1957-10-24

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, October 24, 1957
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Mr. Justice Robert Taschereau, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 24th October, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to a certain bill.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)



UNITED NATIONS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the house may I mention the fact that today is the twelfth anniversary of the signing of the charter of the United Nations. Canadians generally are joining with the other nations of the world in observing the anniversary of an organization which plays such a great role in the world of today. At the entrance to the parliament buildings are displayed the 82 flags of the member nations of the United Nations. The United Nations flag is being flown from the eastern flag pole of the centre block. This day represents an anniversary of an institution that we, as Canadians, believe to be necessary for the preservation and maintenance of peace. To that end Canada, in company with the other member nations, joins in a rededication to its principles.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Leader of the Opposition):: I am sure all hon. members read with interest the statement that was issued by the Prime Minister earlier today in connection with the twelfth anniversary of the coming into force of the charter of the United Nations. We have all listened with some emotion to the references the Prime Minister has made to that anniversary. I think it is fortunate that in this country the Canadian people generally have regarded the attitude of the Canadian government
toward that organization as something that was not the subject of any political partisanship, but that it has the unanimous support of the Canadian people because of the aims and ideals of that great organization.
It is now 12 years since the charter became operative. Not all the hopes of the right hon. gentleman and others who were with me at the time the charter was under discussion at San Francisco have been realized. Nevertheless I think there will be general agreement that it has served a useful purpose, and that it is still one of the main hopes of most of civilized humanity for the maintenance of as peaceful conditions in this troubled world as are possible under the present circumstances.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: I am
quite sure that there is unanimity, both in the House of Commons and in the country, regarding the recognition of this day and the signing of the charter of the United Nations. Those of us who had the privilege of being present at the San Francisco conference will remember the great hopes we had for the future under the United Nations charter. Those hopes have not all been realized. Nonetheless, it is better to have had a place where men of diverse views, representing nations with many interests, could get together and talk their problems out than to indulge in a shooting war.
In looking to the future, we can all hope the United Nations will fulfil its functions much better in the future than it has in the past. I have no doubt it has already played a great part in preserving the peace of the world and in bringing help to the underdeveloped countries and the less privileged nations of the world. I have no doubt it will continue to do that, and will serve mankind better in the future than it has in the past.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I am sure there is unanimity of hopes and wishes, perhaps even of dreams throughout Canada and particularly throughout this house concerning the United Nations. I am very glad to add my voice to those who have already spoken in this chamber today in connection with this twelfth anniversary of the putting in force of the United Nations charter. It is true that the international organization that was born 12 years ago has not fulfilled all the hopes and dreams we had concerning it. There were weaknesses in the charter to begin with, and those weaknesses have

Proposed Legislation
been intensified over the years, in the opinion of many people. Nevertheless it appears to be the only international forum that we have in existence where the nations of the world can meet and talk out their problems rather than resorting to a shooting war.
Recognizing that fact, we all must express the hope that the work of the United Nations will become much more effective in the years ahead.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Montmorency) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 13, to amend the Criminal Code (subversive activities) .


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Wilfrid Lacroix: The purpose of the first amendment is to make it a criminal offence for any person to participate in subversive activities with a view to establishing in Canada a totalitarian dictatorship contrary to our democratic way of life.
The purpose of the second amendment is to prevent dissemination through the mails of subversive propaganda.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952, to increase the monthly rates of certain allowances and permissible income; to extend the provisions of the act to additional classes of veterans, widows and orphans; and to increase the salaries of the members of the war veterans allowance board.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Pension Act to place dependants of persons who served in world war II in a position comparable to that of dependants of persons who served in world war I in cases of disability or

death due to improper conduct; to ensure that pensions may be paid to the dependants of deceased members of the forces resident and domiciled in Newfoundland; to provide for the continuation of disability pensions and widows pensions to the end of the month in which death occurred except in cases where no additional pension for dependants is payable; to provide for the payment of pension to the daughter of a pensioned widower where the domestic establishment is maintained after his death; to provide for an increase in the clothing allowance on account of amputation or use of appliances; to provide for an increase in the allowances for funeral and burial expenses; to remove the limitation on the amount of pension payable to a dependent parent of a deceased pensioner after discontinuance of pension to other dependants; to authorize payment of widows' pensions at current rates upon reinstatement of discontinued pensions; and to remove the limitation on payment of pensions to or in respect of children born after a specified date, or to wives whose marriage to a member of the forces or a pensioner took place after a specified date; such measure to include, in addition, certain consequential and clarifying amendments.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: May
I be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister now inform the house regarding the proposed visit of our trade commissioner at Hong Kong-if he proceeds to China to look into the possibilities of trade on the mainland, what arrangements are being made for his visit, who will obtain for him the necessary visa and provide advice, introductions, and protection for him when he is in China? Is he to be accompanied by any official of any other department and, if so, what department; and what steps will be taken to secure visas for them also?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: In view of the interest of the house in this matter I am having a full report prepared, which I hope to make available at the earliest possible date.



OATS-CANADIAN LIMIT ON EXPORTS TO TJ.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am sorry I did not give him notice, but I think he will be able to answer it. Yesterday I inquired about Canada's agreement, as recorded at page 861 of Hansard of December 14, 1953, to limit the export of oats to the United States for a relatively short period. Since these short periods sometimes become rather extended, I should like to ask if Canada still limits the export of oats or any other grain to the United States, and whether this

arrangement has been ended or replaced by any other agreement or understanding having substantially the same effect.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to look up the reference to which the hon. member has referred me and make a reply tomorrow.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. My question arises out of a newspaper item which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday, and which reads as follows:
Interest rate has been upped from 41 per cent to 4J per cent on government-insured loans for low-rental housing developments.
Hate on loans for "primary industry" loans made to companies building company housing has been upped from 51 per cent to 51 per cent.
My question, based on that item, is this. In view of the minister's strictures on the previous government with regard to the raising of interest rates, does he care to comment in this particular connection?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minisier of Finance):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I
could not hear the hon. member reading from the news article in question. I will be glad to have a look at it, and if any comment is warranted I will be glad to make it.



CAMP PETAWAWA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forgie (Renfrew North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is he aware of the acute shortage of housing at Camp Petawawa, and if so what steps are being taken to remedy it? Why has the agreement for the construction of houses for troops at Camp Petawawa, made prior to June 10, not been implemented?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: There is a shortage of married quarters and housing facilities as a result of the return of the men who have been stationed in Germany. This shortage is being partly taken care of by the facilities which are granted to the men to find locations within 500 miles of Petawawa. There are 35 days granted to the men to enable them to be thus located.
In addition there is a housing program continuing at Petawawa, and I believe some 150 houses are under construction.
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Moffat Forgie: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that this acute housing situation has existed for some considerable time, and that the agreement that was entered into prior to June 10 for the construction of houses on property purchased by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of National Defence, with the assistance of an entrepreneur at no cost whatever to the department, has not been implemented but has been postponed?


George Randolph Pearkes: I will take that question as notice.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gaie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, in view of the statement made at a Progressive Conservative meeting at the University of Toronto by the provincial treasurer of Ontario with respect to university grants, whether the vote for university grants in Mr. Harris' estimates is one of the votes he intends to reduce at this session.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I was not at the meeting in question. I gather that my hon. friend was present.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is very well reported in the press.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He is quoting something he appears to have heard. I have not announced any intention of proposing any reduction in the item in question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question then, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister if the government has any intention of reducing the university grants?


Mr. Speaker:: May I say with respect to the question that it is a direct request for an announcement of policy, which is hardly the function of oral questions on orders of the day. If the minister wishes to deal with it, then that is his decision.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  C. E. Johnsion@Bow River: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) which I would have asked yesterday but the minister was away.
342	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry I understand he was ill, and I am glad to see he has now regained his health and is here today.
The question I wish to direct to the minister is as follows. Will the minister make a statement to the house concerning the government's intention of constructing a penitentiary in Alberta in the near future? Will he also state if the government will give consideration to constructing this penitentiary in the Drumheller area, as reported by myself on many previous occasions and by the Drumheller and district chamber of commerce by letter to the minister dated August 26, 1957?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his kind words, and also for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. In reply I would advise him and other hon. members who are interested that the construction of a new penitentiary in western Canada is being held in abeyance until there has been an opportunity of discussing with all the provinces concerned the proposal contained in the report of Mr. Justice Fauteux's committee that the dominion authorities should take over a large number of prisoners now looked after by the provinces.
This may involve agreement with the provinces for the taking over of some existing provincial institutions if agreement on the overall question is reached.
Therefore about all I can say in direct answer to the question is that if and when new construction by the dominion authorities is considered necessary, representations made on behalf of Drumheller as well as those made on behalf on many other municipalities and districts in British Columbia and Alberta will receive due consideration.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henry Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Will the government give consideration to conducting an immediate airborne magnetic survey in southeastern New Brunswick to include the counties of Westmorland and Albert?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I will take good note of the question asked by the hon. member and give him an appropriate answer at the first opportunity.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Comtois: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond asked on October 18 if any studies have been made by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to determine the possible effect of the purchase of Dosco by A. V. Roe, on the Nova Scotia coal and steel industry. The answer is no, because a public statement is yet to come from A. V. Roe as to the future policy of the company. The dominion coal board will continue to analyse the company's operation on a day to day basis, as it has done in the past.
In answer to the supplementary question on the same subject asked by the hon. member for Gloucester, the minister and the dominion coal board are aware of the situation, and this government is doing its best to improve it, according to its policy.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of National Revenue, of which notice has been sent him. I would like to ask whether the following report in the Port Arthur News-Chronicle of October 23 is true-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member was good enough to send me a copy of the question he proposed to ask. I am sorry I did not have an opportunity to communicate with him, but may I request him to put his question as a question of fact arising from the report, and not to read the report itself. It is not customary to read such reports or make any statement of facts other than what may be necessary to explain the question itself.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether the gist of this report is true, namely that the C.B.C. has committed itself to establishing four satellite transmission stations in northwestern Ontario, as announced by the provincial member of parliament last night in Port Arthur?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to send me notice of this question which I received this morning.

The senior officers of the C.B.C. under whose aegis this falls are in Toronto and were tied up by the fact that their plane was grounded, as a result of which I have not been able to speak to them personally about the matter.
I do know of my own knowledge that the C.B.C. has been making exploratory surveys with regard to the possible extension of services in the area to which the hon. member has drawn attention, as well as in other areas in Canada. These steps are exploratory only; no firm commitments have been made, and I would assume that no firm commitments could be made until parliament had authorized sufficient funds to the C.B.C. for the forward program.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Does this mean that the report is untrue?


George Clyde Nowlan: I have not seen the report, Mr. Speaker, so I am not prepared to comment upon it at all. I presume it has some semblance of correctness, the same as the report I have in my hand of an interview the hon. member gave to the press some time ago in which he prophesied what the C.B.C. was going to do. -



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if it is true, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press of October 18, that the minister of health of Manitoba has asked my hon. friend to call a meeting of provincial ministers of health to discuss the federal government's hospital insurance program and, if such a request has been received, would the minister advise the house as to the government's intention in that matter?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for having informed me of his intention to ask this question. I have seen the article to which he refers, and it is true that the minister of health of Manitoba has corresponded with me and we have replied. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked if we would table the correspondence, as will be done.
I can say that the government is giving very intensive consideration to the whole matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps before the conference is held it would be possible for
Inquiries of the Ministry the minister to give consideration to answering the questions which stand in my name in respect of this matter.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, I would be delighted, Mr. Speaker.



REPORTED IMPORTATION OF UNITED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, prior to the discussion of the problems concerning wheat growers this afternoon I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture that concerns apple growers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister inform the house what steps are being taken by his department to prevent the importation and sale of cull apples from the United States in Canada, and what steps are being taken by the minister's department to promote the sale of Canadian apples in Canada?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. Yesterday the hon. member for Melville brought this matter to my attention, and gave me a sample of some of these cull apples which had been turned over to him. I immediately took up the matter with the officials of my department and gave them instructions to investigate this particular shipment and also to find out what other shipments, if any, were coming into the country and to prepare a memorandum for me on the possible steps we could take in order to prevent shipments of this kind coming into Canada.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, although I recognize that possibly it comes within your purview. I regret that I did not have time to send notice of this question, but it might be taken as such.
What provision, if any, is made for suitable attire in inclement weather such as we have today in Ottawa for the messenger service operating between government-operated buildings?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works): Well, Mr. Speaker, I have quite a lot of duties, some of which I have not discovered yet. However, I do not think I have anything to do with providing uniforms for the staff of the house.


George Clyde Nowlan: Nor umbrellas.


Mr. Green:: Indeed, nor umbrellas. [Later:]


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up the matter raised by the hon. member for New Westminster. I am sure if the house leader had understood fully the question that was asked he would have given a little different answer. That may have been our fault. We realize that the matter of providing suitable rain gear for the messengers in the government service, particularly those in the service of the house, comes within Your Honour's purview, but we cannot ask you questions.
We would like to ask the house leader if he will discuss with Mr. Speaker the possibility of providing suitable rain gear for these messengers, and then make some announcement in the house. I draw the attention of the house leader to the fact that we expect these gentlemen to go out at call in all kinds of weather. Many of them do not have suitable rain gear, and I have seen them come back to the building soaked to the skin.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, now that the matter has been drawn to Your Honour's attention I am sure you will not need any assistance from me in dealing with it.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rene Begin (Quebec Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister tell me if the government or his department has taken or intends to take any special measure concerning the critical situation in which Quebec city and especially my riding of Quebec West now find themselves due to ever-increasing unemployment?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the same action is being taken in Quebec West as in any other part of Canada where we have unemployment at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the action?


Some hon. Members:: What action?


Hon. James Sinclair (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. I wonder whether he would detail to the house this action which he is taking across the country to counter unemployment which is rising so alarmingly.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question I wish he would look up Hansard, where I answered a question of the same nature very fully as to what the Department of Labour was doing at this moment and what action the government was taking at this moment. I do not know what else can be done at present to offset the heritage that we received from the former government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: -and the conditions which have arisen because of the policies of the hon. gentleman and others on the other side of the house.


James Sinclair: I would remind the minister-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are you going to ask for more?


An hon. Member:: Let him ask his question.


James Sinclair: There will be lots of time to discuss unemployment. Is the minister aware that, despite his words in the house, unemployment has increased every day in this country since the government took office?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to say anything about this matter but since the hon. gentleman has brought it up may I say that on a number of occasions members have risen and asked questions about unemployment and compared October of this year with October of last year, but unemployment in June was higher than in both those instances.
(Translation):



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Langlois (Berfhier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Finance. In view of the lay-offs which are occurring in the Louiseville textile industry, in my riding, as a consequence of increased imports of British textiles, as reported in yesterday morning's Gazette, what measures is the government contemplating in order to

prevent further increase of these imports, so as to protect our own industry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I did not read yesterday's Gazette and, therefore, shall answer tomorrow the question asked by the hon. member.
(Text):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Deniset (St. Boniface):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of reports which have appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press indicating lay-offs for Canadian National Railways employees in Transcona, as well as elsewhere, are any efforts being made to assimilate into other branches those men displaced by dieselization?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Whenever lay-offs become necessary in any part of the Canadian National Railways system, all efforts are made to assimilate the affected personnel.
(Later:)


Louis Deniset: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport in view of his reply that efforts are being made regarding such lay-offs. What efforts are being made in Transcona, which is the nerve centre of employment in Manitoba?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think I should make my answer very clear. Whenever layoffs unfortunately become necessary, the Canadian National Railways make every possible effort to find other work for those people who are affected.


Louis Deniset: Could we ask on another occasion for at least some idea of what those efforts are, something specific?



REQUEST FOR DEBATE ON UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: My question is supplementary to the Minister of Labour's answer concerning the unemployment situation in the city of Montreal. In view of the alarming increase in unemployment, would the minister consider setting a date for a general debate on unemployment in order that this house may examine the reasons for the sharp increase since June 10?
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour): I
should like to inform the hon. member that if he wishes to bring up what he terms the acute unemployment situation in Montreal he may do so in his speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I want to point out to him that since June there has been a drop of 5,577 in the unemployed. When we took office there were 5,577 more unemployed than there are at the present moment.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: May I ask a supplementary question. Do we have to assume that this government is afraid to discuss this matter of unemployment?



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Lesage (Montmagny-L'Islet):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has a contract been awarded for the building of a promenade outside the Citadel walls around Cap Diamant in Quebec city in order that the work can be completed in 1958, which marks the 350th anniversary of Quebec city?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his patience in trying to get his question before this house the last two days. The answer is no.


Jean Lesage: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the minister to ask for tenders and to award a contract before the end of the present fiscal year?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As the hon. member knows, the construction of this board walk and ancillary services is a very complicated project requiring the most careful designing. With the very limited facilities at the department's disposal it has not been possible to complete the design work yet, and it will probably take some months to finish the task. We know now that it will take two construction seasons to complete the project; therefore it could not be finished in any event in time for the celebration of the 350th anniversary of the founding of Quebec city. In these circumstances the project is being given further consideration.


Jean Lesage: I have a further supplementary question. Is the $50,000 provided for that purpose in the supplementary estimates

Inquiries of the Ministry still available for that purpose, or has it been transferred for other purposes?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to take that supplementary question as notice.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Will he be able to advise the house soon that he has given careful consideration to the brief presented to him by Mr. Wong Foon Sien on behalf of the Chinese benevolent association?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would only say in reply that the brief is now before my department for consideration, and as soon as we are able to formulate some definite reply we will advise Mr. Foon Sien and make a copy available to the hon. member if it seems appropriate to do so.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence or the appropriate minister. Can the minister bring the house up to date in connection with the matter of the Peace river bridge? Does the federal government intend to assume responsibility and liability for its reconstruction?


George Randolph Pearkes: A couple of days ago I told the house of the steps which were being taken to relieve the situation created by the collapse of the Peace river bridge. Those steps have been effective in that they are now restoring traffic. Future disposition will be a matter of awaiting further reports as to what action should be taken.


Frank Claus Christian: My other question was whether the federal government intends to assume responsibility and liability for the reconstruction of the bridge.


George Randolph Pearkes: The responsibility of the federal government in connection with the northwest highway system is that it must be maintained as a military highway. The bridge is part of the northwest highway
(Mr. Lesage.]
system, and unless some alternative routing is carried out traffic must be maintained in that area.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the minister's great interest when he was in the opposition and, indeed, the great interest of many other members, in the subject of two mail deliveries daily in the residential areas of Canadian towns and cities, can the minister now say on what date it is proposed that this service will be instituted?
Hon. W. M. Hamilton	(Postmaster
General): No, Mr. Speaker.


John Richard Garland: Can the minister say if he has at any time recommended this proposal to his colleagues in the present government?


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: In
the light of additional information which it is now possible to obtain from the department as minister, and which was rather difficult to obtain when I sat on the other side of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William McLean Hamilton: -this is a matter which I am considering at the present time.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, that was not the question I asked. I asked if at any time since the present government took over he as Postmaster General has recommended this action to his colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The old "beating your
wife" question.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, unlike some of my predecessors on this side of the house it is my custom to consider a matter before making recommendations to the cabinet.



MEETINGS ON DISPOSITION OF DOWNSTREAM BENEFITS IN INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Lesage: May I ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if, since our exchange on Tuesday about negotiations with the United States authorities on the subject of

waters crossing the boundary, he has inquired from the department whether there have been any meetings with the United States authorities since May 20?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will read my answer on that day he will get the answer to his question there.


Jean Lesage: May I ask a supplementary question. The minister said on that occasion that there had been-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Ask your question.


Jean Lesage: -that there had been negotiations with members of the government of the United States. My question is a very simple one. Have there been any meetings? If there have been no meetings, how were those negotiations conducted?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I believe the dangers of a minister speculating on such matters are obvious.


Jean Lesage: As a further supplementary question, may I ask if there have been any meetings since May 20?


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Answer.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In
view of the fact the previous minister of northern affairs and national resources kept the house informed on these matters when questioned by his colleagues, as to dates of meetings, personnel, results and so on, would not the minister consider it would be in the interests of this house to follow his example?



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. T. Slick (Trinily-Conceplion):: should like to ask the Prime Minister if he will take into consideration making a statement on government policy regarding United States armed forces based in Newfoundland?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I see no reason for making such a statement. If there is any real reason at any time, I certainly will do so, but at the moment I can think of no reason why any statement should be made in that regard.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



NATO AIR TRAINING PROGRAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, and it is in two parts, one general and the other specific. Will the minister inform the house whether or not there is to be any readjustment in Canada's contribution to the NATO air training plan? Would the minister make a statement in respect to the possible future of the air training school at Claresholm, Alberta?


George Randolph Pearkes: In answer to the first question, Canada agreed as part of her NATO commitments to train pilots and navigators of her NATO partners. Under that scheme some 5,000 students have already been trained. Most of the NATO countries have now built up their own training facilities so there is not the same requirement for Canada to train as many pilots for her NATO partners as when the NATO organization came into being.
In so far as the second part of the question is concerned, the reduction in the training of NATO students removes some of the requirement for the training facilities at Claresholm, and it is expected that station will be closed down by the end of 1958, unless there is some change in the over-all training plans.



INQUIRY AS TO PURCHASE OF GROUND TO AIR MISSILES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Breton (Jolielie-L'Assomption-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it true that the government has the intention of abandoning the production of ground to air missiles, especially the "Sparrow", and that from now on the purchase of these missiles will be made from England?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, Canada has not entered into any agreement with any country at the present time for the production or purchase of any ground to air missiles.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF BRIEF PRESENTED TO GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has a brief been presented to the government by the gold mining industry
348	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry at a meeting on August 21 of this year? If so, will the minister table that brief for the information of hon. members?


Donald Methuen Fleming: A brief was submitted to the Minister of Finance in August by representatives of the gold mining industry. It has never been the practice to table in this house briefs submitted to ministers.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Can the minister inform the house if it is his intention to appoint an assistant to his deputy minister? If so, I should like to know if he is in a position to tell us when that appointment will be made.


William McLean Hamilton: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. It is not the intention to appoint an assistant deputy minister in the Post Office Department. The appointment which existed for about a year, until a few weeks ago, was an unusual one. We had no previous experience with that position. It was made in recognition of the fact that the deputy minister would be almost fully concerned for many months with preparations for the universal postal union congress, and was going to retire after that. It was necessary to have someone with a higher degree of authority than normal in order to assist him in his work.



REFERENCE TO DIRECTIVE CONCERNING MAIL CONTRACTORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. I refer him to the general directive 9/4 MS dated August 8 and directed to mail contractors, which includes the statement that mail contractors are not civil servants and that if involved in political activity they may incur cancellation of the mail contract. My question to the Postmaster General is this. Did he authorize the contents of this directive?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, at the time I took office my attention was drawn by a number of people to the fact that rural mail contractors, or some of them, in the course of the performance of the duties for which they were paid by the federal government in carrying
[Mr. Martin (Timmins) .1

the mail were also engaging directly in political activity through carrying aspiring candidates with them on their routes and introducing them to the people to whom they were delivering mail, through displaying posters on their vehicles, and in other ways.
I must say that I feel the handling and delivery of Her Majesty's mail should not become involved in the immediate political life of this country. I took that view. Perhaps some others may take a different view; I do not know. Therefore after I discussed this matter with the officials of my department we came to the conclusion that it was advisable that these people who are handling the rural mail should be advised of the department's feeling on this matter.
I might point out that in all the years the previous government was in office no attempt whatsoever had been made to suggest to rural mail carriers that it would be preferable if they did not, at the same time as they were delivering Her Majesty's mail, carry political posters on their vehicles or carry around political candidates to introduce them to the people who were receiving that mail and others.


Jean Lesage: Do I understand the Postmaster General to say the directive applies to rural mail carriers and mail contractors only during the time they are on duty?


William McLean Hamilton: That was very definitely the thought in my mind, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Mcllraith:: You didn't put that in the directive.


William McLean Hamilton: These men are contractors who have a contractual obligation with the government, and in the performance of that contractual obligation I take the view that the government is in a position to decide what they may or may not do as a matter of propriety in carrying out their contracts. Now, it may very well be that some of the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house have to have every jot and tittle of a government directive or suggestion spelled out for them, but I think I can say that our rural mail carriers are men with a very high degree of intelligence.


Jean Lesage: May I ask a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Under what statute was that directive issued?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Jean Lesage: And do I understand that the mail contractor who has to carry mail from the station to the post office once per day-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jean Lesage: This is a question. Do I understand that a mail carrier who has to carry the mail once a day between the post office and the station, which takes him about one-half hour per day, is completely free for the 23J hours which are left in each day to carry on political activities without being disturbed by the department or the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is going far
beyond the range of supplementary questions. We started on a directive and if there is a supplementary question with respect to that, very well.


Jean Lesage: With all due deference, Mr. Speaker, may I remark I am simply asking for a clarification of the directive.


An hon. Member:: A very important one.


William McLean Hamilton: the government is expected to clarify each individual directive-


James Sinclair: It should. That is your job, and you should not have to clarify a directive because it should be spelled out.


William McLean Hamilton: May
I suggest that the hon. member put his question on the order paper or perhaps ask it at a time when the estimates are before the house. Then at any appropriate time I will be delighted to deal with the question, because it is one in which I take a certain amount of pride. But I am inclined to feel it may be unwise to now take up the time of the house with a long series of questions.


Mr. Wesley Stuart (Charlotte):: May I ask
the Minister of Public Works if the same directive was issued to contractors who might be doing work for his department?


Howard Charles Green: Well, I do not know of any such directive issued by my department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Could he inform the house under what statute such a directive would be authorized?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I did not issue the directive; therefore the question has not come before me.



STATEMENT ON LICENSING OF OFF-SITE STORAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: May I answer a question which was asked two days ago by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort.
Inquiries of the Ministry
The question was:
Is it not a fact that the government is now approving and authorizing elevator companies to acquire off-site storage?
The answer is in the following terms. I am informed by the board of grain commissioners for Canada that no applications for off-site storage have been approved subsequent to June, 1956.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe). The hon. member pointed out, with some justification, that the people of Quesnel had been seeking an employment office for some time, and I trust he will be happy to learn that, this matter having been given consideration, such an office will be established very shortly in the federal building there. It will be a branch office under the office at Prince George.



REPORTED DECISION TO INCREASE TARIFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jacob Schulz (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It is really a repetition of a question I asked yesterday, when the minister complained that my language was not good enough and that he was therefore prevented from answering the question. Today I have constructed it as simply as I could in the hope that he may give a simple answer.
According to the press report the government has decided to proceed with plans to boost tariffs on a wide range of steel products, and has notified a number of countries which come under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, including the United States, of its intentions. Is this report correct?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question yesterday. I drew attention to some of the strong terms used in the question, such as talking about a boost on a wide range of steel products. I said that if I were to take the question literally I should no doubt have to give a negative answer. However, I felt that in fairness to the hon. gentleman I should not put too literal an interpretation on some of the rather strong expressions he used in his question, and that as I expect to be tabling certain reports of the tariff board within the
350	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry next several days I should be glad to make a statement on this subject at that time for the information of the house, if it is desired.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I had intended to ask him two questions but I will defer the second until he recovers from his temporary indisposition.
In view of the fact that, unless requested, stenographic records are not kept in courts of Canadian citizenship; in view of the fact that where applications for citizenship are opposed-and there is one being opposed at the present time in which a good many Canadians are interested, and I am glad it is being opposed-this is most important, would the minister give consideration to having stenographic records kept in all cases where applications for citizenship are opposed?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. gentleman's interest in my welfare but I can assure him that I feel equal to answering more than one question if he cares to ask it. However, I will deal with the one he has asked at the moment. As he himself has said, there is a great deal of interest in citizenship applications, in some more than in others. The point he raised is one of rather unusual interest, and I am glad he has raised it at this time. However, he himself will appreciate that it involves important policy considerations. The question of whether or not records of these proceedings should be kept and be made public is one on which no one would care to make a snap decision.
I am grateful to the hon. member for having brought it specifically to my attention. I can assure him it is one to which we will give immediate study in the department and that, when we have reached a decision, if there is anything in that decision which involves a new policy which should be communicated to the house, we will do so at once.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was asked a question by the hon. member for Ottawa West concerning the report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects and the expected date of the tabling of the official


report, and also a particular publication. The hon. member sent me notice of his question, but it did not reach me until some time after he had put his question in the house.


George James McIlraith: I delivered it personally to your office in the morning.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, apparently the hon. member delivered it to the wrong office, because it did not reach me until after his question was put to me in the house. I have made a statement which is a fact.


George James McIlraith: And I have made the statement that I delivered it to your office.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Apparently the hon. member wants to be quarrelsome, but I have said it did not reach me until after the question was asked. Is that plain?


Mr. Chevrier:: Don't lose your temper.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not. There were two parts to the question, and I have already answered the first part orally. In reply to the question concerning the probability of issuance of a study entitled "Canada's Energy Prospects", I would like to inform the hon. member that this study has not yet been published. It is now in the hands of the printers, and is expected to be available for distribution by about the first week in December.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Algoma East):: May I
ask the minister a supplementary question. With regard to his statement, could my hon. friend inform me as to the authors of this study on energy undertaken for the royal commission?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am afraid I cannot answer that question, but it will obviously be the persons appointed by the royal commission for that purpose. The royal commission engaged a number of experts to conduct, under the direction of the secretary of the commission, Mr. LePan, various studies, some of which have been published and some of which have not yet been completed or published. If my hon. friend is interested in having the names of the particular persons engaged on this one study I would be pleased to make inquiries in that regard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Thank you.



PRICE SPREADS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Lewry) has been trying to catch my eye for some time, and I am sorry to have neglected him for so long.


Mr. Louis Lewry (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister, arising out of the fact that No. 1 flour is now selling for $7 per hundredweight in western Canada while farmers are receiving $2 per hundredweight for wheat. In view of the necessity of inquiring into this exorbitant spread, can the Prime Minister yet say when the royal commission on price spreads will be established?


John George Diefenbaker: As far as the preliminary remarks are concerned I have no information in that regard, but one of these days, as soon as we get the legislation now before the house passed by this house-the emergent legislation, as it were-then in due course the personnel of the commission will be announced.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Yesterday the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) asked whether it would be possible for some arrangement to be made whereby starred questions and notices of motions for the production of papers could be dealt with before the conclusion of the debate on the speech from the throne. If all members of the house are agreed, the government would be willing to have that course followed tomorrow, immediately preceding orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the proposed course agreeable to the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ernest George Hansell: Does that only apply to starred questions? How about the others?


Mr. Speaker:: That referred to motions for production of papers, as I understood it. Is that correct?


Howard Charles Green: My understanding is, Mr. Speaker, that ordinary questions do not have to be raised on the floor of the house.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Onl.):: May I direct a question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture, arising out of his answer a short time ago regarding stabilization of prices, which is referred to in the speech from the throne. Due to the very unsatisfactory prices that are being obtained for many commodities which are being harvested at the present time,
Grain
would the minister consider before the conclusion of the speech from the throne debate the possibility of bringing in legislation regarding the stabilization of these prices?
I ask this question since we find in our district that some of these commodities are now being distributed back on the soil which produced them because they are not worthy of the labour to harvest them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am aware of the very unsatisfactory conditions which exist and have existed, as far as agriculture is concerned, for some considerable length of time. I found the situation in this regard, when I took office as Minister of Agriculture, extremely serious. I have been doing what I can to try and improve the situation as far as some agricultural products are concerned, and I can assure the hon. member that this government will continue to take every possible step with all possible speed to correct this unfortunate situation which we and the country inherited so far as agriculture is concerned.


Edward Blake Huffman: May I just ask the minister if he is aware that corn which was selling for $1.20 a while ago was marketed yesterday for 46 cents?


James Sinclair: Shame, shame; the lowest since 1934.



MEASURE TO PROVIDE CASH ADVANCES ON FARM-STORED GRAIN

Gordon Minto Churchill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the making of advances on account of initial payments for grain produced in the designated area, as defined in the Canadian Wheat Board Act, prior to delivery thereof upon undertakings by the producers thereof to deliver the grain to the Canadian wheat board; and to provide for the costs, expenses and other financial obligations required in the making of such advances; such measure to include such further related and consequential provisions as are necessary to give effect to the foregoing.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is the first of a series of resolutions introducing measures which will be for the benefit of the people of Canada. This is the first item of our legislative program, and it is designed to permit prairie farmers to receive advance payment for the grain they can expect to deliver this year. The legislation is necessary because of the large surplus of wheat which has been accumulated in recent years due to a number of factors such as larger than average crops, a reduction in exports

Grain
because of the loss of former markets, increased productivity per acre, subsidized competition from other wheat exporting countries, and so on.
The facts of the grain problem are that on August 1 of this year there was in Canada in storage in country and terminal elevators and in transit about 400 million bushels of wheat. An additional 300 million bushels was estimated by the dominion bureau of statistics to be held on farms, making a total carryover of 700 million bushels. That constitutes a substantial legacy from the past.
The new crop year was commenced on August 1, and the estimate of production for 1957-58 is about 350 million bushels. With the elevators crammed to capacity the prairie farmer is at the present time in the unhappy position of having good quality wheat available but little or no opportunity to deliver to the elevator and, therefore, no prospect of receiving in the fall the cash return he requires from his year's operation and the cash return that he might reasonably expect. Through no fault of his own, and due to a situation beyond his control, the prairie farmer cannot get immediately the cash he needs for his farming expenses and daily requirements.
It is to meet that requirement, that immediate need, that the legislation about to be put before the house has been prepared. An active and vigorous selling program is in progress. There is no relaxation of our efforts to dispose of our stocks of wheat at a fair return to the farmer. At the second reading stage of the bill I will discuss our sales program as well as other aspects of our wheat economy. However, hon. members may be interested in the situation at the moment, and I have promised the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) that I will give an answer to his question the other day on that subject. But hon. members may have noticed an accurate report in the Gazette this morning which was headlined "Canada Wheat Leads the World" and which reads as follows:
Canada led the world in wheat exports in August, though the amount shipped was slightly below that of last year. This was the first time in tour years that Canada has topped the United States in wheat exports in the opening month ol the new crop year. Canadian shipments totalled 27,200,000 bushels, down from 29,300,000 shipped in August last year, but above the 10-year average of 20,400,000 bushels.
That report comes from the dominion bureau of statistics.
The cash advance is not a hand-out or a subsidy to western farmers. All we are proposing is a cash advance on grain that will be delivered later, in the ensuing months.

We have no reason to doubt that the grain will be delivered, that space will become available in the elevators, and that exports will continue. The grain export trade of Canada is proceeding actively. There will be used up within Canada during the 12-month period from August 1, 1957, to July 31, 1958, at least 150 million bushels of wheat in one way or another, and there will be exported from Canada approximately 300 million bushels. That means that the equivalent of this year's crop will be all used up and, in addition, 100 million bushels of the carryover from preceding years.
But we cannot expect the prairie farmer to wait six months or a year before he gets some cash. While he is waiting to make delivery of his grain we consider that he should have some money to tide him over. The scheme we propose has been made as simple as possible. For many years the farmer has been delivering his grain on a quota system, receiving an initial payment from the elevator agent and producing his permit book to have the transaction recorded. The same system will be continued. The permit book will be produced, the elevator agent will make the advance and record the transaction, and the wheat board will keep accurate flies concerning each farmer's receipts in advance. The only differences are that the actual delivery of the grain will be made later, when elevator space becomes available, and the advance will, of course, be less than the initial payment.
Let us follow the procedure further. When elevator space becomes available the farmer will make his delivery, and one-half the value of the quantity of grain delivered will be applied to reducing the advance he has received. At each delivery the farmer will receive some cash so that he will not return home empty handed. Then, further, this fall he will get full return of the unit quota which is presently being delivered. Cash advances will apply on the 6-bushel quota which the wheat board considers will be applicable for the 1957-58 crop year.
The safeguards of the scheme are clear and definite. The chief one is the permit book in which will be recorded the cash advances that have been paid, and the elevator agent will be able to determine by an examination of the permit book whether or not an advance has been paid off. Responsibility for making the advance will rest with the elevator agent, and the agent must be reasonably sure that the farmer seeking the advance has on his farm the grain that must subsequently be delivered. In the third place, the farmer will be required to sign an affidavit in respect of the quantity of

grain available with respect to which he is seeking an advance, and I hope to deal with that question again when the opportunity presents itself. In the event I did not make it clear in my opening remarks I should reiterate that it is intended to have the cash advance system apply to wheat, oats and barley.
With regard to the financing of the scheme, that will be done in precisely the same way as at present when deliveries are made to an elevator, and shipments will be now entered with the wheat board and the offices of the elevator companies. With regard to the details of the financial aspect, we will be able to examine this in the committee stage.
The advance will be related to deliveries within a quota of 6 bushels per specified crop. The amount per bushel will be 50 cents for wheat, 20 cents for oats and 35 cents for barley. A ceiling of $3,000 will be set as the total that may be obtained by an applicant.
Now, to consider the size of the problem, the number of permit holders is approximately 231,000. Not every permit holder will require a cash advance, because conditions differ from area to area. I spoke about the unit quota. That is estimated to amount in total to 69 million bushels of wheat which will be complete in delivery very shortly, because the rate of marketing is approximately 30 million bushels per month.
With regard to the total amount of wheat that may be marketed in the course of the crop year, the estimate is based on the specified acreage and the returns from that acreage. It is expected that 372 million bushels would be the amount for which cash advances might be required. As each month proceeds deliveries are being made and the number of cash advances required will be correspondingly reduced. It is estimated, in so far as one can estimate in advance, that the total amount of money required for cash advances under the proposed plan may range from $100 million to $150 million. Repayment commences immediately as deliveries of grain are made, and in most instances will likely be completed within six or eight months. Interest charges as they accrue to the wheat board will be paid by the Minister of Finance out of the consolidated revenue fund, and administrative charges will be undertaken by the wheat board.
Those, Mr. Chairman, are the broad outlines of the plan for cash advances. I could have dealt at some considerable length with the wheat economy of western Canada and at this stage given the picture as I see it with regard to our wheat problem, but I thought at the resolution stage I would curtail my remarks. I know there are many hon. members in the house who are keenly interested 96698-23
Grain
in cash advances but who may prefer to discuss the subject on second reading or in the committee of the whole house after the printed bill is in their hands. If it is the wish of the house to complete the resolution stage today we could have the bill distributed this evening and proceed with second reading tomorrow, and on that occasion I would give a somewhat more complete account of our wheat problem. However, it is up to the good sense of the house as to what is required. We are prepared to discuss this at any stage and to any extent that hon. members may like.
In conclusion may I just say that the government is prepared to introduce this legislation at this time with confidence that its enactment will result in immediate benefit to agriculture. This measure is urgently required, and will be welcomed by thousands of farm families in western Canada.


Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Chairman, the resolution which has just been moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is of course of necessity in very general terms. It provides:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the making of advances on account of initial payments for grain produced in the designated area-
-that area being, of course, the usual area covered by matters relating to the wheat board's operation, the three prairie provinces and including a part of British Columbia.
When we in the opposition formed the government party we dealt with this question over quite a considerable period of time, and we can fully understand why on this occasion the minister asked that the resolution be accepted now and that general discussion of the question take place at a later stage in the advancement of the measure through the house. I am not going to make any criticism of that, nor am I going to suggest it should be done otherwise, as has been the usual custom in connection with matters of this kind. There were, however, one or two remarks made in the short time the minister took to introduce the resolution upon which I think some comment should be made.
One of them was his statement to the effect that there are over 700 million bushels of carryover. It will be recalled by hon. members in general and by the minister in particular that when the announcement was made earlier in the season it was suggested that the figure for the carryover was something in excess of 600 million bushels. When a statement is made today that statistics indicate it is now over 700 million bushels, I would simply call attention to the fact that those who handle the grain-that is the three

Grain
pools in western Canada and the grain exchange in Winnipeg-were of the opinion that the figure of 700 million bushels was rather high. I believe they all issued statements to the effect that they did not think this figure was borne out by the facts. I believe it is important that attention should be called to that fact at this moment, although I am sure there will be other occasions during the session when we can be perhaps a little more critical of the figure which is said to be the carryover.
The criticism I made when I read that statement in the press for the first time was to the effect that the reason given for the necessity for the adjustment was that the bureau of statistics had made a mistake for each of the last five years, and I have just been wondering whether the calculations of those who have made a mistake for the last five years should be accepted without some examination into the facts to discover whether or not they are correct this time, particularly as all those who are handling the grain feel they are wrong. I think we should have it pretty well established at an early date just what the figure ought to be.
There is another point I wish to make at this time, and it is that there is nothing unexpected in the suggestions made in the resolution nor in the statement which has just been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As I have already pointed out, this is a subject which has been before the house on many previous occasions, and about which there has been considerable discussion.
But I am only going to refer to two of those occasions and only take a few words out of the statements which were made at the time to indicate the reason why there is no surprise when the statement is made at this time. When introducing amendments to the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, a measure which had been on the statute books for some few years, the former minister of trade and commerce, the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, had this to say as found at page 2196 of Hansard of March 14, 1956:
We were asked to enact this legislation by every farm organization in western Canada. I had thought as a matter of fact that our grain legislation could very well be deferred until the autumn, when any steps we might take could be taken in the light of the coming season's crop results.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, western section, met in Winnipeg about two months ago-
That would be in January.
-to discuss what it wanted the government to do and out of that meeting came just one request . . . There was a second meeting attended by representatives of every farm organization in Canada which was held in Saskatoon. The three wheat pools were represented, the federation of agriculture, the farmers' union and the United Grain Growers. From this meeting came just one request.

To pass on and leave out some of the details of the discussion, Mr. Howe went on to say:
Why did we not get other requests from these meetings? I am sure both meetings discussed cash advances. That is what both meetings were held for. We received no request for cash advances. Why? Because there was no agreement as to how such a plan could be administered. I am told there was the widest difference among various groups as to what they wanted by way of machinery for cash advances.
The proposed amendments were suggested to the house and following that an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Moose Mountain and these two matters were under consideration for some time. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Moose Mountain was in these words, as found at page 2699 of Hansard of March 26, 1957:
That Bill No. 263 he not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to provide a permanent system of cash advances on farm-stored grain.
I am not too sure as to how permanent the present proposal is but it might be taken to be a proposal to pay such advances on a somewhat permanent basis. But when the measure to amend the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act came up for discussion in the house, again the former minister of trade and commerce was quite clear in expressing his views with regard to the matter. The matter before the house on April 6, 1957 was the amendment of the hon. member for Moose Mountain together with the proposed amendments to the previous legislation brought in by the minister of trade and commerce. In discussing the matter in his final remarks to the house before the bill received final passage, Mr. Howe stated, as found at page 3210 of Hansard of April 6, 1957:
We have heard vague talk from the opposition about cash advances, free of interest, on farm-stored grain. Various people have suggested ways in which the cash could be put out but no one, as far as I have been able to follow the debate, has suggested any way in which such an advance could be recovered.
Mr. Chairman, I did have a meeting with representative farm organizations a month or so ago, and at that time those present urged that this legislation be passed.
That is the legislation providing for bank loans.
They said they were not ready to put forward any other plan at this time but that they might be in the autumn.
Of course, we have come to the autumn. Mr. Howe went on to point out that the proper time to give consideration to the matter would be in the autumn. He went on, as found at page 3210 of Hansard, to refer to the resolutions passed and wired him by the

Grain
farm organizations in that area of the country to the effect that the then government should again bring down the measure providing for loans from the banks, that they should double the amount and should change the date to the 1st of September. The measure brought down at that time took that action.
I only wish to emphasize at this time that the whole matter was to be reconsidered in the autumn. The only solution, the only plan I have ever heard of that was placed before the farm organizations of the west and the trade in general was a plan placed before them by the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, Mr. John Wesson. Insofar as I can understand the legislation from the few remarks made today that proposal is identical to the one which is now being proposed by the government. Of course we will find out as we go along whether it is exactly identical. There may be some difference in the figures that it will be necessary to discuss but in principle I think it is the same thing.
From the remarks which I have read and which were placed on Hansard last spring it will be understood, of course, that no agreement was reached by those to whom Mr. Wesson made the proposal on the matter. I understand it was placed before the three western pools and the grain trade and there was some difference of opinion as to whether they were prepared to accept the procedure which I understand this legislation provides for and which has been outlined to us in those terms this afternoon. But apparently many of the same individuals representing the same organizations were in Ottawa at a meeting which was held about two weeks ago. I am inclined to think that the ideas that were presented to the government were ideas which would have been presented to any government that might have been here at this particular time.
I want to say to the members of the present government that if the measure turns out to be one of the nature I think it is, judging from what I know of the whole situation they are not likely to find very much opposition from this group in the house with regard to the bringing down of the legislation and it will be our intention to promote, as far as it is possible to do so, the early bringing down of the legislation in order that we may have an early look at it and be in a position to discuss it intelligently, having all the facts before us when we do. Therefore I am not going to attempt to go into the detail of it at present. I am only going to say that it is carrying out an intention which it was indicated to the house by the previous 96698-23i
minister of trade and commerce in March and April of this year would be carried out by the previous government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, there is no doubt about it. My friends apparently have not been reading Hansard-


George Harris Hees: Was that what he said at Morris?


James Garfield Gardiner: -and apparently they have forgotten what is in Hansard. They had better go back and read it. Then, of course, there is always the possibility that when we see the legislation there may be terms in it that will not be entirely satisfactory to us. Therefore I am not going to undertake at the moment that we will support the legislation in every particular when it comes down, but I am supporting the idea put forward this afternoon by the minister that this legislation should be brought down just as soon as possible, that we should take a good look at it and then make up our minds what we are going to do about it.
My friend says we should have done that a year ago. Probably he will find if he ever becomes a member of a government, as the members of the present government have already found, you have to give consideration to matters through a considerable period of time before you just spout out everything you think about them. That is the situation which exists at present. We do not know exactly what is going to be in the legislation, but we do feel it is necessary to provide the farmers who are growing wheat in western Canada and who are unable to sell it with as much cash as the treasury of the wheat board and the treasury of Canada can support. We are hopeful when this legislation is brought down that it will provide for something along that line.
There is one thing I should like to say at this stage. There is no indication in the remarks of the minister, nor is there any indication in the resolution, as to the government's intention with regard to the legislation covered by Bill No. 263 of the last session or the legislation of the 1956 session entitled the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act. I should like to suggest that as the government found that measure helpful in the early part of this marketing season, it could be helpful in the early part of any marketing season and, as a matter of fact, all through the marketing period. I am hopeful that legislation will not be repealed, and there is nothing to indicate that it is going to be repealed. I would suggest that there are obvious benefits which can come from that legislation which probably could not be taken advantage of by some farmers

Crain
under the legislation which is proposed. I would hope that we may have both measures on the statute books after this legislation is passed, and that from the two acts farmers may be able to get more cash than they have been able to get up to this time.
If the legislation is such as to provide that that will be the case, then I can assure the government the measure will be given most earnest consideration. We are hoping that it will do all that the government hopes to have it do. If it does, it can only be helpful to the farmers.
Having said that, I just want to conclude by saying we are hopeful, as the minister is. that the resolution will not be held up unreasonably long and that we may get along to the position where the bill can be distributed. After that is done I hope I will not find it necessary to say too much with regard to it in the remaining part of the session. But I can assure hon. members if I think there is any necessity for saying much about it, I will proceed to say it. At the moment, we will support the resolution.


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Chairman, as we in this
group understood the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, namely that the legislation would provide for cash advances through the elevator system and that the interest charges would be borne by the treasury, we naturally will support the bill if it includes those features. I was most interested as I am sure all members of the house were, in the statement made by the hon. member for Melville. He built up a case for himself, and he may not have convinced anyone else but apparently he convinced himself that if we had been so unfortunate in this country as to have as the minister of trade and commerce the former member for Port Arthur Rt. Hon. C. D. Howe there would have been placed before this house at this time legislation along the lines of the legislation now before us. This is a statement with which we cannot agree at all. It would seem to me that if the minister had converted himself to the idea that we should have a system of interest-free cash advances, I could only conclude that, on this subject at any rate, he has learned more since June 10 than in all the years before that. However, I am not too sure he has been converted, because after he made that statement he said that before he could assure the minister and the house they were going to vote for the bill they were going to have to take a careful look at it. We can say, on the basis of the statement made by the minister, that so long as the bill contains those provisions we are going to support it.

We are going to support this legislation because we have had a part, and I believe a very considerable part, along with farm organizations and members of parliament in other parties in this house, over the years in promoting the idea, in publicizing it and getting support for it. The idea was that when a farmer harvests his grain in the fall, when he can send it only to a government agency, which is his preference, and there is no opportunity because of congestion and the absence of markets to deliver his grain, then a responsibility falls upon the government which operates the marketing agency to provide a system for making payments to the producers.
We feel that because we have helped to pioneer this legislation-I remind the house that an amendement was moved by this group asking for cash advances as far back as 1951-we are to some extent responsible for this legislation now being placed before the House of Commons. I think we can take particular satisfaction from these two features because in the debate on this question in this house one year ago we were the first and only group for a matter of days to say that we were so much opposed to the idea of farmers being forced to pay interest on really what was their own money that we were prepared to oppose the bank loan legislation. Gradually, after some days of debate, other members from other parties came to that point of view. I believe that as a result of that work in this house we are now faced with the likelihood that farmers are going to have this advance in worth-while legislation.
We recognize, of course, that the legislation before us is not a solution to the agricultural problem that faces this country. While it is absolutely necessary, and must be a part of an orderly system of grain marketing to have in legislative form a system of interest-free cash advances, basically this is not much more than a measure to assist in times of very bad conditions. We are hopeful that the government will take the other basic and necessary steps that will result in an improvement to the whole of the agricultural economy.
The best interpretation I am able to place on the remarks of the hon. member for Melville is that he is waiting for the farm organizations. While he has assured nobody he will go as far as the farm organizations go, he will never go any farther than the farm organizations go. I am one who is prepared to do my own thinking. Although I am a member of, and a supporter of all the large farm organizations in western Canada, I believe that so far as the interest rate is concerned until recent days this

Grain
legislation has been in advance of the general conclusions of the farm organizations. I, for one, do not intend to be merely a spokesman in this house for a given farm organization. I am prepared to do my own thinking, and our group will advance legislation which we feel meets the situation.
So in this instance some leadership has been given. However, I thought the hon. member for Melville might have had some objections to this legislation because I can recall so vividly when he sat on the other side of the house with his colleagues that they rose time after time and said, "If you have any arrangement like this through the Canadian wheat board, it means the end of the Canadian wheat board; it cannot be done; it is a terrible thing." We even heard it said that if the government at the time had suggested this type of legislation all of the wheat board members would tender their resignations. It was just as much poppycock at that time as it would be to say it now. There is nothing to it.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is not what you are talking about today.


Hazen Robert Argue: We said that it should be
through the elevator system; the government said no. They wanted to do it through their friends, the chartered banks. There was no risk for the banks; there was a government guarantee. The farmers did not want it through the banks but that is the best the former administration could provide. There has been an almost complete collapse of many of the export markets that we formerly occupied. The former administration had no suggestions; they had no ideas.
It used to be that the Liberal party had some ideas. They used to be a party of promises and they went out in one election after another and made great promises. But in the past election they made no promises. They did not have an idea. They did not have a clue. When the Leader of the Opposition came to speak in the city of Regina in the recent election, what did he offer the farmers in what perhaps is considered to be the wheat capital of Canada in order to help them in this situation? He offered nothing. He did not have a single concrete offer.
However, he went over all of the moneys that the farmers had ever obtained through any legislation that the government had ever had anything to do with,-when it had given a guarantee to the banks and the farm loans,- he added it up and, if I remember correctly, came to the astronomic figure of $750 million that he said was the extent to which the government of the day was helping agriculture of this country. The farmers reached up and scratched their heads and said, "Well, we still
owe most of it. We are going to have to pay it." When he forces us to go to the banks now and to borrow the money and to pay interest on our credit, he comes out and tells us that it is part of the government's assistance program for farmers.
Hence the producers naturally took a great deal of objection to the attitude of that administration. That fact, of course, accounts in large measure for the fact that this once great, virile Liberal party is now the smallest of the parties in the four western provinces. With the record of the Liberal party in the past and the ineptitude of the members of the official opposition at this time it will not be at all surprising that, when the Manitoba election is over, the Liberal party, as far as western Canada is concerned, will be almost as extinct as the historic prairie buffalo. We do not expect much difficulty in doing what other members of this party have already said we shall do, namely being the real opposition and the effective alternative to the policies and the programs that may be advanced.
But after having said some complimentary things about this legislation, after having said that we are proud we have had a hand in bringing it forward, I want to impress upon the government that we are today in a period of great congestion as far as grain marketing is concerned. Right now we are probably in a period of lower quotas than we have seen for many years at this stage. In spite of the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, our markets for the current crop year do not compare favourably with our exports and markets in the previous year.
As far as the basic condition of agriculture today is concerned, the ability to get enough income to cover expenses and to provide the farmer with a living, there is no doubt about it that agriculture is worse off today than it was on that memorable occasion of June 10. The price-cost squeeze has continued. The basic conditions that over the last years have made it difficult for the farmers still exist, as far as I can see. We are seeing more and more inflation and a greater and greater rise in prices as the days go by, but we are not seeing any strengthening generally of agricultural prices. We are seeing instead a gradual but rather consistent deterioration of agricultural prices.
I know there are members in this house who think that the people from western Canada and from agricultural constituencies are just cry-babies and that we overestimate the difficulties which the agricultural industry faces. However, I want to remind hon. members of this fact. Since 1947 this industry

Crain
has experienced an increase in costs of 46 per cent, as far as western Canada is concerned, and a drop in agricultural prices of 8 per cent. What other industry in a 10-year period could survive an increase in costs of 46 per cent while they receive a reduction of 8 per cent in the price of products they had to sell? For the wheat producer the position is even worse because in the same period of time the price of wheat dropped even more. As far as the farmer is concerned, it dropped for average grade by 34 cents a oushel, from $1.63 to $1.29 per bushel.
What should be done to correct this difficulty that is facing agriculture? The present measure is welcome; it is necessary. But the thing which must be done now is to improve the prices of agricultural products. We are looking forward to the new legislation which we expect will be before the house before many days are past.
Let me suggest that the government at this time should consider establishing something for which the farm organizations have been campaigning for many years. I refer to the establishment of a domestic parity price for wheat. 1 suggest that the price should be not less than $2.25 a bushel. Lest people who are consumers of grain and consumers of bread and who are not in the production of grain think that such an increase would result in an astronomic rise in the price of bread, let me suggest that the increased cost would not amount to more than one cent per loaf. As I have read the resolutions of the Canadian Labour Congress; they have gone hand in hand with the farm organizations in this country in asking for a system of parity prices and a system of support prices that will give to the agricultural producer a reasonable standard of living.
I would suggest also that the government might consider the suggestion of farm organizations that a system of deficiency payments should be established. What the farm organizations mean by deficiency payments is a straight payment out of the national treasury to the people who produce these products. They say that if conditions are such that their prices are allowed to collapse until their industry is threatened, there should be a subsidy-call it deficiency payment or call it what you like-from the treasury to an extent necessary to keep this industry in existence. Of course, that is not a proposition that was put only to this government, it was put to the previous administration.
As to something that might be done immediately, I would suggest to the minister that he consider the immediate payment of

an interim sum of money. On the wheat market, on the 1956 to 1957 crops, farm organizations asked that this deficiency payment be amended to an interim payment of not less than 20 cents a bushel. Now the time for interim payments is getting late. We used to get the interim payments during the crop year through which we were passing and now the crop year has gone by. Year after year the interim and final payments are becoming later and later.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce may say to me that there really is not enough money in the fund, that the former administration juggled the accounts and did some slick bookkeeping in order to get a small final payment through just before the election came. Even if that is true, even if the former administration, in order to get the farmers' vote, did make a payment just before election, I suggest to the minister that nevertheless the request of the farm organizations for 20 cents per bushel, based on the present costs of production and on the present prices for agricultural products, is one that the government should consider.
I have mentioned the tremendous increase in the cost of production, and I have mentioned also the congestion in the country. I have here the latest figures from the Canadian wheat board statistical summary showing that in country elevators on October 9 there were some 37 million bushels more than in the previous year. Lakehead stocks were up, Pacific stocks- were up and there was general congestion. Now the general situation is just a little worse than it was a year ago.
I also have the figures of existing quotas in western Canada. The Minister of Trade and Commerce mentioned the unit quota which is in effect at the present time. The unit quota is a quota for only 300 bushels of wheat. Even if the wheat is of good grade it amounts to a sum of just $350. For the vast majority of wheat producers on the prairie and for the vast majority of the people who hold the
231.000	permit books of which the minister spoke, that is the sum of money they have received since August 1. Three hundred and fifty dollars to pay their taxes, to pay their fuel bill, to pay their repair accounts, to pay their store accounts. That situation is demonstrated by the fact that out of just over
2.000	delivery points on October 17 there were 1,547 still on the unit quota and just 497 had advanced to the one bushel quota first specified; a very serious and a very difficult situation. Their income in the past has not been great because our exports last year were at a low point. The minister said that in August we were just a little above the American exports. Let us hope that our

Grain
relative position will improve because last year, while we exported 262.8 million bushels of wheat the United States in the same period exported 541.6 million bushels of wheat, more than twice as much as we exported from this country.
That is the general situation-a price-cost squeeze, tremendous congestion and a substantial falling off in markets. This government has suggested two positive things; one is this legislation and the other is a resolution which foreshadows legislation to support it. However, this government has made other statements and has informed us of other attitudes in the last few weeks which I suggest are rather disturbing and which paint the picture of the real situation and the basic attitude of the government.
One of the clauses and one of the provisions in this legislation is that the advance will be made on a six bushel quota. A six bushel quota is a small quota; a six bushel quota is very little more than the farmers marketed last year, so what the minister is saying in this legislation is that this government, with its visits to Washington and with every other thing it might be trying to do to improve our exports, so far as making a cash advance is concerned and as far as this legislation is concerned-and that is the proof of their thinking-are not certain that they are going to be able to export any more than in previous years. Well that is very disturbing. The farm organizations have asked for an advance on at least an eight bushel quota. That has been their general attitude in years gone by. We in this group would like to see an advance made on all of the grain held by these family farms but that is the best the government is doing in this legislation.
We had an intimation yesterday from the Minister of Finance that the government has done no new thinking as to how it might increase exports. When somebody asked the minister whether the government had considered taking sterling he said "nobody has asked us and therefore we have not made any such suggestion." Well that is one of the suggested new policies which have been advanced from time to time and one of the things that I believe could be of real benefit to this country.
Many ministers in this government in the last few weeks have made statements which led a lot of us to hope there would be a great expansion in the Colombo plan, there would be much more money placed at the disposal of the plan and that a great part of this large increase would be used for the purchase of food. We had an announcement the other day that there was going to be an
increase and it would be from $34,400,000 to $35 million, scarcely an increase at all. I wondered if the government had not learned anything from the increase given by the former administration to the old age pensioners, that a small and inadequate increase does not gain either sympathy or support for the administration. That is another opportunity this government has lost.
I believe it was yesterday that I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether or not his government was prepared to reverse the attitude of the former administration towards an international food bank with the idea of an international commodity clearing house. He said the government has no different policy or has not made up its mind in that regard-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member wishes to be unfair. I stated to him that I was not prepared to make a statement on this subject at that time.


Hazen Robert Argue: I had hoped, Mr. Chairman, that since June 21, in view of the many statements made by the present Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister, the member for Brandon and other representatives of his party when they were on this side of the house as to the desirability of an international food bank, they would have decided some weeks ago, to reverse at the United Nations the opinion of the former administration.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege may I call to the attention of the hon. member the report made by the Minister of Agriculture. It says that "the commission in which Canada was represented recommended against the formation of such a body." That does not say the delegation from Canada made that representation; it was the commission of which we were a member. We did not have a majority of the votes in that commission.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, I know all about the record of this government so far as the international food bank is concerned and, so far as the previous government is concerned, at no time did the former administration come out by voice and by vote in favour of an international pool.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is absolutely wrong. I did so at Copenhagen.


Hazen Robert Argue: But it would be very nice to have in this debate the statement of the former minister of agriculture at Copenhagen. I have not seen the statement but I would imagine it is something like the statement made here by the hon. member this afternoon. He was on both sides of the question, and if any one ever attempted to corner him he would have a way out. It is a fact that under

Grain
the last administration there never was an official statement made by a minister of the government supporting an international food bank.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was, right up to the time it was turned down by the commission.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not at all. I have been over the record, and so has the hon. member for Acadia, and I do not think we need accept the interpretation put out at this late date by the hon. member for Melville on that well-known mistake he made over a period of so many years.
I could go on to refer to other suggestions, or statements made by the government. The one that causes me most concern is this, because it seems to me to be the conclusion of all these other attitudes as far as the 6-bushel quota is concerned, as far as sterling is concerned, as far as the Colombo plan is concerned, as far as the international food bank is concerned. I refer to the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the national dairy council of Canada at Winnipeg on September 9, 1957. It reads as follows:
The long-range view with regard to our wheat entails a forward-looking policy with regard to general production, and it may well be that progressively over the years our acreage devoted solely to the growing of wheat should be appreciably reduced-
There it is. The forward-looking policy means that wheat acreage should be reduced.
-and greater emphasis should be placed on diversified crops and on the livestock industry.
I am not going to read the rest of that 40-minute speech.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member is not being fair about it. I mentioned an acreage of 20 million and a 400 million bushel average production, which I think the hon. member should, in all fairness, state, because it is not much below the acreage at the present time.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, as a matter of fact it is not below; it is above, and that is what confused me. The minister says we are going to have 20 million acres but he wanted it reduced below 19 million acres. But I will send the speech over to the minister and he can correct it if he wishes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I want the hon. member to correct his now. There is a 21-22 million acreage now. My figure was to bring it down to 20 million.


Hazen Robert Argue: All right. I will ask the minister this: what will he put the acreage into when he reduces it?


Gordon Minto Churchill: What has been done in the past.


Hazen Robert Argue: Very well, what has been done in the past. You put it into oats; you put it into barley. That is what has been done since 1954, the reduction of four million acres has gone into oats and barley.


The Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt, but I must advise the hon. member that his time is expired.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, there has been large scale dissatisfaction in western Canada over the guaranteed loans to farmers by the chartered banks, provided for by legislation. The farmers did not want an opportunity to plunge further into debt. They did not want to have to borrow; they wanted to be able to sell, and in the fall of 1955 there were large protest meetings at which farmers asked the government to pass legislation to make advances against grain held on the farms.
1 cannot help being somewhat amused by the sidestepping of the former minister of agriculture when he told us that the farm organizations had met and had only passed one resolution-apparently they did not pass one regarding cash advances. But, of course, he just picked out the particular farm organization he wanted to pick out. Let me remind him that the interprovincial farm union council asked about cash advances some two years ago. They presented a brief in this house on February 16, 1956, and I will read the resolution.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is putting words into my mouth. I read out of Hansard what he is going to answer, and the record is there, and I referred to the page for any one to read it.


Victor Quelch: Yes. The hon. member kept referring to the fact that certain farm organizations had met and had not asked for advances. But on February 16 the interprovincial farm union council brief contained this passage:
The interprovincial farm union council is continuing to press for adoption of its original proposal, which has been endorsed at the three wheat pool delegate meetings, that the government arrange for interest-free cash advances by the Canadian wheat board on farm-stored grain to the value of 50 per cent of the initial payment on an estimated delivery of eight bushels per cultivated acre.
I want to congratulate the present government for having introduced the present resolution. Apparently it only provides for advances on a quota of 6 bushels to the acre. I am sure the minister will agree that it is going to be very hard for farmers to finance on the basis of even an 8-bushel quota to the acre, and if he cuts the advance

down to an amount on 6 bushels to the acre it is going to make it that much harder. I hope therefore he will give consideration to raising it from six to eight. I am not suggesting we should go as far as the hon. member for Assiniboia has suggested when he said advances should be made against all the grain on the farm. I have not heard any farm organization meetings-and I have attended a very large number of meetings in the constituencies-which have once suggested that.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I remind the hon. member, for whom we all have great respect, that I was speaking of a family farm. I was not suggesting that it should apply in the case of huge farms; there should be some acreage limitation.


Victor Quelch: Even so, there is a good reason, I think, why that suggestion would not be sound, and this is the reason; it is one that was brought to my attention by farmers at meeting after meeting. They said: we should like an advance on all the grain on our farms but we realize that if the government were to make advances against all the grain there would have to be very close inspection, and the cost would be prohibitive, so it would be better to leave a wide margin so that advances can be made without inspection at very little cost. To try to make the advance against the total amount of grain held on the farm would, I think, wreck the whole proposal.
Mr. Chairman, some people ask why should we make advances against grain and not against other farm commodities? Of course, the reason is obvious. Grain and wheat are in a congested state; farmers cannot sell their crops and, therefore, they need advances. In addition to that, the price of wheat is lower than the price of practically any other farm commodity. The price today is less than 70 per cent of parity on the basis used by the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1943-45. On the basis of that, the parity price would be around $2.37 a bushel.
I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not in any way criticizing the Canadian wheat board for their handling of wheat. I think they have done an exceptionally good job, and they have done it under very severe handicaps.
I say they have operated under extremely severe handicaps because they have had to face unfair competition in the world markets. They have had to pay the farmers on the basis of world prices while practically every other country has subsidized the price of wheat. For that reason I think the request of 96698-24
Grain	*
the interprovincial farm union for a deficiency payment of 20 cents a bushel on the 1956-57 crop is a fair one. Even then it would leave the price of wheat considerably below that of the parity price. But even worse than that situation is the fact that the wheat board has been forced to sell through the normal channels of trade whilst their main competitor, the United States, has been selling wheat and accepting payment in foreign currencies and by barter. As a consequence of that we have lost a number of our markets.
Not satisfied with placing the wheat board under the two handicaps I have mentioned the government in the past added another handicap by making the wheat board demand payment in an appreciated currency, a currency at a premium of four cents which meant that the farmers lost approximately seven cents a bushel as a result of that appreciated currency on the basis of par. Let us compare that with what happened in 1950 when the Canadian dollar was held at a value of 90 cents as compared with the United States dollar. Compared with that situation the farmers today are losing 27 cents a bushel as a result of the appreciated value of the dollar.
I am suggesting that if the government considers it sound from a national point of view to maintain the dollar at an appreciated level, if the general economy as a whole benefits by so doing, then the farmers would be absolutely justified in asking that they be compensated to the amount of seven cents a bushel to make up their loss as a result of the government's financial policy.
The former minister of trade and commerce blamed the unsatisfactory condition of agriculture upon a succession of good crops which of course created surpluses and forced the price of wheat down. We insist that the former government must accept the full responsibility for that bad situation as it depended upon orthodox channels of trade to sell its commodities and as a consequence we lost markets.
Whilst the former government followed this policy of laissez faire our main competitors opened up new channels of trade and step by step succeeded in diverting sales of wheat from Canada to the United States, and as a consequence our sales have fallen off and our surpluses have accumulated. The former minister of trade and commerce was asked on a number of occasions whether he thought the farmers should reduce their production of grain. It was suggested to the government that the success of its policy depended largely upon crop failures. I recall

Grain
that the former minister of trade and commerce said in this house he hoped that in western Canada we would harvest a bumper crop which would have further added to the government's difficulties in disposing of our wheat.
Then he said the government considered it wise to maintain a substantial reserve of wheat on hand so that in the event of a succession of crop failures it would have a reserve of wheat to meet our domestic needs and the needs of other nations. I think the minister was justified in that attitude at that time because it had been pointed out to us time and time again by the Food and Agriculture Organization that 50 per cent of the population of the world was still unfed and hungry and therefore if there had been a succession of crop failures we might very well have had world wide famine.
If the government considers it to be in the national interest to maintain a substantial reserve of wheat on hand then undoubtedly it should be a national responsibility to provide storage to handle that reserve so that it may be held without its interfering with the normal handling of the current crop, it should be a national responsibility to pay the carrying charges on that reserve and it should also be a national responsibility to make advances against grain held on a farm when due to the fact that the reserve is plugging the channels through which the grain moves the farmers are unable to deliver their grain.
I believe that the situation could have been eased last year and could be eased even now to some extent by the government reconsidering what is apparently its decision not to license off-site storage. I was not satisfied with the reply given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce yesterday and I am not blaming him because after all the government has been in office only a short time and has inherited a lot of policies of the former government which up to the present time they have not had a chance to modify.
Let us examine the reasons given for refusing to license off-site storage. It was argued that the grain in off-site storage might deteriorate. I read a report issued by the Alberta wheat pool last year which said that the amount of deterioration in off-site storage was infinitesimal, that the grain in off-site storage was being carried just as efficiently and well as grain in the elevators.
It was also argued by the government that grain in off-site storage would not be as accessible as grain in elevators. I would say that grain in off-site storage would be just about as accessible as grain held in annexes

that have no auger because grain held in annexes of this kind has to be loaded up into a truck and moved into the elevator. When you consider that as a rule off-site storage is only a few yards from the elevator it cannot seriously be argued that grain held in off-site storage is not accessible.
I am sorry the government has decided not to license off-site storage because by such an action it is destroying the initiative of the farmers and local business people. I think there is a great deal of credit due the farmers and local businessmen when they have provided buildings in which grain can be stored. The building is then leased to an elevator company and more grain can be delivered.
There is no reason why the wheat board should be too concerned about whether or not grain held in off-site storage will deteriorate because if there is any loss involved it is the local elevator company rather than the wheat board which must sustain the loss because it has to deliver the same type of wheat as that which it accepts into storage. I am sure no local elevator company is going to agree to rent a building which it does not consider satisfactory for the storage of grain.
I am afraid there is another reason why the government refuses to license off-site storage. I think the obvious reason is because it has agreed to paying the carrying charges on the wheat and just the minute it accepts grain into off-site storage it has to pay the storage charges on it to the extent that the total storage is in excess of 187 million bushels. I believe that is the real reason the government refuses to license off-site storage because it does not want to increase its payments for storage.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has suggested that perhaps there should be a reduction in wheat acreage. I listened very carefully to what he said just now. I am of the impression that the Minister of Agriculture has also made a somewhat similar statement to the effect that it might be wise to divert certain acreage from the producion of wheat to the production of livestock.
But I think one has got to be extremely careful how one attempts to do that because the result could very easily be a surplus of livestock and a surplus of livestock will be far more difficult to handle than a surplus of grain. We have had that experience in the past with hogs. We know what happens when we have a surplus of hogs. You cannot hold them. They have got to move when they are at a certain weight and the result

Grain
is that you completely wreck the market. Therefore we have got to be very careful in that regard unless we are prepared to adopt some such proposal as the soil bank in the United States. Personally I am not advocating that because I do not believe there is any necessity of reducing acreage. In the light of the world situation today, with 50 per cent of the population of the world undernourished, our problem is to find ways and means of getting the wheat to the people who are hungry.
I think the United States today is giving a wonderful example of how surplus food can be got to hungry people. Instead of worrying about reducing acreage, let the government explore every means of getting our surplus wheat to nations who are unable to obtain it through the normal channels of trade. Let the government make that wheat available to them for their own currency or by barter or, in the case of absolute distress, by gift. It would be far better to make that wheat available by gift than to reduce the acreage. If letting these people have our wheat meant that somebody in this country had to go without I would not make the suggestion, but there is no suggestion that anyone would be penalized as the result of making such gifts.
The first thing is to accept foreign currency, especially sterling, and use that sterling for the purchase of commodities in the sterling area which we are purchasing at the present time from the United States. I am encouraged to hope that the government may give consideration to that proposal because I recall that on December 3, 1953, the present Prime Minister voted in support of the acceptance of sterling. Therefore I am hoping that the Conservative government may even yet consider the desirability of such action.
We in this group have argued ever since 1952 that farm produce should be sold in this country under a two-price system, that is that farm commodities sold in the domestic market should be sold at a parity price and our exports at the best price obtainable. By "parity price" we merely mean a price that bears a fair relationship to the price of other commodities. We believe that should be the policy in regard to wheat and wheat that is to be exported should be sold preferably through the international wheat agreement or at least supported at a price that bears a fair relationship to cost. Then to the extent that the total price received by the farmers for agricultural produce gives them an income less than their fair share, deficiency payments might very well be made.
There is a good reason why grain growers have the right to expect better consideration
96698-24i
than they have received in the past. Let us not forget that shortly after the war the government of that day signed the British wheat agreement and they said that was to be regarded as a form of stabilization. Let us not forget that as the result of the British wheat agreement the farmers of this country lost $431 million representing the difference between what they would have received on the world market and the price they received under the British wheat agreement. But not only that, they sold wheat in the domestic market for the same price which meant a loss to the farmers of another $136.9 million. All in all, as the result of the government wheat policy in those days, the farmers during that period lost a total of $568 million.
I know that many people are under the delusion that the grain producers of this country have been subsidized. The grain producers have never been subsidized. They sold at world market prices. The only government in the world that forced farmers to accept less than the world market price was the Liberal government of the past. In view of the fact that the farmers of this country subsidized Canadian consumers for a number of years to the extent of $136 million they have a right to look upon that $136 million as a premium that they paid on a form of insurance that guaranteed that they would get fair prices in the future. Therefore the farmers have every right today to expect the government to stabilize the price of grain at a fair level along with other farm commodities.
I am glad to see the government bringing down this legislation. I am glad to hear that the government is going to bring down additional legislation regarding support prices. I do not expect the government to redress all the evils of the former government. The former government showed a total lack of appreciation of the welfare of the farmers and I am hoping that in the next few months this government will be able to undo a lot of the evil that the former government did.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Chairman, I think that at the present time the people of Canada are more concerned about what they are going to get in the way of legislation from the present government than they are about trying to find fault with what has happened during the last several years. The people of Canada were asked to pass a verdict on June 10 and they voted for more members representing the party of the then opposition than they did for those representing the former government, indicating that they believed the promises made by the present Prime Minister and thought they were worthy of support. Therefore I suggest that what the people of Canada

Grain
are interested in now is to what extent the Prime Minister and the government are prepared to go to carry out the promises held out to the people by the Prime Minister and on the basis of which he holds his present office. In my opinion the government will be judged by the extent to which they justify the hopes that they raised when they were asking for support at that time.
My purpose this afternoon is to indicate what I think the people of western Canada were led to expect from the statements of the present Prime Minister in regard to this very matter and to indicate that I hope the bill goes some substantial way toward meeting those hopes and promises. I think that is what we have a right to expect when the government acts in a matter about which it has taken a very definite stand in the past. In that regard I wish to refer to what the present Prime Minister said on March 14, 1957 as recorded on page 2188 of Hansard. There the present Prime Minister spoke in these words:
Mr. Chairman, the amendments that are provided for in the resolution now before this committee were set forth yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in these words as reported at page 2161 of Hansard:
"... that the maximum amount of loan to an Individual producer be raised from $1,500 to $3,000; second, that the rate of interest, which is 5 per cent at present, be left to the determination of the governor in council; and loans be extended by one month by moving the opening date forward from October 1 to September 1."
The Prime Minister went on to say:
That in general represents the changes that are to be made when the bill is brought before the house. I believe that what is being done here represents a complete disregard of the wishes and requirements of all western farm organizations and of farmers throughout westen Canada.
As found at page 2189 of Hansard the present Prime Minister went on to say:
Those in general summarize the arguments that we in this party have advanced through the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. They represent the stand we have taken since 1952. We believe that the only salvation for the western farmer, with his markets lost and his wheat therefore unmarketable, is that there should be cash advances. Second, we believe that every encouragement should be given to the farmer to provide his own storage, and that in the provision of such storage additional write-offs should be permitted when determining the amount of his income tax.
We believe that under proper circumstances there should be provision for cash advances on farm-stored grain similar to the system in effect in the United States.
There was a definite pronouncement in the house by the present Prime Minister on behalf of his party. I am waiting with great anticipation to see if this bill puts in force any system of cash advances on farm-stored grain similar to the system in effect in the United States. It seems to me that the suggestion

of the Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon of permitting a maximum advance up to $3,000 is not in accordance with the hopes held out to the farmers at the time the present government was appealing for support.
Just look at what it amounts to, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, the average farm would not be bigger than three quarter sections. Supposing the specified acreage on such a farm were 400 acres. The amount of help which a farmer could get under this proposal would be $1,200. He then has to repay half of the amount he gets from any grain subsequently delivered. He would only be able to deliver these six bushels per specified acre over a period of a year, and assuming he takes a full year to deliver it he probably has, on an average, $600 for perhaps nine months. But, supposing one figures he has $900 for the whole year? What does this proposal mean? The only thing he gets out of it is firstly that it will be easier to get the money from the elevators than from the banks. And, as I understand the proposal, secondly to cancel the interest on that small amount. Today the farmer is in a much worse position than he was on June 10, and certainly far worse than he was a year ago, yet the measure of relief held out by the present government is the cancellation of interest which will not amount to more than $40 or $45, on an average.
So there may be no mistake as to what the people of western Canada really expected of the present government, let me read some more of what the present Prime Minister said, as reported at page 2188 of Hansard for March 14, 1957:
For several years we in this party have been supporting the need for cash advances. In 1952, as reported in Hansard for December 17 of that year, Hon. George Drew, then leader of the opposition, supported an amendment which had been moved recommending legislation providing for the payment to producers in respect of farm-stored grain of an advance equal to 75 per cent of the initial price established August 1 in each crop year.
I believe the initial price then was $1.20, it might have been $1.40, and this proposal would result in the payment of around 90 cents a bushel. I continue quoting:
Our only change over the passing years has been that while 75 per cent was the amount asked for at that time, the demand since has been generally that 50 per cent should be advanced. That demand has been universal, and in the face of that demand the bringing in of a loan system again is a denial of the wishes of farmers everywhere.
Now, what do we have proposed today? The proposal was scaled down to 50 per cent of the initial advance. Supposing you take the initial advance at $1.40, less the charges to Fort William which would get it down to

Grain
$1.20; 50 per cent of that is 60 cents a bushel, not 50 cents as proposed. But it goes farther than that. There was no idea, as I understand it, of restricting the basis of advance to six bushels per specified acre. What I think many people in western Canada had in mind as proposed was what the present Prime Minister had said himself, a system of cash advances like that in force in the United States. There was no rigid low limit there such as the limit of $3,000 proposed here. Under the proposed set-up the farmer is to get no more than $3,000 and that is to be repaid out of his deliveries so that at the end of the year actually he will be no better off than under the present system by means of which he could also get $3,000. It was to be repaid in the same way from deliveries of grain.
The Prime Minister referred to what Mr. Drew had said on the matter, and said the only change was a reduction from 75 per cent to 50 per cent. Here is what Mr. Drew said, as referred to by the Prime Minister, and as found at page 858 of Hansard for December 17, 1952. The amendment to the amendment to which Mr. Drew was speaking was:
To recommend legislation providing for the payment to producers, in respect to farm-stored grain, of an advance equal to 75 per cent of the initial price as established at August 1 in each crop year.
In dealing with this subamendment the former leader of the opposition, Mr. Drew, said:
In eifect this subamendment does two things. It is a proposal that legislation be introduced to provide for a cash advance to producers in respect of their farm-stored grain equal to 75 per cent of the initial payment the producer would have received if he had been able to deliver that grain to an agency of the wheat board.
There is no suggestion there that it should be only on six bushels per specified acre. It speaks about "that grain" and "the grain on hand". Then, Mr. Drew referred to his own remarks in the early stages of the same debate, and he quotes his own remarks. I again call your attention to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that the present Prime Minister referred to this statement and said that the only change that would be made by them was to reduce the payment from 75 per cent to 50 per cent. Here is what Mr. Drew said:
The whole system of handling and distribution has broken down. The government, no matter what its explanation may be, has failed to take effective steps to provide for the handling of grain, in spite of the knowledge many months ago, and the warnings many months ago, that this situation was going to arise. In western Canada today there are many farmers, with huge quantities of wheat and other grains worth considerable sums of money, who are unable to get money at this time to cover their harvesting and living expenses because of their inability to deliver that grain to market.
This is a situation with which the government should deal immediately. It is urgent and calls for attention without delay.
I call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the idea held out to the farmers at that time. It was that many farmers who had huge quantities of wheat on hand should be able to turn that wheat into cash, and this was something that should be dealt with without delay. There appeared to be no idea of restricting it to six bushels, no idea of restricting it to $3,000. When the suggestion was made by the former administration to help the individual farmer to the extent of a loan of $3,000, the present Prime Minister felt very dissatisfied. He said this at page 2188 of Hansard for March 14, 1957:
I summarize our attitude towards this resolution and the bill to be founded thereon-
The bill being referred to was to give help up to $3,000. I admit the help was to be given through the banks and the farmers preferred to deal through the elevator companies, but what does this present proposal do? Does it give more than $3,000? Does it provide that they can have money until they deliver their wheat? They have to pay the debt off within a year if they can deliver up to six bushels an acre. The only thing accomplished by this proposal is merely a rebate of interest. Here is what the present Prime Minister had to say about the earlier proposal:
I summarize our attitude toward this resolution and the bill to be founded thereon as follows. What is being given to the farmer is a stone when he is asking for bread, and what is being provided under this resolution is something unwanted by the farmer, something totally ineffective to meet his needs, and something which in effect will be inoperative, as was the legislation to a large extent during the past year.
I cite that passage to the present Prime Minister-they are his own	words-in
regard to this former bill. He said, "It is totally inadequate". Is $3,000 today more adequate than it was a year ago? I wonder. This was said to be a stone a year ago or less. It was said to be a stone on March 14. According to the words of the present leader of the government, "What is being provided is something unwanted by the farmer". I submit that the farmer wanted help then; he wants help now. But after all the speeches that were made to him on the floor of this house by the former leader of the Progressive Conservative party, endorsed by the present Prime Minister, he expected more help than this proposal of an advance which he must pay back within a year, limited to $3,000 and also limited to the extent of 50 cents a bushel on wheat and to the extent of 6 bushels an acre on his specified acreage.

Grain


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are you going to vote against this bill?


Walter Adam Tucker: I am saying that anything that is given by this present government that will help the farmers is something that I will vote for.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You have another ten
minutes.


Walter Adam Tucker: What I am saying is this,-


Douglas Scott Harkness: You have changed your mind about these cash advances. You were against them a year ago.


Walter Adam Tucker: I never said I was against cash advances.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You have changed your mind.


Walter Adam Tucker: The Minister of Agriculture is saying something that is not correct.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Oh, no.


Walter Adam Tucker: I said a year ago, as stated by the hon. member for Melville, that the farm organizations in a conference had asked for advances through the bank and I said that it had been the policy of the Liberal government for many years, in handling wheat through the wheat board, to listen very much to the wishes of the farm organizations. I said that when they had asked for this method then I thought the government was justified in giving this method to the farmers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Did that fellow shoot you on television because you were in favour of cash advances?


Walter Adam Tucker: I will say to the Minister of Agriculture that he is not going to get away with doing nothing by talking about what the previous government did or did not do. They are going to have to answer as to whether or not they carried out their promises.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We are doing it as fast as we can.


Mr. Sluder:: With a stone.


Walter Adam Tucker: Is this really such a great advance? If this is as fast as the present government is going to move to carry out its promises, it is going to take a long time to get very much done.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Walter Adam Tucker: Let the Minister of Agriculture say what difference there is, except in the manner of getting it, between getting $3,000 now and getting $3,000 under the proposal six months ago.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If you have not figured that out you should not be here.


Walter Adam Tucker: What is the difference? At that time, as I recall it, there was not even the rigid limitation there is in this bill. Suppose a man has a half-section, suppose therefore his specified acreage is, we will say, 300 bushels; the most that he can get under this measure is $900.


Irvin William Studer: Three hundred acres.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, 300 acres; at six bushels a specified acre, that makes 1,800 bushels. All he will be able to get is $900.


John George Diefenbaker: There is a rebate of interest.


Walter Adam Tucker: The interest? I have already dealt with that matter. It is really all that is being given. The interest on $900 at 5 per cent for say nine months is three-quarters of $45-around-$35. Is this carrying out the promise of the present Prime Minister that we were going to have a system like that existing in the United States, under which farmers are going to get money on the huge quantities of wheat they had in hand?
We are told by the Minister of Agriculture that they are proceeding as fast as they can to carry out their promises. Here is the way they are doing so on one specific question. What have they done? Under the present legislation they have provided less in regard to what small farmers could get. All they are providing differently is that the farmer gets the money from the elevator company instead of from the bank and there is rebate of interest to the extent of perhaps $40.
I want to say that as far as we are concerned,-and I think it is true of all members from western Canada, regardless of party- we think our farmers in western Canada are in a position where they are entitled to receive some real assistance in their present difficulties until their wheat can be disposed of. I really wonder whether the government thinks that this measure is going to satisfy the people of western Canada after all they had to say about the deficiencies and lack of effectiveness of the measure brought forward by the last government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does it satisfy you?


Walter Adam Tucker: As I have already said,-


Gordon Minto Churchill: You have said that you are going to vote for it.


Walter Adam Tucker: As has been said, half a loaf is better than none. I was led to believe that I could expect a great measure of amelioration of our present situation under the leadership of my good friend the present Prime Minister, the great tribune from the west,

Grain
the man who was going to do things that have never been done before for western Canada. He made the speeches that I have read and they cannot be denied. Then we get this measure. Can anyone say that this measure does not fall far short of what we were led to expect in western Canada, even though it does mean giving $35, $40 or $45 as a rebate of interest to * our hard-pressed farmers? On their behalf I will eagerly accept what assistance is now offered, but I am not going to tell them that this is the kind of measure we expected from the government, after the high hopes that were held out.


Mr. Cardiff:: Vote against it.


Walter Adam Tucker: I know you would like to see that. Would it not be something? Hon. gentlemen opposite held out hopes of really constructive and effective action. Then they bring in a measure that goes such a short distance and even want me to vote against that. Judging by what they have done now I expect that they are going to do so little that we had better accept as quickly as possible anything they do.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you sit down? You do not want us to vote.


Walter Adam Tucker: I know you would like me to sit down; I can understand that. But after all, I understood that the attitude of the leader of your party was that parliament should be permitted to speak its mind.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You approve of that now.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Discuss the principles of the bill.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am discussing the principle of the bill. It goes such a short distance that I am just pointing it out for the edification of my hon. friends. Let me read again what the Prime Minister held out and express the hope that he will yet reconsider and make this bill into something more in line with the needs of western Canada and more in line with the hopes he held out when those neighbours of both his and mine voted for him. Here is what he said, as reported at page 2189 of Hansard of March 14, 1957:
. . . the only salvation for the western farmer, with his markets lost and his wheat therefore unmarketable, is that there should be cash advances.
Is this such a cash advance measure when you can get up to $3,000 which is taken back from you within a year and can market only up to six bushels per specified acre? Is this the solution which the Prime Minister had in mind?
Is it to be said that after what happened to them in their attempt at Washington to
get some reconsideration of the surplus disposal policy of the United States that they the government really expect any great amelioration of the marketing problem? The situation is still there, just the same and worse.
Then the Prime Minister has said there should be cash advances; now this is really a temporary advance, repayable within a year. Is this going to really help our farmers in the way in which they were led to believe they would be helped? The Prime Minister said:
We believe that every encouragement should be given to the farmer to provide their own storage and that with the provision of such storage, additional writeoffs should be permitted when determining the amount of his income tax.
I hope that the government will carry out that promise.
It was suggested from time to time that that should be done right in the Wheat Board Act so there would be no doubt about it but, in any event, this is something which should be done at this session of parliament and without delay, because the situation in western Canada is very difficult as the Prime Minister very well knows. I would like the government to give consideration to this question and the Minister of Trade and Commerce can answer it if he wishes to do so: does he seriously suggest that this proposal he has just made carries out the promises of the Prime Minister who said: "We believe that under proper circumstances there should be provision for cash advances on farm-stored grain similar to the system in effect in the United States."


Gordon Minto Churchill: Every promise made by the Prime Minister will be carried out.


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, when? We were assured by the present government that they were going to speedily carry out some of these promises. Is this how fast they are going to proceed? We keep getting stories; we keep hearing suggestions that it is not going to be done this session as it should be in order to show that the government is really endeavouring to carry out its promises. I suggest to the Prime Minister, and he knows the people in western Canada as well as I do-


An hon. Member:: He knows them better.


Walter Adam Tucker: Well if he knows them better he will act at this stage and I suggest to him that if he wishes to hold the goodwill he has at the present time in western Canada by carrying out his promises he is going to have to go a good deal further in carrying them out than has been proposed in this bill.

Grain


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Chairman, before I became a member of parliament my constituents used to ask me "Why is it, when we have so many representatives from the west in the Liberal party and on the government side of the house, that the farmers are unable to receive more in the way of assistance?" After listening to the hon. member for Rosthern this afternoon I can assure you I will be able to go back and tell them why.
Now in speaking on this resolution on advance payments on farm-stored grain I would like to take the opportunity of expressing the appreciation of the farmers I represent that this measure should be introduced at this early stage of the session.
I noticed that the last speaker, in telling the Prime Minister that he should be getting on with these things, failed to mention that a lot of this legislation could have been passed had it not been for the amount of verbiage to which we have had to listen from the opposite side of the house.
I would also like to mention at this time that the farmers are pleased that the advances on grain are on all grain and not on wheat alone for that would penalize those farmers who attempted to reduce their wheat acreage. I would point out, as the hon. member for Melville well knows, that this has been the practice of many of the farmers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan during the last couple of years. The result is of course that we have had a considerable volume of coarse grains as well as wheat being stored on the prairie farms.
Now one of the most serious problems facing agriculture and the prairie economy generally has been the lack of cash in the hands of farmers at the completion of harvesting and this has meant unpaid taxes, fuel and other bills, and has created a serious credit situation, not only for the farmer himself but for the merchants and dealers in the small villages and towns who have been providing goods and services on credit to the farmer. The inability of the farmer to dispose of any substantial amount of his production of grains at harvest time has created the situation. This has been steadily worsening especially during the past two years and has now become very critical.
The legislation the government is bringing in is both bold and imaginative; it was refused by the former government but it will do much to prevent any further deterioration in the farmers' cash position. In spite of what the hon. member for Melville said, the former government failed to recognize the seriousness of the farmers' cash position. Their half-hearted efforts to deal with the problem have forced the farmer to further

increase his indebtedness by borrowing from the banks and this has only aggravated the situation. This policy of the former government largely contributed to the fact that many farm people decided to quit the business and seek employment elsewhere before their credit condition got into a state from which they would be unable to extricate themselves.
Farm organizations, prairie business men who supply the goods and services to enable the farmer to operate his holdings and the farmers themselves have been waiting patiently for this legislation to be adopted by this house because they accepted the assurances of the Prime Minister that this would be done. They realize that this legislation is only to take care of their critical situation, whether it arises this year as it has, or in future years, and that it is not a solution to their overall problems. Farmers are counting on the farm legislation and the longterm program of national development as indicated in the speech from the throne to bring more stability to this basic industry and eventually make unnecessary this legislation which we are discussing today.
The farmers realize that national development, in co-operation with the provinces, in such things as the South Saskatchewan dam, the Beech wood project in New Brunswick and the Red river valley water development program, now under study by the Manitoba government, would contribute much to the economic well-being, not only of the people of the areas directly concerned but of the whole nation.
Furthermore the fact that the government by bringing in this legislation has shown that it intends to live up to these commitments will reassure the people of this nation that it intends to carry out its long-term policy of national development and through it build a better and more healthy Canada.
Payment of cash advances on farm-stored grain is actually not something new. The wheat board has been paying advances on grain delivered by the farmer to the board since its inception, the final payment being made as the grain is sold. This particular legislation becomes necessary since the board, the sole purchasing agency, is unable to take delivery of the farmers' grain because of the congested commercial storage space. Now, what was the answer of the former government to the same situation? You will remember they brought out their grain loan program wherein they would guarantee to the banks 10 per cent of the loan made to the farmer.
Hon. members may remember that a program was brought out under which farmers were able to borrow $3,000 if they possessed

the required security. Unfortunately this measure never worked out in practice as it was intended because if a farmer had the $3,000 security which was required of him he was able to borrow without the guarantee: if he did not, then he could not borrow in any circumstances. The result was that very few farmers in the west took advantage of that particular legislation.
The hon. member for Rosthern mentioned that when the farmer got through he would not have too much money left anyway. What this legislation does is pay for a portion of the farmer's grain before he delivers it. Naturally he would not expect to be paid for it again when he delivered it to the elevator. The government set up this program under which the wheat board will pay the farmer an advance on his grain; when he delivers the grain the balance of the payment will be made to him after certain deductions have been made in respect of the money already advanced. This will ensure that a certain amount of money is available to him throughout the year.
I think this scheme will enable the farmers to finance their operations more easily, and at the same time it will protect the wheat board in its operations. I think the western farmer is going to be very pleased with this legislation and this government should be commended on bringing it in at this time. It is to be hoped that this legislation will not be held up by lengthy debate.
The seriousness of the credit situation throughout the whole prairie economy places on this house the responsibility of passing this bill at the earliest possible moment in order that the wheat board can get the cash out to the farmers at once.


Mr. Zapliiny:: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Assiniboia made a comprehensive statement on behalf of our party earlier this afternoon and it is therefore my intention to be as brief as possible in order to accommodate supporters of the government or other hon. members who may wish to comment on this proposed legislation.
However, I feel it is my duty to express a certain amount of satisfaction on behalf of the grain producers I represent, and grain producers generally, now that we have reached, to some extent, the main objective for which hon. members of this group have fought so persistently. I am glad to welcome this legislation as far as it goes. I think we shall have to describe this in the usual manner by saying it is a step in the right direction.
Grain
We were, of course, very interested and not a little amused by the statement made by the hon. member for Melville, remembering some of the things he had to say when he was sitting on the other side of the house. While he was speaking my good friend from Selkirk mentioned to me a gentleman in his district who believed in self-imposed punishment and who, whenever he had done anything wrong, used to fill his boots with peas and walk all the way to Winnipeg. It seems to me that that record is beaten today, because we have witnessed the spectacle of the hon. member for Melville walking all the way from Melville with peas in his boots. Apparently he was in good shape when he got here, because I note that he did a perfect verbal Irish jig.
I also wish to commend the hon. member for Rosthern for having apparently changed his mind substantially on this question. I cannot help but recall that last year, the year before, and in the years before that, whenever we placed this proposal before the house- and I wish to remind hon. members that it was always the C.C.F. party which took the lead in this matter-when we offered this cake on a platter, the hon. member for Rosthern would not even touch the icing; but today he ate half way through the platter before he sat down. He was not satisfied with this legislation; if I read his remarks correctly, he wanted the government to go the whole way.
I am quite prepared to go further than the government has gone. But it is interesting to note that members of the Liberal party who not long ago were not prepared to take even the first step in this matter are now demanding the whole cake.
This proposal would be of material assistance to prairie farmers in enabling them to convert their grain into immediate cash. To that extent we welcome it and commend the government for it and I, personally, take a certain amount of satisfaction in recalling that it was a minister from the province of Manitoba who introduced the first real legislation on this subject. We are known as "the keystone province" in this country and we hope this is going to be the key to bigger and better things in the future. But I believe we must not leave this question without taking into account the limitations inherent in this legislation and in the situation in which we find ourselves. I believe the government should seriously consider at this time taking a further step and, I believe, a practical step, namely, to provide government storage for grain.

Grain



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1958.
Mr. Speaker:: The house will now revert to the business which was interrupted.



MEASURE TO PROVIDE CASH ADVANCES ON FARM-STORED GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Churchill-Mr. Courtemanche in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the making of advances on account of initial payments for grain produced in the designated area, as defined in the Canadian Wheat Board Act, prior to delivery thereof upon undertakings by the producers thereof to deliver the grain to the Canadian wheat board; and to provide for the costs, expenses and other financial obligations required in the making of such advances; such measure to include such further related and consequential provisions as are necessary to give effect to the foregoing.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I had just drawn attention to the fact that the measure we are now discussing is of a limited nature and that, in my humble opinion, further steps would be required to cover the whole question of the disposal of grain. It seems to me that the government should take into immediate consideration certain further steps to put the available grain into a sales position, as efficiently and as quickly as possible, and to make provision for the disposal of it at fair prices to the producers. I would advocate three steps by which I think that this could accomplished.
First of all, I would advocate that the government finance, either directly or through the wheat board, the construction of additional

storage space in this country on a huge and imaginative scale. I would advocate that the government finance the construction of additional storage, either at terminals or off-terminal sites at strategic positions, sufficiently large to store about 300 million bushels of grain. This grain would then be in position for immediate shipment in the event that the efforts of the Department of Trade and Commerce or our trade commissioners meet with the optimistic success which we hope they will. One of these days we may find that we will get a sudden flood of orders for grain from various parts of the world, and they may come at a time when the grain stored on farms cannot be readily delivered to the shipping points.
As a matter of fact, even under conditions of surplus and congestion, this has already occurred. There were times when the wheat board made calls for certain types of grain during the winter or early spring months when the roads were not passable and the country elevators were not able to supply the grain required, in spite of the fact that there were hundreds of millions of bushels of this grain stored on farms. In addition to this I feel that looking at it from the long-range point of view there is no better national asset that we could have than approximately 300 million bushels of grain stored in properly constructed storage, which grain could be kept for an indefinite period.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the hon. member mean over and above the storage capacity now?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That is right. We have in the past assumed we were on the gold standard. I think that assumption has pretty well evaporated, but since this country is chiefly an agricultural country I feel we would be better off to be on a grain standard than the gold standard because we would have as an asset a useful and usable product which, with all due respect, in comparison with gold would give a much greater degree of stability and give the world a far better sense of stability than the digging of gold in one country and burying it in another.
As a second step, I would advocate that the government take some immediate steps to give this house a little more encouragement than has been the case so far with regard to the establishment of an international food bank. I would not for a moment assume that this government or this parliament could, by itself, set up an international food bank. However, we can do our share. We must start on a national basis with the role which we would play in the general set-up of an international food bank.

The provision of proper facilities, as I have mentioned, for the storage of grain would be one step towards that objective and would have this other advantage that once the grain is delivered to such storage, once it is in the hands of the wheat board and the farmer has been paid for the grain, the wheat board knows where the grain is and that it can be kept in good condition. These are advantages over this idea of cash advances which we are now using as a temporary or, at least, as an emergency measure.
On the question of the international food bank, the hon. member for Assiniboia has already discussed the matter. There were some exchanges during his remarks about who was responsible for the lack of action on the part of Canada in taking her part in the establishment of such a food bank. Apparently there were accusations and denials going back and forth between former ministers and present ministers. I feel that so far as this government is concerned, they are firmly on record as to what they intend to do. According to a press report in the Montreal Gazette of May 20, the Prime Minister is reported as having said at Red Deer, Alberta-he is not quoted verbatim, but these are the words he used:
Earlier at Red Deer he advocated formation of an international food bank under NATO to ease the threat to wheat markets from "vast" world wheat surpluses.
Then the article continues to give greater detail as to what the present Prime Minister advocated. In spite of what may have been the case up until now, and without trying to place the blame for the lack of action as between the former minister and the present minister, the present Prime Minister is on record, speaking in a province which is very interested in this question of grain, as being in favour of setting up an international food bank.
As a third step, I would advocate-I will only touch on this because it is my intention to go into this matter in much greater detail in the general debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne-that the government show some real action in the removal of trade barriers. I must admit that so far, on this particular point, I have been disappointed.
I am one of those who believe that Canada's destiny in the future lies in the direction of freer trade. We had hoped that we would be moving in that direction rather rapidly, in fact I have been hoping for that for a considerable number of years. There was a time when the Liberal party of this country was the low-tariff party, while the Conservatives had earned a reputation as being the high-tariff party. When the change
Grain
of government took place in 1935, at which time I cast my first vote, I thought perhaps we would see some real action towards the removal of trade barriers. It took 22 years for the disillusionment to become rather complete.
We have a new administration now, and in spite of their past-I say that not in any sense of bitterness but because I think perhaps the members of the new government are big enough men to be able to forget some of the past of the party-perhaps they will now show an example to the world by taking some real action toward the removal of trade barriers. They were given an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that only recently when the government of the United Kingdom made quite a sensational, and in my opinion excellent proposition to this country to establish a free trade area as between the United Kingdom and Canada over a period of years. I hoped that not only would the government have taken them up immediately on that proposition, but have made some plans to widen that proposition to include all the commonwealth countries.
Here again I find that on the record the present Prime Minister seems to have something of that sort in mind. But according to the Ottawa Citizen of May 15, the Prime Minister is reported to have said at Portage La Prairie, Manitoba, the following:
He also called for a commonwealth economic conference to restore Canada's markets, loans to Japan to buy wheat here and action to maintain European markets in the face of the proposed European common market system.
May I just say that with regard to the last part of that statement that in the last few days news has come out to the effect that Great Britain is now prepared to include agricultural products in the European common market system, something which they had been deliberately withholding in the hope, I believe, of coming to some terms with Canada for a free-trade area. But apparently because of the singular lack of action and, as a matter of fact, the almost complete lack of interest that was shown by the Minister of Finance at the Mont Tremblant conference, subsequently the British government, I think quite rightly, has perhaps come to the conclusion that Canada is not the least bit interested in the establishment of a free-trade area and removal of trade barriers between those two countries and is now looking elsewhere where countries are more favourably disposed.
If that happened I warn this government that it would be a serious blow to the agricultural industry of this country and not only to the agricultural industry. I can assure him

Grain
that so far as all of western Canada is concerned and so far as the maritimes are concerned, this government and his party would lose a terrific amount of prestige and support if it were found that the new Conservative government is no different with regard to trade barriers from the old Conservative governments that we have had. I issue that as a friendly warning and add to that warning that it is going to take on the part of the Prime Minister a great deal more than the stentorian voice and the rolling phrase to cover up this lack of action.
The people of the prairies and the people of the maritimes are interested in seeing an east-west trade arrangement between the United Kingdom and Canada. I am not going to go further into that matter at this moment because I realize that other members perhaps want to participate in this debate. However, it is my intention to go into more detail later.


Mr. Jorgenson:: Mr. Chairman, unlike the other members who have spoken on this particular bill, I want to confine my remarks to the bill itself, and they are going to be very short and to the point. I was greatly interested in the remarks made by the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Melville, when he said that the Liberals had they been given time, would have enacted this legislation. I was interested in some of the statements he made as to what Mr. Howe had said to the effect that this legislation was not necessary, that the farmers were quite satisfied with the interim financing bill as it was, that all farm organizations had approved it.
I come from a farm and I am directly concerned with the interim financing bill and the legislation that is now before us. My mind goes back to a night not too long ago when the hon. member for Rosthern was attempting to defend the interim financing bill on a television program. I think most hon. members will recall what happened that night when his image was blasted off the television screen by a shotgun. Perhaps the former minister of agriculture feels that he is justified in saying that the leaders of the farm organizations and the people he represented were satisfied with that bill, but I think this proves rather conclusively that the farmers were not satisfied.
My mind also goes back to a time shortly after that when the then minister of justice, Mr. Garson, attended a meeting in Mine-dosa and received the same treatment from the farmers. Then the last but certainly not the least occasion was when the former minister of trade and commerce attended a meeting in Morris. Here again was ample evidence of what the farmers felt about this bill. In spite of the advice the former minister

of agriculture has received regarding this bill, I think the actions of the farmers themselves speak a great deal louder.
The hon. member for Rosthern set himself up as a champion of the farmers. This is a rather belated effort. He had 22 years to be the champion of the farmer and he failed to do so. Now, all of a sudden, he expects this government to go out and accomplish miracles. He expects us to implement a policy that would require a tremendous administrative organization and to do that in the space of a few months. I know the farmers fairly well and I know that they are reasonable enough not to expect the government to come up with an administrative program of that kind, certainly not in the short space of time that they have had. I know that they are quite satisfied to have the bill as it is to help them over an extremely difficult situation. Nobody in this house or outside of it expects that this bill is going to be the answer to the farm problem, it is merely a piece of legislation designed to help the farmers over an extremely difficult period.
The need for cash in the hands of the farmers at this time need not be retold by me. I have had communications from municipalities that are in desperate need of help because of the lack of cash. Everyone, including fuel dealers and storekeepers, is feeling the pinch. I have heard member after member rise in this house and suggest that something be done to remedy unemployment. In my opinion, this is one of the ways in which you can help the unemployment situation.
We know that when the farmers have not the ready cash they are unable to buy the things that are necessary to carry on their farming operations. According to the records of machine companies, sales have gone down in the past year and you can understand how this factor reflects back in the employment field. You have serious negative factors compounding each other in the wrong direction and unless something is done to place money in the hands of the farmer so he can carry on, meet his obligations and continue farming and to keep the industries working in this country, then the situation is not going to improve. 1 suggest that the passing of this bill is going to do a great deal to help the farmer and to help this country in general.
(Translation):


Mr. Mallais:: Mr. Chairman, from what we have heard this afternoon, it does seem that the farmers of the western provinces do not

share equally with the rest of the Canadian people, in the prosperity which Canada has enjoyed in recent years.
It is also becoming more and more obvious that, since the wave of promises which has swept across our country, from coast to coast, since June 10 last, other districts in Canada are showing a degree of economic pessimism which seems quite justified as we go along.
(Text):
When the minister this afternoon introduced the legislation he gave several reasons for introducing it at this time. He mentioned the loss of markets and the increased costs. Another reason that we heard in this house previously was this.
Well to say that this is a problem inherited from the previous legislation is, in my opinion, a very weak defence. If one wants to bring in a piece of legislation, I say that is a weak way to do it, to try and bring it in, blaming somebody else for the difficulties. It reminds me of a story I was told, that as long as we live in a community, in fact as long as we live, we will find day by day there will always be problems, just the same as there are in every family. What we have inherited from our forefathers we like to conserve and to improve so we can pass it on to those who come after us.
These problems which the government is facing with respect to the western provinces are problems created because of the fact the farmers were required to produce more and were certainly getting encouragement to do so, most likely being led to believe that there would be markets for their increased production. The ministers should not blame the previous government, and I specifically refer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, saying that they had inherited these problems from the former administration because these problems were caused by the increased production of the farmers out west.
Now as I want to be brief I will refer to just one aspect of this legislation which particularly strikes me, that is the free of interest aspect of these loans. I understand very clearly that in the western provinces this is a local matter but, Mr. Chairman, how many Canadians would approve of a crown corporation engaged in producing consumer goods being encouraged to go along and be given help in the form of subsidies in order to increase the volume of production of private industry?
I would like to refer to the central provinces, particularly to where I come from on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river. We also have farmers there and most of those farmers right now are trying to get
Grain
away from the farm because there is a feeling coming from the west that they cannot get a reasonable sale price for the commodities they produce. Now those same farmers in my region who are obliged to call for help are now being asked to pay a further premium on that grain by having to pay taxes which will cover this free interest rate, for they are going to have to pay for it.
It may be that in the proposed legislation about which we have heard today from the Minister of Agriculture the farmers of this country will be taken care of, but may I suggest that he rectify, at least in part, the discrimination against farmers in my district. We should have some additional legislation to increase the subsidies for grain moved into distant provinces.
I would like to refer for a moment to a remark made by the speaker immediately preceding myself. He said that this help to the farmer out west would also go a long way towards reducing unemployment. Some of the farmers in the province of Quebec, and I believe also in some parts of Ontario, live by the production of pulpwood. In our district these farmers who have been engaged in the production of pulpwood for years will this year be unable to get any suitable employment in the cutting of wood. As everybody knows, unemployment insurance does not yet apply to labour on the farm.
It is my hope and expectation that the Minister of Labour-although he did not pay too much attention at question time to the questions of unemployment-will get in touch with the Minister of Agriculture who will explain to him that in the province of Quebec, and more especially along the north shore of the St. Lawrence, the farm labour force is discriminated against by this legislation now before us. This is easy to understand because, as the legislation now stands, nobody wants to work on the farm because there is no unemployment insurance benefit provided. When the farmer wants to obtain labour he finds it very difficult to do so because the sons of farmers prefer to leave the farm and work in industry where such benefits are provided.
In closing my remarks I say I will certainly support the bill, and I am sure you will not be surprised at this. I am glad to hear the gentlemen opposite clap because at least my remarks are receiving some attention and I hope that some of the smiles of approbation I see on the faces of the ministers will also be there later on when I make requests respecting other projects in my riding.

Grain


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I do not know that I have too much to say in respect to the present legislation, although I do not believe I can let this occasion go by without making some remarks. In the first place I do want to congratulate the government on this measure. The legislation has been brought in partly because of promises during election time and partly because I am sure the present Prime Minister, as a western representative, recognizes something of the particular and pressing needs of the Canadian wheat farmer. We are pleased that these measures are being introduced for another reason and that is that we have advocated cash advances for some considerable time now. We are happy it is now being realized that some suggestions we have made in the past are able to be used to the advantage of the western farmer.
Although we are pleased that this measure has been brought in, as the member for Acadia has already said it does not for one moment mean that it will be an entire solution to the problems of the western farmer for, after all, the real solution is for him to be able to sell his wheat at a price which will keep him in business, give him a fair share of the national income and a good standard of living. That means you have to go back and attempt to appraise the situation in the same way as a doctor would attempt to diagnose and appraise a disease of the body. Something has caused the surplus of wheat which we have now. There must be a root cause which has resulted in a surplus of which we have not been able to dispose, and I say we have to discover what this root cause is in order to find a solution to the problems of the western farmers.
We talk of surpluses. I think we will all agree that the term "surplus" is a relative term. When we talk of a surplus we should really ask ourselves: surplus to what? If we say it is surplus to what the Canadian wheat board has been able to dispose of in the normal course of trade and through the normal channels of trade, then, of course, we have a surplus. But if one thinks of surplus in terms of world need I declare that we do not have a surplus because we recognize, as the hon. member for Acadia has mentioned, that a number of the nations of the world are living on starvation level.
I hold in my hand a document which, I am inclined to believe, was referred to the other day, although I am not certain whether this was the document or not. If it is, it is worth referring to again. It was put out by the Department of National Health and Welfare, and was issued in April 1957 under the

previous administration. It contains an article entitled "We Live in an Unequal World". The writer talks of the surpluses which apparently exist in the world, yet, at the same time, the article shows that the world is in need of those so-called surpluses. Of course, I am not going to read the entire article, but I do want to point out one or two very striking things contained in it.
The article starts out by saying that two and a half billion people live in the 80 nations of this earth but that only 8 per cent of the earth's surface is under cultivation; one-third of mankind consumes three-quarters of the worlds' food, and in spite of all the efforts of international organizations, available food supplies are barely as great today as they were before the war. In spite of increased production, food supplies are just keeping pace with the growth in population. I may interject here that this article has been prepared from a United Nations report. It contains a few diagrams, and one diagram shows three skinny men standing beside two rather fat men, and it shows that three people out of five in the world are hungry. This is what the article says in this respect:
If all people were to have enough of the right kind of food, according to a United Nations committee of scientists, the production of cereals would have to be increased by 50 per cent.
Sometimes when we have surpluses of agricultural products we begin to talk in terms of a reduction in the quantity produced, and in terms of taking land out of production. That may be all right in certain circumstances. It would be proper to take land out of production if it were for the purpose of revitalizing the soil or for the rotation of crops in order, on a long-term basis, to get the very best out of the land. We are all aware that in the United States they have what is known as a soil bank, and I do not know why something of that kind cannot be instituted in Canada eventually. Whether the government is giving consideration to that or not, I do not know. All I am saying is that if this United Nations committee of scientists is correct in saying that production of cereals would have to be increased by 50 per cent in order that the world might be properly fed, I cannot see how we actually have a surplus of food stuffs or grains in Canada. It is true we have a surplus relative to what we have been able to dispose of through the regular channels of trade, but not a surplus in respect to the needs of the world, which only means this: if people need the food we must go behind the scenes and attempt to diagnose why we are unable to deliver it to them.

In the case of meat products, according to this article the supply of meat would have to be increased by 90 per cent. I come from a cattle country, as well as a wheat growing country. My constituency takes in part of the foothills country of southern Alberta in which some of the finest beef cattle in the world are raised. Imagine my ranchers hearing that, and knowing that in order to feed the world properly meat supplies would have to be increased by 90 per cent.
The production of milk and dairy products would have to be increased by 125 per cent; production of vegetable oils would have to be increased by 125 per cent, and the production of fruit and vegetables by 300 per cent.
Thus, Mr. Chairman, when we talk of surpluses we question whether or not we do actually have surpluses in the light of world needs. I say we do not have such surpluses. It is all very well for ministers of the crown and individuals to run around and become a bit hysterical about our failure to dispose of our surplus, but I would say this-and I claim that our social credit policy should be worthy of some study-that unless we get behind the scenes and diagnose this situation properly and find out exactly what is basically wrong we will never be able to solve our problems. Our social credit position is that unless basic financial and trade policies are changed we will never be able to solve the problem of so-called surpluses.
I hold in my hand here the preliminary report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. What does the Gordon commission report say in respect to wheat? Here is what I personally take to be a somewhat alarming statement. The report says:
The surplus of wheat in Canada at present does not seem to have arisen out of the procedures used to market the crop.
I would take issue with the report there, but the matter is not too important for my argument. It goes on to say:
It has resulted primarily from weather conditions.
It is all very well to make that appraisal, but I am going to ask this simple question: what kind of weather conditions do we want, anyway? Surely we want weather conditions which are most conducive to the production of those vital foods which come from the land. I have never yet seen a farmer go out into his field after he has planted his crop- let us assume the weather has been dry-and say: "my hope is that it doesn't rain; if it rains it is going to be catastrophic". Of course he does not do that.
We want the proper weather conditions that will enable the land to produce the best
Grain
kind of crops and an abundance of them; surely we do. Again I would pose a question. What is land for if it is not to produce? These questions are simple ones and naturally they should be easy to answer. To my way of thinking land awaits the energy from the sun and rain from the clouds so it will produce an abundance of food. It should be that the more we are able to produce the better, but somehow or other because we have had good weather conditions it presents a problem to us. The problem is not one of overproduction. The problem, of course, is one of underconsumption. Therefore I say that what the government must do is once again look behind the scenes and see what is actually wrong and attempt to correct the basic fault.
When the present government first came into office everybody expected it was going to do something. Well, the members of the government did do something, they did a lot of talking for one thing and talk is sometimes of value. The Prime Minister went down to Dartmouth and of course he lashed out at the United States for what is sometimes known as its give-away program. I was a little amazed at this because, after all, the present Prime Minister had been sitting in this chamber for a number of sessions and while he may have been mildly critical of the United States give-away program I did not hear him raise his voice too vigorously or in very strong protest against it. Of course, he was now the Prime Minister and he had to do something and it meant making a big noise in Dartmouth and receiving lots of publicity by railling at the United States for its give-away program.
I believe it was last session I said in this house that I found it rather difficult to criticize the United States for this program. I do not know that it was altogether a give-away program either. As I see it, under this program the United States approached the nations and said, "Our Commodities Credit Corporations have amassed vast abundances of surplus agricultural products. Now, what nations of the world want to take them? If you want to take them, do so and we will talk about payment for it later." In speaking of it in this way I am only using layman's language. What they did in effect was to beat us to the punch, that is all. The previous government was in office at that time and I am not sure they raised too much hullabaloo about it.
I have found and continue to find it difficult to criticize the United States too harshly for its policy because it has accomplished something useful. In the first place it helped to feed some of the hungry nations of the world and in the second place it reasonably satisfied the farmers of the United States.

Grain
Another simple question I would ask is this. Can you criticize any nation that attempts to feed the hungry people of the world? I do not think so. I would also ask if you can criticize a government that attempts to look after its own people first? I do not think you can criticize that, either. It occurs to me that in cases like this the United States is simply beating us to the punch which is putting it in what may be considered rather vulgar language.
For example, it was drawn to our attention by press reports the other day that the United States is sending a trade commission to Japan in an effort to facilitate and increase trade with that country, and dispose of some United States agricultural products. Is the United States going to beat us to the punch there, too? The present government has had preliminary trade conferences and I am not prepared to say what has actually happened as a result of them. We cannot expect too much at the beginning and these were simply preliminary conferences. Nevertheless I would point out that we can go all around the world and call all the trade conferences we want but I contend that unless our basic fiscal and trade policies are changed we will continue to face the problems we have today in respect to the sale of our production.
There is one other matter with which I wish to deal, Mr. Chairman, and then I will not take any more of the committee's time. We would have no need for cash advances on farm-stored grain if we had been able to dispose of our surplus production and if the farm population of Canada was receiving its fair share of the national income. This means we must enter the economic field and the realm of fiscal and monetary policy.
For instance, take the matter of the price squeeze. You cannot begin to seek a solution for this problem without becoming involved in the subject of monetary and financial policy; it simply cannot be done. The price squeeze is affecting the low income of the farmers of this country. The hon. member who preceded me spoke of the farmers who are going to the cities to find work in industry. This is so because matters have reached a stage where they are unable to derive adequate income from their farm operations. I think this is particularly true in Ontario and Quebec.
I wish to deal in greater detail with the question of the price squeeze. I have in my hand some figures presented to the cabinet of the previous government on March 9, 1957 by the Western Wheat Pools dealing with western farm costs and farm prices

from 1947 to 1956. They show the price of wheat as compared to the price farmers must pay for the things they buy. I do not intend to read all of this table but the last paragraph is significant and I wish to place it on the record:
Briefly, the above table shows that in 1956 the value per bushel of wheat marketed in Saskatchewan-
This would be true anywhere in the west. [DOT]-was almost 21 per cent below that of 1947. During the same period the western wheat grower's costs had risen by almost 46 per cent.
Surely there is something wrong with our monetary policy when we observe this sort of thing happening in respect to the price structure throughout Canada. The brief presented by the Western Wheat Pools from which I quoted also dealt with farm products apart from wheat. The cabinet received this brief and they had their officials and figure men there who could vouch for the accuracy or point out the inaccuracy of the figures contained in the tables.
In the same brief there is a table respecting over-all farm products as follows:
Saskatchewan farm costs today are 45.9 per cent higher than they were ten years ago while farm prices are 7.1 per cent lower than they were in 1947.
That will give the committee a picture of the reason why the farmer is complaining. He is coming off at the short end of the deal. I am going to close my remarks and once again I close with an urgent appeal. I appeal, not only to the Minister of Trade and Commerce who we recognize has a problem on his hands, and I think we sympathize with him; not only to the Minister of Agriculture who is doing his best to help to solve some of these problems, but also to the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to attempt to get behind the scenes so far as the trouble is concerned, appraise the disease and find out where are the roots of the disease. If you cure the body politic at the roots then the bloodstream and the patient will eventually revive and become healthy.


Henri Courtemanche: It seems to me that some members are discussing matters that are not related to the resolution. I would like to remind hon. members that speeches in committee of the whole should be strictly relevant to the resolution. May I ask hon. members to assist me in enforcing the rule of relevancy.
(Translation):


Mr. Gour:: Mr. Chairman, the resolution
now being considered by the committee constitutes, in my opinion, a very dangerous precedent. However, I shall support the measure.

(Text):
I will speak in English in order that my English speaking colleagues, including the Minister of Agriculture, my good friend, may understand what I said in French:	This
legislation sets a dangerous precedent but at the same time I will, as I have always done, endorse it because it is a form of help for the west at the moment. I will also endorse other bills that will provide help for other districts in our country.


M. Harkness:: Tres bien.


Joseph-Omer Gour: In my time in the house and prior the Liberal government provided large amounts of money to help the people of the west when they had no crops. At that time the federal government gave many millions of dollars to help the farmers who were in a bad position. In 1947, I think, we voted, and I was in favour of it, for a Liberal government measure that gave the western farmers $65 million and we did so because of the price of wheat at that time. Last year we took steps to protect the banks so far as losses might be involved in lending money to the people of the west who needed it.
This session we have another bill to pay cash to the farmers so that they will be able to get money without having to pay interest.
I claim that this bill establishes a dangerous precedent because the government will now have many calls for money from people who would like to secure money without having to pay interest. In my own riding we will pay this year at least $1 million for wheat or other grain from the west. The farmers of my riding also have to pay for farm machinery purchased through farm development loans or by giving their own notes to the bank. They have to pay from 5 per cent to 7 per cent interest to buy the things they need.
My riding is a dairy farming district and the farmers have to wait three years before a cow is able to give milk and they can get any money out of their investment. They have to wait three years before they can get a dollar, before they can milk the cow and sell the milk to the cheese factory. Therefore I am of the opinion that after this legislation is passed the government should bring forward other bills to give similar help to the people in other parts of Canada engaged in various occupations such as dairying, raising chickens, producing eggs, fishing and so on. After all, farmers everywhere have to pay high prices for what they buy. It is not the fault of the government. It is the fault of the prosperity we have in this country. We have a very high level of living and when we want something we have to pay a high price for it.
Grain
Therefore I support the measure and I will support other bills that I hope the Minister of Agriculture will bring forward with a view to helping the people of the east and of central Canada. I will support them as long as we are able to pay and so that we may give a square deal to every part of the country without discrimination against any particular part.


Louis Harrington Lewry: Mr. Chairman, I wish to join with others who have welcomed the legislation to provide cash advances to the hard-pressed farmers of western Canada. But I also wish to stress that this is only one small part of necessary assistance that is needed in the agricultural industry. Cash advances are not a solution to the farmers' problems. Indeed, cash advances will only postpone the inevitable bankruptcy of the small family farm unless the government is willing to take a firm grasp of the problem and come up with a solution. Cash advances, while welcomed, will give about a six months hoist to the necessity of coming to grips with the ever-increasing problem.
Just prior to coming to Ottawa for this session I made a 4,700 mile trip round my constituency. I can tell you that the farmers are worried about the future of their industry and their livelihood. In some areas where distressing hailstorms occurred in the summer months, and because of the lack of a comprehensive crop insurance plan, the farmers have been forced to go into other labour markets at a time of decreasing employment opportunities. Some farmers have thousands of bushels of wheat in storage on their farms. Others have no storage problem. But both classes are in the same predicament. They have no ready cash.
The farmer with a crop this year will be able to take advantage of the cash advances now proposed. But what of the man who was hailed out or the farmer who has had successive crop losses? We say that a comprehensive crop insurance plan is the answer to those problems.
Again I repeat that we welcome this legislation as a stopgap at this time, but the farmers want to know if the government is going to pay lip service only to the problem in general terms or is it going to try to do something to alleviate the plight in which the farmers find themselves? Cash advances will enable farmers to pay their taxes to the hard-pressed municipalities. They will be able to pay their grocery and fuel bills and thus reestablish their credit for another few months. The legislation is worthy in that it will establish the principle, I believe, that cash advances are a right, not a hand-out at the discretion of the banking interests.

Grain
There is one point that I believe the government should be asked to clarify. Do former negotiated loans have precedence when these cash advances are paid by the elevator companies? In other words, is the paying agent obliged to make sure that before making cash advance payments the recipient is debt free of other bank loans? Would such loans have to be deducted from these new cash advances?
Since 1952, when farm costs started their unprecedented upward trend, farmers have found themselves going into debt, not to buy new equipment but to maintain their own living.
While in many other industries Canadians have seen booming conditions, the farming industry has been declining steadily. The farmers have felt the cost-price squeeze more than other Canadians. While farm prices have been sagging, costs have been soaring. Throughout my constituency the farmers have been living on the depreciation of their machinery for the past several years. This cannot continue. Cash advances will not help them replace machinery to any great extent. It will allow them only to continue existence while other parts of the Canadian economy continue to boom. The farmers of western Canada in particular are demanding a fair share of the national income.
In almost every other agricultural country the farmer is assisted and protected by the government in the interests of the whole country. Yet in this great country, built on the solid foundations laid by our pioneer agriculturists, we have had a government that refused to face the necessity of substantial assistance to this industry. The Saskatchewan wheat pool has recently published a table based on figures supplied by the dominion bureau of statistics. The figures show that the average farm price for wheat dropped from $1.63 in 1947 to a low of an estimated $1.29 in 1956, a drop of 21 per cent. In that same ten-year period farm costs have increased by almost 46 per cent. Similar difficulties are being experienced by almost all agricultural commodity groups, and telling wheat farmers they should cut down their seeded acreage, or go into livestock production, is no salvation to them. Livestock raisers themselves are looking to the government for legislation to stabilize prices in order to prevent further losses resulting from declining livestock prices.
It is becoming increasingly evident that farmers in western Canada cannot survive if the government refuses to accept the responsibility of providing the incentive necessary to give the industry the necessary shot in

the arm. Until a planned economy is provided for by federal legislation this creeping paralysis, which now has the agricultural industry in its grasp, will continue. May I repeat, Mr. Chairman, we of the C.C.F. will support the plans for cash advances, but we want it on the record that this legislation in itself is far from a solution to the ever-increasing problem that is now on the farmers' doorstep, a problem that has been accepted by other governments as their responsibility, but which in Canada has been left to the initiative of the farmers throughout the country.
(Translation):


Mr. Landry:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take part in this debate though not as an expert on the question of wheat, for everyone knows that it takes a great deal of time for a newcomer to the House of Commons to grasp the whole implications of so complex a question as that of the wheat of the western provinces.
However, let me add that it is from a general point of view that I would like to consider this important problem, and urge the government to find the best possible solution. I should also point out that, in order to solve all problems involving a particular area of the country, the people as a whole, no less than members of parliament, should realize that the economy of the country in general depends on the particular economy of the various areas making up this country. Being a member of the great Canadian family, I sincerely believe that closer study should be made of these financial questions, which seem to involve only one part of the country but which in the end affect the entire nation.
I am pleased to say here that I heartily support any measure designed to help our fellow citizens, the western farmers, within the powers vested in this government and parliament by the constitution, provided, of course, such measures would also take into account the effects of their application on the economy of Canada as a whole.
We from Quebec are well aware that western wheat producers are faced with a genuine problem; therefore we will unhesitatingly support any measure designed to help them.
This does not mean, however, that we should overlook the sad situation prevailing at this time in almost half the province of Quebec, and more particularly in rural constituencies where our farmers' secondary industry, if not their primary industry, is the cutting of pulpwood.
Speaking on behalf of the several thousand farmers of the rural constituencies adjoining the forests of Quebec,-and I presume that many other ridings are in the same situa-

tion,-it would perhaps be appropriate to recall that, for the majority of those farmers, pulpwood is the only source of revenue on which to rely to meet the deficits arising from farming operations.
It might not be amiss to point out here that for the past four or five months, those farmers who had felt they could count on this probable revenue, have been left with growing stocks of unsold pulpwood. The difference between supply and demand has become so great that the selling price hardly covers the cost of haulage. Because of this lack of a market for pulpwood our farmers now find themselves in exactly the same predicament as the western wheat grower.
I therefore feel justified in asking the government to extend its financial aid policy .so as to give our own farmers the same advantage which it is now proposed to extend to their brothers in western Canada.
As I have already said in the first speech I made in this house, growing unemployment as a result of this depressed market for pulpwood constitutes a high priority problem for the government. I think that the situation in which the western farmers now find themselves, which I, for one, find most unfortunate and which the government is well advised to deal with as quickly as possible, bears peculiar resemblance to the situation of our own farmers with regard to pulpwood.
Once more I urge the government to consider the problem of pulpwood as a national problem, which will no doubt affect other parts of the country if the government fails to take the necessary remedial action.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we are happy to be able to contribute to the solution of the problems which exist in western Canada, but the people of Canada would be happier still if the government were to extend its help to every agricultural field in this country, where the problem of unemployment seems to be daily growing worse.
(Text):


Mr. Bryson:: It is not my intention at this time to make any extended remarks of a general nature, Mr. Chairman, in line with your request of a moment ago. As a matter of fact, I am going to forego even the luxury of commenting on the verbal thunderbolts that were hurled with great inaccuracy this afternoon by the hon. member for Rosthern. We do welcome this legislation.
Grain
My purpose in rising is to pose a couple of questions that are in my mind so that when the minister next makes his reply he may take note of them and possibly we shall have some further clarification. Certainly no one in this group has any illusions regarding the over-all importance of this legislation as a solution of the agricultural problem. The farmers have no illusions and I am sure, at least I hope, the government itself has no illusions that this piece of legislation is going to be of tremendous importance in solving the very serious farm problem that exists in this country. I am happy to note that according to the speech from the throne the government contemplates legislation having to do with the stabilization of farm prices. If that is a comprehensive program, then this piece of legislation which we are discussing at the moment will be an important part of an over-all federal agricultural policy.
I believe the Prime Minister's remarks of last year concerning the bank loan legislation when he said it was a stopgap can be aptly applied to the present proposal. He went on to say that it was only a postponement of effective action. I hope, therefore, that no one on the government side is under any illusions as to the great importance of this measure. We welcome this measure for two or three reasons.
First of all, we are all conscious of the plight of agriculture and in particular the plight of the western grain farmer. For the benefit, if it is necessary, of new members from eastern Canada who possibly-and quite understandably I suppose-are not too well acquainted with what is happening out there, I would advise you to recall the figures that were placed on Hansard a day or two ago by the hon. member for Springfield when he pointed out that in three of the last five years, western agriculture has received no labour income of any kind. When you consider that there are over 200,000 permit holders, you begin to appreciate something of the magnitude of this problem. To put it another way, it is just about the same thing as saying that all of the people in Ottawa had no labour income for a three-year period. What would that mean? That would not only be a national disaster but a national disgrace.
When you look at the matter in that light, you begin to appreciate something of the enormity of the situation as it is found in western Canada. You will immediately say, "That cannot be so. How are these people

Grain
living? You cannot exist if you have no income over a period of time". That is probably true. But may I remind hon. members that what the farmer has been doing in the last five years is living off his depreciation. The day is coming, and shortly, when he is going to be obliged to replace that investment if he is to stay in business. In the meantime he is caught in this spiraling of costs. In 1946 a combine cost something in the neighbourhood of $3,700 or $3,800; today that same combine of an inferior quality will cost well over $7,000. Hence it is going to become more difficult to make these replacements which will certainly require to be made.
In this legislation I see something of some value. First of all, we must go along in agreement that it is going to put some ready cash into the hands of farmers who are desperately in need of it. It is going to be of some assistance in that direction. But in this legislation I see something more and it is possibly as important. It is going to do something to iron out the great inequities in the marketing of grain under the quota system.
What I have in mind is this. In my area there are a great many points that to date have not been able to market their initial 300-bushel unit because the elevators have been plugged. Possibly at the next station the farmers have been able to get rid of their unit quota. In my own case I have been able to market two bushels because I am in the fortunate position of living on the railroad that hauls grain to Churchill. I am therefore in an enviable position as compared with some of my neighbours to the south of me a few miles. Therefore I see in this piece of legislation something that is going to iron out these inequities. For that reason I think it has a great deal of merit.
I am going to ask the minister now a couple of questions. First, I should like to know what disposition is going to be made of the needy farmer who owes taxes. Is he going to be subject to the same restrictions to which he was subjected under the former bank loan legislation? When he owed taxes he was automatically ruled out from getting any advance because the excuse was that the municipalities had first priority on grain that was hauled to the elevator. I hope the minister will make some clarification of the situation in that regard.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was cleared up long ago.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: This question of taxes is becoming a great problem. I am thinking in particular of the tenant farmer who is trying to exist on a one-bushel quota. After
[Mr. Bryson. 1
a lapse of a couple of months or three months here is what is developing, and it is going to become more serious as time goes on. In the past it has been possible for most of the landlords who have retired with a small amount of money to pay the taxes, and in a good many cases the tenant has not been able to operate unless the landlord forgave his portion of the one-bushel quota. But now the situation is becoming aggravated and the landlord finds himself in an impossible position wherein he must depend on the proceeds of the grain to pay the taxes.
There you have this split in this one-bushel quota which places the tenant in a most untenable position. I am therefore wondering what disposition the government intends to make in this regard. I am also wondering about partnerships and co-operative farms. Are these partnerships going to be limited as individuals with regard to the ceiling of $3,000? When the minister replies I hope he will say something in that regard also.
We in this group over the years have advocated cash advances on properly stored farm grain. We welcome this measure and we are going to support it. At the same time I want to make it clear that when we made this proposal we always coupled it with the proposition that it should be part of an overall, comprehensive federal agricultural policy. I am certainly hoping that when we discuss the other matters referred to in the speech from the throne we are going to get down to the real root of the agricultural problem. Then this legislation, incorporated into something more comprehensive, will be of a great deal more value.


Edward Blake Huffman: I was greatly interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Macleod when he was speaking. In part of his remarks he was referring to the surplus, and that the reason for this legislation is the surplus of wheat in western Canada. He referred also to some of the commodities that are not in surplus quantity. I come from an area in which we do not have surplus commodities, but in our particular area-and that is in old Ontario-we find that we are not able to get for our commodities, especially primary commodities, prices that are consistent with the cost of production.
It seems to me that there is a new principle in the legislation that is proposed at this time. I am quite convinced that if the principle involved in this legislation could be extended to all of Canada it would not be necessary for some of our people to be compelled to sacrifice their commodities on the altar of necessity. There is no question that a great number of people at this time are

finding it most difficult to finance their operations and to pay the taxes that it will be necessary to pay very shortly.
For this reason,-and I am not going to delay this resolution by speaking at any length at all-I would recommend to the minister who is sponsoring this legislation and to the ministry as a whole that they give serious consideration to extending the provisions of this bill to all of Canada. In doing so you would not discriminate against any part of the country and I think it would be a most worth-while objective. I am sure this suggestion should commend itself to the minister sponsoring the bill.
Now I believe also that any amount of money turned into the purchasing stream will help every part of this country. I know there are many people on farms whose operations are not as efficient as they should be and who would like to buy some equipment at this time. They would then be able to increase their efficiency but because of the short cash position of many of our primary producers they are unable to do so. I therefore call on the government to extend the provisions of this proposed legislation to cover every part of Canada.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to hear so many Liberal members speak in support of this legislation. Had some of those members a year ago stood up in their places and admitted that this was a serious national crisis, probably their government would still be sitting over on the other side.
I think the major cause of the upset last June was because the party which had been in power for 22 years had refused absolutely to consider that the Canadian farmers were in the cost-price squeeze. I appreciate very much the remarks made by the hon. member for Russell. Sometimes it is said that we western members talk too much, but we are sent here to present the problems of our people and we cannot very well sit quietly by while we see our people being forced off the farms and compelled to abandon the good life for which they have been trained.
I was very interested in reading the remarks made by the former minister of trade and commerce a year ago. He reported that as a result of the previous legislation producers had borrowed a little less than $8 million and at the time he was speaking, on March 13, 1957, he said, as of January 31, for the new year, the volume was less than $4 million. He submitted these facts to give the impression that we had been talking nonsense, that the pockets of the farmers were bulging with money. The present member for Melville
Grain
echoed his views,-that the farmers never had it so good and if they did not, they would have no one to blame but themselves.
I am very glad to hear the new Minister of Trade and Commerce suggest that this legislation is going to make between $100 millions and $150 millions available to the farmers. I certainly admit that is a big help; it is quite a contrast to the $4 million and $8 million which was the best the previous government could present but I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he should read some of the speeches made by the present Minister of Agriculture-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Heavens, I have listened to him for years; I do not want to have to read him again.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -I said the present Minister of Agriculture, your colleague, the present minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, you have been talking about the others all along.


James Garfield Gardiner: We made available $1,120
million in cash for the farmers.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister of agriculture has spoken so often but I do not think he has ever made such a feeble effort as today.


An hon. Member:: Which one are you talking about?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The member for Melville, the former minister of agriculture.


Douglas Scott Harkness: So long as we know.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I want to suggest to the
present Minister of Trade and Commerce that he read the speech of his Minister of Agriculture.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will be pleased to.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: When he spoke here on the 13 March last year he urged that what was needed was a long-term solution of a definite and positive kind rather than sitting back with hands folded waiting for a drought period to come along and cure the situation in that way. I think that was good advice and I submit that the minister does not have a long-term solution, although he probably is not pretending that it is. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs also made a very good speech a year ago when he stressed the fact that we needed a long-term program. The present Prime Minister used even stronger language when he said he summarized his party's attitude towards this resolution and the bill as follows: "what is being given to the farmer is a stone when he is asking for bread". Well I would like to say frankly

Grain
that this is a big improvement on the legislation brought down a year ago, but it is not a solution. I think the present administration cannot delay much longer facing up to this problem.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You will give us one or two days longer though?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, we will give you all the time you need but time is running out and I also think the minister should come up with a statement on his proposed mission to China tomorrow when he is discussing that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not going to China.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister has apparently issued instructions to one of his officers to go to China early next month.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are making statements which may be untrue and you are out of order anyway.


An hon. Member:: What has this got to do with cash advances?


An hon. Member:: Why don't you sit down and let us get on with the business?


An hon. Member:: Just like the Liberals.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am somewhat surprised that members who were in the official opposition over here and who opposed closure should object to a rural member having fifteen minutes to discuss this issue and I submit that the finding of new markets for Canadian wheat is of very urgent importance. Furthermore the minister himself, in answering questions asked by my leader the other day, suggested that in the sending of this delegation to China, people would be happy if they were able to sell some wheat. However the minister will have a chance to deal with that subject and I hope he will do so when he is bringing in the bill for second reading and will tell us what is the government's marketing policy.
The Prime Minister spoke about the very small contributions that the previous administration were making towards the undeveloped countries of the world. He suggested something in the terms of $100 million would not be an unreasonable amount for a country like Canada to supply, but I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce should remember that the government of the United States is spending a million dollars a day to put subsidies into the pockets of their buyers. I realize that we are not as rich in resources as the government of the United States but our government is spending $5 million a day on our defence program and I think a country that can spend $5 million a day on defence can do

something better to help our farm people who are in a life and death struggle. I am not speaking of the wheat farmers alone, I speak of the farmers all across Canada.
I therefore hope when the minister is speaking tomorrow he will give our farm people some hope that in addition to getting a maximum of $3,000 on the basis of 50 cents a bushel for six bushels, something better than that will be available.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Chairman, we have been sitting here now for nearly two weeks and during that period I would say that 75 per cent of the time has been taken up by discussions in connection with agriculture. We have heard about parity prices, cash advances, differential payments and many other services which the government feels agriculture is needing at this time.
I have never opposed any legislation that has ever come before the house since I have been here that would be of assistance to any primary producer, but I believe that we have in this country of ours today primary producers who are very much more in need of assistance than are the grain growers on the prairies. I speak from first hand knowledge of conditions that I have witnessed myself within the last three or four months, and I feel that it is my duty to take the time of this house for just a few minutes in order to place before the government the conditions which I have found confronting many of those producers.
In the Atlantic provinces, and I believe this would apply in a large extent to British Columbia as well, the pulp producers-the pulp they produce is of great importance to us in New Brunswick-are unable to sell their product at this time. I see no reason why they should not be allowed to cut pulp and leave it lying in the bush or alongside the road until such time as there is a market for it. If such a service can be provided for the grain producers, why not for the pulp producers? We have heard discussions here regarding those who produce base metals in British Columbia. Why not place them in the same category as that in which the western farmers are being placed by virtue of this proposal?
In the 12 years I have been here I do not believe the Liberal government has any regrets in this house with regard to the services and the protection which has been afforded to agriculture in this country, particularly in the west. That is my opinion as an easterner.


An hon. Member:: Protection?


Mr.   Siuarf@Charlolle: But why is this legislation designed to help out just one area? Why not take in all the farming community in this country? There is a friend of mine in this chamber at this time who has told me that farmers in his province are producing onions at 30 cents a bag. They have to grow them and dig them, and it costs 18 cents for the bag alone. But no assistance is being given in this direction as far as this government is concerned. The only desire seems to be to get something for the grain growers in the west.
Now, I want to take a few minutes to explain to the committee the difficulties that the fishermen in my riding and in all the maritime provinces are facing, and the prices they are getting-


Henri Courtemanche: Order.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Perfectly proper, I would think, Mr. Chairman-cash advances for fishermen. The fishermen in the area from which I come have been producing fish for the last three or four months at prices well below the cost of production. They have been selling fish for one-third of a cent a pound, and even below that. Nothing that this government has said so far would indicate that they are going to help that situation. There has never been any suggestion up to this time that there was any need to give assistance to these fishermen.


An hon. Member:: How about the Liberal
government?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am glad the hon. member referred to that. Every effort was made to improve this condition. Up until last spring, however, prices were good and we had no complaint. The sardine fishermen were getting a good price for their sardines and I will give some figures bearing out what I have in mind.
From the first of July they had been receiving between $4 and $5 for 1,200 pounds. That is what the fishermen have been receiving for 1,200 pounds of sardines. This summer I saw pollock, one of the finest fish that ever came out of salt water, being sold to reduction plants for fertilizer at one cent a pound, something that has never happened before in the fishing industry.
The Conservative members for New Brunswick have been talking year after year about the situation in which the potato growers find themselves. They were asking: what is the Liberal government going to do for the potato growers in New Brunswick. Well, there is nothing here that mentions the potato growers or the apple growers in Nova
Grain
Scotia or New Brunswick. No mention is made of any primary producers other than the grain growers on the prairie.
I have every sympathy in the world with those men. I was a primary producer myself for 25 years, and I know what they go through. But I do not believe in discrimination. I maintain that if this assistance is to be provided for the primary producers in one area it should be provided for all primary producers in Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: Are you
going to vote against the bill?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am going to vote against the bill, and you will know exactly why-


Thomas Miller Bell: Are you going to vote against Beechwood too?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am glad the hon. member has brought up the matter of Beech-wood, and I am going to take one minute to reply to him-


Thomas Miller Bell: Answer yes or no.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Unless we have some rain down there we need not worry about Beechwood operating for a long time. And let me add it may well serve a useful purpose because should there ever be a flood it would be the safest place for the people of New Brunswick to go.


Thomas Miller Bell: Are you going to vote against it?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am not talking about Beechwood, I am talking about primary producers. Now I would like to ask the hon. member a question. After the announcement made by the Prime Minister yesterday, will he vote for additional financial assistance being provided under the Colombo plan? We have today in my own county sardine canners with the greatest inventory ever known in history. Every available space to be found is filled with canned sardines.


An hon. Member:: You told us that
yesterday.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I didn't interfere with the hon. member when he was speaking from over there.


Henri Courtemanche: Order. Clause 2 of standing order 59 directs that speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. I ask the hon. member to take note of that.

Grain


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking about cash advances on primary products and I believe I am perfectly within my rights in the house to speak on this subject. Unless we are going to have closure-


Henri Courtemanche: We are discussing cash advances on wheat.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member discussed at the beginning of his remarks the question of cash advances on wheat, and I submit with respect that having done so he has now the right to compare the position of other primary producers in the country such as fishermen or others he has mentioned, and I do not think the rule to which you referred precludes him from doing that.


An hon. Member:: Are you going to vote against the bill, too?


Lionel Chevrier: When an hon. member is speaking to a point of order he has the floor and if another hon. member wishes to interrupt him by asking a question he has the right to do so; otherwise he should keep his peace and sit in his chair.
I would like to complete my remarks as briefly as I can by saying, with due deference to you, Mr. Chairman, that having regard to what has been done in this house before, the hon. member has a perfect right to speak about other primary producers in this country on this resolution.


Henri Courtemanche: I will ask the hon. member to help me in my duty, and to try to keep near the resolution being discussed.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Chairman, it is impossible for me to discuss the resolution unless I can mention the primary producers in whom I am interested. I would like to make comparisons-


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is impossible for you to keep in order if you talk about sardines.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I will say one thing then, Mr. Chairman, before I resume my seat. I had not expected that I would be called to order for discussing an extremely serious situation that prevails in the Atlantic provinces, one which I feel bears directly on the particular resolution which is before us at this time. I believe that I had a perfect right to take the course I followed, but I wish to make one comment and then resume my seat.
There is one condition upon which I would be prepared to support this resolution and that is if the Prime Minister were to stand on his feet in this chamber at this time and inform us that exactly the same consideration and treatment in terms of cash advances with
[The Chairman.]
no interest would be provided for every other primary producer in Canada. If he were to do this I would be pleased to rise in my place and support the resolution. However, if that assurance is not forthcoming from the government I shall be obliged to vote against the resolution.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Chairman, I am amazed at the transition which has taken place both in the government benches and in the benches of the official opposition because it was just last November, approximately a year ago tonight, when we were in special session that my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, rose in his place and suggested that instead of adjourning the house should consider matters of urgent public importance. He said, as reported at page 133 of Hansard of Thursday, November 29, 1956:
I said also that if hon. members had any further business that they wished to bring before the house an opportunity should be given for them to do so. In my opinion there are pressing matters which hon. members might like to bring before the house.
I am surprised that the hon. member for Charlotte did not rise in his place at that moment and bring to the attention of the house the problems he has just presented. I am equally amazed at the behaviour of the acting Leader of the Opposition who at that time was only too readily in agreement with the motion of the then prime minister to adjourn the house. I am pleased that this transition is taking place.
I was disappointed, as were many of the farmers in western Canada, that there was not a September session as promised by the Prime Minister to deal with this urgent question. Nevertheless, I think the government is to be commended for having seen fit to postpone the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne to bring in this legislation today so that it may be given consideration at the earliest possible date. I am pleased, as I say, because we in the C.C.F. have advocated over the years a system of cash advances for farm-stored grain as a permanent aspect of our marketing system. It is a measure that in our consideration and in the opinion of the farm organizations would do much to stabilize the marketing of this commodity.
I see that the hour is getting on, Mr. Chairman, and although there are other remarks I would like to make I am certain that the Minister of Trade and Commerce will have some comments to offer at this time and I certainly do not wish to delay the proceedings.


Henri Courtemanche: Shall the resolution carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: Question.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that we are discussing farm production I think it should be my privilege to ask a question of the minister in connection with butter.
Is it the intention of the government to maintain the policy of the last government in providing a floor price for butter? I would also like to know if it is the intention of the government to maintain the practice followed by the last government of granting religious and charitable institutions the privilege of buying butter at privileged prices?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this is completely out of order. If the hon. member wishes to ask these questions in a subsequent debate in connection with general agricultural policy, or if he wishes to put his questions on the order paper or raise them on orders of the day I will be very glad to deal with them. However, I do not think I should attempt to answer at this time because there is no question but that the hon. member is completely out of order in raising such questions during a discussion of cash advances on farm-stored grain.


Henri Courtemanche: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Resolution agreed to: Yeas, 138; nays, 3.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Churchill thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 14, to provide for advance payments for prairie grain prior to delivery thereof.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


Jay Waldo Monteith: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of monthly pension payable thereunder to fifty-five dollars per month, to reduce the basic residence requirements for pensioners from twenty years to ten years and to increase the length of permissible temporary absences of pensioners from Canada from three to six months.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
Old Age Security Act


Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes. Mr. Chairman, the resolution now before the committee has for its purpose the accomplishment of three important changes in the Old Age Security Act. The proposed changes are: (1) an increase in the rate of benefit to $55 a month; (2) a reduction in the basic residence requirement from 20 to 10 years; (3) an extension from three to six months in the length of time which pensioners are free to spend outside of Canada in any calendar year without loss of pension.
In recommending these changes to the house the government is acting promptly to honour the pledges which our leader and our party made to the senior citizens of this country during the recent election. Through the legislation foreshadowed by this resolution and the other resolutions which will follow further proof is being given to the people of Canada that this government and the Progressive Conservative party mean what they say and that they can be relied upon to keep the promises which they make.
When we criticized the previous government earlier this year for asking parliament to authorize an increase of only $6 a month, we said at that time that while voting for the additional amount we regarded it as entirely inadequate. We are now asking for authority to provide a further $9 a month which, added to the $6 increase already in effect, will mean an over-all addition of $15 a month to the basic $40 rate prevailing at the beginning of the year. By approving this increase the parliament of Canada will be setting the benefit level for our senior citizens at the highest level, both in dollar terms and in purchasing power, that it has ever been in the 30-year history of old age pensions in this country.
May I add a further word, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the level of benefit that is now proposed, namely, $55 per month. We make no extravagant claims with respect to this benefit. We do not say that it is the final or perfect solution, or that there is any magic rightness about this particular amount. We make no extravagant claims as to the generosity of the amount we are now proposing. It is my view, rather, that we should try to measure what we are doing here not in terms of generosity but in terms of justice.
This government does not believe that it should try to make a good fellow of itself with the taxpayers' money.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no?

Old Age Security Act


Jay Waldo Monteith: It was not entrusted with power for that purpose. It does believe that it was elected for the purpose of ensuring that just and fair treatment is accorded to our senior citizens, having in mind the many other heavy burdens and responsibilities that the people of Canada have to assume.
I can only say on behalf of the government that we believe that with the increase which is now proposed substantial justice will in fact be done. The benefit level of $55 monthly bears respectable, indeed favourable, comparison with the level or benefits payable in other countries. Only in the case of one country, the United States, is there any ground for arguing that the benefits payable are higher than those which we propose at this time for Canada. I shall be glad to make more detailed comparisons, if that is desired, when we reach the stage of second reading of the bill or possibly in committee on the bill. Meanwhile, I shall content myself with saying this. While it is true that the average benefit payable to a single retired worker is higher under the United States insurance program than it will be under this present proposal, the average married benefit payable under the United States scheme is not as high as the $110 monthly that will henceforth be payable in Canada where both spouses have reached the pensionable age and are eligible.
We can therefore truthfully say, when these amendments have been approved, that the benefits payable to our senior citizens in Canada will compare favourably with those provided under old age security programs in existence anywhere.
I should like to turn next, Mr. Chairman, to the second proposed change in the Old Age Security Act, namely, the reduction in the residence requirement. This government recognizes that with an old age security program such as we have in Canada some residence requirement is necessary. This plus the age requirement are in fact the only two conditions of eligibility. No detailed record of past employment and contributions is required, as is true of the United Kingdom and United States programs. Benefits are not, as under the Swedish scheme, denied to those of alien birth who have lived and worked in this country without ever taking out citizenship papers. Consequently, since all of these other detailed eligibility requirements have been left out of our Canadian legislation, some residence requirement is obviously necessary.
But this government believes that the 20-year requirement at present in the act is altogether too long. It considers that persons who have come from another country

in the prime of life, at 50 or 55 years of age, and who have contributed their most mature and productive years to the building up of this country, should not on reaching pensionable age be denied the benefit of the old age security program. This is all the more true when one considers that these individuals throughout the period of their residence in Canada are required to contribute to the costs of the old age security program through taxes paid on the same basis as those of us who have lived all our lives in this country.
The government believes that the interests of the Canadian taxpayer and of the Canadian economy will not be jeopardized if the residence requirement is reduced to a more reasonable figure than the present 20 years. A ten-year residence requirement is already in our Blind Persons Act and our Disabled Persons Act where there are, of course, additional conditions of eligibility as well. Experience with the ten-year clause in these two acts has led us to conclude that we should make a similar reduction now in our old age security residence requirement.
The numbers who will benefit immediately as a result of this change are chiefly those who came to Canada in the decade 1938 to 1948 when immigration was at a relatively low level. Consequently, the full financial effects of the change will only become apparent over a period of years as we reach the point where the persons affected will be those who came to Canada in the post-war years when immigration was much higher. I am confident that the reduction now proposed will be warmly welcomed throughout the country, particularly by those who themselves have come from other lands to live in Canada. In proposing this amendment the government believes, and I am sure that the people of Canada will agree, that we are acting with justice as well as with generosity towards these more recent arrivals in our land.
Before leaving this point, Mr. Chairman, I should of course add that in reducing the basic residence requirement from 20 to 10 years the government also proposes that a corresponding change be made in the residence requirement affecting persons whose residence was interrupted by absences from Canada in the years immediately preceding the attainment of pensionable age.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt the minister? Is he proposing to go on?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I was just going to finish this one sentence and ask permission to continue. Persons who have been absent from Canada between age 60 and age 70 will be allowed to make up these periods of absence on a two for one basis as at present.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, may I ask for leave to finish the statement if hon. members see fit?


Henri Courtemanche: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I think all hon. members are anxious to hear the whole statement.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sure hon. members are prepared to give unanimous consent to the minister to enable him to make his statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: With unanimous consent, I shall continue with this statement. I will add only a word about the third change that is proposed, before proceeding to a summation of the financial costs involved. The third proposal affects only those who are actually in receipt of old age security at any time and who wish to journey, for whatever reason, outside of Canada. Many of our senior citizens desire, some even find it necessary on health grounds, to spend the winter months in a warmer climate. Others, with family ties of origin in other lands, may wish to visit back home for a while. The legislation presently provides for absences extending up to three clear months in any year without loss of benefits. Having in mind the length of our winters in many parts of Canada, the government does not consider that this period has been long enough. Con-quently, it is recommending that the period be extended to allow as much as six months continuous absence from Canada in any year without the loss of benefit. This will permit, for example, an uninterrupted period of absence during the cold weather each year, from October through to March or November into April, without any loss of benefit. We believe this will be fair and equitable to all concerned.
The three amendments which we are now proposing, Mr. Chairman, will of course involve a considerable additional expenditure; but the government is convinced that the people of Canada are aware of this and that none will begrudge the extra expenditure on behalf of our senior citizens. Last month, September, 1957, our old age security case load totalled approximately 817,000. Consequently, over the next year or so the additional cost of the $9 monthly increase for these 817,000 beneficiaries would be in 96698-25J
Old Age Security Act
excess of $88 million a year. But, as everyone knows, our old age security case load is not remaining static. It is increasing by 2,000 to 2,500 each month, and this increase will continue during the months ahead.
In addition, the reduction in the residence requirements is expected to add another 5,000 to 10,000 beneficiaries, persons who now have ten years or more residence in Canada but lack the full 20 years presently required. The additional numbers thus brought on the rolls, either because of natural growth or because of the changes in the residence requirement, will mean that for the fiscal year 1958-59 we will have to count on an average monthly case load of 855,000 and, consequently, an annual cost of $564 million.
So far as the changes presently before the house are concerned, it is estimated that the additional annual cost resulting from their approval will amount to about $96 million in the first full year made up as follows: Increase in pension rate to $55, 92 million; reduction in residence period, $3.5 million; extension of period of permissible absence, possibly half a million dollars, or a total of $96 million.
With these explanations, Mr. Chairman, I believe that I have given the house an adequate explanation of the changes which we propose to ask for in the bill when it is brought down, the reason for these changes and the additional cost involved. I intend to make a further statement when we reach the stage of second reading of the bill, but I hope the house will now agree to passage of the resolution so we can proceed to discuss any questions which may present themselves with the actual text of the bill before us.
May I call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

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


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow, we intend to commence with second reading of the bill to provide for cash advances on farm-stored grain; then take the resolution which has just been commenced this evening, and following that the other three resolutions in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Should we get all those through, we will then go back to the throne speech debate.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if the minister would not give consideration to this point: We have not received the bill that is now

Business of the House
before us for second reading, and we probably will not have it until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning. I do not believe, therefore, it is quite fair for our members who have not seen it to be asked to discuss it. My suggestion is that we go on with the resolution which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has begun, discuss it, and then perhaps later we can take the other.


Howard Charles Green: We will try to have the bill available early in the morning. If that is not possible, then we would commence with the resolution dealing with old age security.


Lionel Chevrier: If we did have the bill available early in the morning I do not think it would give us an opportunity to consider it sufficiently in order to come here at eleven o'clock and discuss it. This situation has arisen from time to time before and requests have been made by the opposition; most of the time they were granted.


Hazen Robert Argue: On this point, I may say I feel the house should be prepared to go ahead with the bill in question at eleven o'clock. We had a statement from the minister which outlined the main principles of the bill, and we shall have the bill, according to the Minister of Public Works, early in the morning. We can then look at the details. The discussion of principle, I am sure, will take some hours at the second reading stage and so far as the details are concerned the
hon. member will have ample time to digest the clauses of the bill by the time we reach them.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to do anything or suggest anything that will cause a lack of full discussion in regard to the bill. I was very anxious, if it could have been expedited, because of the approach of November 1 to have it passed for this time after reasonable consideration. But if in the view of members of the opposition they will not be in a position tomorrow to discuss it properly, then of course naturally it will have to be fixed for a later date.


Lionel Chevrier: The request is not an unreasonable one, having regard to the consideration that was given to the legislation today. I think it is only reasonable that we be allowed to look at it, and perhaps it may be possible for me to tell the leader later on in the day that the time has arrived when we can discuss it. But our people would like to see it in order to be prepared for it when the discussion takes place.


Howard Charles Green: We would want to reserve the right to go ahead with that bill later in the day tomorrow, in any event.


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes.


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