1957-10-31

Mr. Speaker:: The house will recall that on Wednesday, October 23 last, when presenting the certificate of judgment concerning the controverted election in the Yukon, I stated that the typewritten evidence with respect to the trial would be forwarded by the judges with the minimum of delay. The evidence has now been received, and I now lay it upon the table.



INTEREST ACT


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 17, to amend the Interest Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to place a ceiling of 12 per cent per annum as a maximum on interest rates that may be charged except as specifically provided by other acts of parliament.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture) 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 establish a system of guaranteed prices for certain agricultural commodities to be named therein and to provide that prices may be guaranteed for any other agricultural commodity or commodities as named from time to time by the governor in council, such measure to include: provisions for the establishment of a board and an advisory committee, the appointment of members thereof and employees and the payment of their salaries and expenses: provisions for the payment of administration costs and expenses: provisions establishing a revolving fund in the consolidated revenue fund and authorizing expenditures therefrom for the purposes of the proposed measure not exceeding in the aggregate two hundred and fifty million dollars in addition to the expenditure of the proceeds of sale of agricultural commodities and other
revenues derived thereunder; and such further related and consequential provisions as may be necessary to give effect to the foregoing system.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice) 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 Judges Act to provide salaries for two additional puisne judges of the court of appeal of British Columbia and also a salary for one additional county court judge for the province of Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. A. Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Public Works as reported in the Ottawa Journal of July 24, that political job patronage must be rooted out of his department and that the job applicant's politics will no longer be a factor in getting on a public works payroll, will the minister inform the house what steps are being taken to implement this policy in the Magdalen islands where at the present time all Liberals, and particularly Liberal veterans, are refused employment on public works?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, from what I hear I have no doubt whatever that in the riding to which my hon. friend has referred there is a long established custom of handling public works and I shall be very glad to make inquiries. From what I have already heard of that riding I have no doubt that what has been going on can be improved without very much effort.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Does this mean that the minister's declared policy is not going to be applied to the veterans in the Magdalen islands?


An hon. Member:: You are in a weak spot there.
59$	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Verdun asked me a question concerning the proposed Nuns' island causeway. The answer is that the city of Verdun was advised on September 19, 1957, that the construction of the causeway as proposed could not be approved by the department because it would interfere with navigation. The applicant has not yet submitted a revised project.
With reference to the second part of the question, it does appear that there would be dangers of additional flooding and pollution of the water if the causeway were built as proposed. This matter has not been given full consideration, as the proposed structure could not be approved on account of its interference with navigation.



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister inform the house whether the newspaper reports to the effect that expenditures on fundamental research are being reduced are correct?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I have not had a chance to see the newspaper reports but I am informed that there is no foundation for any assumption that expenditures on research will be reduced, since treasury board has not considered the estimates for research expenditures. When they have been approved they will be presented to the house in the normal way.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the report in the Toronto Globe and Mail of October 26 to the effect that Mr. N. W. Freeman, president, Mid-Western Gas Transmission Company, testified before the federal power commission on October 24 that he believes the new government in Canada will honour the undertaking of the former minister of trade and commerce, Mr. C. D. Howe, to


authorize the export of gas by Trans-Canada to the Mid-Western Gas Transmission Company at Emerson, Manitoba, would the Minister of Trade and Commerce advise the house of the attitude of the present government to said export?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, because of our belief that all pertinent questions in connection with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines should be considered by the Borden royal commission no final answer can be given at this time, for the implications of the question bring it clearly within the terms of the study to be made by that royal commission. In order to arrive at a decision the commission will hear evidence and ascertain, as the result of reviewing that evidence, what recommendations it should make. On the basis of the decision then to be made by the government this matter can be finally answered.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a further question with regard to the pipe-line matter. The Prime Minister made a statement a few minutes ago to the effect that a royal commission is being appointed-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has been appointed.


James Garfield Gardiner: -"has been appointed", I hear from the other side-and that this royal commission is now entrusted with gathering all information with regard to the pipe line.


Mr. Fleming:: What is the question?


James Garfield Gardiner: The question will be ready soon enough for the benefit of my hon. friends.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Ask your question.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to ask, Mr. Speaker, if this is a new form of gag that is being brought into this house-to appoint a royal commission, then when questions are asked they are not answered? Does the appointment of the royal commission tie up everyone so they cannot ask questions?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether or not, as the right hon. member left it, there was a question before this house.


Mr. Chevrier:: There is a question.


James Garfield Gardiner: Does the royal commission tie up discussion in this house of the pipeline question or anything else?


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand it-


John George Diefenbaker: That all depends on whether or not discussion can take place on the basis of the rules, but I was not dealing with that phase. I was simply saying that this government, having regard to all the

circumstances connected with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, wants to have the full evidence which was not available to the last government when decisions were made, before a final answer in this regard is made.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the statement by Premier Frost that the chartered banks have clamped down on needed loans to municipalities for works projects and school construction? Is the government considering ways of alleviating the very high interest rates now crippling municipal financing?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, in his first question my hon. friend asks if my attention has been drawn to the statement by Premier Frost that the chartered banks have clamped down on needed loans to municipalities for works projects and school construction. The answer to the question, apart from my hon. friend's question, is no.


Hazen Robert Argue: And the attached newspaper clipping?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, my friend sent over an attached clipping. Since coming into the house I have not had the opportunity to read it through but, as I say, apart from my friend's question, the answer is no; that is to say, apart from what my hon. friend says in his question the answer to his question is no. In his second question he asks whether the government is considering ways of alleviating the very high interest rates now involved in municipal financing. Among the unhappy legacies inherited by this government from the former government-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -were the highest rates in a generation. As a government we do not like these very high interest rates and we are, of course, concerned about the burdens they place upon municipal and all other levels of government in this country. I think it will be a matter of interest, and certainly a matter of gratification on the part of those members who are not simply engaged in playing politics in this house, that the interest rates in this country-


An hon. Member:: The pot calling the kettle black.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: -on dominion government securities have been easing of late.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: May I
address a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance arising out of his answer to the hon. member for Assiniboia. To what actions of the previous government does he attribute the rise in interest rates, and what specific steps does his government propose to take to lower the level of the interest rates?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there is no one in-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I say, before the minister attempts to answer that question, that I consider the first part of the question contravenes the rules of the house, it being a question relating to the conduct of the former ministry for which the present ministry is not responsible. The second part of the question, if the minister wishes to answer it, may involve a matter of policy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The second part of the question obviously relates to a matter of government policy.


Mr. Mcllraith:: I should like to raise a point of order on that question. The question arose directly out of the minister's answer to another question. If the question now put is out of order, then the minister's previous answer was out of order and should have been ruled out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not recall having ruled anything out of order. I simply stated that it appeared to me to be a matter involving policy and left it to the minister to answer it, which he did.


Mr. Jacob Schulz (Springfield):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question arising out of the answer he gave regarding high finance or high interest rates, which suggested that the present situation is a legacy inherited from the Liberals. Is it not a fact that interest rates have gone up since the government took office, and that this move was initiated by the Bank of Canada, which is a government institution?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the fact is, as I said earlier this afternoon in reply to a question, that interest rates on government securities have eased slightly in recent weeks.



SUCCESSION DUTY ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It is based on the considerable
598	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry representation which has been made over the past year for amendments to the Dominion Succession Duty Act and on the basis that the previous minister of finance said in the house that amendments were being prepared and would be brought down at the next session. My question is this. Can we expect this session any legislation which would amend the Dominion Succession Duty Act?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, to complete the
information contained in the hon. member's question one should say that for the last three years of its life the former government promised to introduce new legislation to replace the existing succession duty act and did not do so. This matter is under active consideration.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: May I direct a question to the minister of immigration. Is the report from London correct, as given over the news broadcast, that a young British couple have had their fares paid to the United Kingdom in order that the wife, who is suffering from a cataract, may have the operation performed in England free of charge? If so, what kind of advertising for Canada is that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I must confess to the hon. gentleman that I did not hear the radio report and therefore I am not able to assess its accuracy or otherwise. If it is not accurate I would ask the hon. gentleman, what kind of advertising for Canada is that? However, I can assure him I shall make immediate inquiries as to the accuracy of the report and bring him in an answer at an early date.


Major James William Coldwell: I have usually found reports emanating from London to be correct.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, of which I gave him notice yesterday. What consideration, if any, is the government giving to the suggestion to the unemployed that they would be
[Mr. Hans ell.)

well advised to remain in the community in which they now live unless directed to some other labour field in the Canadian market by the officers of the unemployment insurance commission?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: appreciate the hon. member's courtesy in giving me notice of this question. The question naturally divides itself into two parts. In the first place the government, or the unemployment insurance commission in this case, is hardly in a position to suggest to an individual who is interested in finding work that he should remain in a locality where he cannot get employment. People will insist on remaining free to look for work wherever it may be found. As long as they succeed in finding it, this is a good principle and one with which there should be no interference.
In the second place, Mr. Speaker, when it becomes evident that work is simply not to be had in a certain locality, that activity has dried up and there is little likelihood of work being found, or where the supply of workers is far in excess of the available jobs and will likely remain so, then the Department of Labour has recommended that such areas be declared labour surplus areas and transportation assistance has been supplied to workers who have promises of jobs in other regions. Windsor, Ontario; Spring-hill and New Glasgow, Nova Scotia; and St. Stephen, New Brunswick, have been declared such areas. In a few days Tilbury, Ontario, will be declared a labour surplus area.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MISSION TO COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Algoma Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to ask him whether, in view of the statement he made last week to the effect that the trade mission was leaving Hong Kong for communist China early in November, he would make the report he promised to the house before the departure of that mission.


Gordon Minto Churchill: 

DISCUSSION OF FREE TRADE AREA AT LONDON CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Before doing so may I say we all welcome him back in the house today from his conversations at GATT in Geneva. Could the minister now tell us whether he intends to head the goodwill trade delegation to the United Kingdom shortly, and if he does go to London will he be empowered on behalf of the government to discuss the proposal made by Canada and particularly the proposal made by the United Kingdom in the matter of the establishment of a free trade area between Canada and the United Kingdom?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and a bit surprised to be welcomed back to the house in such a charming manner by my hon. friend. I will be heading up the trade mission to England if the Prime Minister decides that I should go.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: He is the boss.


Mr. Pickersgill:: One-man cabinet.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is intended to investigate the possibilities of importing British products for Canadian use, and that is the main and primary purpose of that mission. I have not yet received any instructions as to whether I am to consult with any members of the British government with regard to any other questions.


Mr. F. S. Zapliiny (Dauphin):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the house if representation from the farm organizations will be included in that delegation and, if so, can he inform the house who the individuals are and what organizations they represent?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I think it was definitely indicated in the throne speech that all sections of Canada would be represented, and I believe agriculture was specifically named. The complete list of people who will be going on that mission is not ready yet but I hope it will soon be available and we will be able to announce it to the house in the course of the next few days.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: A supplementary question. Are all these Canadian delegates going to purchase and not to sell?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am sorry I did not hear the question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Are all the delegates in the mission going to Britain to buy and not to sell anything?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, some of the distinguished representatives of business who are going to the United Kingdom with this mission have in the past also sold materials to the United Kingdom, but in this particular instance the emphasis is on buying goods from the United Kingdom. The people in the United Kingdom are very happy indeed that this mission is going over. They are looking forward with interest to a visit of Canadian industrialists and farm and labour representation, and they are going to demonstrate to us that the United Kingdom is prepared to compete successfully with any other country in the world from which Canada is now obtaining goods of that kind.


Mr.   Siuari@Charlotte: Will the fishing industry be represented on the delegation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: During my absence of the last several days the matter has been actively considered. I have not seen the complete list, but I would hope that the fishing industry would be adequately represented.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether it is the intention of the government to carry out the promise made in Winnipeg by the Prime Minister to include mental and tubercular patients in the federal hospital insurance plan.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will find that it is the intention of the government to carry out all its campaign pledges.



ONTARIO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Welland asked me whether this government has had any discussions with the province of Ontario concerning proposed federal contributions toward the cost of treating mental and tubercular patients in that province. The answer is yes.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising out of
600	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the answer he just gave. Has this government given any assurance that federal money might become available for the treatment of tubercular and mental diseases in Ontario; and will the minister table any correspondence he has had with the government of Ontario?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, there is a request on the order paper for the tabling of any correspondence since June 10. I presume that will cover the hon. gentleman's question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it going to be tabled?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) asked me whether it was the intention of the Canadian National Railways to abandon the line running between Moncton and Shediac. I have been in touch with the Canadian National Railways and they advise me that they have no application before the board of transport commissioners for the abandonment of that line, nor do they have any immediate intention of placing such an application before the board.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I answer a question asked me yesterday by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) with regard to the application of CJCB-TV at Sydney to establish a satellite station in the Inverness area.
The application of CJCB-Sydney for a satellite television station in the Inverness area was not recommended for approval by the C.B.C. board of governors because of their opinion that too high a power was involved.
I	understand that CJCB is presently planning to submit a fresh application based upon a lower power, a fact which may overcome the difficulties experienced in the previous application. Should such a fresh application be received it will, of course, be dealt with as promptly as possible.



MARITIME PROVINCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister tell us


what progress is being made by the C.B.C. in providing television coverage in the French language in the maritimes?


Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has just sent over to me notice of his question, and the question he has now put differs from the question which is in writing. I will therefore take this as notice and answer him at a later time.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Does the minister care to comment on the report in the Toronto Daily Star of October 25, of which I have sent him a copy, to the effect that a 57-year-old man at North Bay, Ontario, has been jailed for six months under the vagrancy section of the Criminal Code of Canada for no apparent reason other than the refusal of the authorities to grant assistance and the magistrate's desire to save the accused from freezing to death?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman would agree with me that it would not be proper for me-nor am I called upon-to comment on a speculative report in a press dispatch as to the circumstances which may have surrounded a particular case coming before a court in one of our provinces. If the matter is raised as a matter of remission, which is under the responsibility of this government, then I can assure the hon. gentleman that as a remissions matter it will be taken under immediate consideration.


Alfred Claude Ellis: May I then ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the intention of the vagrancy section of the criminal act to supplant social welfare aid?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the hon. gentleman will read the relevant section of the Criminal Code I think he will find the answer for himself.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: would like to refer, Mr. Speaker, to a question which was asked of me yesterday by the

hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Macdonald). The question was whether I would make available a report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police dealing with charges of bribery and conspiracy in the granting of forest management licences in the province of British Columbia. I made a partial answer yesterday, and I undertook to check up on the circumstances surrounding this situation.
I am now able to advise the house that this case was investigated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at the request of the attorney general of the province of British Columbia and as a function called for under the contract between the government of Canada and the government of the province of British Columbia for the services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The investigation, as I tentatively indicated yesterday, was therefore an entirely provincial matter, and the report is not one which I am at liberty to disclose.
I may say in addition, Mr. Speaker, that the work carried out by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in British Columbia under the policing agreement is paid for at rates set down in the agreement and based upon a division of the per capita operating costs of the force. Charges to the provinces are therefore not apportioned in any way to individual cases such as this.
Mr. Speaker, I was particularly concerned to establish in my own mind, and because several hon. members are interested in this matter, whether I would have any authority to disclose the report. In the course of investigation I checked what I believed to be the relevant clause of the agreement then in force between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia under which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police carry on provincial policing. The relevant clause of the agreement then in force, clause 2, recites that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police shall perform the duties of the former British Columbia provincial police force:
*-in accordance with the wishes and under the direction of the attorney general of the province of British Columbia in the same manner and to the same extent as if the British Columbia provincial police were still in existence.
It therefore appears to be clear that the question of whether or not the report is to be made public is a matter entirely within the authority of the provincial attorney general.


Mr. A. B. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Then may I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister inform the house whether, if it appears that there is documentary and other evidence indicating
Inquiries of the Ministry criminal conspiracy, and if the attorney general of the province concerned fails to take any action thereon, the Minister of Justice of Canada is powerless under those circumstances to protect the public interest?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would point out to the hon. member that his question appears to me to infringe the practice of the house in two respects. First, it is hypothetical and is based on a supposed failure of a provincial attorney general to do his duty. Second, it relates to the duty of the minister of another government, which therefore is not the responsibility of the minister here.



MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. Irwin (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, notice of which I have given him. In view of the fact that section 8 of the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act has not been invoked, will this government now lift the 1940 suspension of the act and permit loans to municipalities under this act?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for sending me notice of this question. This is obviously a matter of government policy, Mr. Speaker.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Mr. Robert Moses, who happens to be the chairman of the New York State power authority, is continually making speeches and giving press interviews-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Limburg Houck: My question is about the bridge connecting the New York state throughway and the Queen Elizabeth highway. I wonder if the minister has had any correspondence or has entered into any negotiations with the proper authority in the United States in this respect. This bridge is to extend from Lewiston, New York to Queenston, Ontario, well below Niagara falls, the show place of the world.

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I received no communication either from Mr. Moses or anybody else in authority in the state of New York, and I have received no word of an intention to build such a bridge.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR REPLY TO SUGGESTED MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Deniset (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding the correspondence between the dominion government and the provinces with regard to the conference to be held on November 25. What answer, if any, has been made by this government to the suggestion made by the premier of the province of Manitoba that municipal participation in the conference is desirable?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should endeavour to answer my hon. friend's question. At least one other member of the house has sent notice of his intention to ask a question concerning this matter of municipal representation. For instance, I have received notice of a question from the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) as follows:
Will the municipalities be represented at the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference? If so, will they be given a chance to participate in the discussions or will they merely attend as observers?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister dealt with this matter in answering a somewhat similar question. His answer is to be found at page 177 of Hansard of October 21. This particular conference has been called as a dominion-provincial conference. It really is not within the power of the federal government to decide that it shall be attended by municipal representatives sitting simply as representatives of municipalities in general.
As was made quite clear in the answer of the Prime Minister, the federal government has no objection whatsoever to the provincial governments associating with their ministers representatives of municipalities in their provinces if they choose to invite them to the conference. What particular part such municipal representatives appearing as members of a provincial delegation would play in the conference would be a matter, of course, for the provincial governments concerned and for the conference itself to decide.


Louis Deniset: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I did not ask for a speech; I only asked for an answer. What answer has been


given to the premier of the province of Manitoba? Has any answer been given, or is this the answer?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is now making a speech himself.


Some hon. Members:: No, he is not.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand him he is rising to say he did not ask the minister to make a speech. If it is a point of order the hon. member wishes to raise I shall be glad to consider it.


Pierre Gauthier: No, he wants an answer to his question.


Lionel Chevrier: He is entitled to an answer.


Louis Deniset: Does the Prime Minister intend to give me an answer to this question?


An hon. Member:: He did.


Louis Deniset: I do not think he has answered my question.


Pierre Gauthier: No answer at all, as usual.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that is a point of order. As I understood the question and the answer it seemed to me they were complete, and I do not know what point of order arises out of that. If the hon. member has a further supplementary question I will permit it.


Louis Deniset: I merely asked, Mr. Speaker, if an answer had been given to the premier of the province of Manitoba.


Pierre Gauthier: That is not a point of order; that is a question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, an answer was given in a letter that will go out to all the premiers setting out the details. They will not be set out in the words the Minister of Finance used, but they will be of the same purport.


Pierre Gauthier: It has not been sent out yet.
lLater:1 (Translation):



INQUIRY AS TO CALLING CONFERENCE ON AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arihabaska):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
I know the Minister of Agriculture speaks French, and I shall ask him this question in French.

Does the government propose to call a federal-provincial conference on agricultural development?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this as notice and shall give the hon. member an answer as soon as possible.
{Text):



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. What special fiscal consideration is being given to private enterprises to encourage the location of industry in the Atlantic area?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I could not hear my hon. friend's entire question. If he will repeat it I will endeavour to answer.


Henry Joseph Murphy: What special fiscal consideration is being given to private enterprises to encourage the location of industry in the Atlantic provinces?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will be a little more specific I think I may be able to give him a more satisfactory answer.


An hon. Member:: He has a quotation from the Prime Minister's speech over there.


Henry Joseph Murphy: If I may, I will read the Atlantic resolution endorsed by 33 Progressive Conservative candidates.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Gauthier: He asked for it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He wanted something
specific.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the house would enjoy the reading of this document, but I must point out to the hon. member that he may ask a question but not give information.


Some hon. Members:: He asked for it.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I will ask what action has been taken so that special fiscal consideration will be given to private enterprises which will encourage the location of industry in the Atlantic area. A photograph of the minister's colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks), appears alongside the newspaper article I hold in my hand; you could ask him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will follow closely-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -the language of the speech from the throne he will see there some measures that will be of the greatest assistance to the maritime area in attracting industry there and buttressing the economy of that important part of Canada.


Mr. Sinclair:: Like paying cash advances on farm-stored grain; that is a big help to the maritimes.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jay Waldo Monteith: Yesterday the hon.
member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) mentioned the fact that clam and oyster sales have been stopped in the greater Vancouver area, and asked what steps have been taken to guarantee that wholesalers had not sold any of these contaminated oysters and clams in the prairie provinces and other parts of British Columbia.
I would inform the hon. member that by arrangement with the Department of Fisheries and health authorities of British Columbia, the department's food and drug officials maintain a survey of the shellfish beds in that province. As soon as evidence of rising toxicity was obtained, these beds were closed and stocks of shellfish in the hands of wholesale dealers were placed under detention, pending the carrying out of tests to determine their safety. Stocks coming from these beds which were in the hands of retailers were withdrawn. I am assured that similar measures have been taken beyond the greater Vancouver area, including shipments to the prairie provinces.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I have just been reading an article in the Globe and Mail in which the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) stated-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Wilfrid Lacroix: I have to read the article.
The article reads:
Asked how the Conservative party stood on the issue of maintaining permanent diplomatic representation at the Vatican, Mr. Balcer was quoted as replying:
"Just place us in power and you'll see before long".	.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
604	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Wilfrid Lacroix: Is it the intention of the
minister to quit the cabinet if he does not fulfil that promise?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Soliciior General):: Mr. Speaker, the quotation the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency has just read is a misquotation, because I remember very well my words were that the Conservative party will be in power very soon. It was badly interpreted. What I said was, "You will see very soon".


James Sinclair: What about the ambassador? (Later:)
(Translation):


Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Speaker, I have been told that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) speaks French well. I am pleased to hear it and I want to ask him a question. I informed him yesterday of a statement made by the ambassador for Ireland, and I would now ask him whether he has any comments to make on the subject. (Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can say in answer to my hon. friend that there is some doubt whether or not the ambassador for Ireland made the statement in question. However, my answer to the question that my hon. friend asked yesterday is no, and if he wants further information on the subject I would suggest that he look up Hansard of May 6, 1953, where he will find an answer given by the present member for Algoma East with regard to this matter. There is also a further answer on March 7, 1957, given by the then secretary of state for external affairs, now the hon. member for Algoma East.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will the minister indicate to the house whether urgent wharf improvements on the Saguenay river are to be carried out to facilitate the proposed new ferry across the said river between Baie Ste. Catherine and Tadoussac? I have given the minister notice of this question.


Howard Charles Green: I have to take the question as notice.
[Mr. Speaker.!



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the government give consideration to representations made by groups of organized labour that regulations under the Income Tax Act be changed in order that construction and other workers required to be absent from their normal place of residence be entitled to deduct for income tax purposes costs of food, lodging and other out of pocket expenses?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the government has given, is giving and will continue to give consideration and study to this problem which arises out of bungling on the part of the former government. I think my friend is in error in assuming that it is capable of being redressed by regulation.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. I wonder whether he could use his persuasive powers on his colleagues with a little more effectiveness this year to bring about the change I have just outlined in the question?


Howard Charles Green: I will do my best. I find my present colleagues much easier to work on than the former government.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kingston asked this question:
Do the regulations outlined yesterday by the Minister of Transport with respect to the political partisanship of casual labourers employed by the Department of Transport also apply to casual labourers employed by the Department of National Defence?
In reading the remarks of the Minister of Transport which he made yesterday I see that he referred to a practice which had been acceded to by succeeding governments over a great many years, not regulations. In answer to the direct question, I would say that if any complaints are received in writing against either a civil servant or a person employed at prevailing rates in my department, they will be investigated.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: should like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question. In the light of the answer supplied by the Minister of Finance only a few minutes ago to the effect that interest rates were easing, will the minister consider recommending that his recent announcement raising interest rates under sections 16 and 17 of the National Housing Act be cancelled or rescinded at this time?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the interest rates under these two particular sections of the National Housing Act had to be raised because it was necessary for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to pay a higher rate. That increase in turn was necessary because the government itself had to pay a higher rate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought they were supposed to be easing.


Erhart Regier: Then the Minister of Finance was wrong when he said interest rates are easing. They are actually rising.


Howard Charles Green: I understood the Minister of Finance to say that whatever steps are possible are being taken to bring down interest rates.


An hon. Member:: That they were easing.



LICENSING OF OFF-SITE STORAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldi-Melfori):: I
should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is he now in a position to add anything to the answer he gave me a week or so ago regarding offsite storage?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker, but I will endeavour to get more information for the hon. member.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a request from the northern Ontario district council of the lumber and sawmill workers' union for
Inquiries of the Ministry the establishment of an office of the national unemployment insurance commission in the towns of Hearst and Cochrane and the establishment of a court of referees in this area to facilitate the handling of unemployment insurance claims? If so, can the minister indicate if the request can be granted?


Michael Starr: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. No such request has been brought to my attention. However,
I will make inquiries and if such a request has been received by the department I will give consideration to the matter and advise the hon. member for Timiskaming of the decision.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I refer to a question put to me on October 23 by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort, which is to be found at page 317 of Hansard and is in these words:
Is the minister aware that when a farmer makes application for a loan from the Canadian farm loan hoard the board, before acknowledging the request, informs implement companies in the area of the application and of the board's disposition of the request for the loan? If the minister finds this to be the case, would he assure the house that he will instruct the hoard to cease immediately this unethical, high-handed and deplorable practice?
I have made inquiries, and have made them in the spirit that I indicated in my reply in the house at that time. I am assured there is no practice on the part of the Canadian farm loan board such as the hon. member implied in his question. I am told that in many cases when an application is received it is necessary to check on the statement of liabilities submitted by the applicant, this being a natural procedure in testing the propriety of granting the loan.
Of course these inquiries concerning credit oftentimes require checking, and apart from information concerning the amount of large claims, it is sometimes necessary to seek other confidential information from other business concerns such as banks, implement companies and retail credit reporting organizations. To do this it is often necessary to furnish some information.
I am assured that the staff of the board are very conscious of the necessity of treating any information of this nature, whether given or received, in a strictly confidential manner, and am further assured that the

Inquiries of the Ministry board's general practices, ethics and attitude in this regard compare favourably with those of others in a similar position.
My hon. friend's question arose out of a particular case. He was good enough to send me a copy of a letter involved in that case. I do not think it is necessary that I go beyond the answer to my friend's general question and refer to the circumstances of that particular case. But at the worst what happened in that case evidently was a breach of confidence on the part of a certain person, I believe not connected with the board. However, if my hon. friend is interested I shall be glad to show him the correspondence in this matter, for I have made it my business to inquire into it thoroughly and I can assure my hon. friend and the house that no such practice as his question implied would be tolerated for a moment.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I could ask a supplementary question arising out of the minister's statement. I take it from the statement that the Canadian farm loan board, after it has turned down an application, does not relate that decision to the creditors of the applicant?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the course that should be followed in all cases. It is one thing, where the applicant indicates to the board a list of creditors and certain indebtedness, for the board to check that information, but that would be a very different matter from disclosing to the creditors of an applicant, after the application has been refused, the fact of the refusal. That, I can assure my hon. friend, would not be tolerated by the government.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY QUEBEC    INQUIRY AS TO COMMUNICATIONS FROM PREMIER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   Yvon@: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister received any communication from the premier of Quebec concerning the trans-Canada highway, and will this matter be raised at the federal-provincial conference?


Howard Charles Green: No.



NOVA SCOTIA-NEW BRUNSWICK    REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.

Since the minister announced to the house yesterday that he does not see fit to make public the report of the Montreal Engineering Company, would he consider extending to the members interested the same courtesy that was extended by the late postmaster general to the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace some few years ago?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I think in the circumstances, I had better keep to my original answer that in the public interest I cannot divulge this report to anyone at the present time except those immediately concerned.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Are the members of this house not directly concerned in the matter?


An hon. Member:: Answer.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Neree Arsenault (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked for a correction in Hansard and today I have to ask for another one. Yesterday, as recorded at page 567 of Hansard, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency said that I ran my whole campaign as an independent candidate. This is not true. I ran as a Progressive Conservative.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I remind the hon. member that the corrections which are made at this period are corrections of fact in the text of Hansard, and any correction of a statement to which he takes objection would be more properly made immediately after the statement is made in the house.



MEASURE TO PROVIDE CASH ADVANCES ON FARM-STORED GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, October 30, consideration in committee of Bill No. 14, to provide for advance payments for prairie grain prior to delivery thereof- Mr. Harkness (for Mr. Churchill)-Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
On clause 10-Lien on grain.
Mr. Aiken:: I should like to say a few words on this clause, Mr. Chairman. Since I am from a rural riding in Ontario, I was pleased to see the government notice of motion with regard to a measure concerning general agricultural products on today's order paper.
It seems to me that under this particular bill, when a producer applies for an advance

Grain
on a certain number of bushels he is in fact selling a number of bushels of grain to the board. Since the board cannot accept the grain he is offering to sell he has to store it in his own storage place. He no longer owns the grain but is holding it for the board. I believe that somewhere in the bill it should be made clear that the producer is actually holding this grain in trust for the board. The minister may feel that the bill is sufficiently clear, but I do feel that the position of trust in which the producer is placed should be clearly stated.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, last night
before we adjourned I listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion that was taking place on this particular clause. I listened to some of the objections which were made from this part of the chamber, and I listened with interest to the minister's replies. What I have to say now does not call for any particular elaboration of the minister's reply, but it does appear to me now that the bill is not quite as rosy as it first appeared to be.
When the resolution was first introduced and some publicity was given to the measure across the country, the impression was left that the wheat farmer was now going to receive some spending money. He thought he would be able to buy a few new things; that he would not be quite so hard up now as he might have been had the advance payment idea not been brought forward.
I believe it is obvious to all, Mr. Chairman, that there are two classes of farmers so far as this particular piece of legislation is concerned. There are those who are well enough off that they will not have to take advantage of this legislation. I do not know how many farmers of this type exist, perhaps not very many, but there are some who are sufficiently well off that they do not have to take advantage of it.
The other class of farmer is the farmer who has not any money, the small farmer, the farmer who is hard up and has been hard up. If this bill was intended to furnish some ready cash to the farmer who is hard up, it does not meet the situation. It does not meet the situation by reason of the fact that if there are any liens against the farmer's wheat, which certainly would apply to those farmers who are hard up because they are the ones who have had to go to the banks and borrow in the past or perhaps incur some other financial obligation, by reason of this clause the bill will aid the creditors and not the farmers who need the money.
I know, of course, the minister's argument. So long as these liens exist and this legislation does not by-pass those liens, the farmer who is hard up is better off in so far as he
will be able to get 50 cents a bushel for his wheat to help pay off his debts.
That does not give him any ready cash just the same. I want to make that observation because I am afraid that now the bill is falling far short of what the farmers expected and of the impression that may have been left during the election campaign when the speakers on behalf of the Conservative party were so anxious to get into office and made the promise that they were going to take care of the poor farmer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In reply to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that this bill does not fall short in any respect of what most of the farmers expected and what they were led to expect. This bill, of course, does not provide cash, as has been pointed out several times in this debate, for the man who has no grain, such as the man who was hailed out or flooded out or who for any other cause did not produce any grain. This bill does not help him because he has not any grain on which to make an advance.
But as to a farmer who has a considerable number of debts to the people to whom he owes them-whether it is the municipality, the men who threshed his grain or the hail insurance board which gave him hail insurance, any liens along that line

naturally the bill cannot be of such a nature that it will cut those people out of their right to secure part of that farmer's grain in order to discharge their claims. I hope that no hon. member in this house is trying to maintain that we should bring in legislation which would make null and void the ordinary civil rights which farmers and others have in their respective provinces and that their creditors have against them in those provinces.


Mr. Harrison:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to what the minister has said just now and I also have in mind the fact that this legislation is supposed to meet an emergency. However, in emergencies you do not take the line which the minister has just taken. In my opinion, nobody is better qualified than is the farmer himself, to say just what he should do with the money. Individual cases vary. He himself is best informed as to where that money should go.
Here is the main difference between this piece of legislation and that which was put on the statute books the year before last by the previous administration and which was criticized by the present government as a loans act because it contained an interest clause. In that particular legislation interest was provided for; under this legislation the money is interest free. But in the previous

Grain
legislation one thing was determined for sure, that was that the money would definitely go to the farmer, that it would get into his hands and that he himself would decide where it would go. This is not a loans to farmers act or an assistance to farmers act or an advance to farmers act whatever. It is a cash advances to farmers creditors act or a farmers creditors assistance act. The farmer is the last man who is considered here. Anybody can put in a lien against the farmer with the elevator company-and the municipalities will certainly do so-with the result that the farmer will get what is left after everybody else gets through with it. This is not the kind of legislation that is going to do any particular good in the west.
I have had experience in doing business in western Canada and have done business with farmers on a credit basis many times. Many of them still owe me money. If I wanted to take advantage of this act I could put liens against prospective borrowers under this scheme. This is not the answer to the problem of putting cash in farmers' hands. This piece of legislation has been built up with a great deal of ballyhoo and window dressing. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources tells us that this legislation may put $186 million in the hands of western farmers; it will do no such thing. In fact, it will be rather hard to decide just what money this legislation actually will put in the hands of the farmers by the time these creditors get through reckoning up what they want.
I think the government had perhaps better bring in an amendment to this part of the bill and change it to make sure that this money gets into the farmers' hands if they are concerned for the farmers in the west. In this debate they have said that they know the farmers are honest. I think the first concern of any farmer is not only just to pay his bills but to keep his family alive. With the type of crops that some of them have had this fall, where either through drought or through conditions which prevailed through the northern part of the province where they have had seven weeks' or eight weeks' of rain in a row, their crops are completely deteriorated and they are in difficulty. If they can get this money it should be put in their hands and they themselves should decide what they should do with it. There should not be built into this legislation the provision that everybody else gets his first and the farmer gets his last.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think the statements that have just been made should be answered. The total amounts that

were secured by the farmers in western Canada during the two years that the interim financing act was in effect were, in one year, $8 million and, in the other year, $4 million. That was the total amount in those two years. The smallness arose from the fact that the farmer was obliged to pay interest. My hon. friend now says that this act will not be effectual because of the fact that amounts which are owing to creditors would naturally be subject to payment. All I can say in that regard is that there is in the federal parliament no power in any way to disallow liens and their effectuality, for liens and other charges are matters under provincial jurisdiction. It is a strange attitude that my hon. friend takes. He votes for the legislation but he says it is not going to be effectual. He points out that last year and two years ago the loan legislation was effectual. To me the position which he takes is not understandable in view of the figures, $8 million in one year and $4 million in the other.
This legislation before the house today is the legislation in effect that is asked for by the farm organizations in western Canada. I am not going to read them but I have before me the recommendations made by the western farm organizations and in particular the one in Saskatoon in October, 1955 which asked for cash advances. The position taken by my hon. friend is a strange one. My friend the hon. member for Melville left the impression that if the former government had come into power this legislation providing for cash advances would in fact have been introduced. At least, that was my understanding of what he stated the other day. My friend the hon. member for Meadow Lake says that a claim such as he would have as an oil dealer would be another charge. That is not so. The only possibility of any creditor having a charge as against the credit of any farmer in western Canada would be either under a writ of execution or under a bill of sale or a chattel mortgage given at some time during the year. As to the bill of sale, it would only be effectual if it was actually entered into after the harvesting began and the cutting had been done.
From my interpretation of the attitude of the western farmer, as expressed since this legislation was brought in, there is general appreciation of the fact that this government acted, whereas in the past two or three years in the face of almost universal demand for action in this regard in western Canada the members of the previous government, for reasons known to themselves, did not act. As a matter of fact one of the excuses given for not acting was that given in 1955 by the hon. member for Rosthern. He made several speeches in this house in this regard in 1955.

His contention was that if cash advances were introduced they would destroy the wheat board and that this general demand for cash advances would interfere with the operation of the wheat board and would in fact constitute its destruction.
The other day he said we did not go far enough, we only went half as far as we should have gone. I do not understand that inconsistency. 1 believe this legislation, as far as it is practicable within our constitutional limitations, is the uttermost step that could be taken in order to provide the western farmer with an advance on wheat which is as yet unmarketed in consequence of and for reasons which I am not going to go into at this time. Suffice it to say that when my hon. friend states that because he has an oil agency he thereby would be able to interfere, or because somebody owed him for gasoline he would therefore be able to secure any portion of this advance, it is as unwarranted as it is incorrect.


James Garfield Gardiner: Since I rose on this point yesterday I think I should say a few things in regard to the statements which have just been made, particularly the reference to what I said on an earlier occasion. I did state in the earlier stages of the discussion that representations had been made last spring by the farm organizations in western Canada to the outgoing government to the effect that they desired to have something done along this line and the decision was then reached that the matter would be further discussed in the autumn. It was stated at that time, I believe, that if the bill which was brought down was in the same form as we had reason to believe last spring it would be, it would naturally be a measure which we would be inclined to support. Even in its present form I would be inclined to say we would support it but I would like to point out to my hon. friend that the argument he has just used is the argument used with regard to the act which did provide for bank loans and if he has not had any complaints from the farm organizations I cannot understand it, because the system set up under the act which was brought in was not in effect for one week before all the farm organizations of western Canada raised a terrific row about the very point he is discussing.
I may say that there is pinned on the wall in every elevator in Saskatchewan, so that everybody who takes in a load of grain can see it, a file of liens against the grain so delivered and right at the top of that list will be the lien for unpaid taxes. This is in accordance with the provincial law. The same kind of argument with regard to provincial 96698-39
Grain
authorities and collections and so on was raised when the plan based on the bank loan legislation was being set up.
I happened to be out at my farm at that time and the solicitor for the wheat pool phoned me and asked me if we considered that kind of legislation was going to provide cash for the farmers, because with the possibility of liens being effective the farmers would get very little of it.


John George Diefenbaker: Who was that solicitor?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Milligan. He asked for a meeting to be called for the purpose of discussing the whole issue and a meeting was called in the city of Winnipeg. The finance people also contacted me and the whole matter was reconsidered and ways and means found of doing away with having these taxes and other liens charged up against the loan. Under the bank loans arrangement, as stated by the member for Meadow Lake, when a man went to the bank to get a loan, if the banker attempted to take any money out of such loan to pay anyone he had no government guarantee at all. Therefore loans made under that arrangement meant that they could not charge anything against them. The banker could not take anything out; the municipality could not take anything out; no one could take anything out.
There would not be more than six or eight hundred dollars involved per person in most cases; some would run higher, but very few. Hon. members in this house who come from the west know that a half section or three-quarter section farmer often owes $450 in taxes or even more and if when he goes into the elevator to deliver his grain or to get his advance, or if when he goes to the bank to get cash the first thing that is done is to take that money out that farmer is not going to be in a position, of his own choice, to pay. The condition with respect to collection in this bill is the same as the other one was prior to change.
When a man drives to the elevator with a load, let us say of 150 bushels of grain, the proceeds from 75 bushels will be charged up to pay off the advance and the proceeds from 75 bushels will be handed to the farmer. No lien can be charged up against that in the sense that a lien was charged before while that transaction is being handled, but under this legislation it can be charged up. I do not think we should put through a bill in this house under a misunderstanding. If the government desires to put it through that way it only adds to the strength of the argument which I have made all the way through these discussions, that the limitations in this bill are greater than they were in the other one.

Grain
While my hon. friends are always saying that the amount of money available under this bill is so and so, that is the same argument as was used when we were dealing with the other bill; the money available is so and so but everyone in this house said "What is available is not going to be asked for". If the conditions put in the bill are such that the average farmer looks it over and sees the conditions under which he can get the advance are not satisfactory to him he is not going to go any further. I say there are already too many of those provisions in this bill.


John Hornby Harrison: I am in complete agreement, Mr. Chairman, with what has been said by the hon. member for Melville.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In response to what the member for Melville and the member for Meadow Lake have said, to the effect that this bill is not as good as the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act which the previous government put through, and that there are more limitations in this than there were in the previous loan legislation, all their arguments in this connection really amount to nothing for the simple reason that the previous legislation is still on the statute books and is going to remain there. This bill does not do away with it and it is still there for the farmer who wishes to make use of the interim financing act rather than this cash advance act. He is at perfect liberty to choose. Therefore I cannot understand what these two members are talking about when they attempt to maintain that the loan legislation of the previous government was better than this proposed legislation and therefore the farmers would have been better off if the old system had been continued. That legislation is still continuing and is there for the farmer to take advantage of if he wishes to do so.


James Garfield Gardiner: But that legislation does not provide automatically for doing this. That legislation provides that the government has got to take certain action before it does it. The fact that the legislation is on the statute books does not settle all that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the legislation is in effect at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the point.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it is in effect up to a certain time. Further action is required to keep it there.


John Hornby Harrison: The Minister of Agriculture has referred to the fact that both these pieces of legislation are in effect; there is no argument about that.

That does not change the fact, and I say this with all due deference to the Prime Minister-because we have a lot of other things in common even though we do not share the same political faith-that in my opinion in giving his reply to what I said a few moments ago he walked all around the point I made and concluded by suggesting that, well, we will leave it up to the farmers. As I understood him, it is a matter of the jurisdiction of this parliament as to whether the suggestion I made that the money should go direct to the farmers could be made effective. He said we have no jurisdiction to do it and that is why it was not done.
I point out to him that, under the legislation just referred to by the Minister of Agriculture, this was done last year and the year before by this very legislation. It was made effective under that and that money did go into the hands of the farmer and no one could get their hands on any of it until the farmer got it in his hands and decided himself what he should do with it. That is the criticism I have of the present legislation. Irrespective of whether the bank loan legislation remains in effect, the present legislation has been built up before the public gaze as something that will do wonders in the west. That is the kind of window dressing it has been given. It is certainly not going to do wonders if it is not going to get cash into the hands of the farmer because he is the man we are concerned with in this legislation which was designed for the purpose of meeting the emergency situation that exists in the agricultural industry by putting money in the hands of the farmer.
If it is to go to other people, as was suggested by the hon. member for Melville, and if there are lists already on the walls of the local elevators outlining who has liens on the money-particularly municipalities-this legislation is not what it appears to be at all. This is not money for farmers but rather for farmers' creditors.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Chairman, I have been very interested in the last few days in hearing the arguments brought forward by our friends across the way in opposition to this legislation the government is seeking to implement at the earliest possible moment in order that the wheat board can get the money into the hands of the farmers. We have listened to a lot of speeches which would have been more properly made on the debate in reply to the speech from the throne and could very well have been left until after the legislation has been put through. I know that the farmers in my area are anxious that this legislation be put into effect at the earliest possible time and I would like to

Grain
make some remarks with regard to a few of the comments made by hon. members across the way.
Several hon. gentlemen rose to say how much better the legislation brought in by the former government is as compared to the legislation before us. I would venture to say that the amount of money borrowed in the past under the bank loans legislation will show hon. members how ineffectual it was as compared to what will be accomplished by the present legislation. Under the bank loans legislation $7 million was spread over the prairie provinces.


James Garfield Gardiner: $13 million!


George Robson Muir: As a matter of fact the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act was supposed to make available to a farmer a loan of $3,000 but the experience was that when he went to borrow that sum he could not get it unless he was worth a great deal more than that sum. The result was that a great number of farmers did not take advantage of the act and they stayed away from it in droves. In effect it was a loan on the farmer's net worth.
It was suggested by the hon. member for Melville the other day that more money would be loaned under the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act than will be the case under the existing legislation and in reply to the hon. member I would say to let us wait and see the result.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what I suggested.


George Robson Muir: That is a good idea because I do not know of a farmer in Manitoba who would not take advantage of cash advances. Under this legislation the farmer is not given a loan but rather an advance on his grain just as if he had delivered it to the elevator.
As far as having the grain attached for arrears of municipal taxes is concerned, that is unheard of in Manitoba. I thought that under the governments you have in Saskatchewan and Alberta the municipalities would not be able to attach the farmer's grain. If he cannot pay his taxes it works a hardship on him but nothing should be done to take away his livelihood. We do not attach anyone's grain in Manitoba for arrears of taxes.


James Garfield Gardiner: You do not grow very much wheat, either, in Manitoba.


George Robson Muir: I will tell you we grow quite a bit of wheat and it is of good quality.


James Garfield Gardiner: About as much as they grow in Ontario and Quebec.


George Robson Muir: 
Mr. Stefura:: I was glad to hear the Prime Minister's explanation concerning liens today because I was not able to receive one from the Minister of Agriculture yesterday and I am pleased to learn that provincial, threshers' and municipal liens will take precedence over federal liens. However, there is one question I would like to ask. If there are liens against a farmer's grain will the federal government advance cash to him if his grain is already covered by a lien from some other source?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as I explained yesterday this is an advance and not a loan and therefore what applies to one does not apply to the other. When the advance is made it is just an advance payment for grain which is going to be delivered under the farmer's quota during the course of the crop year and every charge which would normally be collected against that

Grain
grain under provincial law naturally has to be taken into account as far as the advance is concerned.
All of this argument which has been going on here this afternoon on the part of various opposition members, and which was going on before the house closed yesterday afternoon, really amounts to an argument that there is no use in a farmer delivering his grain at all if he has any debts. That is the logical end of that argument and it is really what the argument amounts to; that if a farmer has debts there is no use in his delivering his grain. If you are going to take that position, then I think you had better say that any farmer who has debts had better go out of business and forget the whole thing.
What does the farmer want to deliver his grain for? Why in many cases does he want the advance if not to discharge some of those debts which make it impossible for him to carry on in a reasonable manner? In most instances that is the very reason why he wants to get the advance. It is to pay the storekeeper, the threshing bill, his taxes, and so on. As far as the argument is concerned that he is not going to get enough cash to do this, which was put up by the hon. member for Melville, or the hon. member for Meadow Lake, one or the other as I pointed *out on second reading of the bill, the farmer who has only 50 specified acres will still get as cash in hand under this scheme, if he had No. 1 northern we will say, about $370 from his unit quota, the initial amount that he could deliver, and then he is eligible . for a further advance of $150. Now, that is the man who has only 50 specified acres and, of course, it goes up from there.
In other words, this is a scheme which is designed to put a reasonable amount of cash in a farmer's hands, even though he is not able to deliver any grain beyond the unit quota which, of course, he has done in most instances already. It is a scheme which is specifically designed to help the small farmer. In these circumstances, all these extraneous arguments which have been raised in regard to farmers who have debts I do not think really are applicable and certainly in that regard, I repeat, it is an argument that a farmer who has debts might just as well not deliver his grain at all.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
On clause 13-Default.
Hazen Robert Argue: This is the clause which defines the various instances in which a producer, having taken' a cash advance, may be in
[Mr. Harkness.l
default. Subclause (a) says that he may be in default within 10 days after the date on which the board mails or delivers or causes to be mailed or delivered a notice stating that he should pay his advance.
A second instance in which a man may be in default is that of a producer who has not applied for a permit book before the 15th day of September. That, of course, means that on that evidence itself the farmer is no longer in business. That would be the reasoning and I have no objection to it. But subclause (c) says that a producer may be in default if:
Before the 31st day of December In the new crop year immediately following the crop year in which the advance payment was made, or such later date as the board may authorize in special cases.
That is to say, if the producer has not paid his advance by December 31, apart from whatever special cases may be allowed, he is automatically in default. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister should move for the deletion of subparagraph (c). It seems to me that a man in default is adequately defined to meet every instance, apart from this. The only time in which a man would be in default under this subparagraph, or the most frequent time, is if he has not had an opportunity to deliver his grain against the advance which has been made. I am sure the minister will not say that this is not a situation that is likely to arise, because the conditions that would arise under this situation are likely to be quite prevalent on December 31, since today about three-quarters of the marketing points in western Canada are on a unit quota, which means they are not under a quota at all so far as this legislation is concerned.
Therefore, with the clause in the bill as it now stands, if a producer on December 31, for example, has had an opportunity to deliver only four bushels of grain, because the quota and space were not available, and if you get on into December when the unit quota is still in existence and there is no standard quota, unless there is a big change in the grain situation it is quite probable that thousands of producers will be automatically in default under this subclause on December 31, through no fault of their own.
It seems to me that with the other clauses as they stand the government, the treasury and the public are adequately and completely protected. Under subclause (a) all the board has to do is to mail the farmer notice saying he is in default because he has not delivered his grain against the quota that exists; but if there is no quota in existence I submit there should be no clause which says the producer is automatically in default.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think the fears of the hon. member for Assiniboia in regard to this subclause are not justified. To begin with, if he will look at the last part of (b) he will see that it says:
-or such later date as the board may authorize in special cases.
What was in mind when this legislation was drawn was that if after 16 months-remember, this December date is 16 months probably after the man got his advance, so there would have been a double period of deliveries from the time he could start getting the advance up to this time-if during that period he had not been able to deliver the grain because sufficient quota was not opened up for him, then this "or such later date" would apply.


Mr. Mailer:: It might apply.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, as a matter of fact, the general intent, as I say, of the legislation and the way in which it will be administered is that that will be the situation.
In addition to that you have also clause (2) which reads:
The board may for any cause It deems sufficient waive any default for a specified period, and where a default is waived it shall, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to have occurred at the expiration of such period.
In other words, this clause is added specifically so that if there are any situations such as were envisaged by the hon. member for Assiniboia the man would not be declared in default or the default would be waived. Therefore I do not really think that the fears he has expressed are applicable and justified.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me it is not only a case of whether injustice may or may not in fact occur, there is much more involved in this clause being in here than just that, it is the whole concept of the rights of parliament, the delegation of those rights to the board, even though I have the greatest respect for the Canadian wheat board as my record amply shows. I respect the individuals on the board because of the job they have done. Even so, I am not satisfied with having such a loophole in this legislation which says that this board may determine whether thousands of farmers are in default under the act. The government is completely protected. The legislation says that if a farmer does not meet a quota he is in default 10 days after he has received notice from the board; if he has disposed of his grain in an illegal fashion he is in default; and if he has not applied for a permit book he is also in default.
I do not know why in heaven's name we should have a clause in the bill which says that when producers cannot market their
Grain
grain because of the policy in effect at the time tens of thousands of them may be declared in default. It is not good enough to say you are going to give the board the discretionary power to decide whether or not people who, under the definition, are in default through no fault of their own shall have the default waived or the period extended. If this clause had been in a bill being considered by the house a few months ago I would have expected it. I thought it must be an oversight and I can see no reason whatsoever for having it in here. Particularly I see no reason when through an amendment moved yesterday provision was made whereby an advance can be obtained even though the farmer has not repaid the full advance obtained in the previous crop year.
I think the minister should give some consideration to this question. I believe there is a principle involved. If the clause were deleted I cannot see that the government would lose one penny more than with the clause in the legislation, and it does put producers in a very invidious position if it is retained.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Perhaps I should explain to the hon. member that the chief reason why the clause is in the bill is a legal reason. In order that the board may be able to make a claim for losses or what are looked upon as losses which have been incurred some terminal date has to be set. After that date, if the money which the board has advanced has not been repaid, the board is entitled to collect from the treasury for these losses, not only from the treasury but also from the elevator companies to the extent of the losses owed by the elevator companies. The legal officers inform me that you must have a terminal date of this sort to enable the board to make a cut-off and to collect for these losses from the public treasury and from the elevator companies.
As I pointed out before, the next clause certainly looks after any case in which a man is in default through no fault of his own. The hon. member has said that he has confidence in the wheat board, in their fairness and so on. From what he and I know of the wheat board I do not think we will have a single case of a farmer who does not have an opportunity to deliver, and who as a result gets into default 16 months after obtaining his advance where the default will not be waived by the wheat board. I am certain the wheat board will waive the default in every single case.
Therefore, as I say, I do not see why the hon. member or anybody else needs to be disturbed because of this provision. On the other hand, if the clause is not in the legislation the wheat board is put in a more or less

Grain
impossible situation with regard to being able to set some cut-off date in order to determine losses and to recover the money to cover those losses from the treasury.


Hazen Robert Argue: If that is the intent of the minister and the government, and I have no reason to believe it is not, why should the minister's thoughts not be placed in the clause? If a farmer has had an opportunity to deliver the 6-bushel quota and the 31st day of December comes along and he has not delivered his grain, then I am quite prepared to say that he should be in default; but if the 31st day of December comes along and he has not had an opportunity to deliver his grain then no board, even a board as high in our esteem as the present Canadian wheat board, should have the power to say that that farmer is in default. That is a power that does not need to be in the hands of the Canadian wheat board and should not be placed in their hands. If the minister would amend the clause to say that the farmer will be in default on December 31 provided he has had an opportunity to deliver grain against his advance, then I would be perfectly satisfied.


Douglas Scott Harkness: All I can say to that is that we had great difficulties as far as the drafting of the bill was concerned. A very considerable battery of legal talent worked on the matter and after trying all sorts of different drafts they came up with this clause as the best one possible in order to cover these various contingencies.


Mr. Lambert:: In that connection I would respectfully point out to the hon. member for Assiniboia that if subclause (c) is not included as it now stands the board would not have the power to extend the period in order to provide for precisely the case that the hon. member mentions. This clause allows the board to extend the time, in my estimation, whereas if the hon. member's suggested amendment were inserted there would be automatic default.


George Carlyle Marler: Why would there be automatic default?


An hon. Member:: If you are a lawyer you had better go back to school.


Norman Platt Lambert: I suggest that as the clause is drafted it will permit the board to grant these extensions. Otherwise the board has no discretion whatsoever.


Mr. Quelch:: I wonder whether the minister would say what his objection would be to the inclusion of the clause suggested by the hon. member for Assiniboia, namely, provided the farmer has been permitted to deliver the specified quota. That would certainly clarify it and would remove any suspicion on

the part of anybody that the board might declare a farmer in default due to the fact he had not been able to deliver grain.


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Mr. Christian:: I should like to make a suggestion with regard to the matter of default, particularly under clause 13 (1) (a). This matter can be very important as far as the farmer who is the recipient of the money is concerned. It would seem to me that you could have a case where a written notice would be sent out and would not actually be received by the recipient. I would respectfully suggest that such notices should be sent by registered mail because in the ordinary course of mail delivery such notices can go out and in many cases not be received by the recipient at all. From the point of view of protection of the producer, I think the notice should be sent by registered mail.


Mr. Nicholson:: To come back to subclause (c), while the minister apparently has had legal opinions from his department or some departments I am sure he has not had the very capable legal opinion of the Prime Minister. Several years ago when we were considering legislation in connection with defence production the Prime Minister argued successfully that powers of this sort should not be written into the laws of Canada when we do not intend to act on them. Let us consider the situation if this legislation had been in effect a year ago. There were many farmers who were not able to deliver a 6-bushel quota last year and judging by the

movement of grain at the present time they would not be in a position by the end of December this year to retire their obligations under this sort of legislation.
I submit that the argument made by my colleague, the hon. member for Assiniboia, has not yet been answered. We should not write into a statute a provision such as has been outlined here unless it is clearly stated that the provision will become effective only when the man has been given a chance to deliver his 6-bushel quota. Now that the minister has had an opportunity of considering this further I hope he will agree to having one of his colleagues move an amendment along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If I thought that there was any necessity for an amendment I would be glad to have one made. All the legal advice I have had by highly qualified people is that this provision covers the situation. As a matter of fact, it is not only the inability to deliver the full quota which is covered by this provision as written, it is the failure to deliver for any cause over which the farmer really has no control, such as a railway strike or a bridge being out between him and his delivery point, or the loss of the grain by a prairie fire, or something along that line. These things could be all covered by this clause and the board is able to waive the default which has occurred as a result of any of these reasons which were really not the fault of the farmer or which were not attributable, we will say, to the deliberate failure of the farmer to deliver grain.
Actually the legislation as drawn, as I say, is I think perhaps broader so far as covering legitimate reasons for non-delivery of grain than the hon. member for Assiniboia, and some others, had in mind when they were speaking on this matter because they were talking entirely about the quota.
In connection with the quota, I would also mention that half of the 6-bushel quota may not be enough to discharge the whole of the cash advance if it is low quality grain. On the other hand, if it is high quality grain the cash advance would be discharged before the 6-bushel quota was fully delivered. If a man had No. 1 wheat he would pay off the advance perhaps after he delivered a 5-bushel quota rather than having to wait until he delivered the 6-bushel quota.


Jacob Schulz: All we are asking is the removal of any doubt in this clause concerning the farmer's inability to deliver grain. Perhaps if I were to give an example, it
Grain
would be helpful. When I was speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I said that at least 65 per cent of the farmers in my constituency have not delivered one bushel of wheat in the new crop year. Now that three weeks have passed, perhaps the number has been reduced to 50 per cent. However, we have only two more months to go to the end of the year when this clause will come into effect.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, no, it would not come into effect until a year after that; that is the point of which some hon. members have lost sight. There are sixteen months provided for the man to deliver his grain.


Jacob Schulz: The clause says six months after the end of the crop year, so the time would run out on December 31. There is still 50 per cent of the people who have not delivered one bushel. The other 50 per cent of the people who have delivered the first part of their quota will need another three months to deliver the remainder of their quota. All we are asking is that the man be given a chance to deliver before he is declared guilty.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I should point out that I feel the hon. member for Springfield is confused as to the time provided for making deliveries. If a man were to take out one of these cash advances as soon as this legislation is passed, we will say ten days from now, he has until a year from the coming December to make delivery before he is automatically declared in default. If the nondelivery results from something over which he had no control the waiver clause would come into effect. It is not a matter of the crop year beginning in July and running to the following December, it is the December a year from then.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: I think further consideration should be given to this amendment suggested by the hon. member for Assiniboia. The hon. member for Acadia, too, expressed the hope that the government would give the amendment some consideration. It is quite clear from the bill that if a farmer is in default as at December 31 he is liable for the penalty. It does not make a bit of difference, and the Minister of Agriculture knows this as well as any member of the house because he has been here long enough to know, what the Minister of Agriculture says he thinks the bill means; it certainly would not make a bit of difference in a court of law what any of the lawyers in this house might think it means, the actual test comes when the court makes a decision based upon the warding of the act.

Grain
Certainly there can be no doubt that there is a great deal of ambiguity in the wording of the bill. The minister may say he does not believe the board would do this, but that is not good enough. There is a doubt here, and the least the government can do is to give the matter consideration so the farmer will not be placed in this precarious position when December 31 comes around. There is no purpose served by saying, "It is the opinion of my law officers"; that does not help a court to solve the problem at all. The court is not allowed to take what is reported in Hansard in deciding a case; the court must take the wording of the act as the court finds it. When the wording of a clause is in question, as without a doubt it is in question, then some steps should be taken to clarify it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Bow River has been expressing legal opinions-


Charles Edward Johnston: No, he has not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, that is what they were; they were legal opinions, and I must say I have much more confidence in the legal opinions which have been expressed to us and to the wheat board on these matters by the law officers of the crown.


George Carlyle Marler: When the minister says he is relying on the law officers, of course that is merely another way of saying that the law officers have drawn this clause in this particular way to the best of their ability. I do not believe anybody will quarrel with the drafting of the clause, but what we are quarreling with the minister about is the effect of subparagraph (c). It seems to me, Mr. Chairman-hon. members know that I do not represent a farming constituency- that the cases provided for in subparagraphs
(a)	and (b) are quite clear. If the farmer does not deliver his grain when he is called upon to do so then he is in default; that is something that depends on him. If he does not apply for his permit book, as provided in subparagraph (b), he is also in default; that is something else that depends on him.
So far as subparagraph (c), is concerned, however, he may, as hon. members have pointed out, be unable to deliver his grain because he has not been asked to do so, yet what he received as an advance will become a loan which he is obliged to repay. As my colleague the hon. member for Melville pointed out, he becomes liable for interest also. It seems to me that the minister is trying to sidestep the issue by placing on the law officers the responsibility for the drafting of this clause. Surely the minister could change his thinking about the clause and ask the law officers to draw up something

in the way of a subparagraph (c) that would meet the objection that has been raised and avoid changing these cash advances into loans which have to be repaid.
I would feel a certain sense of apprehension if I were receiving one of these cash advances not knowing whether I would be able to deliver wheat or barley or oats accordingly and that some day, on the 31st day of December of some year, if the wheat board so decided, I would be liable to repay the money I had obtained. It seems to me that as the government says this is a cash advance it should stand behind the representation it has made.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: The hon. member who has just taken his seat made the point that I wanted to make. However, I should just like to say this. Unless you are going to notify these people who have obtained cash advances that they can now deliver to an elevator, as is done in the United States where a man who has a lien from the C.C.C. is notified that on a certain day he is to deliver his grain, you put the farmer in an untenable position. On the other hand, I do not see how you can do it under the quota system and with the shortage of space. I do not think you can do it and be fair with other people. But unless you do it you are placing the farmer in an untenable position because of the fact that we are going to be faced with this quota system.
I think the minister will appreciate the fact that a great many people who will take advantage of this loan-I still call it a loan in spite of the arguments that have been put forward by the minister-are going to have terrific difficulty in getting their quota to the elevator. I do not need to tell the minister what happens. He is as well acquainted with what happens in western Canada as am I. On a one-bushel quota in my area, I have known instances where a line of trucks have stood in front of an elevator for literally weeks waiting to get in. As soon as those trucks are unloaded, the elevator space is full. Are you going to penalize a man who may be in default for the reason that he just has not physically been able to deliver? I therefore think you are placing the farmer in an impossible position when you are going to call him in default under such circumstances. I think some consideration should be given to implementing the sort of amendment that was suggested by the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reiterate that nobody is going to be placed in any impossible position having regard to this clause concerning delivery. To

Grain
begin with, the chances are that in the vast majority of cases, if not in all of them-and we think it will be true in all cases-the farmer in this 16-month period approximately will have had the opportunity to deliver. If he has not had the opportunity to deliver during that 16-month period the situation, I will admit, is going to be extremely difficult indeed. But if he has not had the opportunity to deliver and, going even further than that, if he has not been able to deliver, as I say, for some other reason over which he had no control, such as losing his grain by fire, then the provision exists that default will be waived and he will not suffer anything as a result of that inability to deliver. I do not see how you can go any further than that. In other words, I think the legislation goes just as far as it can possibly go in order to ensure that a farmer who is not trying to beat the thing will not suffer anything in the way of interest which the hon. member for Melville mentioned. The only reason for the six per cent interest provision being in there is to serve as a deterrent against people who, just through carelessness or some other reason, failed to deliver. But I really do not see how the legislation can go any further than it goes in looking after and protecting the interests of the farmer and ensuring that provisions are there under which, if he is not able to deliver, he is not going to suffer because of that fact.


Victor Quelch: The bill says that the wheat board will be authorized, if it so desires, to take action. It does not definitely say that, in the instance such as that given by the minister, the default will be waived.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Subsection 2 states as
follows:
The board may for any cause it deems sufficient waive any default for a specified period,-


Victor Quelch: The word "may" is used.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. The words "may" and "shall" are taken to be more or less synonymous in most of this legislation. I have heard this argument many times previously in the House of Commons in regard to "may" and "shall".


Victor Quelch: Is that a legal opinion we are getting now?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, it is not a legal opinion. I just say that I have heard this argument quite frequently in the past.


Charles Edward Johnston: And you put
up the biggest argument against it.


John Hornby Harrison: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister was a little bit unfair in the assessment he made a few minutes ago of the 96698-40
remarks made by the hon. member for Bow River. I do not think he was expressing any legal opinion. I think most of the members from the west either are farmers or have the outlook of farmers and they could not care less about legal opinions. They are not too greatly concerned whether or not these legal niceties meet with the approval of the bar association. What they are interested in is that the farmer will have something by means of which he is protected and something that will work, and that no impasse will occur in the future that will put the farmer in an embarrassing position. If that requirement can be satisfied here, I think we can get along to the next clause.


Mr. McCullough:: Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with and support the contention that has been made that this clause puts the farmer in an untenable position. I agree with the expression of opinion that subsection 2 of the clause is needed. But I want to point out to the minister that I think this is permissive. While he tries to point out that for the purposes of the board in the way of collection they need a cut-ofl: date at December 31, the farmer who is in default because, as the minister has pointed out, he may not have been able to deliver his grain in that six-month period automatically becomes in default through no fault of his own or quite conceivably through no fault of his own.
In view of the fact that there has been widespread disagreement with this, many of us say that while the board needs some protection in the operation of this act we do not think it is fair to put the farmer in the untenable position in which, through no fault of his own, in circumstances such as the minister has pointed out-either through lack of box cars, lack of delivery, weather conditions or any other reason,-where he will face the threat of being declared in default of making delivery and settling his account.
I suggest that the minister take into consideration the idea that has already been put forward. If we had an additional amendment to this section of clause 13 to indicate that it was not at the discretion of the wheat board I think it would meet the situation.
I think the Prime Minister should take cognizance of this matter because he is one who, as the hon. member for Mackenzie has pointed out, over the years has said that parliament should not allow discretionary powers to be vague but that in an act we should have a definition of exactly what is the situation. I therefore suggest that if through no fault of the farmer or a recipient of this advance delivery has not been made, it shall be so stated in the legislation so that the

Grain
farmer will not be labouring under some apprehension that he might be, at the discretion of the board, declared in default.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, I note that the Minister of Agriculture has left the chamber. However the minister said that the word "may" would be the same as the word "shall". The minister has his legal advisers in front of him. Will he ask his legal advisers now whether in their opinion the word "may" means the same as the word "shall" in this case?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Victor Quelch: In other words, is it not merely discretionary?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not catch the last word used by the hon. gentleman.


Victor Quelch: Is not the word "may" here discretionary rather than mandatory?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it is normally considered to be discretionary. But, as the Minister of Agriculture pointed out, the question of the use "may" and "shall" and its interpretation has been raised in the House of Commons in the past. I think the hon. member's question should more properly be directed to the Department of Justice in order to get a final opinion on it.


James Sinclair: Let us refer the bill to the Department of Justice.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, I think we are entitled to a clear definition on this point. The Minister of Agriculture has stated that the word "may" here means the same as the word "shall". Personally I do not believe that for one moment. Therefore I would like to ask the minister to consult with his legal advisers who are in front of him as to whether or not the word "may" in this case does in fact mean the same as the word "shall".


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think I can satisfy my hon. friend when I say that in the drafting of this legislation the intention was that this should be discretionary.


Victor Quelch: Well then, the Minister of Agriculture was absolutely wrong in his statement.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, I do not think I can agree with that at all.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might get from the minister, not a legal opinion-


An hon. Member:: An illegal one.


Hazen Robert Argue: Nor an illegal one, but rather an opinion as to what might happen in a specific instance. We know that yesterday

the legislation was amended so that a farmer is not now automatically barred from getting a new advance in a new crop year solely because his previous advance has not been repaid. My question is this: assuming a farmer in a given crop year who has had an advance against a six-bushel quota has been able to market a four-bushel quota, will he be entitled to an advance against a six-bushel quota in the new crop year? He has had an advance in one crop year against his six-bushel quota; he has been able to repay only part of it because he has been able to deliver only a four-bushel quota; now will he be entitled under this legislation to a full advance against the six-bushel quota in the new crop year?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The answer to that question is, yes. He is entitled to this advance but he has to have grain to cover it. In other words, the grain which was already used to cover the advance which he has not yet paid off cannot be used in order to secure a new advance.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is quite understandable and quite acceptable. Now may I ask this: if a farmer has been able to deliver only a four-bushel quota and he has sufficient grain to cover a further six-bushel quota and has obtained a further advance under this legislation out of what money will he be able to repay the balance owing from the first crop year on which he has obtained an advance? In other words, how does he pay the balance between the four and six bushels which he was not able to deliver in the initial year?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Out of new quotas which are provided. All I can say in regard to that question is that we are optimistic enough to think that farmers are going to be able to deliver a six-bushel quota in this coming crop year and in succeeding crop years.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think this part of the minister's answer is not satisfactory and makes the proposition which we are proposing even more important. I say this because if a farmer has obtained cash advances against a six-bushel quota and he already owes against a quota which he has had in the previous year and against which he was unable to deliver, where in the world is he going to get his money before December 31, even on the assumption, and giving the minister the benefit of the doubt if there is any that he is able to deliver a substantial quota in the new year.
He has had an advance which takes up half his initial payment when he delivers grain in this crop year; he owes the other half of the

initial payment because he has had the advance from the last crop year and was not able to deliver his full quota. The minister and I will, I expect, be here some months later dealing with this very matter and I can say to him that I think he is all wrong in saying that every producer would have an opportunity to deliver six bushels by next July 31. It was not so during this crop year and it was not so during the previous crop year. Our sales are down compared to the previous crop year and I think the Minister of Agriculture in this instance is making a statement that is not likely to be borne out by the facts.
The point which concerns me is this. This legislation, from the definition given by the minister this afternoon, does not guarantee to the producer something which I thought yesterday it guaranteed, that is to say even the minimum sum of 50 cents a bushel for wheat on a six-bushel quota. As this legislation is being defined this afternoon I can see more loopholes in it and less benefit from it than I originally believed were intended by the legislation, with the amendments that were advanced. There will be thousands of farmers who will have had no chance to deliver a six-bushel quota by July 31 next unless the government and the wheat board take some other extraordinary measures such as off-site storage or sales policies which would match other sales policies in effect today.
I think the explanation of the minister gives me ample justification for moving the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie:
That clause 13 be amended by adding the words "provided the recipient has had adequate opportunity to discharge his undertaking" after the word "December" in line 19 thereof.
Now I am not a lawyer and I have not the benefit of legal opinion close at hand, but in putting forward this amendment I have used the precise language used in relation to other parts of clause 13. When I use the word recipient and the words "has had adequate opportunity to discharge his undertaking" I am using the words in lines 6 and 7 of subclause (a).
I would suggest that if this amendment is accepted by the minister it would clear up the points which we are debating and would certainly not tie the hands of the wheat board in any way except to say to them in legal form that we do not want them to hold a producer in default on December 31 through no fault of his own. I do not think the Canadian wheat board would want authority to do things that should not be done. I am not saying they would misuse it, but I think the wheat board would be happier without that kind of authority in view of 96698-40J
Grain
the fact that some people are going to say they might use it. In view of the attitude over many years of the members of the government, I think they should be quite pleased that parliament is not delegating discretionary responsibility to a board which that board should not have the power to exercise.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I am coming rather late into the debate on this bill and hon. members will of course understand that I was unavoidably absent on the second reading and when the committee stage was first reached. I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. Minister of Agriculture, for giving me so much assistance on this particular bill.
With regard to the matters raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia, I appreciate his experience with regard to agriculture and I fully appreciate the sincerity of his viewpoint. Everyone realizes, I am sure, the earnestness with which his point of view has been put forward; nevertheless I think the hon. member is attempting to deal with almost everything that could possibly arise within the next two years. There was not a question raised during the course of the debate this afternoon as I listened to it that has not been raised before and thoroughly discussed during the last several months.
I regret that the hon. member was not prepared to accept the very clear explanation of the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the phrasing of this particular clause. As he said, some cut-off date has to be set in order that a determination may be made as to whether or not there are losses which in the final analysis would have to be made good by the treasury. There is no intention to do harm to any farmer; in fact the legislation itself is a clear indication that it is designed to assist the farmer.
The hon. member for Assiniboia is suggesting there may be some difficulty in making a full six-bushel quota delivery during the course of the next 16 months. I hope he is wrong in that and he himself suggested there might be means of dealing with deliveries and the marketing of grain other than those which are now possible. We are not averse to considering other means and we may very well have suggestions to make. At the same time the sales program is being vigorously pursued.
I think the hon. member is a little pessimistic at the moment with regard to what will be the result of the sales of wheat during the course of this particular crop year. It is a little too early to determine that our sales will not exceed the sales for last year. Who is to say whether or not they will? There are

Grain
many, many factors involved. There are some areas in which the crops are not as good as they were last year and it may well be that Canadian wheat sales will move more rapidly on the world market than was the case a year ago. The hon. member is not in a position any more than any one in this house to forecast what the results may be or, on the basis of his hypothetical suggestion that in some instances a full six-bushel quota may not be delivered in the course of the next 16 months, to say an amendment should be introduced along the lines he suggested. Let us wait a bit and see what happens.
I think the hon. member is in favour of this legislation and in general approves of the measures proposed. I believe he wants to get the legislation through the house quickly and he wants the farmers to benefit. He has raised several questions and I think with that active mind of his he could have raised many other questions that are not necessarily solved by the wording of this bill. What statute is there in Canada that has not had to be amended at some time or other? No one can foresee every possible factor that will be involved in the application of a statute. We have discussed the problems that were raised this afternoon and decided that this was the best and simplest method of dealing with the situation at the present time. If at the next session of parliament we discover that our sales are not moving ahead as they should or that marketings are not as good as they should be, it would be at that time that I would expect the hon. member to raise this particular problem. He could then say to us, "You are not going to get your full six-bushel quota delivered and there will be many farmers in default on December 31". Let me point out to the hon. member that he cannot forecast the situation now. Also, there are other methods open to increased marketings. Consequently, I think he should let this stand as it is.
The fears he has expressed are on the record and we fully appreciate that he has advanced a fair argument. It may be a good one; time alone will tell. In any event we are grateful for his assistance; but why delay the measure at the present time over something which is not really as consequential as the hon. member has tried to make it appear. I grant it is a good debating point but let us move on because there are other things in this legislation which are more important.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, if I might reply to the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce I would say I appreciate some of the very nice things he said about me and I will be glad to say some nice things about him in the days that lie

ahead provided he proves to be right. However, I would prefer to attempt to close the barn door while the horse is still in the barn rather than try to close it after the horse has gone.
The minister said something which I could not understand at all. I do not know where he got the 16 months for the marketing of the six-bushel quota to which he referred. We are now three months into the present crop year and there are just nine months left in which to have a six-bushel quota. If he wants to add 16 months it is going to take us to the end of February, 1959 and I do not know what his reference to the 16 months has to do with this bill.
The Minister of Agriculture says that after discussing the matter with the Canadian wheat board and others he is quite confident there will not be any farmers who will not have had an opportunity to deliver a six-bushel quota by July 31. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was not nearly so optimistic because I understood him to say he did not expect there would be many points that would not have a six-bushel quota by the end of this crop year, and that is a very different thing.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce asks how I can suggest that all points will not have a six-bushel quota against which six bushels of grain can be delivered. I want to point out to both ministers something about which doubtless they are well aware, that a six-bushel quota being in existence does not necessarily mean the farmers have had an opportunity to deliver the grain. There have been far too many instances in which there have been five or six-bushel quotas which have been largely fictitious quotas because there has been no space in the elevator.
I am concerned over the fact that the ministers are being too optimistic about the present indications and I shall list some of those indications. One is that overseas clearances of barley to date this year are only 5 million bushels as compared with 16 million bushels last year; that overseas clearances for the crop year-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Set out the United States price for barley while you are dealing with the figures. Let us have the picture clear.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not attempting to argue now, although I may do so later on, as to why this has happened; 1 am just saying it is a fact.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is a fact that exports of barley are down and exports of wheat are down in this current crop year as compared with the same period in the last crop year.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And exports of oats are up.


Hazen Robert Argue: How much? Let us have the figures for oats. Come on; let us have them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, let us have them; you are dealing with the figures.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is such an insignificant
amount I did not think the Minister of Trade and Commerce should be talking about oats.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, they are not down,
anyway.


Hazen Robert Argue: Of course the fact is that if you total our exports for all four grains I think you will find they are down by something over 20 per cent, so we do not have to separate them at all.
I believe it is going to be more difficult this year to market even as much grain as we marketed last year. I have two reasons for saying this. The first is that forty per cent of the Canadian points were on a five-bushel quota when we reached the end of July and the outlook this year is even worse than it was last year. The minister can produce the opposite figures if he has them, but I do not think the outlook is too bright. The second reason is that the whole grain system is more congested now and there is less space available than was the case at the beginning of the crop year one year ago.
In the light of the known statistics I do not think the Minister of Agriculture is fooling even himself when he says he does not expect that any marketing point will be short the six-bushel quota. But if the minister is right, as we all hope he is, then why on earth would he not accept the amendment I moved which would not provide any difficulty for anybody?


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment because I believe it should be spelled out clearly in the act that in the event of a farmer not being permitted to complete his undertaking the default shall be waived. The Minister of Agriculture said that that was covered by clause (2). I drew his attention to the fact that clause (2) merely says that the board may for any cause it deems sufficient waive any default and he said, "Oh, well, the word 'may' is interchangeable with the word 'shall' ". That does not satisfy me for one moment. I then asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce to consult his legal adviser as to whether in this ease the word "may" will mean "shall", and he replied, "No, it does not mean shall; it is discretion." That being the case, clause (2) does not give any guarantee whatsoever that in the event of a farmer not being permitted to complete his undertaking default will be waived. If the Minister of Trade and
Grain
Commerce is so certain that the farmer will be permitted to complete his undertaking I cannot understand why he should refuse to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make an observation on this problem in regard to the legal effect of it. It seems to me that the amendment proposed would be restrictive rather than otherwise, for this reason, it would place on the farmer the burden of proving that he could not make delivery for some reason which was beyond his control. The clause as it reads now is much wider than that and will permit the operation of the discretion without placing an unfair burden on the farmer.
Mr. Cold well: May I ask this question? When we are drafting legislation of this sort do we allow discretion? Is it not a fact that in legislation it does not matter what we may think of any discretionary powers implied in the legislation, the written word prevails. The decision must be made on the words in the act and it is the written word that must prevail. That is why my hon. friend is anxious to get the written word into the bill at this stage. The hon. member says it is restrictive. It restricts the wheat board, not the farmer, and we want to see written into this legislation safeguards for the agricultural producers, the men who market the wheat.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the amendment which the hon. member for Assiniboia has proposed does not carry out the ideas which he has just expressed, because the words in his amendment are placed after the word "December" in line 13. Unfortunately, that seems to me to have the effect of cutting down the period from 16 months to four months. I would suggest to him that he should look at his amendment again, because instead of the words "in the new crop year" relating to December 31 they relate to the discharge of the recipient's undertaking. So far as we are concerned, while we are sympathetic to the idea which he has expressed, the words of the amendment do not carry out his intention.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the committee
ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Argue) negatived: Yeas, 24; nays, 96.


Arza Clair Casselman: I declare the amendment lost.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

Grain
On clause 18-Loans under Prairie Grain Producers Interim, Financing Act, 1956.


Charles Edward Johnston: When I spoke on this bill yesterday I indicated I thought the government should give consideration to the dropping of this clause. We have had quite a long talk from the Minister of Agriculture who was piloting this bill through for the Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding the fact that he thought the farmers were fairly honest. I am not disputing that. I also think the farmers are honest. Give them an opportunity and they will pay their obligations when they can do so.
This clause has nothing whatever to do with any loan that any other creditor may have, so far as this bill is concerned, except that which the federal government has as a guarantor for the loans made by the banks. I went to some length yesterday in arguing the case; I do not intend to go over that ground again but I do think it is possible that under this clause those farmers who have found themselves in great need and have had to borrow money under the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, 1956, will find themselves in the position where they are going to be required to pay off those liens before they can get any cash whatever from those cash advances. It may happen that they will not get one cent of the cash advance to use for the purpose, as we were told, for which this legislation was intended.
Certainly if this clause means anything at all it means that the farmers who are in great need of cash to pay those small bills which they have been running up over the last few months through no fault of their own will not be able to get it for that purpose. They must have some cash in order to pay their obligations to the local grocery man, or to the local man who has been supplying them with fuel oil for harvesting purposes, or to the butcher. These bills were all run up on the assurance that the farmer would pay them out of the first moneys he got from the disposal of his grain. This bill does not propose to allow the farmer to sell his grain and get the initial payment. It only proposes that he shall get as high as 50 cents a bushel in advance.
It seems to me that the government has not got the same argument under this clause as it had under clause 10 in connection with which the Minister of Agriculture said that the government should not be a party to any legislation which would cause creditors to be put in the position where they could not get the money which was owing to them. He went on to point out that if the farmer owed [The Deputy Chairman.]
taxes he should pay those taxes and if there were other liens by the province he should pay those liens.
Surely that puts the farmer in the position of appearing to be dishonest. Irrespective of whether or not this clause stands, if the farmer sells his grain and gets the full 50 cents he is an honest man. I am sure that 99 per cent of the farmers of western Canada are honest, and the farmer does not need the federal government to tell him what to do with the money. If he has certain obligations he is going to take the money and pay his bills that of necessity he has been running up over the last few months. He will use the money to pay the bills of his creditors such as the grocery store or implement man or perhaps use part of it to buy some needed clothing for the children. He is not dishonest and he is not trying to avoid paying his just debts.
But in this clause the government says to the farmer that the very first claim is that of the government. They say to him that out of this 50 cents which was supposed to be so urgently needed he must pay any debt which is owing under the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act. It does not seem to me that the government will suffer if it waives this clause because it will still have a claim on any other grain that will be produced. The government will have a claim on any grain that the farmer brings in before he gets his full initial payment.
There is no possible chance of the farmer getting out from under his obligation to pay the loan which he obtained under the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act. The government is fully guaranteed and does not need this clause at all. If the government is going to be bullheaded-maybe that is not the right word but it expresses my feeling- and say, "No sir, we are going to demand our pound of flesh", then I say the government should be at least a little bit charitable and provide that the farmer will at least get 25 cents a bushel for his wheat.
It would be a very simple amendment but the government seems to be reluctant to accept any suggestion from those in the opposition with regard to making any changes in the legislation. Even the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture do not agree on the terms of the act or the wording of the act.


An hon. Member:: The interpretation.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, the interpretation of the act; I will accept the suggestion. That is more than the government

does. I am not arguing at all. The government seems determined to think that the wording of the bill is absolutely correct in every detail.


An hon. Member:: Perfect.


Charles Edward Johnston: I can remember not so long ago when the two ministers who are concerned with this legislation were very vocal in some of their protests with regard to legislation brought into the house. I think the government should take out this clause but if it is determined to leave it in I suggest that it might be amended in this way so that it would read:
Where an applicant for an advance payment is indebted to a bank in respect of a guaranteed loan obtained by him under the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, 1956, 50 per cent of the unpaid balance of the guaranteed loan, together with any interest or other charges owing thereunder, owing to the bank shall be deducted from the advance payment and paid to the bank, and the bank shall cancel any endorsement in the permit book made under that act.
That would be a very simple amendment and it would guarantee that the farmer who is in need-he would never have obtained a loan under the interim financing act if he had not been-would be assured at least some money to pay the grocer and possibly have a little bit for Christmas.
I notice also that in this clause the government has been very careful to put in the words "shall be deducted". There is no "may". It is very explicit. There was no doubt in the minds of the lawyers who drew up the bill that the money would be paid. There is no "may" about it. It is "shall". I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he should agree to what I have put forward. I hope he will be a little bit more receptive to some of the suggested changes which will benefit the farmer than the Minister of Agriculture has been. Even though the government is determined to keep this clause in the bill, I am sure that if they would see fit to make this change they will get the full support of the house. They certainly will get the support of this group.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is making certain insinuations and implications which I think are quite unjustified. As outlined and explained by the Minister of Trade and Commerce a short time ago, we do not pretend and have never pretended that the bill is perfect. In speaking on second reading I said that experience would probably show that we would have to make some changes in it.
Grain


Charles Edward Johnston: Where a fault is pointed out to you why do you not change it now?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Up to now I do not admit that fault has been pointed out. As a matter of fact, I think the situation is that in many respects the hon. member has not understood how the legislation is going to work and what the result will be. The whole argument he has just made really is an argument in favour of giving a double advantage to the man who has already taken out a loan under the interim financing act. If we carried out the suggestion of the hon. member it would mean that every farmer who has already taken out a loan of $3,000, we will say, under the interim financing act would be able to get another $3,000 under this legislation. He would be twice as well off as far as getting cash is concerned as the farmer who had not already taken out a loan.
In addition, if we did away with this clause one of the results would be that you would have a situation where a loan had been made on certain grain. If a farmer has taken out a loan on the grain he has threshed this year that grain is security for the loan and the bank has a lien against all of that grain. If you make him an advance on it at the same time you are making an advance without the same security you would have if you made an advance to a farmer who had not taken out a loan. In other words the result would be that you would put the fellow who had taken out a loan in a considerably more advantageous position than the man who had not taken out a loan. There would be another result which would flow from the deletion of this clause. When the farmer came to deliver his grain, he would not get any cash at all because-


Charles Edward Johnston: Could I ask the
minister a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Just let me finish. When the farmer came to deliver his grain under the interim financing act he would have to give half of that grain to pay off his loan under that act. He would have to give half of it to pay off the advance, so that would mean he would have no cash left for himself at all from his delivery of the grain. Therefore, there would be no incentive for him to deliver the grain.


Charles Edward Johnston: A while ago I understood the minister to say that if a farmer did not want to take advantage of this measure he could still borrow under the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is right.

Grain


Charles Edward Johnston: Then, why could he not borrow under that and when he got that money apply for his 6-bushel quota for his cash advance? Therefore, when you say one farmer would be getting an advantage over another, that would not necessarily be so.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is quite a different situation. If a particular farmer has taken out a cash advance, then he has given security of 6,000 bushels of his grain for that cash advance, if he then goes to the bank and wants to secure a loan under the interim financing act he could not use those 6,000 bushels as security to get the loan.


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not say
that. I said, why are you telling him, when he goes to the bank-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think we should have some order. One man at a time on his feet is enough. The point I am trying to make, and which the hon. member does not seem to have grasped, is that it is quite a different situation for a man to have obtained a loan under the interim financing act before this legislation comes into effect, and then come to obtain an advance, which is what the hon. member would like to see, and the situation where a man obtained an advance first, because you would have the same grain pledged twice. If, however, you have a case where a farmer takes an advance and then applies to the bank to get a loan; say he has taken an advance of $3,000 and there is 6,000 bushels of wheat there, he cannot use that as security to get his loan.


Charles Edward Johnston: I agree with that, but that is not what I said.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 23 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 24-Coming into force.
Edward George McCullough: In connection with clause 24, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister if arrangements will be made so that this act may be proclaimed and put into immediate operation. I say that pointedly because perhaps the minister will recall that a year ago, when the interim financing act was put into force, there were many areas where banks did not have the necessary forms to enable the farmers to make their applications and take advantage of it. In this case could we be assured that the elevator agents will have proper instructions and proper forms, and that there shall be no delay in putting this measure into operation?


Douglas Scott Harkness: We intend to get this measure into effect as rapidly as it can be done. As soon as it passes this house we 
will send it immediately to the other place. I understand that the other place will be adjourning, perhaps it has already adjourned, until next Monday so it cannot be dealt with until next Monday. But in any event, as soon as it is passed here and as soon as they finish with it in the other place we intend to get it proclaimed just as rapidly as possible. The officials tell me that they think the forms that will be required, and things of that sort, can be ready within a week or ten days.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It would be helpful if third reading could be given now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that this bill be read a third time now, by unanimous consent?


Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East):: By leave.


Douglas Scott Harkness: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, October 25, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Monteith

Mr. Courte-manche in the chair:
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.
George Carlyle Marler: When the minister introduced this resolution last Thursday, he explained that it had three objects. First of all, it would increase the amount of benefit to $55 per month; second, reduce the basic residence requirement from 20 years to 10; and, third extend the length of time which pensioners are free to spend outside of Canada in any year without loss of pension.
Then, he went on to make the following comment, as recorded at page 385 of Hansard for October 24, 1957:
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.

As I do not share the opinion of the minister with regard to the honouring of the pledges which his leader and the party made during the recent election, I should like to take this occasion to review the promises that were made by the leader of the Conservative party and to examine the extent to which this resolution now before the committee implements those promises. The Prime Minister appears to have dealt with this subject of old age security when he opened the Conservative campaign in Toronto on April 25. According to the Toronto Star's report of the meeting, he promised:
Old age pensions would be set at a figure high enough to meet the needs of our older citizens and would be adjusted from time to time in accordance with changes in living costs. Similar consideration would be given war veterans and retired civil servants.
According to a Canadian Press report of the same meeting, the present Prime Minister said that:
A Conservative government would set payments high enough to meet the needs of the recipients, with subsequent adjustments to living costs and increases in national productivity.
Or in the words of the Globe and Mail which I do not think would be unsympathetic to the government in its account of the meeting:
Social security benefits would be geared to keep pace with Canada's productivity.
I therefore want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, the fact that there were three points in this promise. First, the payments would be high enough to meet the needs of the recipients. Second, the payments would be adjusted from time to time to keep pace with increases in the cost of living. Third, the payments would be geared to national productivity. I should like to deal with each of these three points a little bit more fully.
As it is the government which has now fixed the payment to be made at $55 a month, and as the minister himself has said that this measure honoured the pledges which his party made, I think we are entitled to infer that the government considers that a sum of $55 per month meets the needs of our senior citizens. I hope, however, that this determination by the present government will not serve as a pretext for provincial governments to adopt the attitude that the setting of old age security at this amount of $55 a month relieves them of their constitutional responsibility for the care of the recipients, that is to say persons over 70 years of age who are unable to live on old age security alone.
I feel that this point is overlooked by many provincial governments which seem to believe that the institution of old age security
Old Age Security Act
on a universal basis has relieved them of the responsibility of caring for citizens who have attained or passed the age of 70 years and who are in need.
The second point of the Prime Minister's promise was that the payments of old age security would be adjusted from time to time to meet increases in the cost of living. As I pointed out earlier, that was a part of the promise made in Toronto on April 25. It was repeated again at Espanola, Ontario and again in Victoria, B.C. on May 21. Let me quote the words of the Prime Minister as reported in the Vancouver Province of May 22. These are his words:
I say to the old age pensioner, to the war veteran, to the retired civil service pensioner, we will provide lair and realistic pensions based on the cost of living and a fair comfort in living.
Though it is perfectly clear from the press accounts of the three meetings that I have just mentioned-Toronto, Espanola and Victoria-that this was an integral part of the Conservative pledge with respect to old age security, I want to add to the record the words the Prime Minister used in a broadcast on May 22, 1957. He said:
We intend, this September, to call together parliament and there and then fix a fair and reasonable amount for the old age pensioner, indeed for the other pensioners, and also make provision for a formula whereby due allowance will be made in the future for the rising cost of living, providing that it continues.
My friend the hon. member for Essex East put those words on Hansard the other day. I have cited those remarks made in three different speeches during the campaign and again over the air in order to show that there was a formal and definite representation to the senior citizens of Canada and indeed to the electors generally that when old age security legislation was introduced in September, as the Prime Minister said, that legislation would embody a provision or a formula by which the amount of pension would be tied in with changes in the cost of living. But notwithstanding that pledge, nowhere in the resolution now before the committee do we see any words that suggest that this is going to be embodied in the legislation. Indeed, I am extremely doubtful, Mr. Chairman, whether, having regard to the language of the legislation, it would now be competent for the government, on the present resolution, to introduce into the bill the very thing that the Prime Minister promised during his campaign, that is to say a formula whereby due allowance would be made in the future for the rise in the cost of living.
Though the minister may think that the government is fully implementing the Conservative pledges given to the senior citizens

Old Age Security Act
of Canada during the campaign, I want to point out that the proposed resolution does not carry out what the Prime Minister promised in this respect. I do not address any personal reproach to him for that fact because, having had the opportunity of going over the newspaper accounts of the Prime Minister's speeches during the campaign, I do not believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare could be expected to have taken account of all the promises that were made because there have been so many of them, and he could not be expected to have a record of all of them. However, I want to emphasize the fact that this was a promise, not made casually but one that was made three times during the campaign at meetings and was repeated again over the radio.
Then there was the third point, namely that the pensions were to be geared to national productivity. I can readily understand how enthusiastic the audience in Toronto would be on hearing that the pension was going to be geared to national productivity which, I suppose, would mean the gross national product. But nowhere in the resolution do we find anything about that matter either. The point I want to emphasize is this. In reading what was said the other day during the course of the discussion of this resolution I noted that one of the government members suggested, "But give us time". Mr. Chairman, this is the sort of thing that should be done now.
The lawyers are perfectly capable of drafting a formula about which the Prime Minister spoke in Toronto. They are perfectly capable of drafting some kind of clause which would, as the Prime Minister suggested in Toronto, gear the amount of the pension to national productivity. But nowhere in the resolution do we find anything either about the cost of living or about national productivity. Consequently, I hope that in these circumstances I may be permitted to differ with the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his assessment of the extent to which the government is carrying out the promises that were made in such explicit terms during the election campaign.
I should also like to remind the minister of another pledge the Prime Minister made, namely that a Conservative government would establish a commission to investigate fully the United States social security program. Let me quote from the account published by the Globe and Mail on May 1 of the Prime Minister's meeting at Antigonish in Nova Scotia. Here is what the account says:
Opening the Nova Scotia phase of his campaign in the agricultural community of Antigonish this

afternoon, Mr. Diefenbaker promised that a Conservative government would establish a commission to investigate fully the U.S. social security program. For only slightly increased costs, Mr. Diefenbaker said, the U.S. is able to pay its elderly and retired citizens far greater benefits than the $46 a month received by Canada's old age pensioners.
Mr. Chairman, the minister will have a further opportunity of speaking and I hope that he will tell us then what steps are being taken to implement that pledge of the Prime Minister in connection with old age security.
There is another aspect of this whole question on which I would like to touch and that is the question of cost. The minister has told us that it is estimated that the additional cost resulting from the legislation to be based on this resolution would be about $96 million in the first full year. As I understood him the other day he said that the increase in the amount of the pension itself accounts for $92 million.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Pardon me, I meant the 1958 to 1959 fiscal year.


George Carlyle Marler: I fully understood that, Mr. Chairman, and that is the reason why, in referring to the subject of costs, I have said what the cost would be in the first full year. Those were in fact the words used by the minister himself and I do not think there is any misunderstanding in regard to the figures he is using. It is on the basis of what might be described as the rate of annual increase in the cost of the pension, but not the portion that would be charged to the accounts for 1957-58.


Jay Waldo Monteith: 1958-1959.


George Carlyle Marler: Well let us not go on repeating the same thing all over again. We know from listening to television that the additional pension is to be paid from November 1st. I do not find that in the resolutions but that is one of the advantages of listening to television. I was saying that in a full year the additional cost of the pension accounts for $92 million, the reduction in the residence period accounts for $3J million, and the extension of permissible absences for possibly $| million, if I may use the very words of the minister. In other words a grand total -estimated of course- of $96 million.
Now obviously we must consider this additional cost of $96 million in the light of all the other associated changes which are covered by other resolutions on the order paper and which I do not propose to discuss. I merely want to mention that so far as these other measures are concerned it seems clear that the additions to old age assistance allowances, to the blind allowances and to the disabled persons allowances will add- if I may make an approximately correct guess

-about another $10 million or 10 per cent of the $96 million mentioned by the minister. So in round figures, and I prefer to use round figures rather than more close calculations, we can see that the changes in the matter of old age security, old age assistance allowances, blind allowances and disabled persons allowances will add an aggregate amount of approximately $106 million in a full year.
I would like to examine these figures in relation to total costs. We have not yet received exact figures for the fiscal year 1956-57 but from the graphs which were printed in the white paper at the time of the budget earlier this year we see that the estimated cost of health, welfare and social security for 1956-57 is very close to $1,050 million. I want to emphasize that that is merely for health, welfare and social security; it does not include payments to veterans. I think there would be good reason for including payments to veterans as part of our social security program, but the figures with which I am dealing at the moment are solely those included in the public accounts for health, welfare and social security under the classification appearing in the beginning of the public accounts each year.
As I say, we start off with this figure of $1,050 million and therefore to determine what are to be the costs of the national program with the proposed additions we must add the increase resulting from the larger number of persons who in this present year will be in receipt of benefits. My estimate of the amount of that increase, after looking at the available figures, is that it will come to probably $30 million. Then we also know that the increase with which we dealt in the earlier part of the current year, 1957, accounted for another addition on the full year basis of the sum of $108 million. We must then add the additional cost of these new measures on the order paper, excluding those in relation to veterans, which additional measures account for another $106 million for the full year.
Now, if these several increases had become effective on April 1 this year the total cost of health, welfare and social security would not be less than $1,294 million or, let us say, $1,300 million in round figures. Now, Mr. Chairman, I note it is six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, just before the committee rose at six o'clock I had pointed out that if one were to try to calculate the
Old Age Security Act
estimated cost of the program of health, welfare and social security on the basis of a full year the method of calculation would be to start with last year's total of $1,050 million, add to it the increase of $30 million resulting from there being a larger number of persons in receipt of benefits, the $108 million which was voted earlier in this year 1957 and the approximate additional cost of the new measures; that is to say, the additional payments under old age security and the accessory measures, another $106 million. I also pointed out that in round figures the total of those different elements came in round figures to some $1,300 million annually.
I would like to emphasize that of course this does not include amounts paid in allowances to veterans or other expenditures in connection with veterans that come under another classification in the government's expenditures. I want to point out that this total amount of approximately $1,300 million is a very substantial sum of money and to go on to add that it is in fact more than one-quarter of all the taxes paid into the consolidated revenue fund and into the old age security fund, and considerably more that a quarter of the tax revenues that remain available to the federal government after it has turned over to the provinces the amounts to which they are entitled under the taxsharing agreements.
Of course, many of the hon. members who are now on the government benches and who have been in opposition will realize the difficulty for someone in opposition to make a precise calculation, but from the figures which are available it is possible to say that of every tax dollar retained by the federal treasury more than 27 cents are required to meet the cost of health, welfare and social security.
In considering the aggregate cost of $1,300 million which I mentioned a moment ago we must not overlook the commitments of the federal government in connection with the national scheme of hospitalization insurance which, when in force in all the provinces, will add a further amount of approximately $200 million annually to the cost of health, welfare and social security which are borne by the federal government. Of course, Mr. Chairman, as you will realize there are other costs which are borne by the provincial governments but I am considering at the moment only those which are payable out of the tax dollar which the federal government itself retains after it has handed back to the provinces the amounts to which they are entitled under the tax sharing agreements.
I wish to emphasize that we in the opposition, despite our familiarity with affairs that existed in the earlier part of this year, no

Old Age Security Act
longer have available to us information as to the expenditures which are to be incurred in the current year nor those to be undertaken next year; nor have we any information as to the probable revenues either for this year or for the fiscal year to begin on April 1 next. I mention that date, of course, because we all fully appreciate that the full burden of the increases which have already been made this year and those which are now under consideration will only be felt in the fiscal year 1958-59. In consequence of the situation I have just outlined it is not possible to come to a final judgment as to whether the additional expenditures which the present measure contemplates will fit into the general framework of a balanced budget.
I recall, as other hon. members do, some of the promises made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. He said that a Progressive Conservative government would carry out its declared policy of increasing old age pensions and of reducing taxes. If I interpret correctly the words he used at Saskatoon he indicated that the costs of implementing these proposals-that of increasing old age pensions and reducing taxes- would be about $300 million. For old age security, old age assistance, allowances to the blind and to the disabled, we are at the moment, so to speak, using up $100 million, so it may be reasonable to expect that the government will make reductions in taxes amounting to some $200 million.
Our difficulties in the matter, Mr. Chairman, are not diminished by the fact that we do not know from the estimates which the Minister of Finance has tabled exactly what expenditures the government proposes to make and, therefore, though I have given much time to the task I have been unable to form any precise estimate of the over-all effect the government's measures are likely to have on the balance of the budget. In the circumstances it seems to me that the responsibility for establishing social security payments at these new levels must rest fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the government and I hope when the Minister of National Health and Welfare speaks later in this debate he will give us a clear statement as to the effect on the national budget of the higher level of the social security payments.
Like Canadians generally I welcome these further advances in the social security program. I think all Canadians welcome advances that can both be sustained and supported by the Canadian people but I hope the government is not proposing to maintain budget equilibrium by reducing expenditures for national defence because I believe that

Canadians generally would be gravely disquieted if advances in social security were to be made at the expense of national security.
Before closing my remarks I would like to refer very briefly to the comments of the Minister of Public Works. I thought it was unfortunate that he seemed to feel it necessary to speak about the Prime Minister's personal qualities. So far as I know they have not been in dispute at any time before this committee. We have known him for a>
long time and during the course of this discussion I do not think the good qualities of the Prime Minister were in dispute at any time. However, the remarks of the Minister of Public Works have been made and I think therefore I should say that having enjoyed the friendship of the hon. member for Essex East for a great many years, both before he became minister of national health and welfare and while he occupied that important office, I know that his interest in the little people of Canada was not surpassed by that of any other hon. member of this house.


Henry Frank Jones: It did not show through, though.


George Carlyle Marler: I would add that his interest in the little people has not been demonstrated merely by interruptions or by talk of the kind I have listened to from the other side of the house, it has been supported by a most impressive record of achievement of which any hon. member of this house might justly be proud.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, before making the remarks I intend to make I should like to offer my congratulations to the new Minister of National Health and Welfare on the great honour that has been bestowed upon him. I must say that when I first heard of his appointment I thought, "What? Another Ontario member appointed to the cabinet?". However, upon further consideration I realized that we in this group have always felt that His Excellency's advisers ought to be the most able men in the government regardless of where in Canada they happen to live and therefore we have no difficulty in congratulating him on his appointment. I am sure that if the new minister will show the same feeling of devotion for the cause of public health and human welfare as was shown by his late colleague, Doctor Blair, he will be serving the people of Canada right well.
This resolution is a vindication of some remarks I made when I was asked to comment on the election results and when I expressed the opinion that almost regardless of what legislation would be forthcoming, the people

Of Canada would not fail to reap some of the benefits of the upset that had taken place.
>
I, along with my colleagues, welcome this resolution. We welcome the increase that is being proposed from $46 a month to $55 a month. We welcome most sincerely the reduction in residential requirements from 20 years to 10 years. This was a promise made by the Secretary of State in the election campaign and I am very pleased indeed to see that the lady member of the cabinet is exercising her influence and that at least her promise in the campaign is being fulfilled.
I regret that in the resolution the government has not seen fit to give notice that the age is to be lowered from 70 to 65 for purposes of the Old Age Security Act. In these Rays when it is becoming increasingly difficult for our older citizens to find employment I feel that it would have been in the national interest had the government seen fit to lower the age requirement. Incidentally, it would also have saved a lot of money for the provincial authorities across Canada.
I read with some interest the remarks made the other day by the hon. member for Mackenzie River, who referred to the government members as being monkeys, as reported at page 430 of Hansard. Well that may be so in his opinion. However, when I listen to Liberal participants in this debate I really wonder who the monkeys are because it seems rather illogical that only a few months ago they asked us to be responsible members of parliament. They claimed that the economy of our country was able to afford only $46 a month. Now they are chastising the new Prime Minister for not making the old age pension even higher. Even the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount felt that the Prime Minister was not adhering to his promises and this was not a sufficient amount to meet the rising cost of living and to provide an adequate standard of living for those people. I find the Liberal predicament most amusing indeed. They are already chastising this government for failure to keep its promises; yet the Canadian people will not easily forget that for 38 years the Liberals have promised a national health insurance plan and we have not it yet. Therefore I feel when we begin to compare election promises we at this time are a little hasty if we complain overly much about any failures which might exist in that respect.
I will agree also that within the present framework of monetary and fiscal policies the $55 may possibly be about as far as this government is able to go. This government is unwilling to adopt a new approach to the role and function of government in our economic life. They also, like the former government, prefer to let a few individuals not
Old Age Security Act
responsible to the people manage the economy of the nation and therefore within that framework maybe $55 a month is about what we ought to have expected of the government. As my colleague, the hon. member for Regina City, pointed out the other day, and as was emphasized by a number of other colleagues, we feel that our economy is well able to provide at least $75 a month to all of our people at age 65.
The hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount pointed out at some length the expenses involved at the present time on the part of the federal government on behalf of public welfare and social security measures.
I accepted his figures and I did some rather rapid calculation. To him it was becoming a rather serious matter that we were spending four per cent of our gross national production in providing our Canadian people with social security and health measures. To me it does not seem to be a level that is anywhere near the danger point and we in this section feel that a much larger percentage might very well be provided to the most important causes of public health and social security.
When we look at this resolution, Mr. Chairman, we note that it deals only with the amount of the pension that is received by the old age pensioner at the end of his life. I feel that there are other matters that might have been included in this resolution and possibly in other resolutions which are of equal importance to our senior citizens. I look at some of the representations that have been made on this subject by organizations of our senior citizens and I notice that all of them without fail do not ask only for an increase in the old age pension, they all ask for a number of other considerations. I note that first and foremost they place heavy emphasis on health care.
To an old age pensioner an assurance that in his declining years his health, his medical and hospital needs will be met is, I submit, of far greater importance than adding a few dollars to his monthly income. I have spoken to various meetings of aid age pensioners and those meetings invariably agreed that if some measures were undertaken in the field of relieving them of this constant worry they would greatly appreciate it. They are very keenly aware of the fact that sooner or later -and for most of them sooner-they will be needing medical care, they will be needing hospital care and some consideration along those lines is of more importance to them than adding to the amount of the old age pension cheques at the end of the month.

Old Age Security Act
Then I noticed another thing they feel very keenly on, namely that they be supplied with low-cost housing. The other day the hon. member for Nanaimo pointed out exactly what is happening. Since arriving in Ottawa I have had numerous letters to that effect. There is fear and trembling among many of those who live in rented quarters, and most old age pensioners do, as to how much of the $9 increase the landlord is going to grab from them when their incomes are increased by that amount. Therefore I feel that low cost housing for our senior citizens is another way in which they can be helped, a way that might be equally important as an increase in their monthly income.
When the former Liberal government raised their pensions by $6 a month many hundreds of these people in the lower mainland of British Columbia had their rents raised by $5 a month and all that the senior citizen received out of the $6 was $1. I say that the government is doing the exact opposite of what I am now advocating. Under the National Housing Act there are various schemes whereby low rent housing might be supplied for our old age pensioners, but rather than making it easier for more of such housing to be built the-government has seen fit to raise the interest rate by another one-half of one per cent on houses built under section 16 of the National Housing Act.
I have always taken some measure of pride in what the government of British Columbia is doing in this respect, action begun by the former coalition government and now continued by the new regime. When low cost housing is built for senior citizens and others with similar low incomes the provincial government pays a grant of one-third of the cost of the building. All that the federal government does is to supply a mortgage on which they collect interest and the interest rate, as I indicated, is now 4j per cent. In my opinion, if the federal government would match the outright grant made by the provincial government it would go a long way toward reducing the rents that the senior citizens have to pay and making more housing available for them.
I sometimes feel rather keenly when I see young married men, many of whom are earning $400, $500 or $600 a month, living in new $12,000, $15,000 or $18,000 homes which have been built under the National Housing Act with government guaranteed money while our senior citizens who need government assistance have to continue living in musty basements and hot attic rooms in our urban areas.
[Mr. Regier.l
The argument of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on the resolution failed to impress me at all. He seemed rather to regret that the government was now going to pay the sum of $55 a month to our senior citizens. In his opinion some of the fishermen in Bonavista-Twillingate were earning less than that. That argument fails to convince. Such an argument is based on the philosophy of tearing everyone down to the level of the lowest, a philosophy to which I have never subscribed. It is the same as saying that we will not allow another immigrant into this country until every Canadian has a home and employment. It is the same argument as saying that we will never pay anyone an income of $5,000 a year until everyone has an income of $5,000 a year. I feel that argument is a rather vicious appeal to the voters of Bonavista-Twillingate. After all, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was an executive member of a government for many years and if these fishermen had such a measly income as he indicated he has no one else to blame but himself and his former colleagues.
I close my remarks by saying that I feel that the people of Canada, as evidenced by this resolution, are obtaining some of the benefits of a new government. At this time I should like to express the opinion that if the government had not been elected as a minority government this resolution would not now be on the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Gauthier (Porlneuf):: Why don't you applaud now?


Erhart Regier: It is also my opinion that
while a minority government may be hard on the politicians it is very sweet for the people of Canada. My advice to the people of Canada would be that if we are faced with an election before the regular four year term has expired and they want to keep the Prime Minister on his toes they had better not give him a majority and they will get the benefit of much finer legislation.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to make extended remarks on the resolution now before us. I am sure that the proposal, to grant additional assistance to our senior citizens, as well as those in other categories covered by other resolutions, will meet with the approval of the people of Canada as a whole. While so many of us are enjoying a good measure of the material things of life we cannot afford to neglect those who have not only laid the foundations of this great nation but have brought it to the high degree of prosperity and greatness that it has achieved.

Many of these people find themselves in the position where they are unable to gain for themselves the necessities of life and are unable to engage in remunerative employment. They are looking to us to see to it that they have sufficient in order to enable them to live and to spend the rest of their days in at least some measure of comfort and security.
Some of those who have participated in the debate have gone to considerable lengths to try to prove who should receive the credit for the inauguration of our social welfare program, especially with respect to old age pensions. I do not think that this is of too great importance. In my opinion the main consideration before us is this: Are we doing our utmost as a nation to see to it that those who are looking to us for assistance receive that assistance in a way that will not only discharge our moral obligation to them but will also indicate in some measure our appreciation for all they have done.
Some question has been raised as to whether or not the amendments now before us encompass in their totality the promises that were made by the Conservative party during the past few months. Be that as it may, I am of the opinion that their response to the challenge of the pressing need of our senior citizens has been much more commendable than was the response of the previous administration. Someone used the term "too little and too late". I think possibly that was true, because it was too little and too late to stave off the retribution that the Liberal party saw in the offing, and of course that was indicated very clearly in the events of June 10.
My Liberal opponent in the Fraser valley, a splendid young man for whom I have a great deal of respect, found himself hard pressed to justify the stand of the Liberal government with respect to old age pensions, especially in relation to the $6 raise. On one occasion he made the observation that if the pension were raised too high it would rob the children of the privilege and responsibility of contributing to the support of their parents in their old age. He was never able to adequately answer the question that was asked, under a set-up like that what are the old maids and bachelors going to do?
In any event, we are faced today with these particular amendments. The first is to increase the amount of the monthly pension to those eligible under the terms of the Old Age Security Act to $55; second, to reduce the basic residence requirement from 20 to 10 years; third, to increase the length
Old Age Security Act
of permissible temporary absence of pensioners from Canada from three to six months. I believe that these proposed amendments cover, in part, three of the main objections which have been raised in the past relative to the old age security legislation. I say "in part" because although improving conditions to an appreciable degree additional amendments will be required to bring this legislation more closely into line with reality.
First of all, with respect to the increase in the monthly pension to $55, I may say that I do not believe there is any question in the minds of the members of this house or in the minds of the people across Canada relative to the need for an increase in this allowance. I believe ordinary common sense would indicate that it is absolutely impossible at the present time for senior citizens to live in any degree of comfort on $46 a month. I know the suggestion has been made that this pension was never intended to be their sole income; it was to supplement their savings, what they are allowed to have, or it was just to provide a little extra for them. I think we must remember that many of these people were so busy building this nation of ours, making the sacrifices that were necessary, they did not have any time to make provision for the closing years of their lives. Now they are faced with trying to live on $46 a month. I am sure that none of us would try to infer that that was adequate under the present circumstances.
I am not going to attempt to review the great mass of written material that has been placed on the records across this country presenting the needs of the senior citizens. I think that would be superfluous. I believe that each one of us has observed for himself the conditions in which many of our senior citizens are living or existing, and because of our personal observations we are convinced that an increase is absolutely essential. I do not think there is any question as to the urgency of the proposal. For too long our senior citizens have been forced to live below the borderline of poverty. We must act, and we should act quickly to bring them some assistance that will help them in time of need.
Regarding the amount that has been proposed by this resolution, I wonder if it is the best we can do in the light of our ability as a nation to pay? I was listening, as other members were, to the observations made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. He put on the record once again his own personal conviction, and the conviction of others

Old Age Security Act
of his group, that Canada is well able to pay $75 a month to our senior citizens at the age of 65.


Mr. Sluder:: You cannot outbid an
auctioneer.


Mr.   Palierson@: You should know. I have in my hand an article that I clipped from the Toronto Globe and Mail this morning. The article refers to a speech made by the leader of the C.C.F. party before 200 students at a meeting sponsored by the University of Western Ontario C.C.F. club. One of the paragraphs reads as follows:
He-
Speaking of the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar.
-admitted if his party had come to power it would not have increased pensions to the $75 a month it had advocated in the last campaign, but likely would have made them $60 or $65 a month because of the need to introduce other social legislation.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that newspapers do not always get the facts absolutely straight. Hon. members have pointed out on different occasions that they have been misquoted. If this is a wrong statement then I would be very happy if the leader of the C.C.F. party would make the necessary correction right at the moment, but that is as I have read it from this article taken from this morning's newspaper.
The question is, as I say, is this amount of $55 in keeping with Canada's ability to pay? We think of the continuing rise in the cost of living and, as has been pointed out, the tendency on the part of some landlords to increase rents. This may be justifiable when we look at the situation squarely because it may be that some of these landlords had been providing rooms for pensioners at a very low rate and at some sacrifice to themselves. I do not know, but that may be so. Nevertheless, our pensioners are faced with continually increasing costs of living and an increase in rents as well.
The second part of this resolution proposes to make a reduction in the residence requirement from 20 to 10 years. I believe that this proposal is commendable. There are those who would propose that the residence qualification should be removed altogether. Personally I am of the opinion that there is some justification for the continuation of that principle. However, I do agree that the 10-year period is much more just than the 20-year period that is presently in effect.
The third clause in the resolution calls for the increasing of the allowable temporary absences from three to six months. On other occasions I have had an opportunity to make some requests along this line, and I would

suggest if we are going to remove any clause in the requirements here is a good one to remove. This would enable our senior citizens, because of illness or family relations or other such circumstances, to live outside of Canada. I believe that this should not cause the government to maintain this particular clause as it is. I should like to make the suggestion that the few old age pensioners who would leave the country might be ambassadors of good will, and living in various sections of other countries speak of Canada and the wonderful privileges that we have here, thus convincing many other people that they ought to visit our country.
Considering the matter from the monetary viewpoint, the resulting effect on the tourist industry would possibly offset the fact that our senior citizens would be spending their meagre pensions in other nations of the world. Hence I should like to suggest that this clause, instead of being just amended should be removed entirely. I believe that procedure would fit in very well with the recommendations of the senior citizens organizations across the country. I have here the resolutions passed by the Senior Citizens' Association of British Columbia at their fourth annual convention in June of this present year. The first resolution reads as follows:
1. Resolved that this convention of the Senior Citizens' Association of British Columbia requests the federal government to amend the old age security and old age assistance acts to make it possible for the pensioner to receive his pension in any country in the world.
This is practically the same-in essence it is the same-as a resolution passed by the National Old Age Pensioners Federation which reads as follows:
That we request the federal and provincial governments to amend the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act to provide that those receiving the pensions be allowed to reside where-ever they choose with no limit of time and still be eligible to receive such pension.
Mr. Chairman, these amendments proposed in the resolution now before the house, while inadequate, will receive my support is so far as they constitute an improvement in the old age legislation on the statute books of Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Breton:: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to speak in French on this resolution relating to the increase in old age pension. I am glad that you are able to understand me since, had this not been the case, I would have had cause to regret the fact that I was speaking in a language which was not that of the chairman of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, during the few minutes at my disposal I would like to say that I am

happy that our older citizens will benefit from the increase in the pension which will be granted to them. I am happy to share the pleasure of the 158,000 people aged 70 and over, in the province of Quebec, as well as the 32,391 people, aged from 66 to 70 years, who will eventually benefit from this increase in the pension, according to the statistics for 1955.
However, Mr. Chairman, you will also allow me to share the feelings of regret which will be experienced by the 1,624,055 children in receipt of family allowances, according to these same 1955 statistics. Those children will be unable to benefit from this increase though they share to an equal and even to a higher degree than old people the effects of the rise in the cost of living and of inflation.
I feel sorry, not only for the children of the province of Quebec but also, I think, for the Conservative group in our province. As it happens this particular demand was the main plank in the platform they put forward at their national convention last year.
It might be thought that in granting these higher pensions, which will cost an additional 96 million dollars, the Conservative party has really invented something, but I think it is fitting, because of that forgetfulness which is so prevalent among the people, to put on record what the Liberal party has done in the field of social security over the last few years.
We all know that in 1927 it initiated a social security movement by establishing an old age pension of $20 a month. We also know that the Liberal minister at that time had stated that the pension was not granted for the purpose of supporting our senior citizens but as assistance to them. He added that a contributory pension plan, such as exists in the United States, would eventually be required.
As we have a new government which intends to achieve something new in the field of social legislation, it seems to me that instead of continuing this tradition of increasing pensions every year, they should find a plan whereby our citizens would contribute to their old age pension.
May I recall that from 1947 to 1957 inclusively, the Liberal party accomplished a great deal in the field of social security, as evidenced by the following statistics.
As of March 31st, 1947, the budget of the Department of National Health and Welfare, including old age pensions, amounted to 334 million dollars on a total budget of 2,613 million, not counting the national defence budget which I consider exceptional and
Old Age Security Act
which is not to be taken into account in the ordinary budget of the government. Therefore, the ratio of the budget of the Department of National Health and Welfare to the government budget excluding, as I said, that of national defence, was at that time 12.7 per cent. That was at the end of March 1947.
Five years later, that is to say on March 31st, 1951, the budget of the Department of National Health and Welfare amounted to 449 million dollars, showing an increase of 112 millions. Its ratio to the general budget, always excluding that of national defence, was therefore 19.2 per cent.
On March 31st, 1955, the national health and welfare budget, including old age pensions, had reached 849 million dollars-of course, these are round figures and I spare you the dollars and cents. Consequently, by 1955, it had doubled that of 1951 and was reaching then 30 per cent of the total budget of the government, if we do not take into account the military spending. A year later, in 1956, the national health and welfare budget had reached 31.9 per cent of the total budget. As regards this year, as of March 1957, I cannot give the percentage of the total budget but I can say this: the Department of National Health and Welfare has swelled the social security budget by $108 million, not counting of course the increase of veterans' pensions which raise that figure to $133 million, nor health insurance legislation which opened the way to an additional expenditure of $200 million. Thus, there has been an increase of about one third within a year in the national health and welfare budget.
It can be estimated that the national health and welfare budget represents today from 38 to 39 percent of the total government budget, excluding expenditures for national defence. Of course, this is only an approximation, for the latest public accounts are not out yet.
This government has seen fit to increase this expenditure of $100,000,000, or $96,000,000 to be exact. Now I must blame them for making that expenditure with no justification whatsoever, unless it was meant to please the people without taking into account the economic capacity of our country, our budget, revenues and expenditures, nor the slowing down of business in Canada. Indeed, if we are to assess the worth of a government according to the number of promises they may make to the people, we should all vote for the C.C.F. party, since it offers $75.00 a month for our senior citizens. But I

Old Age Security Act
believe that we have to come back to some balance and I still prefer the Conservative party to the C.C.F. party, because I believe they are more responsible towards the public.
We have now reached the point where a comparison must be made between the record of the present government and the record achieved in the past by the Liberal administration.
When the Liberal government increased social security benefits and went on record as favouring health insurance, all this was introduced in a general budget which took into account the revenue and the expenditures of the country. Those plans also take into account the general increase in the national revenue, so that the government was in a position to say they were now able to set aside a higher proportion of the national revenue to help the underprivileged.
But what we see now is a government which shows itself completely irresponsible towards the public, the electors, and is furthering only its own immediate interest, that is, electoral interest.
These resolutions and amendments which are now before us, which have nothing to do with the year's budget, are possibly acceptable from a legal point of view, but they certainly are not acceptable from the point of view of sound economic common sense any more than they can be acceptable to serious men who are in control of the economic destiny of our country.
Mr. Chairman, at this time, in this year 1957, the government has introduced legislation entailing millions of dollars in expenditures in a very wide field.
Just think that we are now on the point of spending millions of dollars for the western farmer and for natural resources alone. In the province of Saskatchewan alone it will cost more than three hundred million dollars to build a dam. The development of the power resources of the Columbia river will cost tens of millions of dollars. The same will be done in the maritime provinces as well as in other fields. And all this without any budget.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this should show the utter irresponsibility of the present government. It is easy to understand why it wants elections as soon as possible, so as to be reelected on promises and intentions while escaping the inevitable and extraordinary difficulties in which it will find itself within three or four years.
At the present time, as we know through the press, our economy is stopped at a red light. Business in various sectors is falling off. Already company profits are down 5 per cent. For the last few months, unemploy-

ment has steadily increased. The stock market is in difficulties and we may well wonder what the future has in store for us. And yet at the very moment where the national economy is slowing down, at the very moment when we are beginning to wonder what the year 1958 will be like, the present government is embarking on a policy involving expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy at the thought that our older citizens will have larger pensions, but I am extremely sorry indeed that the government has not seen fit to worry about the problem of inflation and the balance between revenue and expenditures. In wanting to call a general election, it wants to prevent the public from finding out what a government conscious of its responsibilities really is, whereas in the past the Liberal party achieved great things; it acted socially in redistributing wealth, while at the same time taking into account its financial possibilities. But what we have at this time is an irresponsible administration. At one time the Conservative party had a reputation for wise stewardship. But now it only looks to reelection and cares nothing for the interests of the country.


An hon. Member:: Well, if you are so afraid, you can vote against it.


Maurice Breton: You speak when your turn comes.
At the moment, Mr. Chairman, the government is consolidating its position. Its policy is an auction block policy. Such an approach is utterly devoid of justification. The public, there in the gallery and all across the country, is sitting in judgment. My opinion is that the Canadian public is quite capable of making the distinction between an auctioneering government and a serious administration.
(Text):


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a few minutes of the time of the house, although I did not intend to speak on this matter tonight. I happened to come in just when the hon. member for Fraser Valley was, I think, quoting a newspaper report of something I said yesterday. I believe, as far as I could hear when I came in, the report was substantially correct but the hon. gentleman must remember that something which is reported in a newspaper, while it may be correct, if taken out of the context in which it is stated may have a somewhat different meaning.
I am not quarrelling with the report because, as I say, it is substantially correct but what I said yesterday I will repeat here this evening. I said that we believed that if the

same proportion of the gross national product was allotted to the old age pensioners today as was allotted in 1949 when the pensions were raised to $40 a month we would be able to pay a pension of $75 a month. I went on to say that social service workers in the city of Montreal, as my hon. friend from Regina City said the other night, indicated that in reality an old age pensioner today requires $75 a month and that I had hoped during this session-and if we had been elected this is what we would have done-a very large increase in social service generally would have been provided.
Veterans pensions would have been substantially increased, as I hope they will be substantially increased; those who are disabled would have had a more generous interpretation of the term disability and would have received a higher pension; childrens' allowances would have been increased in conformity with the increased cost of living. We would have had in mind all these things. I said also I thought at the present time we should be supporting in this house something which we would have introduced immediately, an increase to at least $60 a month but I believed we should be increasing this figure to $65 a month and that we should progressively move towards the figure of $75 a month. That was the context of thought in which my remarks were made.
I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that in dealing with these matters I believe one should be honest with those with whom one is discussing these questions. I have never believed that one should promise to do something immediately which one knows very well it would be extremely difficult to do at a given time and place.
One other thing which I think we should bear in mind is this. Every time we increase old age pensions, disability pensions and other social welfare payments we place an obligation on the provinces. The provinces have to match what we do for the age group between 65 and 69. I am not certain that I remarked this yesterday but I am under the impression that I said there were some provinces in Canada, particularly the Atlantic provinces, which are in no position at this time to match a $75 a month pension. That is substantially what I said yesterday. I think the newspaper report is correct, as far as it goes, and I rise here to say that it is correct and to give something of the setting in which I said it.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, in rising at this time I must begin my remarks by expressing my support of the three improvements to the old age security program which are proposed in this resolution, the 20 per
Old Age Security Act
cent increase from $46 to $55 a month, the reduction in the residence qualification from 20 years to 10 years in Canada, and the increase in the length of permissible absence of a Canadian pensioner from three to six months. These are all steps toward improvement of the old age pension system which have been welcomed by every hon. member of this house and which are welcomed by people in all age groups across Canada. The young people who, of course, always have sympathy for what they think of as the tragedy of old age, not realizing that for many people the later years are the richest years of life; young married couples who are worried about contributing to the support of elderly relatives and the people of middle age who are themselves approaching the age of retirement are as interested as are the senior citizens in this question.
The people who reside in my own province of British Columbia, of course, are especially interested in this measure because in that province we have a larger proportion of senior citizens than any province in Canada, not that British Columbians live much longer than other Canadians but because the salubrious climate, along the coast of British Columbia at least, has attracted a great many other Canadians from central Canada and from the prairie provinces who have retired there.


Alexander Bell Patterson: In the Fraser valley.


James Sinclair: My hon. friend mentions
the Fraser valley, but I think it is more true of the coastal region. In my own riding of Coast-Capilano and in Nanaimo and Victoria I think we have the largest concentration. In the 50 miles between Port Mellon and Pender Harbor along the coast in my riding there are many retired people, not only old age pensioners and those on government pensions but people who have retired to live on their own savings.


Alexander Bell Patterson: We have a more salubrious climate.


James Sinclair: Earlier speakers have covered rather fully the history of the old age pension in Canada, but I want to touch on two main points, first of all the relationship of the government old age security measures to other pension measures in Canada, such as civil service pensions, company pensions and the savings of ordinary individual Canadians and, secondly, the matter touched on by my friend the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount, the financing of this very large expenditure.
I think we should recall that pensions were originally a field of provincial responsibility. In 1926 when the first old age pension system

Old Age Security Act
started it was made a matter of joint federal-provincial responsibility. The provinces did not turn over all authority to the federal government as they did when the amendment with respect to unemployment insurance came into effect. The first payments in 1926 were, of course, $20 on a means test, paid half by the federal government and half by the provinces which was an indication of their awareness of their responsibility. We British Columbians are proud that our province was the first province to pass the necessary supplemental legislation and the first province to actually pay an old age pension at Alberni in 1926. At that time, we remember, the means test was justified on the reasoning that this was a matter of giving to those in need money available from the treasury to assist them in meeting the cost of living. The total cost that first year was $12 million which was a large sum for the budget of Canada at that time.
Over the years the sum increased from $20 to $40. The federal government raised its share to three-quarters of the total cost and the three western provinces accepted further responsibility in this joint field by paying additional supplements on another means test ranging all the way up to the $20 now paid in British Columbia.
As time went on the feeling developed that the means test was unfair, that there was something mean about it. It came to be thought of as bearing a stigma of charity and we all know of many elderly people who needed this assistance but refused to apply for it because they were too proud. Their attitude was that they were not going to accept charity from the government. Above all, it was regarded as unfair because it denied assistance to those Canadians who had tried to plan for their own retirement by joining company pension schemes, by buying annuities or by their personal savings and investments.
It was because of that we had an exhaustive study made of the question by a parliamentary committee in 1950 and 1951 and as a consequence the new legislation came into being which paid $40 to every Canadian who had 20 years residence in Canada at age 70. That was paid entirely by the federal government, and $40 to those in need at age 65, paid on a means test, the cost shared jointly by the federal and provincial governments.
While the earlier pensions were paid entirely out of general revenue, for the first time in that year we gave to this pension scheme a contributory aspect by levying an extra tax of 2 per cent on personal income with a ceiling of $60, by levying 2 per cent extra by way of tax on corporation profits and by levying an extra 2 per cent in the form of a general sales tax.

We remember how gladly these changes were received at the time. They removed the stigma of charity since every one received the pension at age 70. It was a real supplement to the savings of those people who had tried to provide for their own old age.
Over the years, of course, the government had urged people not to depend on the government in their old age and encouraged people to make provision for their retirement. I think the first action of this kind was the sale of government annuities, the government undertaking the cost of administration, and then followed the drives to sell government savings bonds. Encouragement was given to company pension schemes by making the contributions of both the employees and the employers tax deductible. Today the vast majority of company employees in Canada have this safeguard of contributing to company pension plans through which they and their employers are making provision for their own old age.
Last spring the former government extended this aid to the last great group not covered in the country, the self-employed, by allowing them to deduct before tax 10 per cent of income up to a maximum ceiling of $2,500 a year which they could invest in their own retirement plans.
All these things are admirable, of course, but we in this house are all aware of what has happened to the savings of individuals in recent years because of the continuous inflationary trends in the world. Pensions which were regarded as adequate when these people planned for their retirement are now proving pitifully inadequate because of the loss in purchasing power of the dollar.
It is for that reason, of course, we hear in this house pleas for increases in the pensions of retired civil servants, whose small salaries and pensions seemed adequate at the time but whose pensions are proving inadequate today. The government in the past resisted giving special treatment to the civil servants on the grounds that if it helped these civil servants in retirement then it should help every other Canadian in retirement, retired people other than civil servants whose savings were no longer adequate because of inflation.
It was in 1952 that the first real measure of assistance was given to this group by the introduction of the old age security at 70, free from the means test, because then those people with their own savings got the added government pension of $40 a month. It gave, of course, no help to people in this group between the age of 65 and 69 who, because of their own savings, were denied assistance under the means test.

The last government also in 1957 increased the basic pension from $40 to $46 a month, increasing the cost of the old age pension to taxpayers of Canada from $400 million a year to $460 million a year. T do not intend to fight the election over again but we all remember the Conservatives said this was inadequate, the 15 per cent increase was inadequate. They were not specific in the amount they promised. The Social Credit promised $100 a month and the C.C.F. $75 a month. Well, out west, and in British Columbia, too, we still remember the promises of the Social Credit away back in 1935 to pay $25 a month to every citizen. Therefore, the promise of $100 a month was just four times as phony as that promise. So far as the C.C.F. are concerned, their promise of $75 a month in this field of joint responsibility is in contrast with the actual record of performance of the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan in this field of joint responsibility. Last year they paid to the senior citizens $550,000, a little more than half a million dollars, in contrast with the $23 million a year paid out by the federal treasury.
The $6 increase cost the taxpayers of Canada an extra $60 million a year but, of course, this was never mentioned by opposition speakers in the last campaign. They broke it down the other way, $6, 20 cents a day. The other day the hon. member for York West called it two cups of coffee a day. I am waiting until he stands up and describes this $9 increase of the Tories as three cups Of coffee a day. I do not intend to get into an argument like that except to say that the old age pensioners in Canada were glad of the $6 and they are glad of the $9.
One of the questions, however, which arises out of this is the feeling of the Canadian people that this $6 was inadequate, despite the fact that it was a 15 per cent increase over the previous pension and despite the fact that the cost of living, since this pension was brought in in 1952, had not increased 15 per cent. I think the answer is quite clear. The $6 may have made up the loss in purchasing power since 1952 of the old age security pension of $40, but it did not make up the loss of purchasing power in the same period of the private savings of our senior citizens, the savings which most Canadians do intend to carry them through their own old age; that is, their total retirement income composed of the old age pension paid at 70 plus their company pension plan or their government annuities or their own personal savings.
We have heard the promise of the Prime Minister in this regard. As far as the cost of
Old Age Security Act
living bonus on the old age pension is concerned I suggest that to be effective it has got to be more than a cost of living bonus on the old age pension. I hope that when this bill comes forward after the resolution is adopted it will contain a provision for an automatic annual revision based on the year-end cost of living to maintain the purchasing power, not just of the old age pension but of a minimum basic retirement income. A very modest basic retirement income would be $200 a month for a couple on old age security, made up of $110 a month from the new $55 pension, plus $90 of their own savings or pensions.
Many Canadians of course have more than $90 a month for their own retirement; some have less. But this $200 a month retirement income would be a very modest start. An annual adjustment could be made each year on the cost of living at December. The present inflationary trend in North America is about three per cent a year. That would be an extra $6 on this basic retirement income of $200. That would be $6 a month, $3 on each of the old age pensions paid to this couple and that would maintain the purchasing power of their retirement income composed of the old age security pension paid by the federal government and their own savings. If, of course, the government is able to hold the line on inflation there would be no increase in the cost of living and no need for any increase.
I think such a provision would have immediate and very salutary effects. It would assure all Canadians now trying to provide for their own old age through personal savings, company pension plans or annuities, that they in the future would have at least $200 a month in constant purchasing power, provided that they had an income themselves of $90 a month on retirement. It would relieve them of a great deal of worry; it would also relieve young people today who are trying to plan for their own old age of worry and of their attempts now to hedge against inflation by dabbling in common stocks and real estate as well. Those who have been dabbling in common stocks, of course, have been shocked in the last year by the decline in the stock market, adding to their bewilderment when they try effectively to provide for their own old age. It would also remove the future problems of retired civil servants on low pension who are asking for increases in their pensions because of the decline in purchasing power. Above all, it would remove the old age pension from the political arena and save us all from the spectacle of political parties trying to bribe the electors with their own money with election promises of higher

Old Age Security Act
and higher pensions, the height of the promises being directly related to the unlikelihood of the party succeeding to office.
I think the other aspect of this pension which must command attention now is the matter of paying for them. I firmly believe that all these social security benefits, paid for out of the government treasury, should have a price tag on them so that the taxpayers whose money is being used will have some idea of the cost and the benefits. This is an extremely important thing because there are taxpayers, citizens as well, in this country who have the deluded belief that these social security benefits fall like manna from heaven, from this remote government at Ottawa.
I think a good start was made in the 1952 bill by the 2 per cent, 2 per cent, 2 per cent formula, increases in the personal income tax, the corporation tax and the sales tax. We have not, of course, the direct contribution that the United States social security plan has but this was a good step forward. In practice, however, I doubt whether many Canadian wage earners are very conscious of these extra taxes. They are not conscious of the two per cent extra sales tax because that is paid at the manufacturer's level.
The average Canadian is not conscious of the extra 2 per cent corporation tax, although he pays it in the end, because that is buried in the accounts of the big corporations when they are prepared by their accountants at the end of the year. He is aware of the 2 per cent on the income tax just once a year when he makes out his own income tax return. These three 2 per cent taxes did not quite pay the cost of the $40 a month pension. I notice the most recent figures-that is, on the $46 a month pension-indicate that the fund is running behind over $10 million a month. With the $96 million increase which the minister has announced for the new increase, the fund is going to be running *behind something around $215 million a year. In other words, about two-thirds will be met by the taxes and one-third apparently is going to come out of the central treasury.
I think there are two reasons why this should not be done. One of the criticisms levied most often by the C.C.F. speakers against the present old age security pension is that millionaires get it, a reversal of the old argument that the previous pension was demeaned because it was given on a means test.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That was said by the former Liberal member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


James Sinclair: Your former colleague from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. I am glad my friend reminded me of that because these

2	per cent taxes made possible pensions without any means test, which removed the stigma of charity. I put figures on record here at the time I was parliamentary assistant showing that a millionaire actually pays about $700 more taxes a year because of these added social security taxes, and because his income tax bracket is at least 53 per cent when he does collect the pension he gets less than half of it. He would get less than $20 a month under the $40 pension and yet pay about $700 a year in increased taxes. The more the general treasury contributes to this fund, the less the impact of taxes will be on those who are in the higher income brackets.
I therefore urge that when the minister replies at this stage of the legislation he give the house some indication how this extra burden of about $215 million at least, on top of the $400 million which was the cost of the earlier pension, is going to be met. Is it going to be a matter of continuing the 2 per cent taxes and paying the balance out of the treasury, are we to have a revision of the 2 per cent taxes or are we to have some new tax formula?
In closing I say, therefore, that I am happy to support the present proposals. They are a good step forward. May I make one last point. The hon. member for Fraser Valley supported a reduction of the residence requirement from 20 years to 10 years but at the same time asked for abolition of the limits on absence from the country. If we are not careful, if we should abolish all limits on absence from Canada, we could well develop the same sort of unhappy movement that the British had when they brought in their health insurance when people from all over Europe flocked to England to get new false teeth, wigs and glasses. We could well have a crop of elderly immigrants come here at age 60, live here ten years until they were 70, pay their contributions for ten years which in their case would be small at the 2 per cent rates because they would be on low incomes, and then at age 70 return to their homelands with a pension of $110 paid for life by the Canadian taxpayer. That is why I say it is important, since we are reducing the residence qualification, to keep this limit on absence from Canada.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a very few minutes of the time of the committee to comment on the resolution now before us. I was very much interested in listening to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano review the history of old age pensions and other social security benefits in

Canada, particularly his attempt to get the house to believe that every advance that has been made was due to the high spirit and the big heart of the Liberal party. Of course, there were some things in that history that he conveniently left out, and I hope in the course of the few minutes that I take to fill in certain details that he significantly left out.
It is all very well, of course, for the hon. member to indicate to us that the Liberal party was the great benefactor of the Canadian people all the way through the years since old age pensions were first paid, but I remind him and the members of his party that as late as 1936 and 1937 they were still holding the old age pension to a limit of $20 a month. Part of that was to be paid by the provincial governments and part by the municipal governments, with the federal government paying 75 per cent.
When the Social Credit government first came into office in Alberta in 1935 I recall that we began urging the Liberal government at Ottawa to increase the old age pension. In every session of the legislature that I attended beginning in 1935 until well after 1940 I recall that we passed resolutions calling upon the federal government to introduce a higher level of pension. These were sent regularly to the federal government and on one or two occasions I came to Ottawa with delegations to sit in with the minister of finance and other federal government ministers to see what could be done about improving administration in the old age pension field. I recall very definitely on each occasion putting a case to the federal government at Ottawa for higher pensions.
Nothing whatever was done until much later than 1937, but the province of Alberta, realizing that the federal Liberal government would do nothing, began in 1938 to pay a supplementary allowance of $5 a month over and above what the federal government was prepared to share, and we paid it without a means test. We continued to pay it to our aged citizens without a means test for some years. Shortly after 1940 the province of Alberta increased the supplementary payment to $10 a month without a means test and only then did the Liberal government at Ottawa, feeling much embarrassed and much ashamed of their attitude, decide to come in and try to do something a little better than the miserable $20 they had hung on to for so many years. They were actually shamed into doing it by the fact that the government of my province paid a supplementary allowance of $10 a month for some years with no assistance from the federal government or no sharing of the amount by that government.
Old Age Security Act
Eventually the federal government did increase the old age pension to the $40 level, and from there on what the hon. member for Coast-Capilano has said is essentially correct, except that even after the federal government increased the basic pension level to $40 a month the province of Alberta continued to pay a $10 supplementary allowance until about 1952 when they increased it to $15 a month. Today they are paying a supplementary allowance of $15 a month with a means test, not only to the 70 and over class but to the 65-69 class as well.
When you consider, Mr. Chairman, that the government of Alberta also provides free medical and hospitalization benefits and free dental and optical benefits to the aged, as well as free transportation on the transportation lines in many of the centres in the province, the benefits that those citizens receive today, may I point out to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, can be much more than $100 a month.


Mr. Blackmore:: He cannot take it.


Solon Earl Low: He made light of the fact that in the course of the election campaign we put forward a specific idea with regard to old age pensions. I want to set the record straight because the hon. member for Coast-Capilano did not put it straight. What we did do was to propose a basic pension of $60 a month. That is essentially what we are getting today from the new government and that is one of the things that we are supporting today. But we did go further and say that in addition, where the provinces were agreeable to paying a supplementary allowance up to $20 a month, we would match it making a possible total of $100 a month. As I have already pointed out, that was on the basis of a $60 pension, almost the same as we are getting today in this new legislation.


James Sinclair: Will the hon. member permit a question? You will recall that your political advertisements only carried one figure, $100 for old age pensions. There was no fine print. That was your promise.


Solon Earl Low: That is not true. I have the literature in my office that was used and I can easily show it to the hon. member. In every single case it was made abundantly clear that it was on the basis of a $60 pension with a supplementary allowance matched up to $20.


James Sinclair: The only figure they used was $100, and it was used by speakers and in advertisements. Tell us about the $25 in 1935 too.

Old Age Security Act


Solon Earl Low: I am quite prepared to talk about that, too. The hon. member, while he was parliamentary assistant to the minister of finance, had ample opportunity to debate that on several occasions. He backed down and did not dare; every single time he walked out of this house.


James Sinclair: The people are still waiting for the $25.


Solon Earl Low: I challenge the hon. member any time he desires to come into this house and debate a resolution on the question of the $25 a month dividend and we will meet him and meet him head-on.


James Sinclair: It was not the Liberals who promised to pay, it was the Social Credit that promised the $25 to the people of Alberta.


Solon Earl Low: I just want it known that every time this issue was raised in his presence, while he was responsible in the Department of Finance he walked out on it. I shall say something further. The hon. member makes light of the Social Credit financial proposals, and particularly our proposal to increase old age pensions. During the last election campaign he said that ours was a phony proposition. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am going to tell my hon. friend that on June 10 last the people of this country made a pretty good job of judging who was phony. I just point out to him that every Social Crediter who was in this house in the last parliament is back in his seat again this time, and we have some extra ones. We pretty nearly wiped out the Liberal party in the province of Alberta. About 250 votes more would have left them with no representatives whatever in parliament from our province. The next time we will get the last one.


James Sinclair: While you are on the subject, will you put on the record the name of the party which received the largest popular vote in the country and the name of the party that received the smallest.


The Chairman:: Order. I would ask the hon.
member to deal with the resolution.


Solon Earl Low: I shall be happy to comply with your request. I should like for just a minute, now that I have replied to my hon. friend who is so glib in this house when he has no responsibility, but when he had was not so ready to come to grips with things, to say just a word about something that has not been mentioned as yet in connection with this resolution. I think we have stressed adequately, from our group at least, our feelings with regard to the necessity for taking care of our aged citizens. I believe that the status of a nation can be judged pretty well

by the way they treat their senior citizens; that has been so for a great many years. I am very happy to see the basic pension raised to $55 per month. In Alberta we are going to continue to pay the supplementary allowance, which will bring the pension to $70 per month. This $70 comes somewhere near to an adequate pension under the circumstances; not too high by any means, but at least it is getting into that realm.
There is a point that I think ought to be stressed, and that is in connection with the economic effects. Over the years it has been contended by people that we might get ourselves into economic difficulties by increasing the old age pension to a point where there was a reasonable living allowance granted. I do not believe that. As long as this country can produce from $30 billion to $32 billion worth of goods and services a year there is no reason whatever why the aged citizens of this country should not have a standard of living that is comparable to that which is granted to other citizens or made available to other citizens.
I do not mean to say that the government should be prepared to give our aged citizens as much as other people can earn, but certainly there is no reason why there should not be an escalator clause attached to the qualifications for the old age pension, so that when the cost of living goes up the pension rises in proportion. These people are considered to be on a fixed income, but they are not. Really they are on a declining income because the purchasing power of the dollar is continuously declining. These people who are considered to be on a fixed income ought to have an escalator clause attached to the qualification for their pension.
It seems to me if we had something of that kind we would be doing nothing more than is right and fair. Did you ever consider, Mr. Chairman, what happens when we pay old age pensions to people? Old age pensions are the very best source, are the very best type, put it that way, of new purchasing power. The pension is spent almost immediately. Did you ever consider that whenever we pay a pension to our aged citizens they do not run off to Timbuctoo to spend their money. They spend it at the corner grocery in the community where they live. They are the best supporters of the small merchants, the little businessman. They spend their money immediately they receive it for the things which this country produces. As they do that they are helping to stabilize the economic affairs of this country; stabilizing business, stabilizing production and prices. Certainly, they are not contributing in any way to uncontrollable inflation.

If reasonable precaution is taken there is no reason why a $75 per month pension should be inflationary in a country that is increasing as this country is in its productive capacity year by year. I would say that where it is necessary to introduce new purchasing power for consumer goods in order to attempt to stabilize the economy, the old age pensioners are the very best source of spending power. To give them new purchasing power does help to stabilize our economy better than any other way of which I know. For that reason, if for no other reason, I support the proposed increase to $55 per month which this government has brought before us today.
I feel that enough has been said about the matter of residence qualifications. I do not intend to raise that again. I know that there are some in the country, particularly members of labour unions, who are just a bit concerned about reducing the residence qualifications from 20 to 10 years. I have not been convinced that their fears are well founded as yet. I do know quite well a number of aged citizens who came to this country and contributed the very best they had over a period of years, then found themselves about age 70 or over with nothing to take care of them in their declining years. I feel it is only right and just that something be granted to them, even though they have not been here for 20 years. Whether or not 10 years is the best place to cut off, I do not know, but I am prepared to support it until I am shown a better way.
So far as the other proposal is concerned, that is the period of allowable absence from the country, I am prepared to go along with that too until we have something better shown to us.
(Translation) :


Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Chairman, I shall only take a few minutes. I support the proposed increase and will vote for the increase in old age pension.
I favour that increase. However, there is a particular section of that bill which, to my mind, will have the effect of increasing immigration at the very moment when we suffer from an unemployment crisis. The section I am referring to is the one reducing from 20 to 10 the number of years of residence required for eligibility to old age pension. Obviously that section has been inserted in the bill for the purpose of promoting immigration. I am wondering if it is justified. In my view, it is a mistake to reduce the number of years from 20 to 10, thus reducing the immigrants' contribution in comparison with that of native Canadians.
Old Age Security Act
Now, Mr. Chairman, as the Catholic workers confederation indicated at its 36th annual congress, held in Quebec city, I do believe that old age pensions should be increased to $80 monthly, if we wish to take into account the increase in the cost of living.
A moment ago, I heard my hon. colleagues of the Social Credit party state-as I already knew,-that old age pensions in Alberta had been increased to $70, and C.C.F. party members have indicated in most of their speeches in the house that old age pensions should be increased to at least $60. Such a request is by no means exaggerated. In fact, one must not forget that in the state of New York, old age pensions are paid at the rate of $95 a month, and that in the various states of our southern neighbour, pensions average from $75 to $80 monthly. An increase along these lines, in future, would certainly be justified.
It is all very well to congratulate the government for increasing old age pensions.
I am not opposed to it because when sitting on the government side, I myself often asked for an additional increase. However, we must not forget one thing: if we have old age pensions, we owe it to the Liberal party. It is the Liberal party which passed the Old Age Pensions Act. I therefore think we ought to be sincerely grateful to the right hon. Mackenzie King and the right hon. Louis St. Laurent, and we also should commend the hon. Paul Martin, former minister of health and welfare, who worked in co-operation with his colleague, the hon. Jean Lesage, for a substantial improvement of the Old Age Security Act. We have to be fair and give credit where credit is due.
I trust that this increase will not prevent the Conservative government from keeping the promise made to the people of my province to grant an increase in family allowances. One must not overlook the fact that, as the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Breton) has pointed out 1,600,000 children receive family allowances in the province of Quebec.
Looking back on the speech from the throne and on everything that was said in this house by Conservative members since the beginning of the session, 1 wonder if the government has forgotten that undertaking. They have made no reference to it. Would it be because Quebec has the greatest number of large families? It is a question which may be asked. I hope that, if a budget is introduced, that solemn promise made to the

Old Age Security Act
population of the province of Quebec at the last general election will not be forgotten. I also expect that, if income tax rates are reduced, the government will not forget either that agriculture in the province of Quebec is organized on a family basis, and that, as a consequence of some measures which they have adopted, the agricultural organization which has made the strength of our province will not be unjustly taxed.
I hope that income tax basic exemptions will be raised from $1,000 to $1,500 for bachelors, and from $2,000 to $3,000 for married people, as was promised by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) during the last electoral campaign in the province of Quebec, and asked many times by myself in this house.
As far as I am concerned, I am wondering if there will be another session or if elections will be ordered immediately after this session, which would have precisely the effect of avoiding the presentation of a budget which would not include-


Henri Courtemanche: Order.


Wilfrid Lacroix: -the fulfilment of the promises made.


Henri Courtemanche: I should call upon the hon. member-


Wilfrid Lacroix: That is all I had to say, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you.
(Text):


Thomas James Irwin: Mr. Chairman, I may be guilty of a certain degree of naivete because I have the feeling that the wording of this motion is that it is expedient to introduce a measure to do certain things. I have heard a great deal of discussion here tonight but very little of it has been on the basis of the necessity for introducing this particular bill. So far as I am concerned, I think the word "expedient" which means advantageous or suitable is an extremely pallid and totally inadequate word to express necessity for bringing in this particular bill.
For many years now it has been quite obvious that the senior citizens of this country have been in a serious position having regard to their ability to meet their needs. I think that in bringing in this legislation the word "imperative" would have been a much more expressive word to use than is the word "expedient" because it has been and is

extremely imperative that this belated assistance to our senior citizens be brought forward. I note that, on the basis of the 1949 consumers price index, the cost of living stands today at 123.3. That is the latest figure for September.
That is 23 per cent higher than it was in 1950 when the pension was brought in and I would point out that since the cost of living has risen to that extent it is absolutely necessary that our older citizens be given a reasonable chance to meet the rising cost of living. So far no adequate attempt has been made to meet that necessity. Our friends on the other side of the house brought in what they choose to call a 15 per cent raise last year; that 15 per cent raise was to meet the rising cost of living which was at that time slightly over 20 per cent. How they proposed to meet a 20 per cent rise in the cost of living with a 15 per cent rise in the pension is entirely beyond my comprehension.
The unfortunate thing about the consumers' price index is that it deals merely with those things which are absolutely essential for the well-being of the senior citizens of this country and so far as I am concerned I believe it is necessary that these people be given a chance to enjoy a reasonable degree of happiness and pleasure such as is enjoyed by we who today have a higher standard of living. Unless their income is such that they are going to be able to enjoy life in this way we are not dealing with them in the way we should be and it is up to this government, since they have assumed responsibility for the welfare of these people, to provide them not only with the necessities of life but to make other adequate provision for these people.
When you look at the consumers' price index you find it includes such items as food, shelter, clothing and household operations. Under the heading of household operations are included fuel, electricity, home furnishings, supplies and services. What the index does not tell you is that household operations have risen 19 per cent since 1949, that food has risen 21.9 per cent and that shelter has risen 36.4 per cent. These things are all absolutely necessary to the well-being of our senior citizens and we are just barely meeting these costs under the provisions of this bill. Therefore I would not like it to be thought for one moment, although I am going to go along with the bill, that I regard it as adequate, I do not.
The consumers' price index does not include the things which go toward making life pleasant and happy. Surely if anybody in this world and particularly in this Canada of

ours has earned the right to happiness and pleasure in life it is those people who have spent their days bringing this country from a state of wilderness to a wonderland. Yet we play around, as our government have done in the past, chiseling these people from their income. That is what we are doing when we allow the cost of living to rise in such a way that it cuts down the livelihood these people are getting to a point where they are on the verge of bare sustenance and no more.
This practice of cutting down and chiseling with respect to these inadequate incomes has been brought about simply because the governments of the past have not seen fit to introduce a monetary policy which would prevent fluctuations and make this kind of legislation entirely unnecessary.
I want to point out that for this reason I am in favour of bringing in this particular resolution and the proposed bill that will follow it, in addition to the bill to provide for advance payments for prairie grain which was passed this afternoon. I believe this particular government is slowly but surely beginning to see the light. I admit quite frankly that although it seems that vision is extremely dim at the present time, as time goes along that vision may grow.
They are beginning to recognize that the injection of purchasing power into the consumers' market is the soundest method of stabilizing our economy. It is the only method that will expand our economy without bringing about inflation. The time is coming when the government of this country must recognize the fact that there is only one reason for production, and that is consumption. We do not care where the consumers live; it does not make any difference whether they live in one of the small towns of our own country or in Timbuktu or Sumatra, it is the consumer that really matters and he holds the key to economic progress. As long as we can keep the consumer happy and see that he is able to consume the goods we produce we can be assured that our production capacity will more than keep pace with demand in any given period. I will close by saying that I would, like Thomas Jefferson, sooner dream of the future than pin my faith to the history of the past.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, in the course of this debate many very important questions have been put to the
Old Age Security Act
Minister of Health and Welfare. Some of those questions no doubt can be answered when we are dealing with the bill, but I suspect that most of them will not be covered by the bill. That is something of course about which the minister alone can speak with authority. But with respect, for instance, to the questions raised tonight by the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount, which would obviously not be included in the bill, and the many questions which were posed by myself and others, surely on a matter of this importance the Minister of National Health and Welfare should give replies before this resolution is passed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there has been any question raised throughout the whole debate on the resolution that cannot be adequately dealt with at the second reading and in the committee stage. I am quite sure that at that time we can give a lot more detail and I feel that probably the members will be anxious to facilitate the passing of the resolution so they may receive the bill, examine it and have it ready for second reading.


Henri Courtemanche: Shall the resolution carry?


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Henri Courtemanche: It being ten o'clock, shall I rise and report progress?


Hazen Robert Argue: Does that mean the resolution is carried?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

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


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall proceed with this resolution and with the three other resolutions standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare; we shall then proceed with the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and then the speech from the throne.


Lionel Chevrier: The leader is optimistic.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
644
[Stage Direction]
Questions