to be a private altercation going on between two hon. members of the house when we should be discussing the wheat board bill. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat.
I have now before me the ruling of the Acting Speaker last Friday. It reads in part as follows:
I have no intention of permitting the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre to go farther than to make the same type of reference or listing of what he considers comparable matters as has been done in previous speeches made in this debate.
Now, I do not think that that quite agrees with the interpretation of the ruling put upon it by the hon. member for Mackenzie. As I say, I am in some difficulty because I was not present in the house when the debate took place last Friday, but it appears to me that the hon. member is going far beyond what we recognize as relevancy, and I must ask him to confine himself to the principle of the bill.	[DOT]


Edward George McCullough: I am
going to accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to say that I feel there is quite an injustice being done when an hon. member can rise in his place on the other side of the house and in the main part of his speech make certain statements which are completely untenable. As I said at the beginning the hon. member tried to indicate that the brick plant, which is in my constituency, was not successful. I feel that by the statement he made not only did he sell my province short but my constituency. The fact of the matter is that the brick plant at Estevan, Mr. Speaker, is making a profit today. It is producing a product which is a quality product, and which is being sold all over Canada for industrial purposes.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I have in my hand the balance sheet which was put out by the Saskatchewan C.C.F. government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: It shows a deficit of $176,000.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must insist that both hon. members are ranging far from the purposes of this debate, and I hope I do not have to rise to my feet once more to indicate that we are discussing a bill dealing with the wheat board, and we must confine ourselves to the principle of the bill.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Protected again.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I enter this discussion? We are discussing a wheat bill which changes the date "1947" to "1952" in two places in the bill, and that is everything that is in the bill. It seems to me that the latitude which is being allowed here is absolutely nonsensical.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Why did you not tell your colleagues that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister not mean "1957" to "1962"?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Probably.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten years out again.


An hon. Member:: That is a petty detail.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, it makes it very difficult for me to try to answer the untenable statements which the hon. member made the other day.


Alfred Claude Ellis: He is using hit-and-run methods; he is afraid of the answers.


Edward George McCullough: I have the facts here, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member said that the Saskatchewan crown corporations had lost millions of dollars for the people of Saskatchewan. That is not borne out by the facts because on all the money invested in the crown corporations there has been a profit.


Mr. Byrne:: Who got the money?


Edward George McCullough: I just
want to put some of the facts of the situation on the record.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Edward George McCullough: During the year 1954 the annual payroll of those crown corporations was $13 million and the total business transacted by all crown corporations was $46 million. Exclusive of the power corporation and government telephones, a total of $10 million' was invested in the remaining crown corporations. At the end of 1954, after deducting all the deficits
1G62

Canadian Wheat Board Act of $1,754,000 from the total surplus of $6,759,000, these companies showed accumulated earnings of $5,005,000 by the end of 1954.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Who got the money?


Alfred Claude Ellis: You approved the bookkeeping.


Edward George McCullough: Mr,
Speaker, I am going to let the matter rest there but in conclusion I should like to say that the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre is now taking a different attitude from that which he took on June 7, 1949.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I have learned a lot in eight years.


Edward George McCullough: In
the Moose Jaw Times-Herald of June 7, 1949, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre is reported to have said:
Thatcher Lauds Crown Firms
C.C.F. candidate Thatcher reviewed the record of the 16 crown corporations, which he said were currently under fire from the government critics. The province's record was an indication of what would be achieved on a nation-wide scale by a federal C.C.F. government, he explained. He admitted that the tannery had been a mistake, and the brick plant, the woollen mill and the fish board, had also operated at a loss. He pointed out that the profits from the others had given the total over-all investment a return of nine per cent, which is a pretty good return, as any businessman must agree. In any case the projects had a primary purpose by supplying jobs which private enterprise had failed to do in the province, he declared.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Put that in your pipe and
smoke it.


Edward George McCullough: Will
the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I rise
for the dual purpose of mentioning that the hon. member, although he submitted to my ruling, nevertheless went on to discuss crown corporations, a discussion which I think is entirely out of order under this bill.


Edward George McCullough: I
would like a chance to put it all on the record.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: However, my primary purpose in rising is to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Would the hon. member permit a question?


An hon. Member:: No, he has expired.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr Smith) now has the floor.


Mr. J. A. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to join with my colleague the hon. member for Acadia

(Mr. Quelch) and other members of this group in signifying our intention of supporting the second reading of this bill.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: O.K., that is all.


Solon Earl Low: He has to talk about something else now.


James Alexander Smith: We in
the west are very appreciative of the value of the Canadian wheat board. Far too many of us in the west can well remember the days of the old Winnipeg grain exchange. The fact that every agricultural organization in western Canada has expressed general satisfaction with the Canadian wheat board and its operations is significant indeed and it speaks highly of the officials of the board. In that connection, Mr. Speaker,-


John Horne Blackmore: Listen to these words of wisdom.


James Alexander Smith: I wish to personally thank Mr. Mclvor, the chief commissioner of the Canadian wheat board, and through him to extend my thanks to his associates, for the co-operation and assistance which has been extended to me at all times as a member. I have never had to wait unduly for answers to any of my requests.


Edward George McCullough: Can't take it, eh?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I do not think you will send this speech home.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: No, it has been pretty well loused up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a good word to describe your activities.


James Alexander Smith: In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I might point out that in 1943 the wheat board became the sole agency for the marketing of western wheat. This agency was established at that time under the War Measures Act. At the end of the war the Canadian Wheat Board Act was passed by this parliament establishing it in its own right. By 1949 popular demand was so strong that in that year the marketing of oats and barley was included within the scope of the Canadian wheat board. Popular demand is again growing and insisting that the marketing of flax and rye be handled solely through the wheat board.
At its convention last December the farmers' union of Alberta passed a resolution which urged the federal government to include the marketing of flax and rye under the wheat board. The farmers' union of Alberta is supported in this respect by practically all of the farm organizations in western Canada. I trust that government
10S3

supporters will give favourable consideration to this request upon a future occasion.
The whole problem of grain marketing has been very much before the people of the west for several years. The inability of the farmers to deliver their grain to any elevator, not to mention the elevator of their own choice, has caused a lot of dissatisfaction among western farmers and farm organizations. We have a large surplus of wheat in Canada according to some standards but according to other standards the surplus is not so large. A 90-day reserve is not a huge surplus. However, owing to the poor management of the government this surplus has worked adversely against the farmers of the west; in fact it has adversely affected the whole economy of the west.
In this connection, I might point out, I recently received a letter from one of my constituents, a businessman in a small town, who had this to say:
One hundred grain permits have been transferred from our town to C.N.R. points . . . People three and a half miles from here are hauling grain 19 miles. Last year these C.N.R. points had a quota of eight bushels compared with our five. The wheat board promised that in fairness, low delivery points of last crop year would be given high quotas this year, yet these towns on the C.N.R. are again ahead of us on quotas. Do you blame farmers for dealing where they can sell more grain? These 100 permits represent 40 per cent of our total permits which is also reflected in a 40 per cent loss of business to our small town.
The crux of the matter seems to be a shortage of box cars. The grain agents here have 41 shipping orders which would increase our quota almost three bushels.
Can something not be done about this .	. .
situation?
Here we have an illustration of blame being directed at the Canadian wheat board over something for which they are not responsible. The Canadian wheat board must operate within the confines of the marketing policies established by this government. It must depend upon the railways for help in moving grain from the local elevators to the terminals. We witnessed a lack of co-operation last spring on the part of one of the major railways and the consequent effect upon orderly marketing.
Toward the close of the last regular session the Minister of Trade and Commerce promised in this house that attempts would be made to equalize quotas in the west. I do not know just how successful those attempts have been in the west generally but I do know that in my own particular area this promise has not been fulfilled. At the end of July 1956 there were only seven points in my constituency on a 5-bushel quota. If the promise had been carried out those points would have secured cars to raise their deliveries. What do I find on February 1, 1957? Four or five points are
Canadian Wheat Board Act still on a 2-bushel quota. In my area 24 points are on the 4-bushel quota, 28 on a 3-bushel quota and 17 per cent on a 2-bushel quota. Little or no attempt has been made to equalize grain deliveries in this area.
Last fall I took this matter up with the Canadian wheat board officials and in the concluding paragraph of their letter to me they state:
Other than to continue to press the C.P.R, advising them of the situation at these low quota points, there is not much that we can do to further assist in this matter.
I agree with the statement made by the Canadian wheat board but I think something could have been done and should have been done at that time, if the government had taken the action it should have taken. During the course of this session we were told that the government has not seen fit to appoint a transport controller because of the actions of some naughty boys on this side of the house. I submit that this is a very weak excuse. The wheat board is being blamed unjustly simply because the government has not seen fit to appoint a transport controller who would bring orderly marketing in the west. I feel that the government has not acted in this regard because it realizes it is powerless to assist the wheat board in securing orderly marketing in the west as long as it continues to follow its present marketing policies.
I now wish to spend a few moments dealing with marketing and our markets. Last evening I listened to a speech by a member on the other side who assured us that we would continue to have our markets, but I am of the opinion we are losing our markets and will continue to lose them until our policies are changed. We often hear the grain marketing policies of the United States criticized in this house. Whether we like it or not we must admit we are losing our markets to the United States. Our government has refused to accept the currencies of other countries and has refused to enter into barter deals. We are told by leading government officials that huge reserves of grain in Canada are a good thing, but who pays for those huge reserves, who pays to keep them? Is it the people of Canada as a whole? No, the brunt of the burden is borne by the farmers themselves.
In recent years we have developed a large export market for grain with Japan and in this connection I should like to quote from the Wheat Pool Budget of November 16. The title of the article is "Who Cares about Grain Markets?" and it reads:
Trade Minister Howe recently predicted that Japan will probably become our best customer.

10S4
Canadian Wheat Board Act Beyond question this market is only being held and developed because of our growing imports from Japan.
To the Canadian farmer and many others this increased trade and better market for wheat is sound business. To the Financial Times and the Canadian manufacturers, however, it is a different story. On November 2 the Times decried the trend toward a balanced trade with Japan and bewailed the harsh effects on Canadian manufacturers. It revived the old cry that they were not receiving sufficient protection against the products of low priced labour.
It is evident that interests in Canada are quite prepared to sacrifice agriculture in order to maintain their rigidly protected special preserve in the home market where they can make big profits. Canadian exporters, particularly the farmers, must buy the goods they require from protected Canadian manufacturers at much higher prices than are charged elsewhere. At the same time they are penalized in the marketing of their own goods abroad, not only by foreign tariffs, but also by the resistance of the Canadian manufacturer to a balanced trade. In short, some section of the Canadian people must pay a special levy to another, but themselves are not to be permitted to make a living. The Financial Times may be the mouthpiece for high finance but it has a very distorted idea of sound economy.
Unless we start buying from countries to which we sell our agricultural products we cannot hope to maintain our export sales to them. The farmers are forced to place their grain through the wheat board upon a highly competitive market. Early this year it was announced that the United States had agreed to make foreign aid available to Poland and she will likely give the same privilege to other satellite countries. Last year Canada sold Poland 14 million bushels of wheat. We are likely to lose this market if we maintain our orthodox system of marketing. Last year we sold wheat to Russia and satellite countries, much of which was financed on short-term loans. So far this year we have heard of no sales of grain to communist countries. What is happening to our markets there? What is happening to our markets in India and Pakistan? New markets must be found and established markets must be held if we are to get rid of our surplus.
Cash advances on farm-stored grain have been urged from time to time in this house, Last year the $1,500 bank loan bill was passed but it proved to be of little or no help to the farmer. Some way must soon be found either to permit farmers to market their grain, or if we wish to continue our level of production there must be a system of cash advances handled through some government agency other than the wheat board.
Speaking in this debate last Friday the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) discussed the two-price system for agricultural products. He pointed out that most agricultural organizations were requesting such a system. In its brief presented to the federal-provincial agricultural conference

held in Ottawa December 3 to December 6, 1956, the interprovincial farm union council had this to say:
We believe that immediate consideration should be given to a program of parity prices on the domestic market and adequate support prices under exports. The Canadian farmer has not participated in Canada's economic boom, but presently finds himself subsidizing the Canadian consumer. If subsidized food is what we want, then the taxpayers of Canada as a whole should bear the cost. Agricultural producers have borne the cost for longer than they can afford.
And further down:
Action must be taken to increase prices to producers. A parity price on the domestic market related to production costs and Canadian living standards, we consider a reasonable request. We recognize that in order for our grain to compete on the export market, it must be sold at competitive prices. Present world market prices do not give the Canadian producer a sufficient return to meet his present costs of operation. Therefore, we recommend that deficiency payments or a support price structure be instituted to cover exports and return to producers their fair share of the national income.
That brief was in support of the plea which the hon. member for Acadia has made over the past several years for the introduction of a two-price system for all agricultural products grown in Canada.
Another matter which has caused great concern among the farmers of Alberta is the special quota of three bushels per seeded acre for barley. This quota was not in operation in our province but it was in effect in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. While we are prepared to admit that the officials of the Canadian wheat board must have sufficient stocks on hand to meet necessary export commitments at all times, we do feel that iri this particular instance the barley producers of Alberta have been discriminated against. It is to be hoped that a demand for barley at the west coast terminals will soon arise so that the Alberta producers will be able to take advantage of this additional special quota.
Last year it was my privilege to attend the farmers union of Alberta convention in Edmonton. Farm problems were discussed at length by the delegates attending that convention and several resolutions with respect to grain policy were passed. The convention asked for such things as the inclusion of the marketing of flax and rye under the Canadian wheat board; it asked for the extension of bilateral agreements; that all grains used on the domestic market be sold at parity prices; that a uniform quota policy be adopted on an annual basis. The convention asked for cash advances and that such advances be the full initial payment. It asked that advances be paid on the basis of one-half of the deliverable grain and that all administration and interest charges be

borne by the government of Canada. It asked that these advances be repayable on the basis of one-half the value of each delivery made by the farmer.
The convention also discussed the setting up of a food bank and also the distribution of box cars, that they be so allocated that farmers may deliver their grain to the elevators of their choice. Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) should give very serious consideration to the immediate appointment of a transport controller. I have here a short article which appeared last evening in the Ottawa Journal. It had been taken from the Winnipeg Free Press, and it deals with the position of the transport controller among other things. The heading is "Parliament a Scapegoat for His Own Failures?", and the article says:
In the House of Commons Mr. C. D. Howe said that the position of federal transport controller had become "completely untenable". The government had not named a successor to Mr. Roy Milner, who resigned as controller a few months ago, because it had been unable to find anyone to take the job.
This reluctance was due, according to Mr. Howe, to the treatment Mr. Milner received when he appeared before the parliamentary committee on agriculture last year.
Mr. Howe should not try to blame parliament for his troubles. The reason lies more with the government than with parliament.
The transport controller has never had any real authority to enforce his control over bulk shipments within Canada. He has had to try to achieve his purposes by making informal requests to the railways and to other trantsportation agencies.
Mr. Milner's success as controller is a tribute to his personal qualities and ability. If he was not at times as successful as some people felt he should have been, the fault lay in the lack of authority necessary to the proper carrying out of his duties.
Mr. Howe's way out of this difficulty apparently would be to have the controller act as a kind of secret agent for the government, exercising influence behind the scenes and not subject to questioning by parliament.
Such a concept is utterly unconstitutional. Either there is a job for a transport controller to do . openly and properly, in which case his work can and must be subject to parliamentary scrutiny: or there is no place for him at all.
It is high time that a minister of the crown stopped trying to make parliament, the basic institution of our democracy, a scapegoat for his failings in administration.
I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that it was not only the transport controller who was blamed; it was the Canadian wheat board, and the board was, during the course of last year, blamed for things for which it was certainly not responsible.
Yesterday morning, Mr. Speaker, I received several petitions from people living along a railway line in my area. The heading reads like this:
Whereas an unfair grain marketing situation exists on the C.P.R. Willingdon-Lloydminster line;
Canadian Wheat Board Act whereas farmers in the province as a whole should have equal opportunity to market their grain regardless of their location; whereas the result of the above situation on the said railway line is that an alarming number of farmers are being forced to take out their grain delivery permits at points on adjacent C.N.R. lines, resulting in increased delivery costs to the farmers and unfair loss of revenue to places of business providing service to the above farmers, be it resolved that in view of the above situation we, the undersigned, petition the federal government to investigate and correct this grain marketing problem.
Mr. Speaker, I have already pointed out that these farmers are on a low quota basis. They were promised by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) last August that they would be given additional quotas. They have not been given them. The only recourse was for 650 of them to sign these petitions and send them to me so that I could forward them to the proper authority.
I am going to send these over to the Minister of Trade and Commerce right now, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask him to see whether something cannot be done immediately to give the farmers in this area the square deal they deserve. I might mention, Mr. Speaker, that these petitions come from such places as Derwent, Clandonald, Mar-wayne and Streamstown.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to make any extended remarks this afternoon, nor is it my intention to review the history of the Canadian wheat board. That has been done very capably on two or three occasions by members who have already taken part in this debate.
When the Minister of Trade and Commerce introduced this bill recently in the house his opening remarks were to the effect that the system of marketing grain through the Canadian wheat board was sound, and we in this group could not agree more wholeheartedly with that statement. We shall support this bill on second reading. We are so confident that the wheat board is the best possible method of marketing the farmer's grain that we were rather disappointed to find, on examining the bill, that it did not make the life of the Canadian Wheat Board Act permanent. We were also rather disappointed to learn that it did not take into account the marketing of flax and rye. We hope that in the very near future we shall see the wheat board take unto itself the handling of all grains in this country.
However, because the Canadian wheat board must operate within the federal government's trade policies it has come in for a lot of criticism. In many quarters throughout this country it has become a sort of
1068	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act whipping boy lor the inadequacies of the federal government's grain trading policies throughout the world, and I suggest this is very unfair. The other day the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) suggested that those of us who criticize the federal government's trading policies are making a deliberate attempt to destroy the wheat board. I say that any suggestion of that sort is entirely false. However, I do say this: that very unfair criticism is being directed at the wheat board by the critics who see in the trading policies of this government those inadequacies which are forcing them into a very serious economic position. And the people who are affected immediately charged those difficulties to the Canadian wheat board. I refer, as an example, to the inadequate allocation of boxcars throughout the country. Here is a case where the wheat board is coming in for a great deal of unfair criticism.
I have here a clipping from the Star-Phoenix of recent date to the effect that in the vicinity of Aberdeen five elevator agents and 56 farmers have been hauled into court because they had violated the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
On another occasion, in the vicinity of Davidson, Saskatchewan, 19 farmers and three elevator agents were haled into court because, as the result of economic distress brought about by the inadequacies of federal agricultural policies, they had actually been forced to violate the law. I think this is very unfortunate. As was pointed out by the judge who heard these cases, this is the first time this has happened, and it is a clear indication of the great economic distress the farmers are suffering at the present time because of the failure of the government to implement a realistic agricultural policy.
The minister also said in his address, and I agree wholeheartedly, that the principle underlying the Canadian wheat board has won wide support from producers throughout western Canada. That is true. You know, I am always a little amazed when a bill is brought into the house dealing with the Canadian wheat board to listen to the efforts of both the government and the official opposition in vying with one another to take the credit for establishing the Canadian wheat board. I suggest that the efforts and support of western farmers over the years were much more responsible for the placing of the Canadian Wheat Board Act on the statutes of Canada than any other single factor.
The minister also mentioned that the value of the Canadian wheat board was, unfortunately, not shared by the people in other quarters of Canada, and again I agree. The 

cars. Certainly that was an entirely different story. So it developed from that statement that in the Carrot river area in my constituency there were 71 shipping orders outstanding, and they had been outstanding for several months. When in desperation the farmers of that area communicated by telegram with the wheat board as to what they should do in order to get box cars to that point where 71 shipping orders were outstanding, the wheat board replied that it was the problem of the railroad and they suggested that the farmers in that area should contact the officials of the railroads concerned. I am not sure, but I think most of those shipping orders are still outstanding. Then on a C.P.R. point in the same area they were not able to get box cars and they have not been able to get box cars for several months; the situation did not change until I and another farmer spoke to one of the junior grain commissioners and asked him if he would try to get a few box cars for that area. Within a matter of hours seven box cars were on the track at the point that was brought to his attention.
Certainly, I think the government will have to agree that this is a very loose way to allocate box cars when one has to make personal contact with one of the members of the board of grain commissioners.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say once again that we are supporting this bill. We will vote for second reading. But our criticism is levelled at government trading policies because, after all, the wheat board must operate within the framework of the government's trading policies.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention at this time to spend very long on this question. I have spoken on it before and other members of our party have stated our position most clearly. Therefore, I do not intend to repeat many of the points raised by the members of this group. However, I wish to say at the beginning, so that there will be no misunderstanding the position which we take on this matter, that we intend to support Bill No. 9, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to extend the operations of the wheat board for another five years. I think the reason for that is evident. The reason most members in this house, and particularly those from western Canada, are in agreement with extending the operations of the wheat board for another five years is that we do not want to go back to the open-market methods of years ago. Those of us from the west can well remember the state of affairs which existed in those times. Nearly all the bills which the farmer had

accumulated came due in the fall immediately after threshing and invariably the price on the open-market system was the lowest for the year. The farmers were compelled to sell their grain at that time to meet their obligations and therefore they took the lowest price possible.
It is true that when you look at the statistics you will see that the average price of grain over the year might have been fairly good, but certainly the cash income that the farmer received was at a very low level. We do not want to see those conditions return.
The wheat board has been in operation now for some 14 years. As far as the western farmers are concerned, it has been proven that they obtained a far better average price during those 14 years than they ever had before the board came into existence. They would not have received that price had the wheat board not been in existence in the last 14 years.
The wheat board-and I agree with this- has had a stabilizing effect on the marketing of wheat. We were glad to see oats and barley included in the operations of the board and we would like the government to go farther and extend the operations of the board to flax and rye. We would also like to see the government take a step to make the wheat board legislation permanent.
On February 1, when the minister spoke about the operations of the wheat board, he went to great lengths to explain that the wheat board had been a success. He pointed out-and I think properly so-that all of the farmers and all of the farm organizations were in support of the continuation of the wheat board. If that is so-and I think it is so -then the government should take immediate steps to put the wheat board under permanent legislation. What is the use of year after year, or every five years at the most, renewing the life of the board or bringing down an amendment to extend the life of the wheat board for a further period of time? If it has been proven that it is a success- and we all agree that it has been-then I think we should put the board under permanent legislation. If that were done it would eliminate most of the criticism that comes from those who support open-market operations in their continuous effort to try to undermine the wheat board and have it done away with so that the old practices may continue to the benefit of the favoured few and to the detriment of agriculture and all those connected with it.
There is another question that I should like to refer to for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, namely, the question of surplus. Some hon. members may think that we western members take this problem too seriously, and they
Canadian Wheat Board Act may at times become impatient with us because we repeat our arguments in favour of western agriculture. But this is a serious problem as far as agriculture is concerned. Mind you, agriculture is the primary industry of this country. If we have a depleted agriculture, then the economy of the whole of Canada will be seriously affected.
This surplus problem is causing us a great deal of trouble these days. We now have on hand, or did have on January 9, 357,636,000 bushels of wheat. The government itself has recognized that this is too big a problem for the farmers themselves to take care of. The minister has indicated that. Finally, after all these years, the government has come to the conclusion that it should not be the sole financial responsibility of the farmers to carry this tremendous amount of wheat from year to year. It is a national problem, and certainly as the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smith) stated a few moments ago when he was speaking, it is in the national interest to have a storehouse from year to year of this very essential commodity so that should there arise a national disaster in the production of wheat our country would not have to suffer as a result. But it is beyond all reason to ask the Canadian farmers to carry this whole burden. The government did take a step in the right direction not long ago when it agreed to pay the storage charges on all wheat in excess of 178 million bushels. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, when the government took that step it acknowledged to the country, and particularly to the farmers, that the policies which it had been pursuing over the last years have certainly not been justified and the forcing of the farmers to pay the carrying charges on the surplus was something that should not have happened.
After having acknowledged their shortcomings in this respect by agreeing to pay storage on all wheat in excess of 178 million bushels, it does seem to me that the government has a responsibility to compensate the farmers of this country for the losses which they have incurred because of the government's failure to recognize the problem and make amends in that respect. Even yet the government refuses to acknowledge that the surplus problem is a continuing one.
When the minister spoke to the house the other day in regard to this matter he referred to the Gordon commission's reference to surpluses, he had this to say, as reported at page 891 of Hansard:
The Gordon commission recommendations appear to be based upon the assumption that there is likely to be a continuing surplus problem. I do not share that view and X think it would be a great mistake to base our policies on such an assumption.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is in contradiction of the action taken by the government not long ago in agreeing to pay storage charges on that grain in excess of 178 million bushels. In that act the government acknowledged that we had a surplus problem and that it is likely to be a continuing one, and yet when the question is brought before them with a view to having them take care of the surplus problem they say, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, that they do not share the view and it would be a great mistake to base their policies on such an assumption.
The Alberta wheat pool had something to say on this question in the January 4 edition of the Wheat Pool Budget. In a broadcast made on January 1, Mr. A. T. Baker, general manager of the Alberta wheat pool spoke of the surplus problem on behalf of the wheat pool and expressed his view concerning whether or not it is likely to be a continuing problem. In this article he is quoted as saying:
From the wheat producers' standpoint the future still does not appear rosy, nor is it entirely gloomy. We have surplus stocks which neither planned acreage reductions nor crop failures, short of unpredictable disaster, are likely to dissipate for several years. We will probably have to live with substantial reserves of food for some time, and learn to value them as the assets that they really are.
That is an opinion which was expressed after considerable consideration. Surely when the minister finds there are so many people who are versed in this problem taking the view that it is going to be a continuing one he should urge the government to introduce policies which would assist in solving the problem.
Even the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is not alarmed at this situation because he expects that before many years have passed the drought now prevailing in the Southern United States will eventually come up to Canada, and we will have disastrous crop conditions again and then the problem will be solved. I trust that we shall never have drought conditions in this country and even if the time should come when drought conditions prevail they will not be as serious as in the past because they will be offset to some extent by improved methods of agriculture and proper irrigation. Irrigation should be extended as far as possible in Saskatchewan and Alberta so that if drought should occur we will not have the low yields we used to have when drought conditions existed. The minister is going a long way in saying that the possibility of future droughts will eliminate our surpluses.
We are not the only country that is bothered by a surplus problem. The United

States is having to face up to a similar situation but the government of that country approaches it in an entirely different manner from that of this Liberal government. The government of the United States recognizes that surpluses particularly in wheat are going to continue and not only are they introducing policies at this time but they have already introduced policies to take care of the problem. It would seem to me that the federal government would be well advised to adopt at least some of the methods that have been adopted in the United States in order to deal with this ever-increasing problem.
I have in my hand a copy of the Western Producer for Thursday, January 3 in which is reviewed an article written in the United States news and world report under the heading, "One farm policy that is beginning to work". This,' of course, refers to the surplus problem and the article examines what is called the two-price system that is in existence in the United States. Let me read in part the summary which the Western Producer makes of this report as it relates to the problem to which I have referred. The report says:
In effect, a two-price system has been set up. There is the domestic price at which government supports farm products. Then there is the second price, set at the level needed to move the surpluses into consumption abroad. Immense sales abroad have followed the decision to use the two-price policy.
Actually no two-price law, as such, has been passed. Officials do, however, have authority, under various laws, to sell abroad at discount prices. They can sell for dollars to the highest bidder, or they can make deals with friendly nations for foreign currency. Barter deals are part of the plan, and much of the surplus is just plain given away.
The taxpayer-not the farmer-finances the whole works.
May I pause for a moment to say that the few price supports we have in Canada have not always been supported by all the people of Canada. We remember that during the war when the wheat board was forced to sell wheat to Britain under the British wheat agreement at less than world market prices because of federal government policies the farmers sustained a tremendous loss amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. At that time the government promised the farmers they would not have to bear the loss alone and that after the war a sufficient support price would be established to make up that loss. Of course every hon. member in this house knows that this was not done and the farmers have had to bear the entire loss themselves. This government went even further and caused the wheat board to sell wheat to the millers of this country at a rate lower than the market price. There

again the farmers themselves and not the people of Canada had to subsidize-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, that is not true and my hon. friend knows it. That subsidy was paid by all the people of Canada.


Charles Edward Johnston: I know that the price at which wheat was sold to Great Britain during the war was below the world market price and when the wheat was sold to the Canadian millers at about 78 cents the government made up the difference between that and the wheat board price.


Edward George McCullough: The
Canadian price was $1.25.


Charles Edward Johnston: The only compensation the farmers received was $65 million which the government said they would turn over to them as compensation for their loss but the farmers lost approximately $350 million all told.


Mr. Decore:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, surely.


John Decore: I believe the hon. member was in the house at the time the United Kingdom wheat agreement came before us for ratification. Did the hon. member vote in favour of that agreement or against it?


Charles Edward Johnston: He certainly
never voted in favour of the farmers sustaining that loss.


John Decore: That was not the question. The question was, did you vote in favour of the agreement?


John Horne Blackmore: Of course he voted in
favour of it.


Charles Edward Johnston: That was during the war, Mr. Speaker, and I supported that agreement in order to help Britain; but never on any occasion have I supported the farmers sustaining that loss. In fact, it was the Minister of Agriculture who stood up in the house at that time and assured us there would be a support price on agricultural products to offset any loss that might result. The hon. member who has just interrupted was one of those who sat here and listened to that statement. He knows very well that the $65 million which was later paid to the farmers never began to compensate them for the losses which they had endured. Does he agree that the $65 million completely compensated the farmers for the terrific losses they took in subsidizing low-cost living, not only for the Canadian consumer but for the British consumer as well?


John Decore: That is not answering my question. Why did you vote for it?
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: I did answer the question.


John Hornby Harrison: Is the hon. member aware that some spokesman for the present British government has claimed just the opposite to what he says, that is, that the British wheat agreement overpaid us by millions of dollars?


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: I am not arguing their case at all as that is not my concern. I do say that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) stood up in the house and said that the farmers of this country should not have to take a loss as a result of that contract. Do you remember that? Where have those promises gone? Right now we find that the farmers of this country underwent a loss of $350 million and they were compensated only to the extent of $65 million.
I was pointing out that the people in the United States are recognizing that this surplus problem is a continuing one, but this government does not recognize it as such. It should. I think they admitted that when they agreed to pay storage on the excess of 178 million bushels. They knew it was going to be a continuing problem or otherwise they would never have agreed to pay that. I am not criticizing them for having paid it; I think they should have paid it as it was something long overdue. Up to that time the farmer had to pay the full shot. This article goes on and summarizes this as follows:
For the first time in years surpluses are moving out faster than they are coming in and there is to be a year-to-year decrease in the stockpile.
That shows the results of the methods the United States are using. I do not agree with all the methods they are using, but from their point of view they are the right methods because they are getting rid of these surpluses. The farmers there are not standing the losses, they are being underwritten by the government and not by the farmers. Here is an important section I should like hon. members to listen to:
We are learning to use these surpluses as a positive factor in our foreign policy. These donations to other countries for relief of famine, flood and other disasters, plus the sales for foreign currency, are making friends for us in many countries that we're trying to keep from slipping under Russian domination.
Let me stop there for just a minute and say that if we could prevent other countries, especially Asian countries, slipping under communist domination by a gift on Canada's part of a few million bushels of wheat I think it would be well worth the price. I am not suggesting that the farmers should make that donation, it should be made by the government of Canada and the farmers of Canada should be given a fair price for the wheat they have raised. The United States
1072 [DOT]

Canadian Wheat Board Act contend that they are making friends because of this. It is all right for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to stand up and say that they do not agree with the methods the United States are using, but those methods are producing results as far as the United States government and the United States people are concerned. I would rather have a few million dollars spent to give wheat away than see some of our boys sent over there to be shot in defence against communist aggression. It seems to me that that would be a much better plan. The article goes on:
The mood of agriculture department officials and of Congress indicates that the government's surplus policy is to continue.
That finishes the summary as far as the United States policy on agriculture is concerned, but the Western Producer goes on to say:
That ends our summary of the article. In spite of the fact that Canadian sales are keeping up remarkably well, there are grounds for a degree of alarm at the aggressive tactics being pursued by the U.S., more particularly by the implicit assumption that it is no flash in the pan but rather a settled, continuing policy. This is not set down here for the purpose of arousing criticism of the U.S. Experience has shown that this would be simply a waste of breath. Rather, Canada alone or in co-operation with other countries should be moving in with an equally aggressive, dynamic sales policy. If not, the time may come when we will be left holding the bag and the bag will be full to overflowing with wheat.
That is about what is happening in Canada. We may not agree with all the methods the United States are adopting, but the fact is that their farmers are prosperous. United States farmers are getting well over $2 a bushel for their wheat. No reasonable comparison can be made between the economic position of the farmer in the United States and that of the farmer in Canada.
For a minute or two I should like to say something about advance payments. This is another thing the federal government is not very fussy about. When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was speaking on Friday, January 11, he made some reference to the mention in the Gordon royal commission report of advance payments on farm-stored grain. At this point let me say that I certainly do not agree with all the recommendations and suggestions regarding agriculture contained in that report, but I do agree with the principle that there should be an advance payment on farm-stored grain. We in this group, particularly the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) who has spoken on this at great length, have repeatedly requested the government to make advance payments on approved farm-stored grain. However, the Prime Minister, who is the

leader of the government, seems to take objection. As reported on page 120 of Hansard of January 11 the Prime Minister had this to say:
I was rather surprised that there should be in that section pages that appeared to me not to reflect a proper conception of what parliament had intended the role of the wheat board to be.
That was referring specifically to the question of advance payments. I want to refer again to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce had to say on February 1 when he took the same view. I have quoted one section referring to the Gordon commission where the minister indicated that he did not consider this surplus to be a continuing problem, that he felt it would be wrong to base government policy on that assumption. Of course the minister is on record as being opposed to making cash advances on farm-stored grain. His great objection was that this certainly should not be done through the wheat board, and I agree with him in that respect. However, there are other agencies which are capable of handling this and on other occasions we have suggested that perhaps the elevators could do it.
I am not arguing about who should do it- that is the government's responsibility. But certainly it should be done. It is common knowledge in this house, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of western Canada are finding very great difficulty in getting the cash that is necessary for them to finance their farm operations. In fact, almost everyone has had to go into debt in order to get money to carry them over, and last fall, when these debts became due, people still had no money -in fact, in a great many cases, they had not paid the farm loans which they had received the year before. And how can you expect them to pay when they cannot sell their grain? It seems to be putting a farmer into an impossible position when he must of necessity accumulate debts in order to carry on his farming operations. Then fall comes; the farmer threshes his grain-and has no place to sell it. And still we need the surpluses, at a time when people all over the world are starving. Surely, this is not a time to consider reducing these surpluses. However, the government thinks nothing should be done in this respect.
Another unfair condition which existed last fall was that farmers were not able to sell very much wheat. This matter came up before the agriculture committee, and Mr. Milner, who was transport controller at that time, pointed out to us that he had had difficulty, particularly with the C.P.R., in getting cars allocated to points where he thought they should have been sent.

I had some of these points in my constituency, and last year they had only delivered up to about a five-bushel quota, and some not even that. When I wrote to Mr. Milner about it-I was referring at that time particularly to the Standard area in my riding -he said action would be taken, and I must give him credit for sending some box cars in there immediately. That brought the quota up in some points to five bushels. But he did say, too, that he would see that this particular area would have continued special attention. Of course, nothing further was done.
The problem that these people face is that they did not sell more than five bushels last year. Now they start again this year under a handicap. Sure, they had a 300-bushel initial delivery. Then the quota started, and some of them to this day have only got two and three-bushel quotas.
How is it possible for agriculture to carry on under these conditions? I think we have reached a point, Mr. Speaker, where the government should recognize the importance of making some provision for giving cash advances on farm-stored grain in order that our farmers may get some cash with which to carry on.
I shall not continue further, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure you would not allow me to do so, anyway-I see my time is nearly expired-and it is not my intention to prolong the proceedings on this occasion. It is certainly not my intention to hold up the present passage of this bill, because we want to see it go through. I hope, however, that the government will take into consideration some of the serious problems I have brought to their attention, because agriculture needs some assistance. Farmers are not asking for charity by any means; they are only asking that this government should take some action that would give them a cash return so that they can pay the many obligations that they are required to meet.


John Decore: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to extend the term of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, giving it an additional life of five years. As one who represents a grain-producing community I would like to say a word or two in connection with it.
Many speakers have risen and suggested that this should remain as permanent legislation. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that as long as the farmers in western Canada want the wheat board system of marketing, this act, when it comes up again in another five years for consideration, will be further renewed. This government has embarked on this policy of the wheat board system of
Canadian Wheat Board Act marketing and I do not think there is any danger whatsoever that this act would not be extended.
Furthermore, the present procedure gives an opportunity to review and discuss the operations of this board, and to make suggestions, as we have been doing. As I say, I have no fears that the wheat board method of marketing will not be continued in the future-provided it has not been scuttled in the meantime through the adoption of certain suggestions whereby an extra load will be put on the shoulders of the board in addition to the heavy load which it is already carrying. I propose to say something about that shortly.
Another point which has been raised is the question of the inequality of delivery opportunities, and this is, of course, a very difficult problem. In dealing with it I can probably do no better than to pass on the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he spoke at the Saskatchewan wheat pool convention held at Regina on the 9th November last. This is what he had to say in connection with it:
I know that you are concerned about what might be termed the inequalities of delivery opportunities. This is an extremely difficult problem and the wheat board is doing its best to cope with it. But it cannot perform miracles and it cannot afford to put equality of delivery opportunities ahead of selling wheat. The wheat board had to take advantage of every demand which came along. This demand, in many cases, was for specific kinds of grain and grades of grain, and not all delivery points in the west could supply these requirements in equal volume. Therefore, the wheat board had to be selective in its shipping policy in order to move to terminals the grades of grain required to meet demand. This caused some inequalities in delivery quotas, but I thought the wheat board was wise in shipping the grains and grades which could be moved promptly into the domestic or export market. Only by taking this action did we reach the volume of exports and the volume of sales which were attained in the past crop year.
Then the minister goes on to say:
Let me give you one example. When the crop year 1955-56 began, the board had very substantial holdings of low grade wheat-No. 5, No. 6 and feed wheat-amounting to well over 100 million bushels. By the end of the crop year the board had sold all these stocks and had to look to the 1956 crop for additional supplies of these grades. The selling of this volume of low-grade wheat could not have been accomplished except by taking every step possible to move these particular grades into selling positions.
As I say, there are inequalities of delivery opportunities. It is a serious problem at certain points in western Canada but I think the complete answer is given in the statement made by the minister. I think history will record that during these trying years the wheat board had to stand the acid test with respect to its performance in the face of great obstacles. It faces great difficulties

Canadian Wheat Board Act in the marketing of our grain, greater particularly in the last two years than at any time since the end of the last war.
What have been some of the problems that have confronted the wheat board? Briefly they have been these. First of all, we have had superabundant crops. During the last six years we have had five of the largest crops in the history of this country and the world was simply not in a position to absorb the record crop production in Canada with the result that some had to be carried over on farms and in elevators. That was one problem over which the government and the wheat board had no control.
The second problem was the heavy subsidization of wheat importing countries throughout the world. Some of these importing countries encouraged production at home by means of high internal prices. Again that is something over which the government and the wheat board had no control.
The third problem, and a very serious one, is the surplus disposal methods followed by the United States government. I was surprised to hear some opposition members, including the last member who has just taken his seat, suggest that we should also endeavour to follow some of the same methods of disposal of our surplus grain as the United States is following.


Charles Edward Johnston: On a question of privilege, I did not say that. I stressed very clearly that I was not advocating all the methods used by the United States. I made that very clear.


John Decore: I said some of the methods.


Charles Edward Johnston: If the hon.
member had heard what I said he would be deliberately misrepresenting.


John Decore: I repeat that the hon. member suggested that we follow some of the disposal methods followed by the United States.


Charles Edward Johnston: Some of them.


John Decore: If the hon. member had
listened to me he would have heard me say that.


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon.
member did not say that.


John Decore: I am going to point out to him and to others who raise this same point that there is a great deal of difference between Canada and the United States in this respect. First of all, the population of the United States is over eleven times greater than that of Canada. Second, in the United States they consume right at home 4 bushels of every 5 bushels of wheat they produce. The reverse is true in Canada.

For every 5 bushels we produce we can hardly consume one bushel, and we have to find a market for the other 4 bushels beyond the boundaries of Canada. Wheat is one of our very important export commodities and to suggest that we follow the same methods, that we compete with the United States by selling our wheat for a great deal less or follow its give-away program, is certainly one thing that will wreck the wheat board if it should adopt such a suggestion.
It would mean that either the farmer would get less for his wheat or the taxpayer would have to put up the difference. You can be sure of one thing, that if the taxpayer has to put up the difference between the price that we get on the world market and the price that we would get under such a policy-


Charles Edward Johnston: Does the hon. member agree with support prices for agriculture? That is what has happened in the United States.


John Decore: We have price supports and because of our price support program the Canadian farmer is today getting better prices for some of his agricultural products than is the case in the United States.


Charles Edward Johnston: There is no support price for wheat and the hon. member knows that.


John Decore: We have a price support program in Canada and we are getting better prices for hogs today than the farmers of the United States.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let us talk
about wheat. That is what you were talking about and that is what I was talking about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I might point out to the house that it is not so long ago that I felt impelled to point out that the hon. member who has the floor should not be interrupted without his consent-


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: He does not know that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: -and I think I might make the same point again.


Charles Edward Johnston: He should not talk about me like that, Mr. Speaker.


John Decore: Mr. Speaker, despite the very serious problems with which the wheat board is confronted, despite some of the crackpot suggestions we often hear as to what the wheat board should do, the wheat board refuses to be panicked, the wheat board refuses to resort to firesale methods of selling

grain, the wheat board refuses to enter into give-away programs. The wheat board has sold a lot of grain. Last year we had one of the best years in Canadian history so far as sales of wheat are concerned. I think history will record that in that respect the wheat board has done a very excellent job. If it had not been for the wheat board we might be in the same position now as we were in 1932 when the price of wheat went down to the lowest level in Canadian history.


Charles Edward Johnston: That was the Conservatives. They are through.


Mr. Gauthier (Porlneuf):: There he is again.


John Decore: We do know that there are powerful interests in this country such as the Winnipeg grain exchange, that would like to dispense with the wheat board system of marketing our grain, but I am not so much concerned about them because we know exactly what they are trying to do. I am more concerned about some of these do-gooders who support the wheat board so vigorously and at the same time make various suggestions which, if adopted by the government or the wheat board, would certainly tend to wreck the board.


Edward George McCullough: That is nonsense.


John Decore: I say the wheat board has a heavy job. It has a big enough job in handling the problems facing it right now without being saddled with extra responsibility and additional burdens.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Not nearly as tough a job as the farmers.


Pierre Gauthier: Another one.


John Decore: As to the remark made by the hon. member, when it comes to some of the C.C.F. members from Saskatchewan I am not sure who does better in singing the blues, Elvis Presley or my C.C.F. friends from Saskatchewan. Ever since I entered the house in 1949 I have heard nothing from that group but calamity howling, singing of the blues, the country is going to the dogs, depression is just around the corner. I have heard that in the house ever since 1949.


John Horace Dickey: It went on long before you came here too.


John Decore: In fact, some of them also do a little rabble rousing on the hustings by suggesting a farmers' march on Ottawa. I understand that the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue)-it is too bad he is not in his seat today-has been urging the farmers to march on Ottawa.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Irvin William Studer: He is probably out doing it again.


John Decore: I think that is one of the finest bits of rabble rousing that has taken place in this country. I have before me a Saskatchewan newspaper known as the Yorkton Enterprise. In an editorial they refer to a statement made by a provincial cabinet minister of the C.C.F. government, Mr. Fines.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What date is that?


John Decore: The date is Thursday, January 31, 1957. This is what the editorial has to say:
Reviewing 1956, Mr. Fines saw it a year of "unparalleled expansion" for Saskatchewan and mentioned three factors he thought responsible.


Edward George McCullough: That is the expansion you said we could not have under a C.C.F. government.


John Decore: I am quoting Mr. Fines:
"First, a near-record crop, together with better grain marketings, helped farmers recover from the 1954 crop failure and the reduced income level of 1955," he said.
"Second, non-farm production continued its steady and in some cases spectacular development, and contributed almost one-half of total commodity output.


An hon. Member:: The Winnipeg manifesto did that.


John Decore: I do not know whether or not they still have the shoe factory there. The quotation continues:
"Third, high levels of public and private investment, including very large inflows from outside the province, made much of this expansion possible."
As I say, listening to what Mr. Fines has to say and listening to my calamity-howling moon-gazing, rabble-rousing C.C.F. friends from Saskatchewan, I do not know whom to believe. Of course, we realize that the farmer has had his difficulties.


Irvin William Studer: The C.C.F. made it difficult for him.


John Decore: Agriculture has its difficulties. I think that this government recognizes- and it is well known-that agriculture has not fully participated in the increased welfare of our economy in this country.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Who is howling now?


John Decore: What is the reason for that? 1 can think of no better answer to give than to quote Mr. Hannam when he spoke for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at the federal-provincial agricultural conference here in Ottawa on December 3 last. This is what he said:
The difficulties in which the farmer today finds himself are basically a result of the fact that not only in Canada but in the whole of the western

Canadian Wheat Board Act world agriculture has been outstandingly successful in increasing productivity and achieving the expansion of production needed to meet post-war food shortages. This increased production represented one of our most urgent post-war needs. The expansion, however, finally outstripped effective market demand for food and agricultural products both at home and abroad. Coupled with this, the world has experienced a lagging behind of farm products in the otherwise notable post-war expansion of trade.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That sounds as though Hannam is howling.


John Decore: The government has recognized the problems of agriculture. I do not need now to enumerate the benefits extended to the farmers. They include P.F.R.A., P.F.A.A.; price support for our dairy products; price support for our pork; price support for some of the other commodities; the $65 million that was paid under the United Kingdom wheat agreement and others. I was surprised to hear the hon. member who preceded me in speaking in this debate say that this government does not recognize the surpluses problem.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was only quoting the minister.


John Decore: Let me remind him that the government assumed the costs incurred by the wheat board in carrying stocks of wheat in excess of normal amount. This is computed on a 15-year average period. On anything over 175 million bushels the government is prepared to pay, with the result that for the 1954-55 pool the taxpayer of Canada has paid the western producer the sum of $31 million, or over 7 j cents per bushel extra to each farmer in western Canada. Does that mean to say that the government does not recognize the surpluses problem? I think it is clear that, under that legislation, the principle of paying the carrying costs on stocks in excess of 175 million bushels is now part of the law of Canada. When carry-overs come back to normal, as some day I hope they will, this legislation will not be valid. But until such time that legislation is on our statute books. I therefore think it is misleading to tell this house that the government is not concerned with regard to these surpluses of wheat in this country.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was only quoting the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Irvin William Studer: If you did not have someone to quote, you could not make a speech.


An hon. Member:: You cannot make one anyway.


John Horne Blackmore: Turn up your Hansard and you will see what the government had to say about it.


John Decore: In spite of the difficult problem that it has to face, I say that the wheat board did an excellent job. A while ago I mentioned the fact that last year we had one of the best selling years for our wheat in the history of this country. We increased our exports to old customers such as the United Kingdom. In the previous year exports to that country amounted to 102 million bushels; last year they amounted to 109 million bushels. To West Germany we increased our exports by 5 million bushels to a figure of 30 million bushels. Exports to Japan remained about the same, namely 29 million bushels. At the same time trade with regard to our wheat was good with countries such as Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands, Ireland and other western European countries. Then we developed or opened up new markets especially with countries behind the iron curtain and were able to sell 45 million bushels of wheat to those countries.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
John Decore: Mr. Speaker, just before six o'clock I endeavoured to point out that the wheat board system of marketing has many enemies in the country. I also endeavoured to point out that I was not concerned about those who want to get rid of the wheat board system of marketing. They work quite openly, and we know with whom we are dealing, but I am concerned about those do-gooders

and there are some in this house who have spoken in this debate

who profess to be the real friends of the wheat board but who would saddle the board with extra burdens which, if adopted, would certainly tend to wreck the system. I refer to such things as following some of the surplus disposal methods of the United States and the taking of local currency of other countries. If the currency of other countries is as good as Canada's, then of course, there is no problem; but if the currency is not as good as Canada's then, of course, we would have to sell our wheat at a discount, or at next to nothing, and that would mean that the farmer would either get less for his wheat or the taxpayers would have to put up the difference, and certainly that would be one way of wrecking the wheat board.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that the wheat board and the government should refuse to accept some of these so-called fancy deals of accepting local currencies. The farmer would like to see the

fairly high level of prices maintained. The farmer does not want the wheat board to resort to firesale methods, fancy deals or the board get panicky. The farmer would rather sell one bushel of wheat at a fair price and keep the other one at home for the time being than sell his wheat for something less. Therefore, I hope that we do follow the wheat board system of marketing our grain. The farmers in western Canada have fought for this for a number of years. They now have it and they would like to see it maintained. They would like to see the wheat board and the Department of Trade and Commerce continue, as they have in the past, a vigorous campaign of finding new markets for our wheat outside of Canada and, above all, the wheat board maintain the high price level that we have had for our wheat in the past.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, the main theme of this debate so far has been, as indicated, the wide acceptance in this house at least of the principle of orderly marketing of our grain. I say "grain" advisedly, Mr. Speaker, because so far we have been hearing a great deal about wheat, which may leave the impression amongst those who are not particularly familiar with the wheat board legislation that it refers to wheat only. I realize that wheat is the most important grain produced in western Canada, but it should not be forgotten that other grains such as oats and barley, rye and flax are also of great importance and in many parts of the prairie provinces are even more important as a grain than wheat itself.
I understand that the orderly marketing principle does in a way open a heartening debate for those of us who believe in orderly marketing of farm products as a principle and as part of our laws. I think it is all the more heartening to hear from members and from party representatives who in the past have not always been quite so friendly to that principle, because basically what has happened in the marketing of grain is that the farmers as well as the consumers have come to the conclusion that this is a commodity which can no longer be left in the hands of private enterprise and which cannot be left to the speculative purposes of those who want to exploit both the consumer and the producer.
The realization of that carries with it a great deal of significance because, as time goes on, it is my guess that that idea will gain ground amongst both the consumers and the producers of this country. In other words, every time that we can show, as I think the wheat board has shown, that it is possible to take an important commodity, and particularly food, out of the realm of speculation,
Canadian Wheat Board Act out of the hands of those who would exploit the producer and the customer and put it into the hands of a board which is there to provide the producer with the best possible return, and to pass on that commodity to the consumer at the most reasonable price in order that the margin in between, or the cost of handling, shall be as inexpensive and as efficiently handled as possible, a great service will be performed.
It is very significant that both the producers and the consumers in Canada, as represented in this house, have come to the conclusion that the least expensive and most efficient manner in which to distribute this very important commodity of Canada, in some respects the most important commodity both in Canada and for export, is to take it out of the realm of private enterprise and put it in the hands of a board responsible to the representatives of both the producer and the consumer.
A great deal has been said about the wheat board itself. When the minister introduced the resolution he made one or two very significant statements to which I wish to refer. First of all, he set out in one paragraph a very important explanation. I am glad he did it because it has given rise to misconceptions in the past. There have been people- and probably there still are-in Canada who were under the impression that in some way the Canadian treasury subsidizes or carries the wheat board. On the other hand, there have been people who have been under the impression-it has included many producers as well-that they have a guaranteed price for their grain. Well, neither one is true. I wish to quote these lines of the minister's explanation which I think bear emphasis. He said, at page 890 of Hansard:
The government authorizes the board to fix an initial price for such wheat as may be delivered to the board within the next crop year, and guarantees the banks against loss through payment of the initial price, but the government does not guarantee payment to the farmer of any price for wheat which is not actually delivered to the board within the crop year.
The reason I repeat these words is to indicate very clearly that the present policy of the government is not to guarantee a price for grain which the farmer produces; it is simply to guarantee the banks against loss of any moneys they advance to the Canadian wheat board for the purposes of the initial price and it is based only on that part of the grain which can actually be delivered. That, of course, depends on the quotas; it depends upon the storage space, availability of box cars, export markets and a great many other factors, so that in effect what the producers have here is only a partial protection so far as the price of the farmer's grain is concerned.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
Then, farther on, the minister said, referring to the recommendations of the Gordon commission:
The Gordon commission recommendations appear to be based upon the assumption that there is likely to be a continuing surplus problem. I do not share that view and I think it would be a great mistake to base our policies on such an assumption.
I agree thoroughly with the last half of the last sentence where the minister says;
... it would be a great mistake to base our policies on such an assumption.
I am not so sure that the minister is quite so right when he says that he does not share the view that we may have a continuing surplus problem.
I will come to that later in my remarks because I believe that is one of the most important matters in connection with the board that we are going to have to face in the next few years; that is, how to devise means by which the Canadian wheat board can continue to provide a service to the producers to an extent which will assure the greatest possible market for their grain.
It has been said that the wheat board has been subject to criticism. I think it would be more correct to say that it has been government policy which has been subject to criticism because the wheat board works within the framework of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It has only certain powers and certain obligations. It cannot in itself evolve policies which are opposed to the policies held by the government. If the wheat board is going to be rid of a great deal of criticism which does not belong to it, it will be necessary for the government to find ways and means to deal with the surplus position to a greater extent than is envisaged by the minister.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) in his address yesterday gave a little of the historical background of the Canadian wheat board. I found it an extremely interesting review but I also found it to be quite incomplete and I would like to devote just a few minutes to that subject. First of all I think it should be made perfectly clear that the only political party in this house that has consistently and from the very beginning supported the principle of a Canadian wheat board as it is now constituted is the C.C.F. group together with some of the hon. members in the party to my left. I refer to only some of them because it has not been the case with every hon. member in that group.
When the hon. member for Provencher proceeded to describe in rather uncomplimentary terms the policies followed by the Conservative government at the time of

Premier Bennett and the policies advanced by the present Progressive Conservative opposition through their leader, he left a great gap. What he did not state and what I think is important for us to know is that for a great many years, as a matter of fact up until 1943, the policy held by the Liberal party with respect to the wheat board and that held by the Conservative party were almost identical. There was practically no difference whatsoever in their approach. The following remarks were made by the hon. member for Provencher as reported at page 1035 of Hansard for February 6, 1957:
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.
This seems to me to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. What was the advice offered by the members of the Liberal party who formed the opposition in 1935? I have here a statement made by the present hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) who was the then hon. member for Macdonald, as it appears on page 3633 of Hansard for June 13, 1935. This was the time when what was known as the grain board was being debated in the house. After having indicated that he would vote for the second reading of the bill in order to get it into committee, the following is the advice that was offered by the hon. member. He said:
At the same time I would hesitate very much to endorse a proposition whereby, at this stage of the game, a permanent compulsory pool organization or board should be established and set in motion to conduct the wheat marketing affairs of the country for years to come. I dislike to see the government go into the grain marketing business.
This was the stand taken not only by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa but also by other hon. members of the opposition of that day including the leader of the opposition, the late Mr. King, when he stated, as will be found on the same page of Hansard, these words:
Especially do we reserve our right to regard this measure as one to deal with a present situation, an emergency situation, and not as necessarily establishing a permanent policy.
As one reads the debate that took place in 1935 one gets the strong impression throughout the record in Hansard that neither the government of the day nor the opposition of the day was at all prepared to accept the principle of orderly marketing of grain through a grain board, or through a wheat board as we refer to it today. Both the government and the official opposition of that

day regarded this as a sort of hasty experiment at that time which was necessary to meet an emergency situation and then to be got rid of as quickly as possible after that.


Mr. Mang:: We are extending it five years now.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes, I will come to that in a moment. In his introductory remarks the minister pointed out that in September, 1943 a significant and important change was made in the whole set-up of the Canadian wheat board making it the exclusive marketing agency for all wheat in western Canada. He gave the reason for that change and at page 889 of Hansard for February 1, 1957 stated:
When the open market was below the initial price, producers delivered practically all their wheat to the board. From the point of view of a successful marketing operation by the board, this was a most unsatisfactory position. In a sense it was a sort of "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition.
That is the reason the minister gave for that change. But let me go back to 1935 again and see what sort of advice on that very point was offered by the present hon. member for Portage-Neepawa, the then member for Macdonald. He said, as reported at page 3633 of Hansard:
My feeling at the moment is that if we could establish a grain board which would be in a position to take offers when the market fell below a certain point, and when the market was above that figure for everyone interested in the handling of grain to be free to market in whatever way they saw fit, we would have the most satisfactory arrangement.
Here we have almost the same words used in reverse. Here the spokesman for western Canada of the Liberal opposition of the day said that the most satisfactory situation would be to have the kind of power which would exist only if the price on the open market fell below a certain figure.


Mr. Jutras:: We never pretended otherwise.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Do I understand then, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member indicates the policy of the government is still the same?


René Jutras: You are talking about 1935.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Well now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said they never pretended otherwise and I want to know if the policy of the government remains the same.


René Jutras: Perhaps I may help the hon. member-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


René Jutras: Who said sit down?


Mr. Hansell:: Someone back there.


René Jutras: I never try to argue that the Liberals in 1935 were not in favour of the
Canadian Wheat Board Act compulsory board. The point I was making is that the Tories now try to pretend they approved of the board in 1935 and they did not. That is my whole point.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the hon. member clear that up. However, I would like to ask the hon. member this question, and if he wishes he can make a reply. Does he at the present time hold the same view as was held by the Liberal party in 1935 with relation to the wheat board?


René Jutras: You know the answer to that one too well to even ask about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The answer is that the Liberals changed when they crossed the floor.


René Jutras: The answer is in the bill that is before the house. What more do you want?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: What happened in September of 1943, Mr. Speaker, which caused this revolution in the thinking of the government of the day? Since 1936 when they came back into power they apparently have been prepared to carry on under the system which had been set out in the quotation I read from the speech made by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa. However, a significant event took place in 1943 which was skipped, and wisely so, in the review made by the hon. member for Provencher. They had made no change up to that time, but in 1943 they did. A most significant thing took place in 1943 which was skipped, as I say, by the hon. member for Provencher. During the summer of 1943, I think it was in August, two by-elections were held in western Canada, one in Selkirk and the other in Humboldt, I believe both on the same day.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do we have to have this, a discussion of by-elections in 1943? What has this to do with the bill?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It has quite a bit to do with it. I have just referred to the minister's words when he pointed out that the situation was not satisfactory and that it was changed in 1943. This was one of the big issues at that time on the prairies. I remember it very well because I took part in one of those by-elections. The Liberal candidates in both ridings expressed their support of the policy which had been followed up to that time and were completely opposed to the present set-up of the Canadian wheat board. They were quite satisfied to leave it to the open market when it reached a certain price. The farmers expressed themselves very decisively in both ridings, so much so that both the Liberal candidates lost their

Canadian Wheat Board Act deposits and the C.C.F. candidates were elected. Since that time the policy has changed.
I point out that, simply because hon. members on the government side of the house point out that the policy of the official opposition in connection with the wheat board is one of lukewarmness and unreliability. It is quite well to remember that their policy was quite the same until they were forced into a different position. I refer also to the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre which are reported on page 917 of Hansard of February 1 as follows:
I support with enthusiasm the legislation which is now before us, Mr. Speaker, and 1 want to tell my hon. friends from Saskatchewan on the opposition benches that there are some members in this house who are not keen about the wheat board because they are a little afraid it may be a socialist measure.
It was too bad that when he was speaking the hon. member did not see fit to identify those members who are not so keen about the Canadian wheat board.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: If you fellows keep on talking this way you are likely to vote this down.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Hon. members of this house have a right to vote as they please and if they decide to vote this measure down that will defeat the government and we will have an election that much sooner and perhaps a new member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. Since the hon. member has seen fit to interrupt me I would point out that if he is talking in terms of hon. members who are not so keen about the Canadian wheat board because, as he says, it may be a socialist measure, he should identify himself as the first member in that category. There has never been a more reactionary member in this house than the present hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. When he says that he enthusiastically supports this bill I would warn the people in Assiniboia to remember the old saying, "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts." In this case they must beware of a Trojan horse carrying a carpet bag.
Certain recommendations have been made by various farm organizations as to how the present set-up of the wheat board could be improved. One was made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at its annual convention. One recommendation, as reported in the press, was as follows:
The meeting endorsed the Canadian wheat board and the international wheat agreement. A resolution was passed recommending the wheat board be permanently established as the sole marketing agency for all grains produced in western Canada, including flax and rye, and that legislation covering the wheat board be reviewed at regular intervals.
[Mr. Zaplitny.l

That is in line with recommendations that have been made from time to time by members of this group, and again during this debate. We believe that if there is to be orderly marketing the wheat board must be the exclusive marketing agency for grain in western Canada and that it should be a permanent body. We would also include rye and flax in its operations. I find complete unanimity on this point among farm organizations. The Interprovincial Farm Union Council made a presentation to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in December, 1956, which contained this paragraph:
The membership of the Interprovincial Farm Union Council has, on a number of occasions, gone on record as supporting the orderly marketing of wheat, oats and barley, through the facilities of the Canadian wheat board. At the same time, our membership has gone on record equally as often requesting that flax and rye, too, be placed under wheat board jurisdiction. The basis for this request lies in the favourable experience farmers have had in marketing wheat, oats, and barley through board facilities during the past number of years.
Those are recommendations made by the two largest farm bodies in this country which are in perfect identity with the proposals made by members of the C.C.F. group. We ask the government to give them careful consideration and not just slough them aside. If they do not make a move to carry out those recommendations there will be some serious doubts raised in the minds of members of these organizations as to whether best support of the wheat board on the government side is as strong as they pretend it to be.
Some of the other recommendations we have made have to do with the sale of grain and parity prices. I would summarize our recommendations under six headings. First, as I have already said, we feel this should be a permanent statute. Second, it should include rye and flax along with other grains.
Third, we should be prepared to accept the principle of parity prices. If the government will not go so far as to accept that in connection with all grain handled, it should be accepted at least for grain marketed for domestic use. I am using figures produced the other day by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) and am assuming they are correct. He indicated that in the United States the parity price for wheat was $2.37. The average price paid for wheat in Canada for the 1954-55 pool, after all deductions for expenses had been made, came to $1.44 per bushel. If you subtract $1.44 from $2.37 you arrive at a differential of 93 cents per bushel.
If we applied that differential to the wheat used in Canada for domestic purposes, and certainly no one who is at all reasonable will deny that there is no reason why wheat or

grain sold in Canada should be sold at a price which is not at parity with the prices of other products, and it is only justice that that be done, it amounts to approximately 70 million bushels of wheat which would come to about $65 million. That means that at the present time the farmers have a perfectly justifiable grievance when they say that the $65 million which could be realized, not by selling their grain at excessive prices but simply at parity prices for domestic use in Canada, should be added to the amount of money in the wheat board fund which could then be distributed in the form of dividends or interim or final payments to the producers. I think that the government or parliament generally should be prepared to go at least as far as to provide that the grain which is sold for domestic consumption would be sold at a price which is considered to be a parity price at the present time.
Then we ask that the government should accept the principle of establishing a national grain reserve. I say a national grain reserve to make it clear that I believe this should be the responsibility of the whole nation, both producers and consumers. If we accept the idea that there should be a reserve of grain we should also accept the principle that this reserve should be maintained and financed as the responsibility of the whole nation and not of the farmers alone. It is a fortunate thing that Canada is in the position of being a great producer of grain with a huge carryover from year to year. It is a fortunate thing for the world, because one never knows when there may be a serious crop failure, or a shortage of food in any corner of the world which will bring people to the point of actual starvation. We are the breadbasket of the world, and if we are to carry out this obligation as a nation, we must not leave it on the shoulders of the producers themselves.
It is not fair to ask the producers of Canada to carry the burden of these huge reserves of grain from year to year. If we accept what I have suggested as a national policy, then we should set up a national food reserve of grain which would be stored and financed by the treasury; the farmers who produce the grain would be paid for the crop they produce and, that having been done, the government would take over. That, in effect, is what is being done in the United States

they are treating the surplus as a national food reserve and then using various means to market that grain both on the domestic market and in countries abroad.
This brings me to the fifth point. We propose that the government should seriously explore ways of obtaining new revenues and export markets. I know that the minister
Canadian Wheat Board Act and some of the hon. members on the other side of the house have stated, even in their speeches during this debate, that these methods used by the United States to dispose of its grain were open to question. They have called it a "fire sale".


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: A "give-away".


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That is another description which the hon. member has supplied. I think it is a little shortsighted to approach a well-thought-out program which has proved to be effective and beneficial to the nation and to the producers in the United States, with such an attitude, and to laugh it off as a fire sale or as a give-away. As a matter of fact it is neither one thing nor the other.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: It certainly is.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If the hon. member for
Moose Jaw-Lake Centre would take the trouble to inform himself of what is actually being done in the United States with regard to the disposal of grain I am sure he would not use those terms. They have a number of ways, in the United States, of applying this plan which I have mentioned, but I will refer only to three of them. One of the ways is by selling grain for local currencies- various currencies.


Mr. Enfield:: That is the Mutual Security Act.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: It is giving it away.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: No, not at all. It is accepting local currencies for the purpose of being able to make a deal which would not otherwise be possible.


Mr. Weselak:: What do you do with the local currency?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Part of it is held to the credit of the exporting nation to be liquidated by goods to be obtained from the country to which the grain has been delivered.
The other method used to dispose of the grain is intended to promote the expansion and development of the countries concerned-*


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Britain won't buy it that way.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It is a desirable way in which to carry on trade with these countries. One can call it a give-away or a fire sale, but I think it is a smart way to do business, and since it is the only way in which you can do business with these countries I think it is smart to take advantage of the opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: You have not made one suggestion as to how we could sell more wheat.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I have never objected to
interruptions. I rather enjoy them, and sometimes I make them myself, but I would appreciate it if only one member at a time would interrupt so that I could identify who is speaking and reply to what they say.
The other method used is what they describe as disaster or famine relief. That could be called, in some sense, a give-away but the amount so disposed of represents only a very small part of the total grain dealt with under this project.
Another method by which they dispose of a great amount of their grain is in exchange for strategic materials, either from the country to which the grain is shipped or from some other country with which the country of the first part may have a credit. What does all this amount to? I want to point out to hon. members that this is no laughing matter. In the crop year of 1955-56 they have disposed of 156.3 million bushels for local currencies.


An hon. Member:: Gave it away.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: At substantial discounts.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Using the second method I have described, they disposed of 67.4 million bushels in one phase and 112 million bushels under a slightly different plan. If you limit the figure for famine relief-it is not given, but it can be estimated-to 10 million bushels, you will find they have disposed of a total of 335 million bushels of grain through the commodity grain corporation.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: We exported 309 million
bushels for cash.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes, but these 335 million bushels of grain was over and above what they sold for cash-it is over and above what the United States sold in the course of regular commercial transactions. The hon. member says we have sold about that much for cash, but they have sold by special deals as much as we have sold for cash through these various deals, plus what they have sold in the course of their various commercial transactions.
If my hon. friends do not think that this deserves at least an intelligent investigation -that it does not deserve at least the courtesy of study and consideration on behalf of the producers of Canada, and can simply be laughed off-that would indicate to me that they are not particularly anxious to improve our export situation. And let me say this-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: We are going to vote for this bill despite you.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: We are going to be faced for years with these surpluses. The pressure is going to become greater and greater on this parliament, and consequently on the wheat board, to find ways and means of improving our export position and I think the least we can do is to give intelligent and serious consideration to these means which I have referred to, and apply that part of the plan which is applicable to Canada under Canadian conditions. If we do that, we shall have done something.
I see my time is rapidly running out. As my last point, I would say this. We have asked, and we ask again, that a system of cash advances for grain be instituted so that the farmers may be put into a position of carrying on their normal operations. We cannot expect them to do this unless we provide some system of cash advances so that farmers can at least get the money required to undertake their normal expenditure.
I thank the Chair for the courtesy it has shown me. I see my time is a little overdue, but I imagine some time has been added on account of interruptions.


Frederick George Hahn: Before the hon. member takes his seat, I wonder whether he would answer a question. I dislike guilt by association without the naming of the people who might not support the wheat board. Would the hon. member please indicate whom in the Social Credit party he meant who might not support the wheat board?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I do not think I said there were any members to my left who did not support the wheat board as such. What I did say was that not all members of the group regard the wheat board in exactly the same way, and that is indicated by their own speeches. Unfortunately I do not have time to go into the record now to show that but I think I have indicated quite truthfully that not all members of the party to my left regard the wheat board in exactly the same light.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I rather regret to see a tendency to inject unnecessary politics in a discussion of the wheat board.


An hon. Member:: Far be it from you.


John Horne Blackmore: It is far too difficult a problem to arrive at a solution of to indulge in such lightmindedness as playing politics concerning the very important matter of the production, conservation and marketing of wheat. In commencing my remarks I should like to refer to the submission of the Manitoba federation of agriculture and co-operation to the royal commission on Canada's economic

prospects in a 43 page brief that they submitted in the fall of 1955. In short, the general message of their submission was that a continuation of recent trends would spell disaster for agriculture.
It is well to bear in mind who it was who made the submission and to whom they were making it and then reflect that these people solemnly declare that unless the trends in agriculture now in progress in Canada are changed the whole set-up spells disaster for Canadian agriculture. That is not calamity howling. That is the serious, sober message of the Manitoba federation of agriculture and co-operation in the fall of 1955.
I do not propose to go into any considerable detail with respect to what these people had to say but I will quote one short passage from their 43 page brief. This one has to do with the loans which are necessary in order that our farmers may be able to carry on. It reads:
We are forced to the conclusion that government backing for agriculture loans is essential, and for the maximum diversification and wider spreading of the risks, this must be a nationwide scheme sponsored by the federal government. We favour increased use of Canadian farm loan board facilities with interest rates at the lowest level possible.
I hasten to concede that the Liberal government has gone a considerable distance in the direction of meeting the demands of that statement but I am sure that every hon. member who has given the matter any sober thought is convinced that the federal government has not gone far enough yet. That is all I propose to say in introducing what I wish to talk about tonight.
I wish to say that the Social Credit case with regard to wheat has been put by the hon. members for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smith) and Bow River (Mr. Johnston).


An hon. Member:: And New Westminster.


John Horne Blackmore: I believe that in a general way they have put the whole case completely. They have not done so, of course, in every detail but I support wholeheartedly the cases put forward by these three members, and all Social Crediters will be prepared to do the same with respect to the wheat growers of the prairie provinces. We will grant that the British Columbia members have a problem which was very well indicated by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) the other day. In my judgment that problem has to be met and dealt with. But the Social Credit program, as the three members whom I have mentioned have outlined, has to do particularly with the well-being of the wheat grower on the prairie farms.
In the first place, we approve of the wheat board. We will all vote for the wheat board.
Canadian Wheat Board Act I am sure we all have voted for the wheat board and we have voted for the wheat board without all the frills which I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) tried very hard to imply that we wanted, to add to the responsibilities of the board with the danger of wrecking the wheat board. I think it was quite unworthy of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to make those remarks. He is old enough to know better. I will have something to say about that later.
As I said, we favour the wheat board as the means of marketing wheat, oats and barley and we desire that flax and rye shall be added to the commodities marketed through the wheat board.
We favour advances on farm-stored grain and here, of course, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) and others who are looking for us to bring up something like this, including the Minister of Trade and Commerce, will begin to writhe. But let me specify that these advances on farm-stored grain are to be made directly from a federal agency outside the wheat board entirely. There is no reason why government money cannot be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada directly, without having the wheat board assume any responsibility with respect to either administration or to the provision of the means of paying. Certainly everyone with a tithe of the experience of the Minister of Trade and Commerce ought to know that. These advances on farm-stored grain would be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


An hon. Member:: The old taxpayer.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, of course, the whole taxpayer, just as the whole taxpayer pajs for all they are doing in the United States. If, with the tremendous potential production of the United States, that country with its enormous population finds it wise to pay for the well-being of their farmers, I think we will find that Canada can afford to do the same kind of thing. Here we have France giving special considerations and even Turkey and many other countries economically far inferior to Canada in every possible way. Yet they are able to make payments out of their consolidated revenue funds of money paid by all the taxpayers, just as the taxpayers in the three prairie provinces are contributing generously to the provision of funds with which to pay for a great many other expenses incident to the carrying on of the life of Canada at the present time.


Charles Edward Johnston: Including the
seaway.


John Horne Blackmore: As my hon. friend has said, including the seaway, and many other

Canadian Wheat Board Act projects. We are not complaining, and it is high time that the ordinary taxpayer of Canada stopped complaining about trying to help us out in our time of need. That is important to bear in mind. If we cannot face this problem as solid, sober Canadians, what is the use of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) talking about unity in Canada? What does unity in Canada mean if it does not mean united we stand and divided we fall with reference to every aspect of our economy and the carrying on of our national life?
The government already has an example of what can be done and the government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce know that it can be done. The government has already agreed to pay storage on all grain in excess of 178 million bushels. Where is the money going to come from? From the wheat board? No, it is going to come from the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. Why cannot the same source be used for the money with which to pay advances on farm-stored grain?


An hon. Member:: Take it all, John.


Charles Edward Johnston: We only get what you fellows leave.


John Horne Blackmore: That is the second thing. Now for the third one, and this is an exceedingly important matter. It is that we make provision for adequate, approved storage facilities on the farms and that that provision shall also be made out of the consolidated revenue fund and not through the wheat board. We do not expect the wheat board to build the great terminal elevators the government build. We do not expect the wheat board to build the elevators all over the land including the pool elevators that are built. They are built by other agencies. Approved farm storage, which in my judgment ought to be on every farm in Canada where the farmer so desires it, ought to be built through a fund which will not be a responsibility of the wheat board but which will come either directly out of the Bank of Canada or out of the consolidated revenue of Canada, whichever one the government sees fit to use.
This matter of approved farm storage is exceedingly important for several reasons. I think nearly everyone who has given careful thought to the agricultural problems of Canada, as have most of the hon. members in this chamber in all parties, realizes that the time is coming before long when many of the storage facilities which we now have, like pool elevators and the various line elevators, will have to be renewed. They are wearing out. Already the interest on the

capital invested in those facilities is so heavy that it raises the cost of storage to the farmer so high that it is almost crushing him. When those facilities come to be rebuilt, unless some most unforeseen thing occurs, they will be rebuilt at costs at least three times as great as were the costs when they were first built, and the interest on all that capital expenditure will be added to the burden which now rests on the farmer, in the matter of storage of his grain, as another additional crushing weight to squeeze out what little bit of economic life there still is in him.
We cannot afford to disregard these matters. If we can get approved farm storage built on the farm and so manage that the farmer himself comes to own those storage facilities, then we shall be on the way toward a situation in which we can overcome much of this onerous burden of interest which now is resting so heavily upon our farmers. I therefore repeat that we want approved farm storage on the farm wherever the farmer so desires.
We want parity prices on grains. Of course that involves subsidies. Let not the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) nor any of his cohorts rise and say that there is another proposal that will wreck the wheat board. It will do nothing of the sort. The money which will pay those subsidies to produce parity prices will come once more out of the consolidated revenue fund; yes, it will come out of the taxpayers just as those special subsidies which pay high prices for the grain produced in England-little England burdened and beset with all manner of trouble -come out of the taxpayers. The taxpayers are glad to pay those subsidies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, they are. Every taxpayer that is informed and not deluded by a lot of silly socialism is glad to pay. Every taxpayer realizes that every bushel of wheat that can be produced in Britain is one more step in guaranteeing that he will be able to eat in time of sore trial, and that is no small consideration. He has been through it twice. He has been through two times of sore trial when he was not more than about two weeks from starvation: in world war I and in world war II. Do not imagine that he wants to be in such danger again. I therefore do not hesitate to suggest that the general taxpayer in Canada should pay in order to subsidize so as to give the farmers a fair price.
The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) pointed out that when the manufacturers in Canada of machines that the farmers must have take it into their heads that they will advance the price of machines six per cent- as they did two years ago-they do not ask

the government for permission to do so-or if they do so, it is all behind the scenes-but they advance that price, and what do they do? They take it out of the taxpayers of Canada just as easily as falling off a log and the general taxpayers of Canada pay.


An hon. Member:: They pay money in higher wages.


John Horne Blackmore: They pay in all sorts of ways. When the price of steel was advanced in 1946, with the direct consent of the government and maybe of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, by $5 a ton, did the Canadian people as a whole have anything to say about it? Not a word. It was just done, and the cost of producing all over Canada was raised by an enormous amount just by that simple move that those people made, just as simply as a raindrop would fall from heaven. The Canadian taxpayers paid it directly and indirectly, and they are still paying it. Then the steel workers struck and remained on strike for 82 days in order to get their share of the $5 a ton. They finally got their increase in wages and the increase in wages finally went across all Canada and everybody in Canada paid it-* every taxpayer-and is still paying it.
We must be realistic in approaching all these matters. Hence I say we want parity prices. We want the subsidies to be paid out of government revenue and not by the wheat board. Social Credit advocates a parity price of $2.37 per bushel for domestic market wheat and we want a fair price on the wheat that is sold abroad. I do not propose to go into any detail with regard to that matter at the present time.
We in my constituency and we Social Crediters as a whole approve the present international wheat agreement. We do not feel that the price was high enough but we believe in international wheat agreements. We approve of the one which has already been negotiated and under which we have been carrying on for some time now.
In my constituency, and generally throughout the prairie provinces, there is great dissatisfaction with the allocation of box cars at the present time. The blame for this situation is not to be laid at the door of the wheat board as many hon. members, including the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore), truthfully pointed out. Of course it is none of the Wheat Board's business. They are not charged with the responsibility of providing box cars. Just what are all the reasons behind the difficulties from which we have suffered for several years now in respect of box cars it would perhaps take almost a royal commission to determine because there is a great deal of disagreement
Canadian Wheat Board Act concerning the matter.	But nevertheless,
whoever is responsible for seeing that those box cars get out there so that the farmer can sell to the elevator of his choice, he should be getting into action and producing results at the earliest possible time; and we are so demanding through this speech that I have now been giving, or at least my constituency is doing so.
We insist on the maintenance of the Crows-nest pass agreement	undisturbed and
unaltered. We hear so much talk about a proposed modification of that Crowsnest pass agreement that it makes us furious every time we think about it. We do not want a change even to be thought of.
That is all I propose to say at the present time in a general way in supplement of what has already been said by the three members whom I have mentioned as being spokesmen for the Social Credit position.
Before taking my seat I wish to say that there is a good deal of debating among farmers in my constituency who are affected. There are some of them who speak through the interprovincial farm union, and some of them who speak through the Alberta wheat pool. There are others who speak through the Canadian federation of agriculture, I suppose. Before I take my seat I propose to read the proposals that have been made by the Alberta wheat pool delegates during the past year. I am reading from the Alberta Wheat Pool Budget of January 18, 1957, at page 2:
A number of policy resolutions were passed at the 34th annual meeting of the Alberta wheat pool delegates which indicate their stand on many matters pertaining to grain marketing. In most cases they were re-endorsements of previous policy. They were:
1.	Support of the Canadian wheat hoard as the sole marketing agency for western Canada grain and expression of appreciation of the present operations.
2.	Renewal of pressure to have flax and rye marketed by the Canadian wheat board made even more urgent since both grains are on quota.
3.	Approval of the present international wheat agreement.
4.	Commendation of the government's action in concluding wheat deals with iron curtain countries in line with requests from wheat pool delegates, last year, "that aggressive sales policies be adopted in all countries, including those behind the iron curtain," and recommendations that this market be further developed.
5.	Approval of the government's undertaking to assume carrying charges on part of the surplus wheat stocks, this being partial fulfilment of last year's request from the delegate body.
6.	The recommendation of a domestic price for wheat of $2 a bushel, the ceiling of the present international wheat agreement.
7.	A reinstatement of their insistence that the Crowsnest pass agreement must not be disturbed or altered.
8.	Instructions to the board of directors to continue, with every means possible, the campaign to have box cars allocated to elevators on the basis of the farmer's choice.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
9.	Urge that the government offer inducement to farmers to take land out of wheat acreage and plant it to a soil-building crop. They suggested that a representative committee of governments and farm organizations be set up to draw up a plan.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the end of my contribution to the discussion of wheat thus far in the year 1957.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is rising to take part in the debate?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I did feel that I would like to say a few words in the debate. The house will realize that I do not profess to be any authority upon the matter of the wheat board; but as I listened to the genial member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) speak this afternoon I must confess that I found myself rather puzzled at the way in which the members of the Social Credit group, including the hon. member for Bow River, appear to be able to speak out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.
Having listened to a number of speakers on the subject of wheat marketing in this house, I recognized that there was some similarity in some of the things which the hon. member for Bow River was saying to some of the arguments which are advanced by the members of the C.C.F. group in this house with respect to wheat policy and the wheat board. I am quite sure that the hon. member for Bow River, and the other members of his party who have spoken in support of second reading of this bill, were quite sincere in putting forward the views that they have expressed.


Mr. Wylie:: Thank you for the compliment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: But the thing that puzzles me is the rather neat way in which they are able to keep their thinking in separate compartments in relation to different aspects of the life of the Canadian people.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: If you had one compartment you would be lucky.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I recall that some little time ago I listened to a speech delivered in this house by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). It seems to me that if the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Macleod were consistent the sentiments expressed on that occasion by the hon. member for Macleod would be the sort of things that one would expect to hear him and the hon. member for Bow River say in relation

to the passage or otherwise of the bill that is now before us. I am referring to a speech which the hon. member for Macleod made in 1955, which will be found at page 314 of Hansard of that year. On that occasion he was making some comments on the policies of the Liberal party and of the C.C.F. party, and he was suggesting that the Liberal party in some ways was just a little smarter than the C.C.F. party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I would not agree with that. He had this to say;
They are a little smarter than the C.C.F., because the C.C.F. wear heavy clog boots when they propose something, letting everybody know they are coming.
At that point Hansard records that the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) interjected, "honest, honest". Then the hon. member for Macleod went on to say;
But the Liberal party are smarter, because they put on their socialist carpet slippers and creep up on the public. Eventually socialist legislation is put on the statute books, and some time after the people suddenly awaken to the fact that they have been engulfed in a sort of socialistic welfare state, without their knowing it. The Liberals give us socialism by stealth; that is the difference between the parties.


An hon. Member:: Read on.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am sure that the house might be interested in being reminded of some of the ensuing remarks and interjections that were made in the house on that occasion, but I think I have read enough of the speech of the hon. member for Macleod to illustrate the point I have in mind.
As I understand the idea behind the Canadian wheat board, it is to establish, under the responsibility of the government of Canada, an agency for the orderly marketing of Canadian grain. There may be some other aspects to it that I have not yet been able to comprehend, but essentially that is what I understand it to be. That is why I am surprised that people like the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Macleod on other occasions-we will just say simply the members of the Social Credit party-


Charles Edward Johnston: You are not
right in either instance. The remarks you have just read have nothing to do with the wheat board.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That is why I am surprised that when they come to a discussion of having the government handle and look after the farmer's grain in the province of Alberta they are prepared to go along and support the ideas that are supported by people they call socialists in this house.


Charles Edward Johnston: Heaven forbid!


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As far as any other aspect of our Canadian life is concerned, they are perfectly prepared to throw the rest of the Canadian people to the wolves of what they call free enterprise. I think it is about time they began to straighten out their thinking on some of these matters. It is all very well for them to come to this house and set themselves up as a little farm pressure group representing the interests of a certain group of farmers in one province of this country. They may think it is all right for them to do that on the one hand, but when it comes to supporting any other constructive proposal which involves action through the medium of the government of Canada, then they of course are quite loud in their declamations of their adherence to the principle of free enterprise.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Are you talking about the wheat board?


An hon. Member:: He would not know.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in support of the bill that is before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Which bill is it?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I support the views being put forward by hon. members of the C.C.F. group who represent grain growing areas of Canada.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: They don't all do that. What about the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge)? He doesn't.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: One of the reasons I am in full support of the policies they have been advocating is that I know they are doing so not simply as a little pressure group from a certain segment of the country but because they believe this is the kind of legislation that will contribute to the welfare of the Canadian people and are prepared to support the application of similar principles in respect of other economic and geographic regions of the country.
Earlier this evening an article came to my attention which is to be found at page 19 of the Vancouver Province of Monday, February 4.


An hon. Member:: In connection with the wheat board?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It is entitled, "Why lumbermen grind their teeth". Among other things the article sets forth that British Columbia lumber exports in 1956 dropped by 371,034,908 board feet over 1955, from 1,016,824,698 to 645,789,790. Domestic shipments fell by 51,363,570 board feet in the same period from 395,234,257 to 343,870,687.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


An hon. Member:: He is talking sawdust now.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is that first grade lumber or second?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the wording of the present bill should be changed to read "The Canadian, wheat and lumber board".


Clarence Gillis: What would be wrong with that?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: However, I wonder what the attitude of my Social Credit friends would be if the situation should develop in the lumber export business of British Columbia where some sort of approach by the government of Canada, perhaps somewhat in the same direction as has been made in respect of the marketing of wheat, were required to ensure the continued and stable marketing of the lumber products of British Columbia.


John Hornby Harrison: You have that in Saskatchewan and we don't want it.


An hon. Member:: Do not forget to mention fish, too.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I think the house should be entitled to some more balanced expression of the views of the Social Credit party as to why they are prepared to endorse this particular kind of legislation if they propose a similar move in a field other than the one under discussion.


Alexander Bell Patterson: We would be satisfied to-have even one balanced expression from the C.C.F. party.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I think perhaps some hon. members of the Social Credit group who have what I believe is a genuine concern for the welfare of the farming population of Alberta should look a little deeper into their relationship with the political thinking of the people who go under the same political label in the neighbouring province of British Columbia. I am somewhat afraid that before too long they are going to find it increasingly difficult to reconcile the proposal they are now supporting with the general policies that are being advanced in many quarters within the same political group.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that it must be obvious to-the house that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), who has just finished speaking, does not know too much about wheat. I think it is obvious to all that he should have stuck strictly to-


An hon. Member:: Nuts.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Frederick Davis Shaw: -the field where he is probably better informed, namely that of fishing. Some of the extracts from Hansard which he endeavoured to tie in with this debate were probably just as unrelated to the facts before us as was his reference to lumber.
In spite of the fact that several hon. members of the C.C.F. party have striven to create the impression that we in this group are not in support of the Canadian wheat board as the sole marketing agency of wheat I wish to underline what should be known to all hon. members, namely that throughout this debate and throughout the years gone by we have supported the Canadian wheat board as the sole marketing agency for Canadian wheat, and no attempt on the part of socialist members can create an impression that is otherwise.
My purpose in rising, Mr. Speaker, is to make specific reference to only one matter, the position of transport controller. This is an aspect of the whole matter of the Canadian wheat board and wheat marketing that is of particular concern to us. I listened with interest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he referred to the position of the transport controller as being completely untenable. I have thought about that expression very frequently since the minister made the statement and I would ask if in the course of closing this debate he would elaborate upon the statement he made on February 1. Does he mean that the transport controller has found through his experience he cannot face the members of the Canadian House of Commons in the agriculture committee?


John Hornby Harrison: He cannot meet their
requirements.


Frederick Davis Shaw: If I may use the term, I would say that describing the position of transport controller as untenable is completely unflattering. Is it a reflection upon the courage of qualified Canadians who, if asked, might accept the appointment? I ask the minister to let this house know if anyone has been approached and offered the appointment of transport controller since Mr. Milner's resignation became effective December 31. We know that the position of transport controller must be a difficult one.


An hon. Member:: It is.


Frederick Davis Shaw: He is caught between the wheat board, the farmers, the railways and-


An hon. Member:: The C.C.F.


Frederick Davis Shaw: -government policy. I would like to know if these conflicts were actually reflected in the questions that were asked by hon. members in the agriculture committee and if it was those questions which did in fact cause the transport controller to resign.

It seems to me there must be something deeper involved in this than we have yet learned. It is not the first time that an official has been called before a committee of this house and subjected to rather severe crossexamination, but we find very few officials resigning as a consequence of that. Was Mr. Milner dissatisfied with government policy? Did he find inadequate the powers granted to him as transport controller by this government?
We feel we should have an answer to that question. Did he resign to take another position such as the chairmanship of the board of grain commissioners? The minister has said that the position is completely untenable. Is he suggesting that the position of controller and action taken by the controller should be beyond the criticism of the agriculture committee of the House of Commons? I would ask the minister finally to tell us once and for all whether he considered the position of transport controller necessary? Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce, does the Department of Agriculture, does the government as a whole actually consider the position of transport controller necessary?
At this stage we have reason to believe that such an appointment is necessary. The minister has said the position is untenable. We do not know whether anyone has been approached. As far as I am concerned personally I am quite in the dark with respect to this whole thing.
I am hoping the minister will deal in detail with these things. Before sitting down may I emphasize again that we have supported the Canadian Wheat Board Act and the Canadian wheat board as the sole marketing agency, but that does not mean that at all times and under all circumstances we agree with the prices being paid for farm grains. We do recognize that it has brought a degree of orderliness into the marketing of these farm products.
I rose principally to ask these questions with respect to the transport controller and t think before we pass this bill we should be given the answers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a few remarks.


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker-


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


Clarence Decatur Howe: I had hoped that we could get this bill through committee tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member for Kindersley is on his feet and wishes to speak?


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet when the minister rose. I am pleased to take part in this debate and I was waiting to see if other government members from Saskatchewan would display their enthusiasm for the principle of orderly marketing. It is apparent however that their interest in this matter is limited indeed.
I am pleased to take part in this debate because it gives us in this group an opportunity to try to convince members from all parts of Canada of the desirability of maintaining the system of orderly marketing which we have finally achieved through the Canadian wheat board. This is an example of what can be done by government planning. It is in marked contrast with the system which the government allowed to prevail before the introduction of a compulsory board. The system of marketing under the Winnipeg grain exchange was indeed chaotic and left the individual farmer to the mercy of the speculators and the returns he received for his product bore little or no relation to the cost of production. The returns we get from our wheat still bear no relation to the cost of production, but one result of this system of orderly marketing has been a stabilizing of prices so the farmer may know within the crop year what price he can expect to receive for his products.
I wish members of the government were as forthright in their request for orderly marketing schemes as the C.C.F. have been. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny), this has been a C.C.F. policy since its inception. We have heard some idiotic remarks to the effect that the C.C.F. are attempting to sabotage the wheat board. If there is anyone in the house who can document that statement, who can give a quotation from Hansard indicating a statement of policy by the C.C.F. against the principle of orderly marketing by the Canadian wheat board, I would be only too pleased to have him put it on the record.
If the government were honestly convinced that this principle of orderly marketing was desirable I would expect that they would attempt to encourage it in other fields. I submit that the principle of orderly marketing which we have achieved for our grain could be extended to livestock, but I have noticed on past occasions when members of this party have attempted to have the orderly marketing principle extended to livestock we were vigorously and vehemently opposed by the government, the so-called champions of this system of orderly marketing.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
They could have brought in provisions for a poultry marketing board which would have taken care of the serious and violent fluctuations in poultry prices which presently exist and which are apparently beyond the capabilities of this government to resolve.
If this government was dedicated to maintaining this principle of orderly marketing it certainly would have included flax and rye and thus extinguished for all time the Winnipeg grain exchange which has preyed on the farmers of Canada for the past number of years.
Indeed, if the government was honestly interested in maintaining this system of orderly marketing it would carry out the suggestion made by all speakers in this party and make the legislation permanent. It would put it on the statute books of Canada so that we would not run the risk of some future government which was not in favour of this principle of orderly marketing taking it off the statute books.
The system of orderly marketing which we have under the Canadian wheat board is able to operate only within the legal terms defined by this government. Its operations are continually complicated by the barriers which this government puts up to confound it. I think we can well imagine the ease with which the Canadian wheat board could operate under the administration of a government which believed in economic planning for the benefit of all rather than a privileged few. We find that the only political party in this house which believes in organizing our economy for the benefit of all rather than for the privilege of a few is the party to which I belong.
It has been stated that one of the reasons- indeed the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has said it is the sole reason- for our large carryover is the series of bumper crops we have had in western Canada. Only recently be made reference to the decline in wheat acreage which has occurred, but he did not take any credit for that. I would point out to the minister that that decline came about because farmers have been forced out of the production of wheat. Many of those farmers have land suited to the growing of wheat and since we have achieved a system of orderly marketing through the Canadian wheat board for our wheat it is only natural that they will tend to follow that production which has reasonable security.
How much better it would be, and how much simpler it would be for the Canadian wheat board, if we had a government agricultural policy which would give the same stability and security to farmers who are

Canadian Wheat Board Act raising livestock, poultry, and other grains. If we had an indication of what prices we could expect in the future, we would then be in a position to plan our production. The dominion-provincial agricultural conference specifically has this function. But, Mr. Speaker, this conference meets each year; the members carefully divulge their platitudes to each other, the federal government, under the leadership of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), supplies various quantities of figures to prove various contentions, and the net result is a complete lack of guidance to the farmers of western Canada. The Interprovincial Farm Union Council has suggested and requested that this conference should make some concrete proposals to guide farmers in their future activities.
I think this could also apply to other aspects of government policy. We experience these bumber crops, and we have the largest carry-over of wheat on record. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) put on record some of the solutions which have been offered by this party, but I would like to point out again that the wheat board is only as effective in disposing of this grain as government trading policies will allow it to be. If our trade policies are continually geared to a deficit, how can we expect to sell wheat on a very competitive market in anything above the present quantities.
These are some of the barriers which this government is putting in the way of orderly marketing by the Canadian wheat board. They have, moreover, refused, in the face of demands from farm organizations of western Canada, to introduce a system of cash advances to allow individual farmers to have some return with which to operate their farms. We went over the subject very thoroughly last year when the government proposed its bank loan legislation-legislation which has been a complete and unequivocal failure. It has been a failure because it does not supply the needs of the farmers.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated that the wheat board should not operate a system of cash advances. I think he has assumed we are requesting that the present officials of the Canadian wheat board should assume this responsibility; but he will be the first to admit, from his experience of the operations of the Canadian wheat board, that a system of cash advances must be operated in very close co-operation with the wheat board, and be an agency of government established in conjunction with it.
The purpose of this proposal is, of course, to allow farmers from different areas to have the same opportunity to get a return from their grain. It is most unfair for a farmer in
[Mr Johnson (Kindersley).]

one area to have a four-bushel or five-bushel quota when a farmer not many miles away has a unit or a one-bushel quota. The purpose of a cash advance is to equalize these returns. If a man is denied the privilege of delivering his grain to the elevator, he should have the privilege of receiving the same money for that grain as if he had a box car available to deliver it.
While I am dealing with this subject of box cars and quotas, I should deal for a moment with the largest barrier that this government has set up in the way of the Canadian wheat board. The Minister of Trade and Commerce stated in his opening remarks that the Canadian wheat board is a marketing agency. I would agree with that definition. But I would ask the minister why they have saddled the Canadian wheat board with the onerous responsibility of distributing box cars. They have saddled the board with this responsibility because of their dismal failure with regard to appointing a man as transport controller to ensure that cars are distributed. I recall that last year, when we were discussing the bill to extend the powers of the transport controller, it was indicated that the responsibility of the Canadian wheat board was to allocate shipping orders, but that the responsibility of seeing box cars were available to fill those orders rested with the transport controller-the more arduous task of the two, perhaps.
Yet now we have this post left vacant since the former transport controller, Mr. Milner, moved on to a higher position with the board of grain commissioners. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a very satisfactory situation to find the government hiding behind the criticism which has been directed at the former transport controller in justification for its refusal to appoint a new transport controller. It is apparent that the resignation of the former transport controller was prompted by the differences of opinion which he had with the Canadian Pacific Railway. I vividly recall the meetings of the agriculture committee when the C.P.R. gave its evidence before the members of that committee. The failure of the government to appoint a transport controller to direct the movements of box cars along these railway lines to marketing points is an indication of the complete submission of this government to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
There is evidence, Mr. Speaker, that the situation is not as rosy as many members on the government benches would have us believe as far as the quota position is concerned. The Minister of Trade and Commerce stated last year that preference would be given to those points which were unable to deliver the same quota as other points, which indicated

that at the end of the last crop year some farmers would be able to deliver seven bushels an acre, and others would be confined to four or five bushels to the acre. They used as an excuse for that the desirability of getting the class and kind of grain required into position. They needed that excuse because the transport controller was not using his powers-or, should I say, the government was not seeing that the transport controller used his powers to ensure an equitable distribution of boxcars.
I had a resolution sent to me from the Hazlet branch of the Canadian Legion which is an accurate interpretation of much of the thinking of farmers at these low marketing points, and since it is very short, I would like to place it on the record. It is a resolution passed unanimously at a meeting of branch No. 202 on January 10:
Whereas the Minister of Trade and Commerce the Hon. C. D. Howe stated at the close of the 1955-56 crop year that points on low quotas at that time would be given priority for quotas and boxcars in the new crop year and-
Whereas the quota at the close of the 1955-56 crop year was five bushels per seeded acre at Roseray and six bushels per seeded acre at Hazlet, and
Whereas the quota on January 10, 1957, is one bushel per seeded acre at Roseray and two bushels per seeded acre at Hazlet we resolve thatquotas be increased and boxcars allocated to these points immediately to bring deliveries up to a par with stations which had seven to eight bushel quotas at the close of the last crop year, many of which are on a three to four bushel quota at this time.
Mr. Speaker, when we have a situation like this occurring in the country, who gets the blame? The person who gets the blame is the person saddled with this responsibility, and some criticism is directed at the Canadian wheat board because of the boxcar distribution-through the failure of this government to appoint a controller to take this heavy burden of responsibility from the shoulders of the Canadian wheat board.
I have given indication of the stand of this party with respect to the system of orderly marketing. I have given some indication of the obstacles the government is continually placing in the way of a continuation of the system of orderly marketing. I say to the minister and the other members of the government that action must be taken to make the Canadian Wheat Board Act permanent legislation and to include rye and flax under the operations of the board so that in spite of the indifference of the government we will have a complete example of how orderly marketing can be effective in the Canadian economy.
I should like the government to give consideration to extending the system of orderly marketing to the other fields I have enumerated. As we proceed with such a program 82715-69J
Canadian Wheat Board Act in conjunction with a sensible over-all agricultural policy I think we will achieve some measure of relief to lift the farmers out of the cost-price squeeze in which they find themselves today. The problem is increasingly serious. Farmers become critical of the supply of box cars. They become critical of the quotas because of the pressure put on them as the result of their limited deliveries.
Government policy in allowing inflation to run away and in allowing the cost of production to rise is just as responsible for any discontent existing among the farmers as limited deliveries. If the prices of goods and services had been maintained at a proper level I think the farmers would be able to operate on a quota of seven or eight bushels an acre. At least they would have been able to survive. As it is now, with limited quotas and severe inflation in all aspects of our economy, it is most difficult for them to make ends meet with limited deliveries and the low prices they receive.
My colleagues have placed on the record other aspects of C.C.F. policy in connection with the orderly marketing of our grain. I do not think I need to repeat them now but I will look forward to hearing the minister state the attitude of the government with respect to the early appointment of a transport controller, making the wheat board legislation permanent and the inclusion of flax and rye under the operations of the board.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: You still have not told us how to sell more wheat.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, before the debate concludes I should like to say a word because I come from a wheatgrowing section of the country. I have also attended a good many farmers' meetings, have carried on a good deal of correspondence with respect to wheat-growing problems and have received numerous resolutions from time to time. The bill now before us gives us an opportunity to speak about the operations of the Canadian wheat board and to say whether or not we are in favour of the continued life of the board.
I am quite certain that the wheat-growing farmers of Canada are almost unanimous in their desire to have the Canadian wheat board continued. Wherever I go I find that this desire exists. There is the odd occasion when some may say that they wish we could go back to the type of wheat marketing we had before the board took over all deliveries of wheat.
I recall being at a farmers' meeting a number of years ago. They had their problems. Among their problems was that of

Canadian Wheat Board Act marketing their grain as well as the price they were receiving at that particular time. The chairman of the meeting was the reeve of the municipality and it happened that the reeve was a very good political supporter of mine. I do not know whether or not I made any remarks which left a wrong impression. I think perhaps I did try to explain that there was another side to the question of marketing wheat which the odd individual may have expressed. However, no matter what remarks I may have made at the time, after the meeting the reeve came to me and in spite of the fact that he was a very good supporter of mine he said "Mr. Hansell, we are glad to know that you support the wheat board but if you ever talk against it in the House of Commons there will be no use of your ever coming into this community again." That was said by a man who knew what he was talking about and I think he was only expressing the opinion of almost 100 per cent of the farmers of that community.
I believe that the reason the farmers want the continuation of the wheat board is that it does tend towards a more orderly marketing policy. The farmer is not left altogether to chance. Not only does it offer a more orderly marketing policy but it puts the farmer in a position where he is a little more certain of his future. He is not dependent upon fluctuations which might occur on the open market and might occur by reason of design. He knows that his wheat will be sold. He knows there will be a payment coming along and he knows that in the long run there is more stable marketing and a more stable income for him.
There is one point that we must remember. We cannot blame the wheat board for that which sometimes appears to be impossible for them to do. We must recognize that, while the wheat board is the only avenue through which the farmer can market his wheat, the wheat board must go out into a very competitive world, particularly at a time when there is no international wheat agreement in existence. The wheat board has to go out into what might be termed an open market among the nations of the world. Therefore the board goes out into a competitive market. It may not be able to do all that might be desired and we must not blame the board for minor failures which we might suppose it has made. If the board has not met all the wishes of the wheat grower I do not know that it is always and altogether the fault of the board. It could be by reason of circumstances that exist in the world and over which they have little control.

However, we do know that the world is in need of wheat. Wheat is a very stable food and perhaps the world would starve if it were not for the wheat supplies that come from the farms. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smith), the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), and a few minutes ago the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn), all being members of this group, have placed upon the record a good deal of valuable material as to the position which this group takes with respect to the wheat board, with respect to the farmer's position and with respect to the marketing of wheat generally. I believe the hon. member for Acadia mentioned the fact that the world needs wheat. The Alberta Wheat Pool Budget of November 9, 1956, points out that while the world carry-over of wheat is 1| billion bushels-at that time-the population of the world stands at 2| billion people; so 1J billion bushels represents only 36 pounds of wheat per person. In the United States 190 pounds of wheat per person are consumed annually. The annual world consumption of wheat is about 6 billion bushels. So a carry-over of 1J billion bushels is equivalent to only a three months' supply for wheat-eating nations.
The need for the reserve is further highlighted by a speech made by the North American representative of the food and agricultural organization, Mr. Hambridge. He pointed out that over 50 per cent of the population of the world are underfed and underclothed with millions dying from starvation. Then he made the significant statement that the situation would be bad enough if the people knew that it could not be avoided owing to a shortage of food in the world. But, he pointed out, they know that that is not the situation and they know that there is an abundance of food in the world. Hence they are no longer willing passively to submit to this intolerable situation.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, the fact that sometimes it may be difficult to find markets but I am rather of the opinion that sometimes that difficulty exists because we are not always willing to take the various currencies of the world. We have two policies to propose. One is that we would be willing to go out into the world and offer credits to other nations who care to take our wheat. That has been done with some other countries. I think I am right in saying that that is the way in which the United States handled a good deal of their surplus wheat. There is no reason why we cannot do the same thing.

The wheat would be taken from the farmers, and the farmers would be paid for it, and we would be paid for it in the currencies of the nations that take our wheat. So in that respect it is not necessarily a wheat-marketing problem as much as it is a financial problem. This government here should embark upon a solution of that particular financial problem.
We advocate also a two-price system. We advocate that support prices should be maintained at 100 per cent of parity for farm products sold in the domestic market and that the surplus products should be sold abroad for the best price obtainable, preferably under some form of international agreement but in any event covered by a support price sufficient to meet average costs of production.
In view of the fact that over 94 per cent of all farm products, excluding wheat, are sold in Canada it would mean that farmers would receive 100 per cent of parity for 94 per cent of their products excluding wheat. In regard to wheat, approximately 80 per cent is sold abroad and 20 per cent is sold in the domestic market. Therefore 20 per cent at parity of, we will say, about $2.27 per bushel or thereabouts and 80 per cent at the ceiling of $1.95 per bushel under the international wheat agreement would give the farmers a support price of approximately $2 or a little over $2 a bushel.
We believe that careful consideration should be given to building up efficient family farms. Right now I want to put in a plug
Canadian Wheat Board Act for the small farmer. We believe that we should give consideration to building up efficient family farms. If it is conceded that family farms, in order to make the most efficient use of power machinery, will have to be in the neighbourhood of two sections of average land or one section of heavy land, and if the average annual production of wheat on such farms might be approximately 8,000 bushels of wheat, then we feel that by limiting the support price to 8,000 bushels per farmer we would help to strengthen the family farm. The large operators farming thousands of acres would receive the support price on the first 8,000 bushels and would receive the world market price on the balance.
I see that the clock has moved around to the point of ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I believe there are one or two others who wish to speak, but I am not through. I should like to spend the balance of the time that is allotted me to the furtherance of my speech, and I would ask that you call it ten o'clock. I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Hansell the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall continue with the business that I indicated last evening.


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

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

Mr. Van Horne: 1.	Did the industrial development bank make loans in New Brunswick in 1956?
2.	If so, how many loans were made and what was the amount of each loan?
3.	How many applications for loans were made?
4.	What percentage of the loans applied for were granted?
Answer by: Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):
Answer provided on Tuesday, January 15, 1957, as recorded on page 290 of the House of Commons Debates:
"1, 2, 3 and 4. The only information of government record is contained in the annual report of the industrial development bank which shows that loans to the amount of $1,346,000 were authorized in the province of New Brunswick in the fiscal year ended September 30, 1956".
Corrected answer:
1,	2, 3 and 4. The only information available is to the effect that the industrial development bank authorized 8 loans in the total amount of $1,346,000 in the province of New Brunswick during the fiscal year ended September 30, 1956.


DISABILITY ALLOWANCES, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Buchanan: 1.	To how many citizens in Nova Scotia was the disability allowance awarded during 1956?
2.	What is the total number of citizens in Nova Scotia receiving an allowance under the Disabled Persons Act?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
1.	Records furnished by the province of Nova Scotia show a total of 386 applicants awarded disabled persons allowances in the calendar year 1956.
2.	1,409 as at December 31, 1956.



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK


Mr. Purdy: For the fiscal year of the industrial development bank, ending 30th September, 1956:
1.	How many applications for advances were received from concerns in Nova Scotia, and what amount in each case?
2.	What was the number and total amount of such applications approved?
Answer by: Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of
Finance):
1 and 2. The only information available is to the effect that the industrial development bank authorized 8 loans in the total amount of $400,500 in the province of Nova Scotia during the fiscal year ended September 30, 1956.



FEED GRAIN


Mr. Balcom: What was the amount of freight assistance on western feed grains paid to Nova Scotia during the year 1956?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner
(Minister of Agriculture):



$1,722,509.60. HEALTH OF ANIMAL INSPECTION, B.C.

Mr. Hahn: 1.	How many eviscerating plants receive health of animal inspection in the province of British Columbia?
2.	Are they permitted to use the H of A stamp of approval for dominion retail sales?
3.	How do the regulations under the health of animals inspection regulations compare with provincial regulations?
4.	To what extent has health of animal inspection materially improved in the dominion market, during the past two years?
5.	What effect has it had on the sale of birds not so marked?
6.	How many processing plants are there, other than health of animal inspected in the province of British Columbia, which are inspected under the British Columbia provincial health act?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner
(Minister of Agriculture):
1.	There are five poultry eviscerating plants in British Columbia operating as inspected establishments under the federal Meat and Canned Foods Act and receiving veterinary inspection by the health of animals division.
2.	The "Canada Approved" stamp, identifying the product of such inspected establishments, must be applied to all carcasses, cuts and packages of meats, including poultry, processed in those establishments, regardless of whether the products are to move in export, interprovincial or local trade.
3.	The provincial act provides for standards of plant sanitation, as a basis of accepting a plant under inspection, virtually equivalent to those established under the federal Meat and Canned Foods Act. The provincial act does not make inspection under that act compulsory. The federal Meat and Canned Foods Act, administered by the health of animals division, requires that any plant engaging in interprovincial or export trade must operate as an inspected establishment under that act. Federal inspection is, however, granted on a

non-eompulsory basis to any poultry eviscerating plant, doing business entirely within a province, which meets the standards for plant sanitation established under the Meat and Canned Foods Act and regulations. There are no minimum volume requirements for the granting of such inspection.
4.	In the fiscal year 1954-55 there were 27 poultry eviscerating plants operating as in-
Questions
spected establishments under the Meat and Canned Foods Act. At the present time there are 45 such plants.
5.	In some trade channels and with certain classes of poultry there is reported to be a preference for the product of inspected establishments.
6.	We do not maintain records of provincial inspections.

Friday, February 8, 1957