1957-10-28

PRIVILEGE


Right Hon. L. S. Laurent (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question of privilege which I believe affects every member of this house as well as the relationship between the government and the crown under our constitutional system. The question arises because of the appearance in this morning's Montreal Gazette of a letter from Mr. Leslie Roberts, the opening passage of which reads as follows:
Sir,-The Right Hon. James Gardiner's statement in the House of Commons, to the effect that the opposition has refrained from bringing down a motion of "no confidence" in the Diefenbaker government, because the Governor General exacted a promise from the outgoing prime minister that a new administration must be given an opportunity to place its program before parliament, again raises the question of impropriety on the part of the representative of the crown. It was equally improper on the part of Mr. St. Laurent, as the leader of a government, to accept such a ''deal''.
As all hon. members will realize, Mr. Speaker, this is not a correct statement of what the right hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) actually said in the house. The relevant statement will be found at the top of page 264 of Hansard of October 22, and reads as follows:
When the government of the day found it necessary to give assurance to the Governor General those assurances, of course, were given to the effect that we would carry on in such manner as to make it possible for the new government to have sufficient support in the house to be able to place their policies before the people of this country and carry on from there.
I should like to make it clear that no assurance whatever was asked of me by His Excellency and that no assurance was given to His Excellency by me apart, of course, from the assurance given in the public statement I made at the time I tendered the resignation of the government.
In order to avoid future misunderstanding perhaps I might be permitted to put the text of the statement on the record. It is as follows:
Although no party will have a clear majority in the new parliament the Progressive Conservative party appears to have the largest number of elected
members. In the circumstances I have reached the conclusion that the proper course for me to take was to submit the resignation of the Liberal administration to His Excellency the Governor General, which I have done today. Before doing so I advised the leader of the Progressive Conservative party of my intention, adding that of course we would carry on if he was not prepared to accept the responsibility of forming a government, but that if he does, my colleagues and I will extend full co-operation to him and his party in their arrangements for taking office so that the Queen's government can go on without interruption. I have also told Mr. Diefenbaker that I feel the Liberal members of parliament will not attempt by obstruction to prevent the new government from carrying through parliament the program it has placed before the people, though we shall, of course, exercise our right to express our views freely on the measures introduced in parliament. We feel that the growth and prosperity of the country should not be endangered by instability of government which would come from irresponsible obstruction.
What assurance I gave was, as the statement shows, given directly to the present Prime Minister and announced to the public, and I am sure that is what the right hon. member for Melville had in mind.
I referred to the same matter in my own speech on October 16 when I said, as will be found on page 46 of Hansard:
Having the reasonable assurance that the fulfilment of its promises will not be obstructed at the present session of parliament, at least by the official opposition, the government will have no excuse for any failure to carry out that program.
What I want to make abundantly clear is that there never was any question of any bargain being made between the Governor General and the outgoing administration. It is true, of course, that His Excellency was aware, as were the public, of the attitude which the members of the outgoing administration proposed to take, but there was nothing more than that.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we welcome the explanation of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent), but it is not sufficient.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I hope I never arrive at the point where I begin to separate myself from the average member in this house and adopt the attitude of being something that I am not. I just want to say that the explanation is not sufficient to meet the situation. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned one

Motions for Papers
quotation, but I would point out also that on page 264, in the first paragraph of the second column, it says:
Before there was any thought of choosing a new Liberal leader in this country the Prime Minister of the day made the announcement, when he tendered his resignation, that he had given those assurances to the Governor General.
There should not have been any mention of the Governor General in this house; that is the first principle of parliamentary government. I refrained from saying anything at the time because-well, I was shocked by the statement that was made. There could be no misunderstanding; it was made so clearly and so definitely that the explanation of the Leader of the Opposition does not meet the situation.
However, I am pleased to have his assurances in this regard which are entirely accepted, because there was no representation made to me of any such thing either by him or anyone else. I formed the government, and we asked for no such assurances. But to use the Governor General's name as an explanation for a course of action difficult to explain will also be equally inexplicable.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 15, to amend the Criminal Code.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide a minor amendment in the text of the French version of the Criminal Code to bring the definition sections of the English and French versions into conformity.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Nicholson:
For a copy of all letters and telegrams exchanged to date, during the year 1957, between persons residing in the Mackenzie federal constituency and the Minister of Agriculture regarding the appointment of persons under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Mcllrailh:
For a copy of transportation order No. 107 of the district director of postal services, dated August 7, 1957, and sent by the Post Office Department to mail contractors throughout Canada.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
He said: Mr. Speaker, I understand the minister would like this notice of motion to stand.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 8-Mr. Martin (Essex East):
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the province of Ontario since June 10, 1957, with respect to participation by that province under the Unemployment Assistance Act of 1956.
Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that this motion stand?


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



CAMPBELLTON, N.B .-CROSS POINT, OUE., BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Robichaud:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the government of the province of New Brunswick, since January 1, 1956, to date, in connection with the proposed construction of a bridge across the Restigouche river, from Camp-bellton. New Brunswick, to Cross Point, Quebec.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave of the house, with permission of the minister concerned, to have the date changed to "since January 1, 1953, to date" instead of "since January 1, 1956"?
Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member permission to change the date as stated?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minisier of Public Works):: This is agreeable to the government, subject to the usual reservation that we obtain clearance from the provincial government.



ONTARIO-QUEBEC BOUNDARY, LAKE ST. FRANCIS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 10-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the federal government and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, with reference to the boundary line between Ontario and Quebec on lake St. Francis.
Hon. Paul Comtois (Minisier of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, if I am able to secure the approval of the governments of Quebec and Ontario I will table the correspondence at the earliest opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to that explanation is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interest shown over the week end by several groups in an old but important project may I ask the following question. Will the minister give consideration to the appointment of a board of engineers to consider the possibility of deepening the route from the St. Lawrence to New York via the Richelieu and lake Champlain, or in the alternative will the government refer the matter to the international joint commission for study and consideration?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been given consideration by the previous government for a number of years past, and I am glad to assure the hon. member for Laurier that the present government will continue to give the matter consideration.


Hon. George C. Marler (St. Antoine-Wesi-mount):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the government represented at this meeting? If so, by whom? Was any statement of policy made by the representative of the government?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to check on that matter and give an answer tomorrow.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Macleod, as also have the hon. member for Moose Mountain and the hon. member for Medicine Hat, asked me a question regarding the shortage of cattle box cars in the Lethbridge and Calgary districts. As indicated to the hon. member for Macleod on Friday, I have spoken to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company about the matter and they advise me that the heavy movement of stock to the United States commenced in September but with the recent severe weather and increased loadings a shortage has developed. To meet this condition the Canadian Pacific has been urging United States lines to arrange for the prompt return of equipment and the company is also moving empty stock cars from eastern Canada to this area.
I might add that the C.P.R. tell me there is a reasonably good supply of cars available
Inquiries of the Ministry for this week and they assure me every effort will continue to be made to meet requirements.



PACIFIC GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the failure of the Peace river bridge and the fact that the Pacific Great Eastern Railway bridge is to carry motor traffic, and in view of the increased importance of that railroad, can the Prime Minister give some indication to the house whether the government is giving consideration to providing construction grants for all the new construction from Vancouver to Squamish and from Prince George north to the end of construction?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has asked me to answer the hon. gentleman's question. Under the agreement by which the northwest highway system was handed over to Canada at the conclusion of the second world war, this country undertook to maintain that highway for military purposes. The commitment does not extend to the P.G.E., nor are the military requirements such as would justify this government making available grants for all the new construction on that railway from Vancouver to Squamish or from Prince George north to the end of construction.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I have a supplementary question, In my question I indicated the added importance of the railroad. I meant that this importance was owing to the fact that we have such terrific development taking place in that area.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is not the Alaska highway still a military highway, and therefore are we not responsible for the building of the bridge? Is it not still a military highway?


George Randolph Pearkes: The military requirement of the Alaska highway is not as great as it has been, but it is still being maintained for military traffic.



CHRISTMAS TREES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I wish to direct a question to his parliamentary assistant. In
448	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry asking the question I do not want the house to assume that I think the minister is Santa Claus.
Is consideration being given to establishing standard grades for Christmas trees offered for sale in Canada and, if so, when is an announcement respecting specifications, etc. to be expected?


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving notice of his intention to ask this question. In reply I would say that two-thirds of Canadian Christmas tree production is marketed in the United States, and a voluntary grading system is being brought into force in that market on a national basis on November 1,	1957.
Establishment of this system has been announced in the department's fortnightly publication Foreign Trade and details have been passed on to provincial governments and producers' associations.
This has renewed interest among Canadian producers in the adoption of standards covering all Canadian production. Close contact is being maintained in this matter with the provinces and the trade. The province of Nova Scotia has a voluntary grading system in existence. The trade has various grading rules in use.
The operation of the grading system in the United States will be watched with close interest. It has been introduced at a late date in the current season. If it is successful, and if general support for such a grading system develops in Canada, consideration will be given to establishing a voluntary national standard for use in this market in future years.



REPORTED VISIT TO OTTAWA OF U.S. CONGRESSIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am sorry I was too busy to send notice of the question.
Since the minister has recently been to the United States discussing trade, could he make a statement on the reason for the forthcoming visit to Ottawa of members of the subcommittee on foreign trade policy of the House of Representatives of the United States congress, and tell us what might be expected from this visit?


Thomas Miller Bell: Well, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister I will have to take notice of this question and see that an answer is given at an appropriate time.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might say something in reply to that question. The Boggs committee, so called from the name of the chairman, is a subcommittee of the committee of ways and means of the House of Representatives of the United States congress. It has gone abroad on a couple of occasions to consider in other countries questions pertaining to trade of such countries with the United States.
This committee is coming to Ottawa to be here on Wednesday and Thursday of this week to discuss such questions with the government departments concerned. After that discussion they propose, I believe, to go to Toronto on Friday. These will be informal discussions, I take it, for the purpose of exchanging information.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Is it not a
fact that the government of Canada asked this committee to come to Ottawa at this time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. I understand the committee, through the United States embassy here, expressed a desire to come to Ottawa for the purpose of these informal discussions.


Ernest George Hansell: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether this is part of the subcommittee's work in the United States in respect of calling witnesses? Are we to understand that instead of calling witnesses before their committee, they are coming to Canada to interview witnesses?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what their intention is in regard to calling witnesses on their own soil. The purpose of their visit here, as we have been given to understand by the representatives of the United States administration here, is to come and have talks with a view to gathering information. That is all that has been indicated to us.
[Later :1


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance with regard to the investigating committee that will be arriving here next week from the United States. Will the minister try to draw their attention to the very great importance of removing the tariffs on base metals entering the United States, impress upon them the very critical condition of the base metal mining industry, and also

point out to them how serious the situation will become if the United States imposes the proposed tariffs now being discussed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, just as the Canadian ministers did in their meeting with members of the United States administration at Washington several weeks ago, we expect to put those facts before the Boggs committee when they are here this week.



PRESS REPORTS OF PURPOSE OF CANADIAN MISSION TO UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. James Sinclair (Coast-Capilano):: should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of current reports in the Manchester Guardian and other British newspapers to the effect that the proposed Canadian trade mission of leading businessmen which will visit the United Kingdom next month will be primarily a selling mission rather than a purchasing mission? If this is so, then how will this correct our present imbalance of trade between Canada and the United Kingdom?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did see some press reports to that effect. The conclusions of the Manchester Guardian are ill-founded;
therefore the rest of the question has no application.



INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSIONS WITH PRIME MINISTER OF UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the question I put to the Prime Minister on Friday last could he now reply as to whether or not he had an opportunity of discussing matters of trade between the United Kingdom and Canada when he conferred with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on Friday and Saturday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the discussions had to do with what had occurred in Washington and the need for unity among the free nations of the world, and also the ascertainment of the position of this country in regard to those decisions. Further than that we did not go.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the 96698-29
Inquiries of the Ministry necessity of growing alternative crops, due to wheat congestion, has consideration been given to reducing the freight rate on rape seed from the present extremely high rate of 70 cents a hundred pounds to a level more in line with other grains?


George Harris Hees: I appreciate very much the hon. member's courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question.
A complaint respecting certain maximum freight rates on rape seed was heard by the board of transport commissioners. By its judgment, dated June 14, 1957, the board concluded that the present rates were not unreasonable and dismissed the application. I am not unappreciative of the impact of these rates on the growers of rape seed, and this matter is under consideration with my colleagues to ascertain whether some means might be available to meet the situation.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the intense interest in British Columbia in the inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act involving the united fishermen and allied workers' union, and in view of the request of the union that the hearings be held in public, will the minister consider having the request complied with?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice, and in reply I can tell him that I understand from the director that the request to which he referred is before the chairman of the commission at the present time. My information is that the chairman will be arriving at a decision shortly, and at that time it will be stated whether the request can be accepted or not.



METAL CULVERTS-INQUIRY AS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zapliiny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister taken any action to implement the recommendations of the restrictive trade practices commission as a result of the investigation into the activities of the manufacturers of metal culverts and related products?
450	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman tor the notice of this question which he sent me. Inasmuch as this matter is before me at the present moment for a decision which would be required to be communicated to the parties, I hope he will understand why I am unable to make a statement at this time. I can say, however, that I expect to be able to make a statement in the very near future.



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Algoma East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in accordance with the pattern established during and after world war II, Canada was invited to participate in the Anglo-American group set up last week in Washington to make recommendations in the field of nuclear relationship and co-operation?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the committee is just a temporary one and has no finality about it. All that was achieved in Washington was a general sense of direction. The horizons were viewed, a general course was taken, and when the permanent committees are set up in order to implement the agreements arrived at there, then there will be time for Canada to be represented on those committees.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Now that the minister has had ample time to consult his department to ascertain if he has received the resolution from the National Retail Lumbermen's Association, is he prepared to advise the house if Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation has accepted the recommendations of this association in order to stimulate the home building program, mainly in the Atlantic provinces?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the brief submitted by that association is being given very careful 3ludy by Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation.
'Mr. Zaplitny.l



REPORTED INCREASE IN INTEREST RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: 

PROVISION OF CREDIT FOR YOUNG FARMERS AND SMALL BUSINESSMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government any immediate plans for bringing down legislation to provide credit for young men starting to farm, and for small businessmen?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure a question as broad as this and relating to policy is not one that is contemplated for this stage of the order paper.



INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TO IMPLEMENT EASY MONEY POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Hornby Harrison: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Could the Minister of Finance advise of any steps being taken by the government to implement the easy money policy he advocated last session?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of having advocated any easy money policies.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the welcome announcement over the week end that hospital insurance will be put into effect in the province of Ontario not later than January 1, 1959, can the government say whether Ontario has been assured that there will be six provincial plans in operation by that date so that federal money can be made available to Ontario, or has the government given Ontario any other kind of undertaking to make sure that such federal money will be available when the plan comes into operation in Ontario?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, the answer is actually no to both questions, but I am sure the hon. member will agree that undoubtedly the plan will be coming into force in due course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. Is Ontario depending for the implementation of its plan on January 1, 1959, on getting federal money at that time?
96698-29J
would appear to be, according to the newspaper stories I have seen. I have not had an opportunity of going into the whole situation. No agreements have been signed so far. [Later:[


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since Ontario is now apparently committed to participate in a hospital insurance plan to commence January 1, 1959, is the federal government prepared to make payments to those provinces which have plans in operation now or on January 1, 1958-promptly?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Speaker, no provinces have actually entered into agreement with the federal power as yet.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a supplementary question. Do I take it from the answer of the minister that the government is prepared now to enter into plans with the provinces so that payments may be made from the federal treasury towards those plans which are in operation January 1, 1958?


Mr. Speaker:: The original question which the minister accepted seemed to me to ask for a pretty broad declaration of policy. I think I might exclude the supplementary question under these circumstances.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement of the Ontario plan for hospital insurance includes treatment for tubercular and mental diseases in the premium rates as announced. Does this government intend to recommend any contributions in respect to the treatment of these diseases?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will recognize that his question is an invitation for a declaration of government policy.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The authorities in Ontario require to have this information before they can set these rates-


Mr. Speaker:: What is the hon. member's question of privilege?


William Hector McMillan: If the province of Ontario has this information it should be given to this house.

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



DISCUSSIONS WITH U.K. PRIME MINISTER  DELEGATION TO NATO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Can
the Prime Minister tell the house anything about his discussions with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on Saturday and the announcement in the press that the Prime Minister himself will lead our delegation to the NATO conference in December?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of my hon. friend I wish to say this. The Prime Minister and the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom, accompanied by their officials, visited Ottawa on Friday evening and part of Saturday after their conversations in Washington and we-certain of my colleagues and myself-had the opportunity to discuss the questions that had arisen in Washington.
Since the meeting of the prime ministers in London in June I have been in close touch with Mr. Macmillan and naturally I welcomed the opportunity to discuss matters of common interest.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the foreign secretary described the conversations which they had had with President Eisenhower and Mr. Dulles. With the leave of the house I should like to table the communique issued in Washington on October 26 by the Prime Minister and the President of the United States.
Hon. members, I am sure, have been impressed by the obvious importance of this meeting and its significance in the world today. As we chatted with the Prime Minister we were greatly impressed by his appreciation of the interdependence of the free nations. That attitude is fully shared by this government. The discussions that took place in Washington were not intended to reach conclusions on matters of detail, and far less was it intended to arrive at formal and signed agreements. Just as I said a moment ago in answer to my friend the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson), the destination was indicated, the direction was determined, but the means to achieve either were not in any way finalized.
I believe this conference between the Prime Minister and the President in Washington has made possible great forward steps not only by the partnership of the United Kingdom and the United States, but also in the fact that it provides an assured opportunity for many countries to broaden and strengthen their peace and security within

NATO. I think the communique makes it clear-and our conversations certainly supported that impression

not only that the government of the United States and the government of the United Kingdom were in close agreement in their approach to the basic problem of the free world but, in addition, that they determined to open a clear road on which western countries could go forward in interdependence and co-operation.
The hon. gentleman would not expect me to comment in detail, but I would draw the attention of the house to many passages in which practical measures of co-operation are indicated. Stress is once more laid on the importance of disarmament and also, in the absence of effective disarmament, on the furtherance of collective defence arrangements. Thus to the agreed ideology of the free nations there can be added a greater sharing of scientific knowledge accompanied and reinforced by co-operation in the economic field.
As Canadians we welcome this further increase of common understanding and, I believe, imaginative thinking on the part of two great powers with whom we are so closely associated. The results achieved in Washington will have particular significance in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which will be one of the principal means through which practical results can be achieved.
The hon. member mentioned the December meeting. No final determination has been made as yet regarding the attendance of heads of government, although I think we can look forward with certainty to such a meeting taking place. As he said, I propose to attend the meeting. I understand also that proposals may be sent out to the heads of NATO countries to be present at the important discussions which will inevitably take place at that time.
As far as the discussions are concerned which took place here on Friday and Saturday, they are of a confidential character and I am sure the hon. gentleman will understand that they could not properly be repeated in full detail in this house. However, I feel that a great step forward has been made, and that any of those separations that kept us apart at any time since 1945 have been closed as a result of the meetings that have taken place. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States met as friends who were in the war together. They met with the objective of bringing about that unity which assured peace in the days of war, and peace with victory.

Today, as a result of the meeting there, I am extremely hopeful that the essential character of what may prove to be a milestone on the pathway to security of the free world has been attained. The objective unites us. The dangers of the present give us a cohesion similar to that which existed in the days of war. With unity and firm determination I believe that the Washington meeting will in the years ahead represent a step worthy of the best in both the nations represented, and that it will in general, in its objective, be acceptable to all those nations which are joined together in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister did not answer the question with regard to the announcement in the press that he had made the statement that he himself would lead the Canadian delegation to the NATO meeting in December. Is that report correct?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks I said I was going to attend that meeting.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not hear that statement.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman asked whether I will head the delegation, and that is so.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not hear the Prime Minister say he was going to attend the meeting. Otherwise I would not have risen.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to table the joint communique to which he referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



READING ROOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Irvin Studer (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Postmaster General. Is the Postmaster General aware that a period of from four to six days elapses from the date of publication before western daily newspapers are available in the House of Commons reading room? Is the minister contemplating air mail service for daily papers for the House of Commons so all members will have contact with news events in their provinces equal to that of central Canadian members?


Hon. W. M. Hamillon (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the Post Office Department would be delighted to provide air mail service for all newspapers which wish to pay for it.
Inquiries of the Ministry I might point out for the benefit of hon. members and perhaps the newspapers that there are certain newspapers in this country which do provide that service-


An hon. Member:: The Vancouver Sun.


William McLean Hamilton: -in
order that members may receive their newspapers more expeditiously.



SOUND SYSTEM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will find on
their desks a chart of the Tannoy system of sound reproduction for the House of Commons. I asked that the furnishing of this chart be repeated following the request of the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) the other day. I believe if members locate themselves on the chart with respect to the nearest microphone, and also read the explanations as to the microphones which are activated when they rise to speak, this will enable hon. members to address themselves generally in the direction of the microphone which is active so we will be able to hear in all parts of the house.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
FOR 350th ANNIVERSARY
On the orders of the day:
William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I was asked by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Landry) a question with respect to the possibility of a stamp to commemorate the 350th anniversary of the founding of Quebec city. I am very glad to tell him that such a stamp is currently in the process of being designed and will be issued in 1958.



REQUEST FOR MINTING OF COMMEMORATIVE SILVER DOLLAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I am sorry I could not give him notice of my question. Is it the intention of the government to consider the minting of a silver dollar to honour the 350th anniversary of the founding of the city of Quebec?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the matter has been suggested. I think my hon. friend will appreciate the fact that I could not undertake to give an answer on the spot today.
4S4

Inquiries of the Ministry COAL



INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TO ASSIST PRODUCTION AND MARKETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys or to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whoever is in a position to answer it. What steps has the government taken to increase coal production and marketing in Canada so that our coal mining industry might have some relief from its present depressed condition? Especially am I interested in the coal mining industry in western Canada.


Paul Comtois: I will take due notice of the question and will have the answer tomorrow or the day after.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
address a question to the Minister of Transport. I have not sent him notice of this question as I did of the last one, but I am sure he will be able to answer quickly since it concerns a matter which probably has already been decided by him. Is it the policy of his department to dismiss employees in the Department of Transport merely because of charges of political partisanship?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, according to the rules and regulations of parliament as I understand them, if a member of parliament over his signature states that a civil servant or somebody working for the government has actively participated in political activity during a campaign, that person can be dismissed.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Are such dismissals made without a hearing or without an investigation even on the part of your department, or without giving an opportunity to the person dismissed to be heard by the employers in the department?


George Harris Hees: Anybody who would be charged would definitely be given an opportunity to be heard.


Harold Edward Winch: Where is the regulation?


Major James William Coldwell: Is this laid down in the regulations, that there is an appeal for the employees?


George Harris Hees: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that has been the practice followed in the past, but I will check it up.


Lionel Chevrier: No, it is not. I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister tell the house if the holder of position No. 64-I do not desire to mention his name in the house-who was a labour foreman on the Ontario St. Lawrence canal, was dismissed on the complaint of a member of this house because of political partisanship?


George Harris Hees: I do not know the particular case, Mr. Speaker, but I will certainly look it up.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister report to the house?


George Harris Hees: Naturally.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister supplementary to the one that was raised by the hon. member for Laurier. Will the Prime Minister inquire into, and table, how many civil servants, or those holding contracts with the government, were dismissed owing to their political activity? Will he outline the circumstances of the dismissal in each instance (a) prior to the election, after the writ was issued; and (b) after the election?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Frederick George Hahn: Will the Prime Minister table such a list?


Mr. Speaker:: I think it has been suggested from the ministerial benches that this question is an appropriate one for the order paper, and I think that is the answer the hon. member has received to his question.



PATENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has the minister yet received the report of the royal commission on patents, copyrights, trademarks and industrial design? If not, can the minister say when the report may be received and when it will be made public?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the commission has not yet signed its report. The report in English on copyright is ready, and a final draft in French

is being prepared. Both will be presented in this house within a month, I hope within a couple of weeks.
With regard to the report on industrial design, the commission has been working on the final draft and we hope it also will be ready within a month, though that is not a definite promise; it is a little too early to tell.
With regard to patents, the commission has made tentative plans to resume sittings in March, 1958. The first draft of the discussions to date has already been prepared.
Finally, with regard to trademarks, the commission has purposely postponed both the hearings and sittings until an appropriate time has elapsed since the coming into force of the new Trade Marks Act so the results of that act can be studied.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether he would inquire into the reason for the delay in answering my question about the establishment of a Canadian coast guard, which has been on the order paper as No. 35 for some considerable time.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to do so. I know that the answer has been prepared for at least a week.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked on a couple of occasions by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) to make a statement about the meeting of the commonwealth prime ministers which was held in London from June 26 to Friday, July 5, of this year.
For me it was a novel experience, and what particularly impressed me was the atmosphere of friendship and understanding which prevailed. The meetings were presided over by Mr. Macmillan, and I was conscious of the sense of unity and common purpose which lay behind our discussions. While there was disagreement in terms on occasion there was, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) said in this house in reporting on an earlier conference, a unity in the common dedication of all members of the commonwealth to the preservation of freedom.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Meetings of prime ministers are, of course, not the only means, though they are certainly one of the means, whereby consultation is maintained among members of the commonwealth. For the first time the representative from Ghana was present and, in addition, a welcome in anticipation was given to Malaya. What took place in this regard reflected the ability of the commonwealth to adjust itself to changing conditions.
I must say a word in regard to the Prime Minister of Ghana. He not only added to the value of the discussions, but by his presence he illustrated that wise and orderly process under which the statesmen of the United Kingdom bring about the evolution to sovereign status of the various nations which previously held colonial status. This is one of the things of which I think all of us in the commonwealth can be really proud, the bringing together of peoples without regard to race or colour, and the steps taken for them to have the opportunity to become independent nations and, by their own decisions, to remain within the family of nations.
The discussions were, naturally, held in camera. A communique was issued at the end of the meetings which gives a fair impression of the scope and extent of the discussions, and, by leave of the house, I should like to table the document so it might be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.
(For text of communique referred to above, see Appendix "B", pages 498-9.)
The subjects discussed are set out in the communique: the United Nations; the tragic events, the noble events, in Hungary; disarmament; the problems of the Middle East, the Far East and southeast Asia; and, in addition, there was a review of economic conditions and means of furthering and expanding economic development within the commonwealth.
I mentioned the United Nations. I am going to refer specifically to the clause in that connection which summarizes fairly completely the attitude of the prime ministers and the representatives of these countries within the commonwealth to that body:
The United Nations was designated to provide one of the main opportunities for the practical exercise of the principle of co-operation between nations. Experience has, however, revealed certain deficiencies and weaknesses in the functioning of the organization. The commonwealth ministers agreed that constructive action is needed to strengthen and improve the United Nations as an instrument for preserving peace, justice and cooperation throughout the world in accordance with the principles of the charter.
Because of the events in the Middle East and in Hungary in November of last year which demonstrated the strength and the
456	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry weaknesses of the United Nations, there was a feeling in several of the commonwealth countries that our ideas about its functions and procedures deserved to be reviewed. There was an underlying belief in its importance in the world, and at the same time a realization that being of human origin it had its imperfections, and that while it might be difficult to remove some of those imperfections which had been found as a result of the trial and error of experience it had nonetheless performed effectively its work in general.
I expressed the view of Canada, as I saw it, that while the United Nations had made mistakes we demanded its continuance. I also suggested that unless the tendency toward bloc voting could be checked the authority of the assembly would be undermined. In my opinion governments should vote in the light of what they see as the best interests of the world rather than as members of a voting bloc.
You will see from the reading of the communique that all were agreed about the necessity for the maintenance of the organization, and all were equally agreed that it was the duty of all governments to seek means of increasing its effectiveness.
Another question raised was that of disarmament, and an appreciation of the terrible form which a third war would take. There was no disagreement that every effort should be made to bring about a comprehensive disarmament agreement which would afford security to all nations, and that even a limited agreement would be a most desirable first step.
Since our meeting was held the subcommittee on disarmament, of which Canada is a member, ended its latest series of meetings without reporting any substantial progress, and as you know the question is now being discussed at the United Nations. My colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke in the assembly debate on Wednesday morning, and emphasized that the fundamental task before mankind is not merely to save the world from war but as well to save it from destruction.
We also discussed the question of commonwealth trade and economic relations. As my colleague the Minister of Finance mentioned in the house on Wednesday, I invited the commonwealth finance ministers to meet in Canada after the September meeting of the international monetary fund. It is my view that within the commonwealth framework a great deal more can be done than has in fact been accomplished to increase and diversify international trade and expand the 

means whereby commonwealth members can assist each other's economic development. Increased trade and co-operation in our economic relations will, I hope, be materially advanced as a result of the commonwealth trade and economic conference which is an outgrowth of the discussions which took place at the commonwealth prime ministers' conference. I believe this trade and economic conference will be a practical step of value to all members of the commonwealth.
There are other though less tangible factors which bind together the members of the commonwealth. If they are not easy to measure they are nevertheless of major significance. I have in mind the general summary of the Leader of the Opposition when reporting on the last conference, when he pointed out the degree in which unity was brought about in diversity among various races and peoples in an organization that has no binding rules and no actual formation in so far as a written agreement is concerned. We are bound together, and it was extremely apparent there, in the great objectives which we hold in common. They have been said before and they bear repeating at this time and at all times: to preserve the liberty of the individual, to increase the social and economic well-being of all peoples and, above all, the need of each of the component parts working ceaselessly toward peace.
While no actual resolutions or final determinations arose out of that conference- for that is the course that is always followed in these conferences-there were in effect decisions made whereby each of the members of the commonwealth agreed without exception that only in continued co-operation and also in the maintenance of full consultation can the commonwealth achieve that destiny which is the hope of its peoples everywhere.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the proposal of the Prime Minister to have this communique printed acceptable to the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the Prime Minister's statement, I wonder if he could inform the house as to what extent the problem of surplus agricultural production in various nations of the world was discussed, and also the even more critical problem of deficiency of production in certain other commonwealth countries, and generally whether any discussion took place of an expansion of agricultural production in the commonwealth as a whole?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question of the need of preserving the agricultural machine in every part of the commonwealth was discussed, and the need of the needy nations was a matter of consideration.
All were in agreement-and I am sure hon. members of this house are in agreement

that food production is of major importance as a bulwark for the preservation of the free world against the advance of communism. I think Canada's action announced the other day in connection with the Colombo plan is but an indication of the fact that surpluses of agricultural products are indeed a trust to be maintained for the benefit of peoples less economically independent. Our action in providing for assistance to Pakistan and India under the Colombo plan in the form of agricultural products is an indication of the determination arrived at at the conference.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In the closing session of the last parliament the previous minister of finance gave a commitment that there would be the minting of a silver dollar in honour of the centenary of British Columbia. Could the Minister of Finance tell us whether that commitment made previously is now being honoured, and if there will be a minting of a commemorative silver dollar?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the dollar has been minted. I think when my hon. friend sees it he will recognize it as entirely worthy not only of the centennial in the life of British Columbia but also of the high standards of the Royal Canadian Mint.


Mr. Mclvor:: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance this question. If we wish to purchase these dollars what will they cost?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, they will cost 100 cents.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can he say whether a date has been fixed for the official opening of the new post office building in Winnipeg?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: No, no date has yet been set, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether a decision has yet been made as to what will be done with the old post office building when the new one is opened?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Conservative headquarters.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member had better give us a little time on that question.



MEASURE TO PROVIDE CASH ADVANCES ON FARM-STORED GRAIN

Hon. D. S. Harkness (for the Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 14, to provide for advance payments for prairie grain prior to delivery thereof.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am substituting today for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) who at the present time is heading our delegation at the GATT meeting at Geneva, for which he had to leave by air on Saturday. I regret and he regrets that he is not able to be here today to complete the piloting of this bill through the house.
The bill now before us appears to have the general approval of the house. On Thursday last, during the resolution stage, the Minister of Trade and Commerce outlined the main features of the bill, and hon. members who spoke had no serious criticism to offer. Some emphasized that it was a step in the right direction, but that it did not go far enough. Others considered that the 6-bushel quota was insufficient. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that no bill could be introduced in this house along this line, or along most other lines without having some people in the house ask for more.
When the vote was taken only three members of the house opposed the resolution. I hope second reading will receive the same almost unanimous consent. The House of Commons recognizes good legislation and this is good legislation; for it is designed to, and will, assist one of the most important segments of our economy. Canada's wheat industry has played a predominant part in the economic life of our country and through our export trade, has earned the income to pay for a large part of our imports.
At the resolution stage the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner), suggested that the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act

Grain
should not be repealed, that it could be helpful in the early part of any marketing season. Let me make three points on this suggestion. First, the bill now before the house does not repeal the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act; second, some weeks ago, as the first step to meet the critical shortage of cash, the government proclaimed the interim financing act which provides loans to prairie producers through the chartered banks, and I am pleased to report to the house that these loans were made available by the banks at 5 per cent interest, notwithstanding the recent increase in the interest rate on other bank loans; third, while we are not proposing the repeal of this act, I do not expect it will be used extensively, if at all, when the system of cash advances comes into effect.
On many previous occasions I have expressed the view that producers should be able to obtain cash advances rather than have to seek bank loans when the elevator system is congested, and I am certain that the bank loan system will fall into disuse.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has already paid a visit to our major markets in Europe, in company with members of the Canadian wheat board. He reported to me that it was a most stimulating and on the whole heartening experience. He found that Canadian wheat is held in high regard in the United Kingdom and western European countries. Our main difficulties have arisen from the continuing encouragement that is being given to domestic production in European countries by import restrictions as well as very high support prices, and from the effects of United States barter sales. On a straight commercial basis we are fully competitive and holding our own, and we intend to remain that way. Our sales to the United Kingdom and Europe this crop year should compare favourably with last crop year.
I have referred to the surplus disposal activities of the United States as one of the main obstacles in the way of selling more Canadian wheat. It has seemed to me for some time that these activities on the part of our good neighbour to the south called for plain public speaking on our part. The Prime Minister and other members of the government have done some of that kind of speaking, and I do not think that we offended anyone. On the other hand I believe the United States administration, more of the congress and more of the American people, now know that we have a legitimate grievance.
When the joint United States-Canada committee on trade and economic affairs met in
Washington a few weeks ago the Canadian members made strong representations to the United States administration on this subject of surplus wheat disposal. In particular we protested against the effects of the barter program under which the United States exported about 90 million bushels of wheat during the past crop year. I should perhaps explain to the house that, in effect, this barter program has been only a concealed form of additional subsidy by the United States. The result has been to reduce normal United States commercial sales as well as hurt the Canadian competitive position.
We found that our United States colleagues agreed in the main with this point of view, and they affirmed to us their intention that before approving further barter transactions they would require proof that those transactions would result in additional sales. If this intention is adhered to, barter transactions are not likely to be important from now on. We also found the United States members in agreement that surplus disposal should not be permitted to interfere with normal commercial exports, and they provided evidence that their programs are being directed more and more to underdeveloped countries in acute balance of payment difficulties. We also talked with them about the tied sales provisions of surplus disposal agreements, and found that the administration had moved some way to our point of view.
I do not wish to create the impression, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian government were fully satisfied with these discussions. We know that congress and not the administration makes the laws of the United States. We know too that so long as a large surplus exists in the United States and there is pressure to get rid of it there will continue to be trouble. But at least I believe we are making progress.
When the resolution preceding this bill was before the house my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave a brief description of the proposal for cash advances on farm-stored grain. The bill is now in the hands of hon. members. As will be seen, this is a simple, straightforward plan. The establishment of an elaborate system of inspection of grain on the farm and the sealing of bins was considered and rejected. It would have involved an army of inspectors and a very large expenditure which in our view could not have been justified under existing circumstances. Instead, it was decided to proceed through the efficient and familiar machinery which has been in operation in western Canada for many years.
The bill proposes that the advances should be made in the same manner and through

the same channels as initial payments are now made by the Canadian wheat board, namely through the local country elevators. These elevators now buy grain for the wheat board under a handling agreement. We propose that they should make advance payments on behalf of the wheat board in a similar way.
It will be apparent to hon. members, ait was to those of us in the government, of course, that there is a considerable difference between paying for grain that has been delivered into a country elevator and making an advance on grain still on the farm and that has not yet been delivered. The government, therefore, consulted with representatives of the wheat pools, the united grain growers and the northwest line elevator association, as well as representatives of the interprovincial farm union and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I am happy to be able to report to the house that these organizations have agreed to co-operate with the government and the wheat board in making advances available through their local elevator agents and to assume a share of any losses that may result.
I have here the telegrams in answer to the request which was made to the pools, the united grain growers and the line elevator companies after discussions had been held with them and what was required of them had been outlined to them. They then went back to consult their boards of directors, and in all cases they sent favourable replies. The first one is from Ben Plumer, chairman of the Alberta wheat pool.


Hazen Robert Argue: What is the date?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Grain
western farmers are comparatively small farmers. I have here a compilation which shows the situation in this regard at a glance and I would just like to read a few figures from it and then, with the permission of the house, I should like to have the whole thing printed in Hansard because it will give hon. members a very good idea of the size of western Canadian farms, and of the distribution of acreage on those farms as between wheat, oats and barley.
In looking at this compilation I see the farms having a specified acreage of less than 100 acres, that is to say zero to 99 acres, and these total 31,299.


Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the minister? Does that figure refer to 100 acres of cultivated land?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is specified acreage. This is a list giving the breakdown of permit holders in western Canada, being the total of 230,854 and of this total there are 31,299 who have from zero to 99 specified acres or acres under cultivation.
There are 63,272 who have between 100 and 199 acres and there are 51,762 who have between 200 and 299 acres under cultivation. In other words, of the total of 230,000 odd permit holders there are about 145,000 with less than 300 specified acres or acres under cultivation and that of course constitutes nearly two-thirds of the total number of farmers in western Canada.
In other words, contrary to the general belief existing in eastern Canada that western farmers are all big farmers, rich farmers and in some cases are reputed to go to California for the winter and that sort of thing, there are in fact very few farmers in this category and most of them are small farmers in this area. As these figures indicate, in fact two-thirds of them or a little less have farms with 300 acres or less cultivated land. Now with the permission of the house I would like to have this whole table incorporated into the record of Hansard.


Hazen Robert Argue: I winder if the minister could say how many farms are in excess of 1,000 acres; in other words, how many will not be covered by this legislation?


Douglas Scott Harkness: All farms are covered by this legislation. But in answer to my hon. friend's question with respect to those farms having 1,000 acres and over of cultivated land, there are 3,603 farms having 1,000 to 1,999 specified acres and the figures come down in groups of 1,000 acres at a time. The figures are 213, 66, 24, 17, 5 and 2. In other words there are two farms having between 7,000 acres and 7,999 acres.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has suggested that the list to which he has referred should be printed in Hansard. Is it agreed that the list be part of the printed record in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Specified	Number of	Average	Acreage	Permit	Specified	Groupings	Holders	Acreage	Average Acreages	Wheat	Oats Barley	0- 99 . .	... 31,299	64	16	18	15100- 199 ..	.. . 63,272	143	39	31	29200- 299 ..	.. . 51,762	246	77	44	40300- 399 . .	. . . 31,206	340	117	50	45400- 499 . .	. .. 20,672	442	167	54	51500- 599 . .	. .. 12,160	544	215	59	51600- 699 . .	... 7,514	639	261	59	59700- 799 . .	. . . 4,634	743	308	62	67800- 899 ..	,. .. 2,658	842	348	69	70900- 999 ..	. .. 1,747	942	396	70	681000-1999 . .	.. . 3,603	1248	527	81	952000-2999 ..	... 213	2362	971	169	1693000-3999 ..	... 66	3394	1197	364	2274000-4999 ..	... 24	4500	1542	500	4175000-5999 ..	... 17	5529	2000	353	3536000-6999 . .	... 5	6200	2600	400	4007000-7999 . .	... 2	7000	3000	500	500230,854


Douglas Scott Harkness: 
An hon. Member:: Per cent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: If it is all No. 1 wheat.

Grain


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. Now when you work it out you find that the relative amount which a farmer is able to get decreases as the size of his farm increases. In other words, the smaller a man's farm the greater advantage he gets from the scheme, relatively speaking. Now in the case of a man with 100 specified acres, he would have the possibility of taking in a total during the year on a six-bushel quota, plus his unit quota of course, of $1,110. Under this scheme he will get his unit quota of $370 and of course the cash advance of $300, for a total of $670. The same figures for a man with 200 specified acres would be $1,852. Cash advance plus unit quota is $970. The percentages, of course, of what he receives in cash go down, so that the man with 50 acres or a percentage of 70.27 compares with the man with 1,000 acres or a percentage of 43.31.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that that effectively disposes of any idea anyone may have- particularly the contention of the member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker)-that this scheme is of no value to the small farmer. I believe it is of particular value to the small farmers and I am quite sure that in the thousands and thousands they will find it an absolute lifesaver this year. It will provide them in fact with cash with which to get through the winter. I fear I have perhaps gone into too much detail as these matters can be more properly dealt with in committee of the whole. I have spoken on the subject to some extent so that the picture may be clear to the hon. members. I will close at this point but would like to assure all hon. members that if they wish to secure further information on any of the details of this bill I will be delighted to go into those at the committee of the whole stage.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I could ask a question of the hon. minister with respect to his general comment on the wheat situation. Could he state at what time a payment might be made out of the 19561957 wheat pool? The reason I asked that question is that I have asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce for the information, and I took it from his remarks that he would perhaps be commenting on it in his general statement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have not the material figures available here which would enable me to answer that question now. I think the hon. member realized that might be the case. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) did give something in the nature of an undertaking to deal with
the general wheat situation on the resolution stage. At page 352 of Hansard, of October 24, he said:
At the second reading stage of the bill I will discuss our sales program as well as other aspects of our wheat economy.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce will be very happy to do that at a future time, and there will be opportunity for him to place that information before the house.


Mr. Stefura:: Mr. Speaker, did I understand the minister to say that a farmer farming 300 acres of land will get the amount of his initial quota plus $1,800?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Nine hundred dollars.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, there are a few things I would like to say before we go on to discuss the principles of the bill-the first is that while I am sorry the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) is not able to be here to introduce this measure or to move its second reading I am quite pleased that the task has been undertaken by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). The question has been under discussion for a long time in this house as to where responsibility for matters having to do with the marketing of wheat ought to lie, and it is interesting to sit here this afternoon and hear the Minister of Agriculture dealing with questions that are concerned with this subject.
Then, again, I was interested in the statement he made to the effect that the legislation which I mentioned at the resolution stage- legislation which is already on the statute books-will not be repealed; in other words, the opportunity for farmers to obtain money under the farm loan legislation, as it is generally called, is still to remain. Then, too, I was pleased that at the end of his remarks he placed some figures on record in Hansard. As he stated to the house, the proper time to discuss those figures will be during the committee stage, but if we did not have them at this stage we should, of course, not have them available when we are in committee, and thus we would not be in a position to discuss them.
One part of the last submission of statistics placed before the house which interested me considerably was the set of figures which prove, apparently to the satisfaction of all members on the other side of the house, that the farms in western Canada are not as big as we sometimes hear people saying they are. We have been accustomed to hearing a great many arguments based on the idea that our farms are growing bigger and bigger, and that eventually the numbers of the farm population will be greatly decreased on that

Grain
account. But the figures contained in the table which was submitted to the house a few moments ago must remove very satisfactorily as far as I am concerned any doubts that may have been in the minds of hon. members with regard to that matter, and I am sure it will be very helpful in making decisions as to what should be done to have that evidence fairly established in our minds when we are discussing farm problems in the house.
In the latter part of his remarks the minister took occasion to address some advice to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) who is not in the house today and who probably will not be here during this discussion. I think, therefore, that I should make a few remarks with regard to what was said.
This legislation was discussed at some length at the resolution stage, but I think I am correct in saying that apart from the minister himself the only hon. member who attempted to analyse the meaning of the bill in so far as assistance to farmers is concerned, and to compare it with other legislation which we have passed, was the hon. member for Rosthern. I not only listened to his speech with a great deal of interest, but I have read it over very carefully since, and I must say that the facts as he stated them and as he supported them with statistics and with quotations are very close to the facts as they exist in connection with the farmers' position in the western part of Canada, that is in the prairie section of Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: His whole effort was an attempt to show that the loan system of last year was the same as cash advances. It is completely different, and the number of loans made shows it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to show that the loan system of last year was as good as cash advances as provided under Bill No. 14.
What does Bill No. 14 propose to do? It proposes to make available cash payments to a limited number of farmers in the prairie provinces; not to the whole 231,000 of them, but only to a limited number. And, further, it proposes that those cash payments should be made in limited amounts. It proposes, too, that they be made on a limited part of the farmer's production in the 1957-58 crop year and succeeding current crop years. This, in principle, is the same as the provisions in the grain producers interim finance act of 1956. That act put on limits similar to those which are put on by this act now under discussion, and I hope to be able to show that they are not likely to be greater than those under this act.

The limitations under the bank loans act of 1956 were: the loan could amount to one-half the value of the grain stored on the farm, less the return of any grain delivered in the current crop year; and the loan was limited to $3,000. In Bill No. 14 the limitations are: the amount is limited to fifty cents on wheat, 20 cents on oats and 35 cents on barley, multiplied by the quota of 6 bushels per acre, less the cash received on all but the unit quota in the current crop year. The advance is again limited to a maximum of $3,000.
Now there is one sole difference in the matter of limitation, and that was emphasized by the minister when he was speaking a few minutes ago. The first 300 bushels, that is the initial unit, is not affected by the limitation which is imposed with regard to what a farmer can obtain. But both plans limit the number of persons to be assisted, confining it to farmers having grain stored on their farms. But Bill No. 14 limits the number further to those with a current year's crop, and limits it by that quota. Then, secondly, they both limit the cash obtainable: in the case of bank loans to one-half of all grain stored on a farm with a maximum of $3,000, and in the case of Bill No. 14 to less than half the value of the grain under the 6-bushel quota in the current year with a maximum of $3,000.
I wish to say a few words concerning the statement made toward the end of the minister's address to the effect that certain payments could be made under this bill. In the first place he stated that he took No. 1 wheat as the basis upon which to do his computing of the amount. Just before I entered the chamber today I received a statement from the Department of Trade and Commerce with regard to the percentages of wheat delivered in western Canada according to grade. I am sorry I did not bring the information with me because it demonstrates that in recent years and particularly during the past year a very small percentage of the grain which has gone into elevators has been No. 1 or No. 2, that the greater proportion has been No. 3 or No. 4. It also indicates that the cash which actually does get into the hands of the farmer will be down by 11 cents, I think, if he happens to have No. 3 wheat instead of No. 1, and the amount of cash that gets into his hands will be considerably less than that if he has No. 4 wheat. As you go down the scale it becomes less and less.
When I first read the figures given-50 cents for wheat, 20 cents for oats, 35 cents for barley-I was inclined to jump to the conclusion that this was, after all, considerably below half the price if one considered the price of No. 1 wheat but I am not so

sure that my hon. friend might not be correct or nearly so when he suggests that it might be more than half the value of the grain that is obtained under those prices.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not suggest that.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the case in any event, or so I judge from the wording of the legislation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We think the 50-cent price is about an average.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, an average from No. 6 up.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, applying to all grades.


James Garfield Gardiner: Grain
once it was passed we received their full co-operation in the carrying out of the plan involved.
It is indicated that there will not be any competition at the local points in making loans. I am sure my hon. friend understands human nature sufficiently well to realize that he cannot maintain that position.
The elevator operators who are buying grain at points in western Canada, particularly during times when space is available, -perhaps not so much when space is not readily available-are, of course, interested in getting grain.
It should be said at this time that an elevator owner has no other way to make money. He does not speculate in grain any more; he does not buy grain at so much a bushel and sell it at so much more and make money that way. What he does is store grain and handle it, and all he gets for it are the handling charges at so much a bushel. That is the only way he can make earnings for his shareholders, or for the farmers who belong to the pool, if it happens to be the pool because, make no mistake about it, the farmers of western Canada watch the operations of the wheat pools just as closely as shareholders watch the operations of the joint stock companies. They are proud of them only when they make a return that indicates that they have not lost money. Therefore, the wheat pools are just as anxious about the charges as anyone else when they meet in those gatherings, which are composed of all the people who own and operate elevators.
When they meet in those gatherings there is an agreement between the line trade and the wheat pools as to what the charges per bushel are to be. And it is those charges per bushel that make it possible for the companies, pools or otherwise, to pay their carrying charges and have something in addition to account for to their shareholders, or to the members of their co-operative, as the case may be, and therefore, of course, there is going to be competition.
In our towns and villages there are a number of elevators. Of course, an agent in one elevator will do the best he can, and I do not think that is a bad thing for the farmers. There will be competition and that competition on the part of each will be to get the man's wheat. The best way for him to get the man's wheat is to make those advances as easily available to him as possible. When he gets started in that way he will be able to carry on right through the season and get whatever grain the man has. I am using the term "wheat" here all the way through. I should be using the term "grain" really because it applies to oats and

barley as well as to wheat. I just wanted to emphasize the fact that the grain dealer, the grain buyer, has certain responsibilities. He has a responsibility to his company to get the grain; he has a responsibility to himself and to his company not to lose money in getting it, and he is going to be a little careful about the loans that he makes.
I only recite that in order to show that there is going to be the same reason in connection with this bill for the advance to be held perhaps to a lower level, as there was in the other bill; for the banker to take care that not too much money is lost in connection with it. But what I really want to call attention to in connection with this part of the bill is that the farmers who are going to come for cash under these advances are going to be limited by something else.
This bill says that the man has his advance in the form of a cash ticket. Every farmer in western Canada knows what that means. There are very few elevators in western Canada that pay out money at any time. The elevator companies, even including the pools, are very careful about the responsibility they place on agents and they are very careful, too, about the manner in which the business is carried on. I venture to say that there is not a town or a village in western Canada where there is a bank where these cash tickets are not payable in the bank and in most places where there is not a bank there is a businessman, a merchant or some other person who has responsibilities to a bank who handles that money for the elevator company or the pool and passes it out to the farmer. One should consider that point.
Let me return to some of the criticisms that used to be made from this side of the house by those who are government members now and by our friends of the C.C.F. and of the Social Credit parties, that the banker was the last man the farmer wanted to go to. Partly because of the discussions that took place at that time but mostly because of the representations made to us by the farmers we made absolutely certain that no one had any claim on this money except the farmer. If the bank attempted to give anyone else any claim that bank did not have a guarantee at all from the government. Therefore all the money that was lent out under that plan was lent out with the absolute guarantee to the farmer that every dollar of the loan was to be handed to him. The bank could not apply it on any other indebtedness that there was to the bank with respect to the farmers' activities. That is not so in this instance.
We were told a few moments ago of one case in particular. Every farmer in western

Canada knows that under provincial law, not under federal law, there is posted in every elevator the unpaid taxes of the farmers who deliver grain to that elevator. When a load of grain is hauled in to the elevator the first thing that is taken out of the proceeds of that grain is the man's taxes, and they are paid. That was the situation when the farm loan bill was put through this house in 1956.
It was stated the other day by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) when he addressed this house that all of these things, and a great many other things, were still in the bill. They have not been in the bill since the first week it was brought into existence back in 1956. In order to have these things taken out a meeting was called in the city of Winnipeg of those who were interested. All these provisions were taken out of the administration of the act, and they could not take the taxes out of the man's small amount. I venture to say that out of the number of small farmers who were listed in the report that has been put on Hansard today a great many of them are men who owe a considerable part of what the advances will amount to in municipal taxes. Under the old legislation we maintained that since the farmer was going to get back 50 per cent of the value of the wheat that he took to the elevators, or the value of the grain he took to the elevators, over the entire period the loan was outstanding, half of that money was to be paid to the farmer, believing that the farmers in western Canada are honest, as the minister says, and believing that as they got the money they would go and pay their taxes, and not have it taken out of the amount of money that was advanced by loan then or that which will be advanced now in the form of a ticket. But when you advance it in the form of a ticket the farmer must take that ticket over to the bank and have it cashed. So far as I can find out there is nothing in this bill that makes it impossible for the banker, in these circumstances, to apply that to any account he may have in the bank against the farmer. Some of my friends object. Let them try it and see where they will get.


Hazen Robert Argue: There are credit unions.


James Garfield Gardiner: The credit unions are not all over the place. I venture to say that the credit unions are a little careful about lending money to some people. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that there are places all the way through this legislation which do not encourage the making of more loans or greater sums of money available to the farmers-


Douglas Scott Harkness: There are no loans in this scheme.
Grain


James Garfield Gardiner: The minister does not call them loans but everybody else will think they are, in spite of what the minister says. When a man gets some money he has got to pay back, it is a loan.


An hon. Member:: With no interest.


James Garfield Gardiner: My friend says "with no
interest". There is no interest on it until it becomes overdue but if it becomes overdue then it is 6 per cent, and no legislation that we ever put through had a rate of 6 per cent.


Mr. Cardiff:: Who said anything about 6
per cent?


James Garfield Gardiner: A lot of farmers in western Canada are not able to meet their accounts on the day that they are due. This legislation says that ten days after they are notified it is in default, if under other circumstances they are not notified it is in default on the 15th of the following September; that under other circumstances it is finally all in default on the 31st of December in that particular year. So after any one of those periods go by the farmer concerned pays 6 per cent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: After you have read that
far you should read the next section of the bill.


James Garfield Gardiner: I read all the sections of
the bill; I have read them several times.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then you did not understand the next section.


James Garfield Gardiner: The fact is I do understand them or I would not be able to get up here and talk about them without reading them to you.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You had better read this
one again.


James Garfield Gardiner: The matter is in that position, and again I repeat there is a possibility that there will not be as many people obtain loans under this measure as under the other one. There is a possibility that the amount of money obtained will not be as great, not because of anything that this government does, not because of anything that the elevator company does, not because of anything that the bank may necessarily do but because the farmers of western Canada are fairly careful businessmen, themselves. When a man knows he owes the bank $1,000 or $3,000 and can go and get an advance of a certain amount and then has to take the cheque to the bank in order to cash it, he knows he is going to be asked for some of that money and there will probably be considerable pressure put on him to pay what he owes the bank. Therefore when my hon. friend says that all 231,000 of these farmers

Grain
who are eligible are going to come along and get money and that the total may be $100 million or $150 million-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not say that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, you pretty nearly
said that. If what you did say meant anything it meant that and if it did not mean that it did not mean anything.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said a large proportion
of them.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am simply suggesting that the amount could be lower and in taking that position I am simply following an example that was set by my hon. friends when they were on this side of the house. It did not make any difference what we told them the farmers would do. They went on saying that we would find that the amount would not be that high. I am trying to tell you now that it will not be as high as you think it is going to be.
That is another reason why I am very pleased that you are leaving the other measure on the statute books because by the time we get through another year we will know which of us is right. If my hon. friends took the bank loan bill off the statute books and tried to prove that what they said while they were in opposition was correct, that it was no good to the farmer, then we would still be arguing about it a year hence. Since they are going to leave it on the statute books it is not going to be necessary for me to say very much more about it at this time. We will have it all before us when we come before the house next year.


An hon. Member:: Where will you be then?


James Garfield Gardiner: Some of my hon. friends probably think there will not be a next year before another election and that may be the chief reason why they are talking the way they are now. We could have an election before we can prove this one way or the other. But do not make any mistake about it. The farmers of western Canada will be able to size up the situation for everything that it is worth within the next two, three, four, five or six months if it becomes necessary for them to make a decision during that period of time.


An hon. Member:: And they will vote for this program.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course I know my hon. friends will help them to reach a decision, and I can assure them that my friends of the C.C.F. back in the corner here and my Social Credit friends over there and those in this group will also help to do the same thing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You mean you will help to confuse the issue.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, we will not help to confuse the issue. We will try to prevent the government from confusing the issue to the extent that they have in recent years and recent months.


An hon. Member:: Are you going to vote against it?


James Garfield Gardiner: My friend says, "Are you going to vote against it"? I am going to say the same thing as was said on a previous occasion and I brought the passage with me so that I could be sure just what it was. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) spoke on the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing bill on February 15, 1956. After making a speech in which he was very strongly opposed to the measure and indicating what he called all its weaknesses-that is what I am doing now-someone asked him what he was going to do and I have brought along what he said because it expresses so well what I am going to do that I wish to read his words to you and not use my own.


An hon. Member:: Plagiarism.


James Garfield Gardiner: As found at page 1213 of Hansard of February 15, 1956, he said:
We of the official opposition desire to express our indignation at the utter inadequacy of this measure to meet the need.
I do not need to repeat that I think the same thing about the present measure.
At the same time we have no wish, in the face of the patent inadequacy of the government's program, to deny to the necessitous wheat farmers of western Canada even the paltry crust which this measure offers to 8,000 of them.
I do not know of any better way of telling you that I am going to do the same thing. I am going to admit that the bill might bring some help to the farmers. I am going to go further than that and say that it will give us an opportunity to be able to argue the point with the facts behind us as to which of these measures will bring the most money to the farmers. In addition, Mr. Speaker, it lays before us the fact that this legislation, just like the legislation we were discussing a year ago and two years ago, is not intended to cure all the farmers' ills. But you would think to hear some members of the house speaking, particularly those in the corner on this side the C.C.F'ers and those across the way, the Social Crediters, that they brought so much pressure to bear upon the house through what they said last session that the measure now before us was going to cure most of the difficulties they had in their minds when they were discussing it.


An hon. Member:: No.


An hon. Member:: Nobody said that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am glad you say that it will not because the reason I am going to vote for this measure is the same reason that you are going to be voting for it. You are going to be voting for it and I say to you when you get out west, "Do not misrepresent that." The reason you are going to vote for it is exactly the same reason I am going to vote for it. The reason is that it does at least intend to pay something to the farmer and, that being the case, I of course am going to support the bill.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is not the main reason that you are afraid to vote against it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not afraid to vote against anything and never have been, but I have been at this long enough to know that there are times when people are too anxious to have you vote against something. I listened the other night to a member from one of the Winnipeg constituencies talk out a certain bill in this house, and he did it just as well as we have done on some occasions. Apparently he had a reason. The bill had to do with putting flax and rye under the wheat board. Not only did he do a good job, but just as soon as he started to do it the minister walked out of the house, and he represents another seat in Winnipeg. I had thought that in discussing these matters we might discuss them without raising such issues as what are you going to do about it. After all, you are going to do what you think will move the people of certain sections of Canada to support you. We have done the same thing in the past and I have no doubt we will in the future, so there should be no excuses about it. But on this occasion I am voting for this particular measure.
In presenting the resolution the minister stated that responsibility for making the advance will rest with the elevator agent. As I said earlier, I could not find that provision in the act but now I am told that it is the intention of the policy. I have gone on to cover what I think will be the result of that kind of thing.
Some criticism has been made of what the hon. member for Rosthern said the other day, and I must confess that I am inclined to call attention to one thing that he said. This legislation which my hon. friends in the corner and on the other side of the house at the far end have been claiming credit for having placed before this house on quite a number of occasions is not the legislation which they placed before this house on quite a number of occasions. They discussed something which is quite different from this. The hon. member for Rosthern the other day called attention to what the Prime Minister
Grain
(Mr. Diefenbaker), when he was in opposition and was conducting an election campaign, had said. The hon. member for Rosthern on Thursday last, as reported at page 364 of Hansard, stated that the present Prime Minister, on March 14 last, said:
We believe that under proper circumstances there should be provision for cash advances on farm-stored grain similar to the system in effect in the United States.
That is not this bill; that is the legislation which was promoted in this house by the members of the C.C.F. party and by the members of the Social Credit party over a long period of years; and up to a comparatively short time ago-I have forgotten whether it was last fall or the fall before-the C.C.F. sent a delegation of four of their membership in this house down to the United States to check on it. The leader of the C.C.F. shakes his head. If he turns around and looks at the members behind him, he will see the four who went.


Major James William Coldwell: They went on their own.


James Garfield Gardiner: He says that they went on their own. When four men who belong to one political party go down to another country, they may go on their own-


Major James William Coldwell: They were not sent.


James Garfield Gardiner: They certainly went and
when they came back they did not know what to report. When they were down there in the United States they found that there was not the kind of support behind that program which they had expected to find. Hence they changed a little. But they did not change far enough to have this measure satisfy all the claims that they have been making to the farmers out in western Canada. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, the house, this question: What does Mr. Benson say about their price support program when discussing wheat in his book entitled "Farmers at the Crossroads"? Mr. Benson, Secretary of Agriculture in the United States, said this:
Here are some interesting figures on major wheat loans on 1953 crops. In Kansas the largest wheat loan was $139,237. The second largest was $125,198. But what was the average loan? It was $1,525. In Minnesota the largest wheat loan was $49,450 and the second largest $47,768. The average was $1,194.
Then he goes on to say this:
Is this a program to preserve the family sized farm?
These 235,000 farmers that are listed in Hansard this afternoon.
Is this the kind of a program the champions of the family sized farm want? Do they want a program that channels most of the benefits to the large producers and works almost as a government subsidy to big operators to buy out small producers?

Grain
I ask that question of my friends over in the corner because I am sure they are not going to be satisfied with the $3,000 limit under this legislation any more than they were satisfied with it under the other legislation. I am sure they are going to be attacking the legislation on that basis. This is the place in which to attack it if they are going to attack it and attack it in much the same terms as in the other case. But Mr. Benson goes on to say this further when he is summing up his remarks with regard to wheat:
The people who grow wheat-[DOT]
He addresses them in that way.
[DOT]-was it price support or was it mechanization, better seed and improved farming practices which brought a new day to the great wheat producing areas?
Those who have been discussing this measure have been dwelling upon the lack of cash in the hands of the farmer prior to June 10. May I say that the situation has not improved since June 10 and that this measure does not promise to help very much. The fact is that had it not been for the long-time policies of the previous government the farmers would not have survived the mechanization of their farms. I want to say that unless that legislation is kept on the statute books and functions effectively in the future the farmers will be facing that kind of bankruptcy which the leader of the government was so anxious to forecast in previous years.
What did the outgoing government do? In the first place, in 1944 they put in a system of price support to stabilize prices and it has stabilized prices. My friends say they are going to stabilize them. Might I ask this question: Are they going to stabilize them at the same level? Stabilization means keeping them the same in relation to other costs in the country. Is that what they are going to do? If they are going to try to do something different, they had better have a good look at what is being done now before they try to figure out something different. If they do so they will probably come to the same conclusion as that to which they have come on quite a number of other matters since they came into office, namely that the Liberal policies were not so bad after all.
Then what was the other matter? We did not wait until the farmers fell into the position into which they would have fallen had they mechanized their farms without any consideration being given to them in advance. In 1945 we brought in the farm improvement act. What did that act provide? It provided that a farmer could go to a bank and under a government guarantee borrow money to change over from horse-drawn equipment to tractor-drawn equipment. How much did he borrow? The farmers across this country

borrowed $653 million. From 1945 to 1956 that is the amount of money that was lent in order to help the farmers change over from one type of equipment to the other.
There have been arguments in this house from time to time as to what the farmers cash income has been; I refer not to his net income but his cash income. When we have said that it has been higher in the last five years than it had ever been in any other five-year period, people on the opposite side of the house have scoffed at the idea. But the fact is that it was higher. What proves it? This fact proves it. Of that $653 million borrowed in that time the farmers have actually paid back-that is the farmers who borrowed it-99.95 per cent of it. How could they have paid it back if they had not obtained more cash? How could they have paid it as they went along if they had not been able to take it in out of the cash income?
That is not by any means all of the money that was utilized for that changeover. The farmers who did not need to go to the bank and borrow the money paid for it as they went along under our stabilization plan. It was the support prices of the government which made this possible, along with the fact that they were working overtime, with a shortage of labour. With better methods and equipment they produced 40 per cent more than they had ever produced before in a similar period and sold their product at higher prices, particularly the wheat, than it had ever been sold since the end of the first war. Therefore they took in more cash than they ever took in before. Because they grew more than a 100 million bushels more on the average over the last five years than they had ever grown before.
They sold more in each of these years on an average than they ever sold before and so if they have now 500 or 600 million bushels of wheat in storage then it is made up of the extra 100 million bushels they have grown in each of these years over that period. Now my friends opposite are not giving them a better chance to get some money out of what they have to sell than they had before and this particularly applies to the fellow with less than enough grain to receive $3,000. More was available to the small farmer under the bank act.
I say this kind of legislation is not all the farmer needs in order to supply him with cash. In fact the regulations and legislation that we put on the statute books over the years, from the beginning of the war down to the time we went out, brought him cash, not loans; not advances but actual cash paid into his pockets totalling $1,120 millions. If our friends over there think that they

can in six months put in l/36th of that figure they will be doing about what we did. If in the year they can put in l/18th part then they will have done about the same thing and if they are fortunate enough to be in office for 22 years-which they never have been in the past-then of course they will have to at least provide the same amount to match what we have done.
The previous government was not only assisting by allowing farmers to obtain money that they would be required to pay back. We did stabilize their prices; we did support their prices; and we put them in a position to sell on this continent, on this side of the line, everything but grain at higher prices than they could on the other side of the line. In so doing we put the farmers in a position to pay out cash for the mechanization of their farms such as had never been done before.
What is the real position? Well the implement dealers have a paper and in that paper they said a few months back-and this went back to 1933-that it cost the farmer the sum of $8.40 per year in order to maintain the tools, machines and implements on his farm. Now that does not mean that the farmers out in western Canada could do that. They were taking into consideration all farmers in Canada, the man who used a hoe and a rake right up to the man who used a combine, and they said back there, when they were all using horses, that that was the position. What does it say it costs now-$555 per farmer compared with $8.40 in 1933. Of course they have been out of cash.
Looking at the conditions ahead of us the government of the day anticipated the costs of this coming change and I would like to suggest to the present government that, if they are going to remain here long enough to do any of these things, they take a good look at that legislation before they make very many changes in it, instead of going out holding up a proposal of this kind as a solution to the problems of the farmers in the west. All these measures will be required in the future and this one if it adds little will be helpful. However, Mr. Speaker, it will be helpful only in a very small way and because of small mercies I am voting for it. Nevertheless I would warn our friends opposite not to go around the country saying the other government did not do anything; the other government did not help the farmer at all and so on. The farmer will be telling them before they are through that they are on the government side now and when you are on the government side you have a responsibility and
Grain
when you have a responsibility you are likely to be the fellow who will be blamed.
I would suggest that my friends on the government side get all the facts and put them before the house and if they have legislation to bring out which would be helpful, bring it out and let us have a look at it. This one is going to do a little, probably, but not very much but what it does do will be very similar to what was done by the previous Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of Bill No. 14, an act to provide for advance payments for prairies grain prior to delivery thereof. I would like to commend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) for his introductory remarks at the second reading stage of this bill. I think he did it very concisely and gave the house the information relating to the principle of the bill. I feel it is natural that I should be pleased to speak on behalf of this bill as it has been advocated since 1943 by the C.C.F. party both in the house and throughout the country. I am pleased to support this bill also because of the fact that in the constituency of Kindersley we have the most worrisome problem we have ever had so far as congestion is concerned. I believe that in my constituency and the constituency of my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), plus some of those areas around Regina, we have the largest carry through of wheat in the western provinces.
I am very pleased that at the resolution stage there was almost uniform approval of the principle of the bill. It was rather significant to notice the about-face of the Liberal party which had so vigorously fought against a system of cash advances. This remark is subject to certain exceptions because I noted as the vote was called the hon. members for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart), for Roberval (Mr. Villeneuve) and Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. LaCroix) voted against it. Three members of the Liberal party have not been sufficiently informed of the problems of western Canada to appreciate the principle of the bill.
After listening to the hon. member for Melville for over an hour I am at a complete loss as to where he stands. He fortunately on two occasions mentioned he was going to vote for the bill but I suspect I will have to wait two or three days until the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) clarifies his remarks for the house.
I think the approval which the legislation is receiving should pave the way for the future legislation which the Minister of

Grain
Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) in his opening remarks last Thursday indicated was in prospect for agriculture generally.
I think in order that the house might be fully familiar with the facts confronting western farmers it would be advisable to review the conditions which exist in that area and to which the principles of this bill apply. Now anyone in western Canada knows that the problems confronting the western agriculture did not happen overnight. The problem has been building up over the past 10 years, more particularly the last five years. We know that Nero fiddled while Rome burned and in this case the Liberal administration fiddled around while western agriculture got into the difficult position it is in today.
There was a failure of that administration to maintain markets; a failure of that administration to provide leadership for international agencies, through FAO or such organizations as the food bank which we in the C.C.F. have advocated; a failure of that administration to follow the recommendations of farm organizations and to provide for legislation to prevent inflation and the cost-price squeeze.
As the result of this utter neglect over the years we have the present situation which was summed up by Dean J. R. Weir of the Manitoba university, faculty of agriculture, when he said in a recent statement that "The farmer in western Canada is caught in a squeeze between higher costs of production and reduced prices, and the small farmer is being forced to give up".
We find proof of that statement in the submission of the interprovincial farm union council to the Prime Minister of Canada when it noted that according to the census there had been a decline of more than 47,000 farm units in Canada between the census years 1951 and 1956, and that since 1946 the number of farms in Manitoba had dropped by 9.6 per cent, while in Saskatchewan the decline was 17.7 per cent.
This affords us some indication of the difficult problem which faces farmers in western Canada as a result of the cost price squeeze. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) placed on record the other day information indicating that the cost of production has increased by the phenomenal amount of 46 per cent in the last 10 years. He also pointed out that the price of wheat had declined by 21 per cent. These are the factors that have contributed to the decline in the farm population and given rise to the statement which Dean Weir of the University of Manitoba made. One cause of cost increase has been

the tremendous spiral in freight rates. In 1948 the index of freight rates stood at 100. On January 1, 1957, it stood at a colossal 219.8 and those who are from the west realize that the western farmer, the western resident, bears the brunt of this increase. Farm machinery prices have risen 94.2 per cent since 1945; the index of equipment and materials shows an increase of 72.8 per cent; and taxes and interest rates have gone up 55 per cent.
This problem is one which has been most worrisome to individual farmers because every piece of machinery they wish to buy has risen in price beyond their capacity to pay. They have been living on the depreciation of their equipment and have been unable to lay aside a fund of money adequate for the replacement of that equipment.
At the same time as costs have risen to this exorbitant level the price of wheat has fallen. I mentioned that there has been a decline in the last ten years of 21 per cent in wheat prices. Let us consider a more specific year, and compare the price figures on August 4, 1956 with those of August 3, 1957. Hon. members will find that in 1956 No. 1 Northern brought $1,733; by August 3, 1957 that had declined to $1,615, a decrease of 11.6 cents a bushel. The price of No. 2 wheat on August 4, 1956 was $1,703. On August 3, 1957 it stood at $1,575, a decline of 12.6 cents. Now let us look at the lower grades which are in such abundance in many areas; let us take No. 6. Back in August 4, 1956 the price was $1,372; on August 3, 1957 it stood at $1,185, a decrease of almost 19 cents. And these are selling prices at the lake-head, not the prices which the farmers receive for their commodity.
As a result of all this we find that there has been a reduction, between 1952 and 1956 in the net income of farmers in Canada as a whole of 18 per cent. As we enter the western areas we find that in that same period net farm income has declined in Alberta by 26 per cent and in Saskatchewan by 31 per cent. As far as can be discerned at this time net farm income in 1957 will be only one-half of the 1956 figure.
It is apparent, then, that there is great urgency that the principle of this bill should be adopted in order to afford some relief to the farmers in the western areas. We know that the predicament in which the farmers find themselves has resulted from the cost situation, plus very low delivery quotas. One matter which has been of concern to the house in recent weeks has been the phenomenal climb in unemployment figures, and I think hon. members should be aware that if farmers are forced out of business some

of them may well be added to the labour pool. The 47,000 farmers who have been forced out of business as a result of government policies are among those who potentially are contributing to the unemployment picture through no fault of their own.
We know that under present circumstances it is impossible for a young farmer to become established. The only young farmers who can become established are those who are able to take over their fathers' farms, and then only because their fathers through the kindness of their hearts have not charged for the full price of the farms or indeed, in some cases, have not charged any price at all. But to buy a farm through a mortgage company, and pay to equip it adequately with the full scale of mechanization would be quite impossible today on an economic basis. If people were satisfied to use a team of horses, as the former minister of agriculture, the right hon. member for Melville apparently is, they might be able to carry on somewhat cheaper, but we know that mechanization is necessary in order to maximize the return.
Another effect of the present economic situation is the situation of the rural community as a result of the small farm income. Those who are resident in rural communities are dependent on agriculture, and they know it full well. They have risen or fallen with the financial position of the farmers within the community. We find now that the tax picture has become very bad in many areas where delivery quotas have been extremely low; farmers are simply unable to pay taxes because, of necessity, they must reserve whatever funds they have to feed and clothe their families. This, in turn, has been reflected in the very low sales of farm equipment and machinery. In the towns within those areas we have seen many small implement agencies fold up in recent years because they were unable to survive.
The situation has been further complicated by the inequality of the quota position. I recall statements made by the former minister of trade and commerce to the effect that no effort would be made to maintain a uniform quota. At the time that statement was made, members of the C.C.F. party objected most vigorously. We said that a farmer in one area had just as much right to receive some return for his grain as had a farmer in another area. We pleaded with the government to make every effort to maintain a uniform quota. But we find that at the end of 1956 there were 103 points which ended the crop year with a 5-bushel quota, 320 which had a 6-bushel quota, and 306 which had an 8-bushel quota, while three stations were closed.
Grain
In 1957 there was an effort to maintain a uniform quota and 431 delivery points ended up with a five-bushel quota and 666 with a six-bushel quota with five stations being closed. I hope it is understood by all hon. members that merely because a marketing point is given a quota this does not mean that all farmers in that area have marketed the full amount of their quota. It is conceivable that a quota would be given to a marketing point in the last two weeks of the crop year and farmers in outlying areas or those who did not have adequate transportation would not have the opportunity of delivering their grain before the space became congested.
These inequalities in the quotas have resulted to a large degree from the failure of the Liberal government to maintain a transport controller, someone who is charged with the responsibility of seeing that railway box cars were in position to meet the demand and that they were not sent to points that did not require them. It has also been as a result of the system of allowing milling companies to skim off all the high protein wheat. I have found that the practice in the past has been to allow mills to take their wheat from whichever elevator had wheat of the highest protein content. The net result of this, of course, has been to leave the wheat of low protein content to the export trade. This is a matter which deserves investigation.
Bill No. 14 will certainly help to resolve this problem of unequal quotas because if a farmer is in a position to receive some money for the grain he has grown but is unable to sell, it is not as vitally important that the delivery quotas be maintained at the same level. In the same breath, however, I would point out that every effort must be made to maintain a uniform quota. At the same time it is apparent that if through some slip or other the quotas are not maintained at exactly the same level the same degree of hardship will not accrue to the farmers.
The proposal indicated in Bill No. 14, as the Minister of Agriculture pointed out, will supply money to the farmer now rather than his having to wait until the quota becomes available. In the opinion of the western Canada farm organizations and in the opinion of farmers I have talked to this represents a tremendous improvement over the bank loans legislation which was devised by the previous administration. Hon. members who were here at that time will doubtless recall the battle which the farm organizations put up and which we in this group voiced in the house in opposition to the farmer paying interest on what were in fact his own wages. I believe it

Grain
is immaterial whether the bank loan legislation is left on the statute books, which matter seemed to be the major plank in the address of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner), because if it is left operative no one will use it in any case since they will now have the opportunity as a right to receive a cash advance on their grain.
Bill No. 14 will provide temporary relief for those who are unable to deliver their grain which will give them an opportunity to restore their credit. In all fairness to the legislation I think we cannot build up our hopes too high in terms of thinking of it as cure-all legislation. After all, it is a temporary palliative and it is like a person taking an aspirin tablet when he has influenza; it will make him feel a little better for the moment but will not cure the malady from which he is suffering. The system of cash advances will certainly not correct the cost-price squeeze in which the farmer finds himself but it is welcome as a temporary relief for those who cannot realize any money whatever from their grain.
I was pleased that the Minister of Agriculture made reference to the erroneous news reports which had been distributed through eastern Canada indicating that the cost of this proposal would be the outlandish figure of $100 million to $150 million. In fact on the C.B.C. television news on Thursday I personally heard the newscaster report that the total cost of the program would be between $100 million and $150 million. I think it is most unfortunate that this erroneous information was disseminated in that manner. As I calculate it the cost of interest charges will be approximately $2| million and perhaps much less than that. There is a popular misconception which is all too generally held of conditions in western Canada and a similar misconception exists concerning what this government and previous governments have done to assist the farmer in western Canada.
I wonder what will be the position under this proposal of the farmer who has no grain, and indeed there are many in this position. At the end of the crop year there was an indication that 48 per cent of the farmers in western Canada would have no carryover at the end of July and of the 42 per cent that had a carryover 25 per cent had less than 300 bushels. It is apparent that it does not matter what type of cash advance proposal the government is able to introduce it will be of no assistance to the large number of farmers who have no grain and who are confronted with a serious problem.
There are some aspects of the bill on which I would like some information but I know

this must wait until we reach the clause by clause discussion of it. However, I might just mention one or two points. I am interested in learning what will be the position at the end of the crop year of the farmer who has taken an advance and is unable to deliver grain to retire the advance. Another aspect that aroused my curiosity as I read the bill was the priority given in it to the bank loans legislation. If I understand it correctly it is apparent that it cannot do any particular good to the farmer. Another factor I will want to discuss is the responsibility of the elevator agent in making loans and what his responsibility will be in seeing that the loans are repaid. I am simply mentioning these questions now so the minister will be aware of a possible complaint in these general terms.
I do not wish to take up any more time of the house because I think it is important that this bill be enacted as soon as possible so the benefits under it can be extended to the people of western Canada. I think the bill is good and one that should become permanent legislation. In saying this, however, I should point out that the system of cash advances will not resolve the basic problem of the cost-price squeeze. It does not matter how many cash advance proposals are devised by the government, they will not solve the dilemma of the farmer whose net returns for his products are not great enough to equal the cost of production. This must be resolved through the adoption of an agricultural program that will give to agriculture its fair share of the national income.
It has been advocated that a deficiency payment of 20 cents a bushel could be made to all farmers and that would come close to solving the problem at the moment as far as the western farmer is concerned but we must eventually solve it by finding additional markets for our wheat.
I think the proposal has been well summed up in a statement made by Mr. J. H. Wesson, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, and because it is stated so succinctly I wish to place it on the record. Mr. Wesson said:
The proposal to make cash advances on farm-stored grain will provide some cash income immediately. If the legislation provides for advances through elevator agents, as suggested in newspaper reports, this money will be widely and readily available to farmers. However as the wheat pool has repeatedly emphasized in discussions with the government and members of parliament cash advances do not solve the basic problem of western grain growers.
I think all hon. members should give serious consideration immediately to passing this proposal and that we should then review

Grain
agricultural conditions in all of Canada. I am not unmindful of the fact that the farmers in other areas are suffering hardships from this same price-cost squeeze. Perhaps the unique set of circumstances, the benevolent years we have had, have caused the tremendous buildup of grain in western Canada; but we do know when we have a situation which requires a fruit grower of British Columbia to spend three boxes of apples to buy one bushel of wheat and a wheat farmer in Saskatchewan to spend three bushels of wheat to buy one box of apples, something is drastically wrong and that governmental action must be taken at an early date to resolve this basic problem for the benefit of all Canada.


Mr. J. A. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate on second reading of Bill No. 14, to provide for advance payments for prairie grain prior to delivery thereof.
Before starting my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) on the very able way in which he presented this bill this afternoon. I could not help but feel that there had been quite a change in the way bills were presented to members of parliament sitting in opposition groups.
The arguments for cash advances on farm-stored grain have been presented to this house for many years and they have been presented already in the course of this debate and at the resolution stage. Two years ago, and again last year, extensive debate was carried on on a bill called the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act. When that bill was up for discussion we in this group opposed it on the ground that we did not feel that that particular bill, or the farm loan wheat bill, as we called it, would give the farmers of western Canada the cash they would need to carry on their operations.
I was very much interested in the remarks of the former minister of agriculture this afternoon. In his remarks the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) reminded me very much of his behaviour in previous sessions when he was minister of agriculture and presented the problems of agriculture to the house. It was definitely one of confusion with no information being given. In previous sessions we urged he former minister of trade and commerce to institute a system of cash advances on farm-stored grain which would assure the grain farmers of western Canada a temporary measure of relief from the critical financial position they found themselves in. We still feel that this measure, which is up for second reading today and which is being discussed this afternoon, is nothing
more than a temporary measure and it will be only of some immediate assistance to the grain farmers of western Canada.
Regardless of how long we argued with the former minister of trade and commerce he did not see fit to institute a system of cash advances on farm-stored grain. This afternoon the former minister of agriculture did point out that they might have done it this year had they been on the government benches. That situation was very capably handled by the western farmers on June 10 of this year, because the province of Alberta returned only one Liberal member to this house. Therefore, the farmers of Alberta were very definite in their opinion of the agricultural policy, if you can call it a policy, of the former administration.
I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see that so many members of the official opposition at the present time see fit to support this legislation in a placid type of way. This change of heart forecasts a much better deal for all those engaged in agriculture, because it is now apparent that the vast majority of the members of this house are prepared to support progressive legislation which will place the farmers of Canada in a better financial position.
My colleague, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), last week placed on record the position of the Social Credit group in the house, with respect to this piece of legislation; and since we feel that there is a degree of urgency associated with the passage of this bill it is not my intention to take up too much of the time of the house this afternoon. However, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that we view this legislation as being only a temporary solution, one which will bring a measure of immediate relief to the grain farmers of western Canada and not one which will provide a permanent solution.
Our farm population is steadily decreasing and the average age of those engaged in farming in western Canada is steadily rising. If this situation is permitted to continue we shall quite possibly find ourselves concerned, not with so-called man-made surpluses but with actual shortages of foodstuffs. Young people for very obvious reasons, are not staying on the farms, largely because of the fact that they are all too well acquainted with the uncertainty attached to that type of life. They are not prepared to work from dawn to dark, to gamble with weather and so forth for the meagre returns which their fathers have received in the last few years. Instead of following in their fathers' footsteps they have entered other occupations in which they are assured of a larger measure of security and greater financial returns.

Grain
For years farmers have been faced with ever increasing production costs and a continual decline in the selling price of the goods which they had to sell. Again, Mr. Speaker, I was very much interested in the remarks of the former minister of agriculture this afternoon. He pointed out that the previous administration had spent millions of dollars to aid agriculture. It is true that the previous administration passed the Agricultural Prices Support Act in 1944. However, Mr. Speaker, in the first ten years of its operation it cost the people of Canada 15c. per person per year to support the price of agricultural goods right across Canada, a huge amount of money in the eyes of the former minister of agriculture, but certainly a meagre sum to those who received the benefits of that act.
Farm organizations right across Canada have constantly brought this situation to the attention, not only of the previous administration but of the public at large, with little or no apparent effect until recently. I would say that the passage of this legislation should be looked upon as a major victory for the farm organizations and those so active in presenting their views during the last few years. It is to be hoped that the forecast long-range plan to stabilize the agricultural industry will soon be brought before us for consideration. The need for this particular legislation has been recognized by all parties and by practically every member in this house.
The interprovincial farm union council, in its brief which was presented to the government on August 15 of this year, advanced many strong arguments as to why something must be done to improve the position of those engaged in agriculture. They point out that in the last 18 months agricultural production costs have risen 16.7 per cent, that the retail price of bread has increased 2 cents per pound, that the price of wheat has decreased by 23 cents per bushel; that the interest rates on loans to the Canadian wheat board have increased; that the increase in the value of the Canadian dollar has had an adverse effect upon the farmers of Canada.
We of this group are not prepared to admit that there is an actual surplus of our agricultural products at the present time, including even wheat. I believe the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations pointed out last year that we had in the world at that time only a three months supply of wheat for our wheat consuming population. This amount should not be classed as a surplus. I am sure there is not one farmer in Canada today who would like to think in terms of having only a three months supply of food on hand for his

stock. The fault lies partially in the fact that the marketing policies which the previous administration followed were definitely faulty, and instead of being able to get our grain to the hungry people throughout the world the farmers of western Canada were called upon to finance practically the whole burden of this unneeded surplus.
This legislation will provide a measure of relief but we do hope that the new government will adopt trading policies which will enable our producers to sell their goods at a reasonable price. We recognize that all cannot be changed overnight but we suggest to the government that it is not fair to expect the farmers of western Canada to finance any great portion of this surplus. It is for this reason that we of this group have constantly emphasized the need for the establishment of government-owned terminal elevators throughout the west.
The box car situation in the west remains one of confusion. The quota position throughout my area is worse today than it was a year ago. It is all very well for government spokesmen to point out that export sales are up, but to the average farmer that means very little. He still sees his granaries full of wheat. He is still forced to build new ones to accommodate this year's crop. He is still forced to accept his income in a bit now and a bit later process. I submit that there is no wage earning group in Canada today which would be pleased or happy to receive its salary on the instalment plan, and that is exactly what the farmer of western Canada has been forced to do for years. The farmers are constantly plagued with unpaid bills and are always short of cash. These are realities, and unless we want a complete collapse in our grain-growing industry immediate and definite steps must be taken.
I was very sorry to hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) state in reply to a question of mine the other day that the government had not seen fit to re-establish the position of transport controller. We have argued in the house for some years now that there was need of a transport controller, a person charged with the responsibility of seeing that there was an equitable distribution of box cars in the west at all times; and not only charged with the responsibility of seeing that this happened but given the authority to carry out his responsibility. I feel we can look forward to another crop year of confusion as far as the box car situation is concerned.
Many people across Canada are of the opinion that the farmer is getting something

Grain


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

he is not entitled to, that the farmers of Canada are always demanding and giving very little. In the May 10 issue of the Alberta Wheat Pool Budget the editor of that paper put before the public a little article entitled "Fair Play". He pointed out in this issue that utterances and writings across Canada continue to condemn the farmer for his approach to his present economic difficulties. He pointed out that it is said that farmers must stop demanding help, that the price of wheat must come down, that the law of supply and demand must be recognized, that an industry cannot be bolstered by subsidies, that agriculture no longer is indicative of the prosperity of Canada and that other industries should not be penalized by subsidies to agriculture.
These and many other comments are frequently heard from coast to coast in Canada. It is obvious from such comments that many people still do not understand or appreciate the position of the western farmer. Traditionally the western farmer has spurned aid and has preferred to stand on his own feet. Free trade has been the slogan of the farmer of the west since the early days. That, however, is not the way the people of Canada want things. They have decided to protect pratically every other industry in Canada from foreign competition. If the law of supply and demand is going to be set aside for others, then the farmers too must play under the same rules.
His costs have skyrocketed because of the high prices others have been permitted to charge in a protected market. He cannot be adequately protected by tariffs because what the farmer produces, particularly wheat, are export commodities. It is neither illogical nor unfair that a small portion of the tax dollar collected from the profits of those who have benefited at his expense be used to support agricultural prices. Agriculture may no longer determine the degree of the nation's prosperity but it is still vital in maintaining it. Ours is not a free and competitive economy but rather a regulated one. The rules that assure the prosperity of some should guarantee at least the survival of others. The moment that all Canadians agree to absolutely free and unrestricted trade so that the farmer can buy his requirements from the cheapest source, price supports'for agriculture will not be needed. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that that pretty well points up the position facing those engaged in agriculture not only in western Canada but from coast to coast.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to make my first remarks in this house as the new member for Qu'Appelle I cannot help but say in all seriousness that this legislation which has been introduced into this house and which carries my name along with that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) represents to many of us a great moment in this country's history.
I think I can say honestly that for seven years this has been one of the subjects on which I have spoken and expressed myself all through the western part of Canada. Hence it is not inappropriate that as the new member for Qu'Appelle I should be making my first remarks in this house on the subject of wheat. A predecessor of mine who came from there was a man by the name of Ernest Perley. He represented Qu'Appelle during the years 1930 to 1945. His very name stood for wheat. Every time he rose in his place in this House of Commons, both on this side of the house and on the other side, the members of the house knew what the subject was going to be when he rose to speak. I hope that tonight, Mr. Speaker, my remarks here will do justice to his memory.
The significance of the cash advance to the western farmers can be understood only through knowledge of some of the background of what has happened over the last 20 years. I do not intend to speak at any great length. I just wish to emphasize and to point out the highlights of this background so that hon. members from all parts of Canada may understand the deep feeling with which those of us from the west approach this matter.
The depression was not only a depression to us in western Canada; it was a double depression. All parts of the world had a decline of prices and unemployment, but in addition, we had drought and no crops and the situation hit us doubly hard. In addition, the depression was followed by war in which the people in western Canada were asked to make sacrifices along with the rest of Canada, something which has peculiar connotations today. This part of Canada was put under price control as well as the rest of Canada. Our wheat price was set for that wheat which was sold abroad and a special price of 77i cents a bushel was set for that grain which was sold for consumption in Canada. During the war we were asked to join in that war effort. Not only were we asked to send our young men and our young women into uniforms and into factories in central Canada,

Grain
enough security there to protect any average creditor, because those of us who come from the west know the significance of the permit book. The only way you can beat this legislation-I am speaking now to those who come from areas outside western Canada-is to quit farming because then you will not have a permit book. We who are living under the western Canadian system know what that means.
Now this concludes that part of my remarks on this subject. I repeat that it is not the fault of the western farmer that his markets have been lost; it is not his fault that the grain storage is blocked in the elevator. He has cut his acreage down and has made every effort he can to get out of this mess. We have to meet the situation left on our doorstep by the previous administration.
There has been some discussion-I am simply amazed at this-as to whether the farm organizations and the farmers generally want cash advances. Let me assure my friends in this house, in all parties and from all parts of the country, that the great majority of the western farmers-I would say 95 per cent-want a system of cash advances. There is no argument about that in western Canada and this whole issue tht has been kicked around in the house today, makes me wonder. I did some reading between the closing of the house at six o'clock and the opening at eight o'clock and I picked up a copy of the Leader-Post dated November 12, 1955, where I found this heading "Farmers Mass Meeting ask for Cash Advances". There was another statement where the former minister of agriculture was speaking-but I will leave that for a moment and will come back to it later because I see the former minister is now in his place.
I have had some experience with this matter. I have seen resolutions go through by every political party in western Canada, including the Liberal party, in support of cash advances; I have seen these resolutions go through every board of trade in support of cash advances; I have seen the legislatures of western Canada pass resolutions in favour of cash advances. I do not know of a farm organization today in Saskatchewan which lets its body politic or rank and file get together and discuss these matters which is not in support of cash advances. That is the feeling on this matter in the west. I have heard in this debate some remarks to the effect that one party has been supporting this legislation since 1952 and I have just finished saying that I have heard resolutions put through by every party. I thought it might be appropriate at this time, in view of the fact that the leader of the Conservative [Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle).l
party of a few years ago is not now in this house, to read the remarks of the Hon. George Drew who was then leader of the official opposition contained in his first speech in the new session of parliament in the fall of 1952. It is reported in Hansard of November 24, 1952.
Farmers are finding it impossible in many cases to deliver their grain to the market, we are informed, no matter what steps are being taken. The whole system of handling and distribution has broken down. The government, no matter what its explanation may be, has failed to take effective steps to provide for the handling of grain, in spite of the knowledge many months ago, and the warnings many months ago, that this situation was going to arise. In western Canada today there are many farmers, with huge quantities of wheat and other grains worth considerable sums of money, who are unable to get money at this time to cover their harvesting and living expenses because of their inability to deliver that grain to market.
This is a situation with which the government should deal immediately. It is urgent and calls for attention without delay.
Now this was November 24, 1952. If that situation was urgent in 1952 it is doubly urgent today and I am making no apologies for reading into the record the words of the then leader of the opposition.
If for no other reason than the passage through this house of this bill on cash advances, this government deserves the support of the people of Canada. There is a real need here, and we have met this real need and we have shown our determination to put into action what we have preached.
Mr. Speaker, I have indicated, I believe, that I wish to be fair in these matters. I have said that all parties in western Canada supported this proposal to make cash advances. It was only in the last election that people realized that by dividing their votes among the parties they would defeat this end, and they began to rally behind the party which is now led by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).
Mr. Speaker, in this debate we have heard members of the official opposition declare their support for cash advances. That was after June 10. This conversion is remarkable, and I cannot but recall the days of the bank loan. I am going to pick up a copy of the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix dated November 9, 1955, and, again, I will read just the headlines:
Gardiner Defends "Howe Plan" Giving Bank Loans to Farmers.
At that time I was suspicious that Mr. Howe was getting his throat cut from ear to ear, because according to the headline this was not the policy of the government. Back in 1955 this was described to western farmers as "The Howe Plan" and indeed Mr. Howe did get his throat cut from ear to ear on

Grain
June 10. Now we have heard in this house today a declaration that this is now good legislation, and the former minister of agriculture is defending what two years ago was the Howe plan.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege: I do not think the hon. member, by reading the headline of that paper, indicates that I said it was the Howe plan. He is simply saying that the Star-Phoenix headline writer said it was. I supported the plan, but I do not think I called it the Howe plan.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read more of this, if I may, in answer to the question of privilege raised by the former minister of agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind the hon. minister that if the ex-minister of agriculture, the right hon. member for Melville, makes a statement in his place it is not one that can be controverted; it must be accepted.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no objection to his reading. I simply wanted to say I supported the plan for bank loans, but I do not think I referred to it as the Howe plan. I was as much responsible for the drafting of it as he was.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am still speaking on the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) was at that time very critical of the press and said: "I insist on giving you a written copy of my remarks because I am so often misinterpreted." And in the statement I have here, "The Howe Plan" is put in quotation marks because those are his own words to the press.


James Garfield Gardiner: I favoured it no matter what they called it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That was the point of my comments, Mr. Speaker. At that time, I confess, I was suspicious and now I find I had no reason for those suspicions. The devotion and the loyalty shown toward Mr. Howe at that time is now confirmed by the hon. member for Melville when he says that the bank loans are a good thing, and when I heard the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) point out in this house on Thursday that the $3,000 maximum under the bank loan arrangements was the same as the $3,000 maximum in this legislation, I thought his opposition in Saskatchewan must have been correct when they said that the Liberal party shot out their brains when they did a certain thing.
Mr. Speaker, when I heard that remark I thought the Liberal party was committing suicide, to come here and say that the $3,000 in connection with the bank loans was the 96698-31
same as the $3,000 in connection with cash advances. I am not going to remind hon. members of the figures I quoted earlier, but here is a scheme which, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated, could put into circulation between $100 million and $150 million, while at the other end of the scale is another which could put into circulation about $8 million. It would seem that according to the mathematics of the Liberal party, $8 million is equal to $150 million.
I thought I heard the Liberal party commit suicide on Thursday when I heard the hon. member for Melville-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
this the new dignity in parliament?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having used that reference. But when I heard that hon. member tell the house that, in his opinion, not only was that earlier legislation just as good but it was better, I knew what we were going to be doing on this subject.
Now I am going to mention a few remarks made by the former minister of agriculture, and point out what I believe are some of the answers. One of the subjects dealt with by the hon. member for Melville today was the subject of grades of wheat. I am not altogether certain whether the inference was that in the case of a lower grade a farmer would get more money out of this bill, or less. So what I am going to do, with the permission of the house, is table a report which shows exactly what the various farmers will receive on both bases, the basis of No. 1 northern and the basis of No. 4 northern. Looking at this table I find that on the basis of No. 1 northern the farmer on 50 specified acres receives 70 per cent of the total initial price, and that, Mr. Speaker, works out at 86 cents a bushel. The farmer on 100 acres receives 60.3 per cent of the total initial price possible to him, which works out at 74 cents a bushel. And as one goes down the list, on 200 acres the percentage is still 52 per cent and the price is 65 cents. When one reaches the biggest .classification of all, 1,000 acres, one finds that the percentage of the total initial price has declined to 43, and the average amount of cash per bushel available is 53 cents.
That is for No. 1 northern, and I hope I may be allowed to table these figures. The next set of figures relates to No. 4, and I find on looking at my table that a man on 50 acres receives 73 per cent of his initial price; the percentage is higher. Reading down the table further, one finds that on 1,000 acres the percentage is 48.

Grain
Thus, the whole effect of this legislation is this: we did not try to get a sliding scale based on grades. We took the simplest course open to us, and on the basis of No. 1 northern it gives 70 per cent to the small farmer and 43 per cent to the top quota allotted under this act. To the farmer producing grade 4 wheat it gives an even bigger percentage. In other words, we took a chance that the farmer delivering a lower grade of wheat, who would receive a little more in percentage, would be able to pay that off in the year of sale.
Have I permission to table these figures, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. minister the leave of the house to table these documents?
May I ask the minister what is the source of the information? I take it the hon. minister is suggesting to the house that they should be tabled, or does he want them printed in today's Hansard report as part of his speech?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think we
should have them printed with my remarks because many people across Canada will want to see these figures and learn what they are going to receive under this scheme.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to have the tables from which he is quoting printed with his speech in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The first table is as follows:



BASIS NO. I NORTHERN-STREET PRICE OF 1.235 PER BUSHEL

[Stage Direction]
Specified	Deliverable	Maximum	Total	Percent	AverageAcreage	6 Bus. Quota	Unit Quota	Advance	Cash	of Total	AmountBus.	Value	Bus.	Value	Value	Initial Price	Cash per(1)	(21	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	Bushel50	300	370	300	$370	$ 150	$ 520	70.27	86 cents100	600	741	300	370	300	670	60.31	74 "200	1,200	1,482	300	370	600	970	52.38	65 "300	1.800	2,223	300	370	900	1,270	48.98	60 "400	2,400	2,964	300	370	1,200	1,570	47.09	58 "500	3,000	3,705	300	370	1,500	1,870	45.89	57 "600	3,600	4,446	300	370	1,800	2,170	45.06	55 "700	4,200	5,187	300	370	2,100	2,470	44.45	54 "800	4,800	5,928	300	370	2,400	2,770	43.98	54 "900	5,400	6,669	300	370	2,700	3,070	43.61	54 "1,000	6,000	7,410	300	370	3,000	3,370	43.31	53 "
The second table is as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Specified	Deliverable	Maximum	PercentageAcreage	6 Bus. Quota	Unit Quota	Advance	Total	of TotalBus.	Value	Bus.	Value	Value	Cash	Initial Price(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)50	300	$ 325	300	325	$ 150	$ 475	73.08100	600	651	300	325	300	625	64.04200	1,200	1,302	300	325	600	925	56.85300	1,800	1,953	300	325	900	1,225	53.85400	2,400	2,604	300	325	1,200	1,525	52.06500	3,000	3,255	300	325	1,500	1,825	50.98600	3,600	3,906	300	325	1,800	2,125	50.22700	4,200	4,557	300	325	2,100	2,425	49.67800	4,800	5,208	300	325	2,400	2,725	49.25900	5,400	5,859	300	325	2,700	3,025	48.921,000	6,000	6,510	300 [DOT]	325	3,000	3,325	48.65
(6) This column shows the value of unit quota (eol. 4) plus maximum advance (col. 5) in percent of value of unit quota (col. 4) plus value of six bushel quota (col. 2).
There was one other point raised during the course of this debate the other day which I think should not have been raised today. I am referring to the remarks made last Thursday by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) who expressed the wish that the quota had been a little larger, 8 bushels per specified acre. He knows as well as I do that 
this had been the request of the farm organizations over the last several years. I believe that is a fair statement.
Hazen Robert Argue: Eight bushels?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, 8 bushels per specified acre. I wish to point out to the hon. member that when he examines the

Grain
figures I have placed on Hansard he will discover that the small farmer is better looked after as a result of the way we have done it because we have simultaneously given a quota of 6 bushels per specified acre plus the unit quota. For the information of the hon. member, and I hope for the information of all hon. members of this house, I am going to read a comparison in dollars of the two systems, if I may.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question. Is it not a fact that the farm organizations in requesting an 8-bushel quota excluded it from the unit quota?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, that is
exactly the point, Mr. Speaker. They had not considered the possibility that we would use both systems simultaneously.


Hazen Robert Argue: I very much think they did.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In any case,
in answer to the hon. member's remarks I am going to point out what it means. First of all you must remember in taking their request for four dollars per specified acre, which is the equivalent of eight bushels times 50 cents, you would have to deduct the initial quota and so the way it works out is that on an acreage of 50 specified acres there would be no advance under the system as I understand it, but under our system there would be $150 advanced in addition to the unit quota. On 100 acres there would be $29 for the straight 8-bushel system in addition to the unit quota, but our system would give $300. On a farm with 200 specified acres there would be an advance of $429 for the straight 8-bushel quota system in addition to the unit quota, but under this system it would be $600. The table I have in my hand shows that the farmer with a specified acreage amounting to 300 acres or less does a little better under our system than he would under the straight 8-bushel quota system and for farms with specified acreages of more than 300 acres there is a slight advantage under the 8-bushel quota. Unless some hon. members wish to have this table printed in Hansard I shall confine my remarks to these few words.
Hon. members will find that the farm organizations in proposing the system did not propose the simultaneous use of the unit quota system. They were agreeable to what we were proposing because they recognized that it did give some preference to the small farmer whom we define as a farmer who is effectively farming 300 acres or less. This is a clear answer to the question implied in the criticism of the hon. member for Assiniboia on Thursday.
I wish now to deal with a few remarks made in the house this afternoon which cannot be let pass without some comment. As I understood the remarks of the hon. member for Melville, he said one of the arguments he had put forward in connection with the Liberal bank loan system was that it did not have the several disadvantages our system had. He mentioned the question of debts and creditors and as I listened carefully to him this afternoon I received the impression that under the Liberal bank loan system the creditor had no chance to collect from the farmer. This was merely the impression I received. Under our system as he described it I visualized the farmer sneaking around the banker by the back lane. I gathered the impression from the remarks of the hon. member that under the Liberal system the creditors could do nothing to this man.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, that was not the intention. What I stated and what I think is the fact that the banker could not utilize his position as a banker to make collections out of that money and that the cash had to be handed to the farmer.


An hon. Member:: Or to someone else.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, someone else could collect from him after he walked out on the street, yes.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am very glad to have that correction.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not a correction; it is just what I said.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was just giving the house the impression I received from your remarks and I am sure other hon. gentlemen got a similar impression.
I return now to the Leader-Post of November 12 to which I referred previously and the article bearing the headline, "Loans direct to borrowers" and the subheading, "Misinterpreted, says Gardiner". Here we have someone else who has been misinterpreted on another occasion. On this occasion the hon. member for Melville said what he says now. The article says in part:
Federal agriculture minister James G. Gardiner Thursday night denied he had stated that proposed government guaranteed bank loans to farmers would be protected against seizure by creditors.
Therefore with regard to the question of seizure by creditors there is no essential difference. This is simply a way of putting money into circulation in a manner acceptable to the farmers.
I think we heard a challenge this afternoon from the former minister of agriculture to the effect that he would let the people of western Canada decide whether the Liberal

Grain
bank loan legislation was superior to the present system of cash advances proposed by this government. I took from those remarks a direct challenge to this government in the west that the farmers would take more money out in the form of loans, which course is still available to them, than they would in the form of cash advances. If that is the challenge of the hon. member for Melville I want to say on behalf of the government-and I am sure on behalf of every western farmer-that we accept his challenge on that ground. There will be a good scrap over that question, Mr. Speaker, because on this issue I think I speak for every farmer and merchant in western Canada. I am glad the hon. member for Melville has not risen in his place to say he was misinterpreted in those remarks.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I do not say I have been misinterpreted in that respect but I do say that my hon. friend is misquoting me. As a matter of fact what I said this afternoon was that we would not need to debate this question any further because in another six months we would know.


An hon. Member:: And maybe before that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think Mr. Western Farmer will understand that type of statement.
I have taken the time of the house allotted to me for my remarks and I wish now to thank hon. members for the courtesy with which they have listened to my first effort. I wish to conclude by expressing my firm conviction that this government recognizes that in every part of Canada many segments of our population have begun to receive less than their fair share of what the national income of Canada should provide for them. The government recognizes that justice should provide not only for those groups which have fallen behind but also for those areas that are lagging. Through its action in introducing cash advances and the other measures presented to the house this session-and in future sessions-I think the Canadian people will recognize that what we have promised to do we will do. I am sure this has given the Canadian people a great lift in spirit and has removed the scepticism of the thirties because now they see in power a party that will earnestly strive to live up to the promises it has made.


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldl-Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, before I get to the burden of my remarks, which are going to be very brief this evening, I should like at the outset to commend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), who this afternoon for the very first time since I have been in this house at

least placed on the record in unmistakable terms the position of the western farmer, in so far as the arguments put forward are concerned that he is a man who is engaged in an industry and has been asking the people of Canada to support him over the years. I think the minister and the government should be commended because never before has the government gone out of its way to place the true picture of western agriculture before this house and to give the members of eastern Canada some indication of just what is involved in farming in western Canada.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal for a moment with some of the arguments put forward this afternoon in defence of the former bank loan administration. The former minister of agriculture, the right hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner), tried to point out that this legislation was not better than the former bank loan legislation. Well, in so far as the merits of it are concerned and the money that is going to be put in the hands of the western farmer is concerned, I would wholeheartedly agree, but there is a considerable difference. First of all, the banks are not involved and that is very important. The elevator agents are going to be responsible for carrying out the mechanics of this proposition and, of course, the fact that there is no interest charge is of tremendous importance.
While I am not happy about the legislation as a method of doing something concrete for western agriculture, I am going to say that it is a lot better than what we have had before and it is a great deal better than any of the plans that are being put forward by certain other people in this country as a method of helping out the farmer in th dilemma in which he finds himself today. For the benefit of the Liberal party in this country I should like to put on record one of the plans which is being put forward by a certain individual who was very close to the Liberal party prior to the last election. Here it is. It is an offer to buy wheat provided that the farmer delivers it to a point specified in this advertisement for a cent a pound. This applies to No. 5 and No. 6 wheat which today are selling on the market for 97 cents a bushel. This certain individual is offering 60 cents a bushel, a cent a pound. Things are so bad that the farmers are taking advantage of these propositions which are being put forward by certain unscrupulous people in this country.
It is even worse when you follow it through to its logical conclusion. Here is an individual who in effect is saying to the farmers: if you will buy a refrigerator from

me I will take half cash and the remainder in wheat at a cent a pound. First of all, he hikes up the price of his refrigerator by $80 and the upshot of the whole proposition is this, the refrigerator that he is selling for $448 brings him a net profit of $225 at the farmers' expense. Who is putting forward this plan? Nobody else, Mr. Speaker, but the former representative in this house from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Mr. Ross Thatcher, protege of the hon. member for Melville who went around the province of Saskatchewan saying, "You should elect this man because he is an important man in the Liberal party and he will do great things for western agriculture."
I was very concerned and not a little amused this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, when the right hon. member for Melville was concerned and shed a lot of tears about the impossible position the elevator agents were going to be put in because of this measure. He said, "You are placing them in a position where they are going to have to indulge in certain questionable practices; they are going to go out and they are going to have to bid for this grain in ways that possibly would not be too acceptable."


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I did not call any of the practices that I discussed questionable practices.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I well remember last year, Mr. Speaker, and the year before, that the opposition today, when they were on the government side of the house, used every devious means-and I do not think it is too strong a word-to keep producers from delivering grain to the elevator of their choice. Whenever a piece of legislation was introduced in this house suggesting that the farmers should be able to deliver grain to the elevator of their choice the government of the day voted solidly against it. Now, apparently, they are worried about the elevator agents. I do not think the elevator agents or the people of Canada are going to appreciate the reflection which was cast on the elevator agents by the remarks of the former minister this afternoon.
I have said that I am going to have to agree with one thing the hon. member said. I agree wholeheartedly with him that the government is being dishonest when they say that the measure before this house is a cash advance measure. It is nothing of the kind; it is a loan. Before they are finished with this piece of legislation I should like the government to explain to me and to the party which I represent why they did not introduce an honest cash-advance piece of legislation. What is a cash advance? Well, any farmer in this house knows that any time he takes hogs or cattle to the market to
Grain
sell he is invariably asked whether he would like an advance. It is a common practice. In many instances I have done it myself. I have said, "Yes, I will take $100." But when I get my returns they show the full amount less the advance that I received.
Why could the government not have done the same thing in this legislation? Why could they not say to the farmer, "We will give you 50 cents for the wheat you have and when you haul it in here we will give you the remainder?" That would be the end of the transaction. It seems rather foolish to me to say to the farmer, "You owe us money." The farmer does not owe the wheat board any money on a bushel of wheat when he has received only 50 cents. The wheat board owes him money. Does it not seem foolish that when he delivers his wheat, in spite of the fact that the wheat board owes him the difference between what he received, 50 cents, and the initial price, which may be $1.20, to say to the farmer, "Oh, yes, we owe you 61 cents or 62 cents, but until you pay us the 50 cents we will not pay you any more?" In other words, they are saying, "You pay us back the 50 cents and we will pay you the $1.20." This seems very strange to me.
What would happen under the wheat board system of marketing today if when you hauled your grain to the elevator you received the initial payment of $1.20 and some time during the winter you were to get an interim payment of, say, 10 cents a bushel?
Would it be reasonable to say to the farmer, "We will not pay you the 10 cent interim payment until you pay us the $1.20 that we paid you initially and then we will give you $1.30"? I should like the government to explain the kind of reasoning they used in arriving at this formula.
So, Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to say, as I said in the first instance, that the bill is going to put a little cash in the hands of farmers who are badly in need of it, but I think the important part of it is that it is going to equalize quotas. As long as we have a quota system we are going to be faced with the problem of inequality under that system. As I see it, it cannot be avoided. The measure we are dealing with will do something to equalize the quota system. While we are not satisfied with the legislation, we are going to approve of it because we see in it something a great deal better than anything that has been proposed in the house prior to now.


Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) referred in his closing remarks to the imbalance of purchasing power in certain segments of our

Grain
population. For that reason I should like to make some observations inasmuch as I come from a province other than those that are covered by the bill. I supported the resolution when it was introduced and made the request that the bill be altered so that primary producers in all the provinces rather than in a limited area might be included under its provisions.
Some members may feel that it would be impossible to have the legislation operate in the province of Ontario but in that province we have marketing agencies which could act as the liaison between the government and the primary producers. I am sure such agencies could meet the requirements of this legislation. Some representatives of these organizations came to Ottawa shortly after the election and met different members of the government for the purpose of placing the position of the primary producers before them. For example, representatives of the Ontario wheat producers association, accompanied by members of the federation of agriculture from several counties in southwestern Ontario and by supporters of the government from the area that they represented, requested the government to take action regarding the wheat problem in Ontario. The soybean marketing board and the horticultural council representing the fruit and vegetable growers sought assistance of a similar nature.
I am sure hon. members will agree that if the industry was in a healthy position these busy men would not have approached the government as many of the problems racing the industry have been resolved by action taken by their own associations. Recently the farm loan board made the statement that farm loans have increased 60 per cent compared with a similar period a year ago. I think that points out very definitely that agriculture as a whole certainly is not in as healthy a position as it might be.
On October 24 I asked the minister who is piloting the bill in the house tonight if he would before the conclusion of the speech from the throne debate consider the possibility of bringing in legislation to stabilize farm prices, and I was referring at that time to the commodities I mentioned a while ago. My reason for asking the question was simply that many of the commodities now being harvested are not bringing prices that are consistent with good farming practice. I also mentioned the very low price of corn. I learned about this particular instance from a person who knew the farmer who sold the corn, and the net to the producer was 46 cents a bushel.
I contend that if the provisions of the bill regarding cash advances were extended to [Mr. Huffman.!
the producers of corn in the area in which it is produced the producer might receive by way of a cash advance almost as much as he received for his whole crop and at the same time had to lose complete control of it. The corn could be placed in storage where it could dry naturally. It would improve in quality and we would be able to feed a supply of corn into the different channels that require it, mainly the starch companies and the breakfast food companies. Unfortunately there are men who need ready cash in Ontario and the six other provinces not covered by the bill which will only give assistance to the three western provinces.
The reason I asked a question on October 24 was that it did not seem to me that the provisions of this bill would cover the situation and I wanted to know whether the government would bring down soon a stabilization program that would meet conditions such as I have outlined.
This afternoon many hon. members spoke about the small farmer. I am sure everyone realizes that in the other seven provinces of the dominion there are many small farmers. I know that is so in our province. Consequently, I should like to appeal to the government again to assist small farmers in every part of Canada. This afternoon the bill was termed a lifesaver.


An hon. Member:: With a hole in it.


Edward Blake Huffman: Someone says that there is a hole in it. This bill is really a lifesaver with a hole in it and seven provinces of the dominion are going to get only the hole.
I have talked to farmers from western Canada who are in Ottawa at this time. I have discussed with them our problem and their problem. They agree that we have a justifiable claim for the same consideration as is provided for western producers by this bill.
I have every sympathy for those who need the provisions of this legislation. I am sure the producers of western Canada will honour their obligations. I was very glad to hear the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources say that because we also feel that in this industry there is honour and that our farmers will certainly meet their obligations, both those that will be incurred under this measure and those now in force under the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act.
It has been estimated that between $100 million and $150 million will be advanced to growers without interest. Again I say that if the government would extend similar provisions to the seven other provinces there would be a good deal more purchasing power immediately available to the many who are

in need of ready cash. Part at least of this year's production would be covered.
Having supported the resolution so that I might have a look at the bill in its final form, I must now register disappointment on behalf of those I represent and those who I feel are neglected. The bill has been called discriminatory by some but I must confess that it has all the earmarks of segregation by legislation.


Mr. Charles Yuill (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support this bill I derive a certain amount of pleasure because I think it is one of the most important bills that has been introduced in my short term here in so far as western farmers are concerned. I think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) is to be complimented on the able way in which he presented this bill. It is refreshing indeed to find a minister who is not afraid to take the wraps off his bills and to present them in their true light. To the farmers who were obliged to indulge in that questionable luxury of borrowing their own wages at five per cent interest I am sure it will be refreshing to see that at long last they have access, in a limited way at least, to the fruits of their labour.
I think this bill goes a long way toward alleviating the stress on the farmer and his economic problems. Nevertheless, it is only a palliative and a means to an end. I hope this government will not fall into the state of complacency that seemed to be the mark of the previous government and feel that by bringing this worthwhile measure before the house, they have done all that is required of them. Basically I think this points up one important point, namely that the cure or solution of our problems does not lie in administering palliatives such as this but rather in coming to grips with the problem of marketing the produce of the biggest partner in Canadian business, namely agriculture.
While this measure, in a sense, helps the farmers, it does not

fortunately or unfortunately-help all of them. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent there are many small farmers who-whether because of taking the advice of members of the previous government and adhering to the technique of diversification or whether it was brought about by necessity-were forced to go out of wheat growing to a large degree. I note that this measure will not help them. For the sake of self-preservation they were obliged to indulge in diversification. Many of them diverted their activities into livestock and dairying and many of them resorted to the growing of seeds and other grain. In my constituency I find that many
Grain
farmers, because of their desire to make an honest living, started growing rape seed as a means to an end. They found that by growing rape seed they would get some semblance of a just return for their efforts.
However, it was only a short time until they found that there was a roadblock in their way. I refer to the discriminatory freight rates that prevailed. It may be argued that this matter is not relevant to the bill before the house. However, I think it is relevant because that was a direct substitute for a livelihood in many instances in my constituency. I think' no hon. gentleman here can suggest that it is desirable or necessary for a freight rate to be raised three times when it related to a new outlet whereby a farmer could have the right to live. I cannot see any moral or economic justice in demanding a freight rate of 70 cents per hundred, when it is obviously fair to charge only 22J cents on flax or other grains. I fail to see why it is necessary to charge 70 cents in one instance and, as far as the rate to the British Columbia coast is concerned, 64 cents. I think it is the responsibility of this government to see to it that more justice prevails at that level. Are we going to deny to the small farmer the right to diversify and to grow crops that will not clash with the best interests of everyone concerned and, through that medium, to minimize his necessity to avail himself of cash advances?
I know the benefits accruing from cash advances. I know that when the farmer gets money the merchants, of which I was one for a number of years, certainly receive the benefit of it. The minute the farmer gets a dollar business picks up almost overnight. When his conditions are depressed, by the same token the merchant's business is depressed. I think it would be a happy situation and a desirable one if, in spite of this wonderful bill, the government would give some more consideration to these small farmers who are not privileged to cash in on these cash advances. I think it is their responsibility. I think they should place more emphasis on finding markets and on seeing to it that something is done by the board of transport commissioners or the railroads or whoever is responsible. In the final analysis it is the responsibility of this parliament. I think they should see to it that consideration is given to the little farmer who because of adhering to the advice and wishes of the government has tried to eke out an existence through some other means.


John Hornby Harrison: Mr. Speaker, I want to be brief in the few remarks I wish to make on this piece of legislation. I also should like to compliment

Grain
the government on bringing in this measure of loans to farmers or, as they would rather have it put, cash advances. It is more needed this year than at any time previously for the simple reason that our grain is moving at a slower rate than it has ever moved before. A good three-quarters of the delivery points for grain in the west are not even in the position where they can accept the first one-bushel quota. This fact puts the farmers in those areas in a position where they are in receipt, in the first three months of the crop year, of something of the order of $300 or $350, depending on what kind of grain they have to deliver. This amount is not much more than will provide lubrication for the machinery for removing the crops from the field and further cash is definitely needed from some source or other to take care of the balance. This is a palliative which will help, in its way, those farmers who have grain. Of course for those farmers who have no grain-and they comprise a considerable number in the west this year because of drought and periods of continuous rain which have spoiled what in many cases was a fairly good crop-other remedies are necessary.
My friend from Saskatchewan, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) in his opening remarks said that this is a great moment in Canadian history. I am in entire agreement with that statement because I think this is the first time the Conservative party has made a gesture towards finding a solution of the problems of the farmers in the west. There was something previously which one might call a gesture when the last Conservative regime under Mr. Bennett gave five cents a bushel to those farmers who had wheat. At that time about one farmer in a hundred had any wheat so the other 99 went without.
These pieces of legislation are both based upon the cornerstone of Tory philosophy-to those who have shall more be added unto. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources said quite candidly this was not supposed to fix up all the western farmers' problems but I note that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) has in view more permanent relief for them and has a really basic solution for their problems when he tells them they should not raise wheat at all. That is certainly a way to get away from their trouble. It may also be a way to remove the troubles from the shoulders of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but I note that he did not say in his remarks made to a meeting of the dairy council in September that he had any suggestion as to what they should do to make a living when they quit growing wheat.

Well, if you are going to carry that kind of remedy to its logical conclusion you will tell the farmers of Prince Edward Island they should not grow potatoes and the fishermen of the maritimes they should not catch fish. We have to find a longer-ranged remedy than that implied by these suggestions because the prairies are suited to growing wheat and it would not be very practical to try growing coconuts there and raising wheat in the South Sea islands. We grow these things where they will grow. However, this piece of legislation will help in some areas where farmers have wheat and to that extent I am happy to support it.


Mr. Louis Lewry (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks in connection with this bill under discussion will not be long. Previously I have given my view that this cash advance legislation is needed quickly as a stop-gap to assist the farmers of western Canada. The marketing of Canadian wheat is the problem which faces the government and we have heard on more than one occasion remarks from the government benches that the government is doing everything it can to sell Canadian wheat and to regain lost markets.
On October 18 in this house I questioned the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) on the possibility of selling wheat to Australia. A week ago the hon. minister apparently did not know there was a shortage of wheat in one of the Australian provinces, the state of New South Wales. Back home some of my erstwhile newspaper friends have been taking me to task for the statements I made at that time. I would like to quote an editorial appearing in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix on Wednesday, October 23 under the heading "Homework First":
As a rule, not too much is demanded of freshman members of parliament attending their first session of the commons. Other members and the public generally expect little more from them than a maiden speech and a few timely questions of concern to their constituents.
The new C.C.F. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Mr. "Scoop" Lewry, evidently is not satisfied with such modest demands, at least he didn't appear to be up until the other day when he was effectively "scooped".
The editorial goes on to say:
He wondered if Canada could not accept sterling instead of dollars from Australia in exchange for Canadian wheat shipped to that country.


Mr. Speaker:: I might remind the hon. member that if he wishes to spare his own feelings he can well take refuge in the fact that it is out of order to read an editorial commenting on his previous speech in this session.


Louis Harrington Lewry: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the editorial takes me to task for my previous remarks by suggesting that I might as profitably have proposed shipping coal to Drumheller or oil to Leduc, that Australia does not import wheat.
Now my own local newspaper likewise took me to task for the statements made on that occasion but two days later the press carried a dispatch from Reuters in Perth Australia, indicating that the situation was as I indicated a week or so before, namely that Australia is in the position where she now wishes to import wheat. There was a news story on October 25 in the Regina Leader-Post stating that once approval is given in Australia for the importation of wheat, preferably from Canada, negotiations will begin about meeting the costs. My question at the time was as to whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce had considered the possibility of selling wheat to Australia. The situation I suggest is known to experts in the grain business, including the Canadian wheat board and the grain division of the Department of Trade and Commerce, but apparently not to the minister nor to some of the newspapers in spite of news stories they themselves carried. It appears virtually certain that Australia will be importing wheat during this current crop year and my purpose in asking the question of the minister was to express the hope that our sister commonwealth would import that wheat from Canada.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix and the Moose Jaw Times-Herald will all do their homework to ascertain the situation in regard to wheat market possibilities, especially within our commonwealth.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I do not
intend to speak at length on this bill because I am in general agreement with it. There are however one or two details upon which I would like to comment and upon which I would like clarification. First of all with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to standing order 11 which says that no member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest and the vote of any member so interested will be disallowed. I am a producer and I have grains; I am also a permit holder. I would like clarification as to whether or not I, along with several other members who would possibly be in the same position, would be within our rights to vote on this matter.
Grain
Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the government for keeping this bill simple and for not tying it up with too much red tape. I think, too, that it is good to have the elevator agents do the work of advancing this money. Certainly all hon. members who come from western Canada and who have had dealings with the Canadian wheat board know that the elevator agents keep a close check on the amount of grain that each farmer is storing on his farm. They ask from time to time how much is left, partly I imagine in order that they may report to their companies. Certainly they are well acquainted with this information, so I think the present arrangement is a good one.
One other thing is, I believe, worthy of mention. The advancing of this money is going to place an extra load on elevator agents and I certainly hope that the grain companies will take this into consideration and adjust their pay in recognition of the extra work that is to be done.
Mention is made in the bill of the fact that all money which a farmer has borrowed under the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act must be repaid before he can take home any of the money that is being advanced under the terms of this bill. I think that is a little harsh, because many of the farmers will not have a sufficiently large quota to enable them to repay their loans with the amount of money that is being advanced under this plan, namely 50 cents in the case of wheat, 35 cents in the case of barley and 20 cents in the case of oats. We must bear in mind that the amounts per bushel to be advanced will in fact constitute less than 50 per cent of the value of those grains, and I think that the balance of the value of those grains should be considered in demanding payment, that is, the last cent of the payment, due in respect of loans under the interim financing act.
One other thing seems unfair to me. Under the present provisions, if a tenant and a landlord hold a joint permit book, as is often the case, the tenant cannot take out an advance unless the landlord also applies. There will no doubt be cases where a landlord may not need an advance on grain that is being stored on the farm. There may also be cases where a landlord is away from the district and not available to make a joint application with his tenant. In such cases it would appear to me that if the tenant requires an advance and the landlord is either unable or unwilling to apply with him the tenant should be in a position to take advantage of this measure.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like in my own way to try to correct an

Grain
erroneous impression. There have been suggestions that this is a.handout or a subsidy. My impression is that this is no handout to the western grain producers, and no subsidy, except in regard to the amount of interest involved, which is small. The average cost, as, I believe, has been pointed out by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) would amount to between $40 and $45 per permit holder and it seems to me that this is not much of a handout. Though the hon. member for Rosthern made an attempt to decry the bill as being entirely inadequate because it is not going to cost the government a great deal of money, I do not share that view. I think this plan will be of great benefit to many producers, even though it is not going to be costly. There are things that a government can do to help depressed sections of our agriculture industry without great cost to the taxpayers and here, I think, is a typical example.


Mr. Wesley Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you my remarks will be very brief. I had not intended to say anything on second reading until my name was mentioned here by my good friend from Kindersley (Mr. Johnson), who is apparently disturbed by the fact that I voted against the resolution which preceded this bill. I want to make it quite clear that if there is a division on second reading I will vote against the bill on second reading.
When the hon. Minister for Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) spoke a short time ago he had this to say in conclusion: "I believe this legislation deserves the support of all the voters of Canada." Now, I wonder if, supposing the old age assistance and family allowances which are provided for Canadians had only applied to the province of, let us say, New Brunswick, the Liberal government would have taken the stand that all Canadians should support such a measure.
I believe that is a very good comparison. This bill provides assistance for one branch of agriculture, and one branch only in three provinces out of ten. If conditions were good in the other seven and if all primary producers were encountering no difficulties I could agree that this would be good legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot carry my remarks too far because I was called to order the other night while I was trying to describe the condition of primary producers in my own province. But I believe I have a full and complete realization of what primary producers have had to contend with in the past and of what they will have to contend

with in the future. They are the first to take any reduction in prices; they are always the first to do that, and they are the last to get any increase that might be coming. That has always been the fate of primary producers. But when I see this bill I am forced to realize-even the name of the bill bears this out; it is called "The Prairie Grain Act", not the "The Canadian Grain Growers Act"-that it is only for one section of our farmers. How any government can make people believe that this is not discriminating against other primary producers is beyond my understanding.
As I said at the outset, I will vote against this bill on second reading because, as I said on the resolution stage, it does not take care of primary producers in this country who are, to my knowledge, in a much tougher position right now than the grain producers on the prairies. The government makes no mention at all of what it is going to do with regard to unemployment. In the area from which I come that is a great word, and why I should support legislation designed to assist just a few, not all, in agriculture-just this one group in three provinces-I do not know. I just cannot do it. I will vote against the bill, and in doing so I believe my action may bring more forcibly to the attention of the government that there are others in this country who deserve and must have some consideration. Thank you.


Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to decide on getting to my feet whether I should say that I had not intended originally to take part in this debate, or whether to say that I intend my remarks to be very brief. Both statements would be equally true. It was, in actual fact, Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the hon. member who has just spoken which prompted me to make these observations.
Some doubt was raised in the house as to the necessity or the urgency of this measure. Any suggestion, such as that made by the hon. member, that any single measure could be enacted which would remedy all the economic problems of Canadian economy or of Canadian primary producers is nonsense. This particular piece of legislation was introduced in specific recognition of a problem which the government decided was urgent, and which had to be remedied immediately. It was a recognition of a problem that has been with us for some time and which because of its effects on a rather large proportion of people in this country had to be given immediate attention. I suggest to the hon. member that unquestionably other problems of the primary producers will be dealt with on a comparable

Grain
basis in the course of this session of parliament or at some time in the immediate future and that Canadians will look upon them as problems shared in common and not those of a separate group.
I have already illustrated many instances of the urgency of this matter, one of which is the position of the merchants who are an integral part of the farm community and are in dire straits because of the shortage of farm income. We have heard several instances of the difficult position in which the farmers find themselves.
I do not intend to say any more to this house than that this legislation is designed to aid a highly important sector of our population, one which is today suffering from an unbalanced economy. If any doubt remains as to the truth of that statement one has only to look at the number of farmers who have been forced-I feel, unfortunately-to migrate to our urban centres, which creates a problem for those areas. This legislation has been introduced by the government to help stabilize this important segment of our economy and I would urge every hon. member regardless of his political affiliation to give it his wholehearted support.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that much of the misunderstanding we have heard expressed by those who have spoken against Bill No. 14 arises from the fact that they misunderstand the bill itself and the purpose behind it. They do not seem to realize that an emergency situation exists in relation to our agricultural producers. The producers are not responsible for the condition which exists but they are forced under legislation to sell their grain to the wheat board. They asked for it and the government adopted the plan. Under the policies of the previous government the wheat board found it impossible to sell its grain. Restrictive trade practices adopted by the United States government in its give-away programs have taken from us many of our grain markets. The result is that our exports have decreased.
There has been a major increase in production due to efficient farming and good weather conditions and the situation has become aggravated until it has reached the point where the available storage in this country no longer holds our production. There has been plugging and congestion all along the line. Interior storage is also congested and this has worked back to the farms. Most farmers have hundreds and in some cases thousands of bushels of wheat on their farms and the land is producing more. Many millions of bushels of grain must lie in the open field which is a criminal situation.
It is not the job of the farmer to sell his grain. That responsibility rests with the Department of Trade and Commerce of the federal government. I want to congratulate this government for recognizing its responsibility.
In principle this bill says that if a farmer is unable to deliver his grain through no fault of his own then the government will allow him to receive an advance. I would like to point out to those who have spoken against the bill that this does not in any way add one dollar of income to the net return of any producer; we are giving him nothing. Through this measure the government is merely recognizing in some degree that this is one step it can take in making some money available to the farmer in advance for the grain he is expected to produce in the next six or eight months.
The government is calling upon the people of Canada to aid in bearing a portion of the cost which will amount to the interest on the money which they are going to have to advance to the farmer. What else should they do? Surely this is but little. In this bill the government is recognizing the responsibility the previous government refused to accept. The present government feels the farmer should not be compelled to bear the burden caused by the failures and errors of other people.
If the farmers of western Canada lived in the United States just 100 miles south, for instance, they would receive 90 per cent of the value of their wheat as soon as it was threshed. The government of that country is providing storage so spoilage will not occur. There is a price support program in that country protecting the farmers' produce which eases the worry of bankruptcy. Hundreds of Canadian farmers are facing bankruptcy. Family farms are being ruined in many areas.
As everyone who lives in that part of the country knows, if an individual farmer has to store his own grain and all storage facilities are filled the grain may spoil. It may get damp if the farmer has difficulty in turning it over and keeping it dry. This is good food, the result of man's labour and favourable weather conditions; surely it should be treated as a blessing to a hungry world.
I advocated in this house some four years ago that the government should undertake the building of proper storage facilities, both inland and seaboard. I said that if the conditions prevailing in 1954 continued they would result in deliveries being reduced to a mere trickle and asked the government to take action at that time to provide adequate facilities where the grain could be stored

Grain
until it could be sold or until some means could be found for supplying it to hungry people and thus maintain the agricultural industry in a healthy condition.
The government of that day with its great majority did not seem to bother very much about this problem and conditions have gone from bad to worse. One reason why the last government was wiped out in the prairie region-in all that area from Port Arthur west-was due to its attitude toward the farmers who were doing their job efficiently and were not being properly treated. The present government recognizes that the farmer should not be penalized for the failure of the previous administration to meet the problem and therefore it is a great pleasure for me to support this bill.
I would say further that if this government continues to adopt the same attitude toward the fundamental problem of agricultural stability and gives real price supports it will receive the support and blessing of this group and of other hon. members from western constituencies who recognize that in legislation such as this we are adopting principles that are fundamentally right and sound.
Of course this bill is not a cure but rather a palliative. It asks the Canadian people to accept the cost of the interest involving approximately $2 million to assist an industry which has been brought to its knees by the ruinous policies of a government which smugly sat and did not care very much for the plight of the agricultural producer.
It is always true that the rank and file of people in this country, the workers, farmers and those engaged in producing the wealth of the land always receive the careful attention of a government which has a narrow majority.


Irvin William Studer: You certainly need one in Saskatchewan.


George Hugh Castleden: However, they seem to be forgotten by a government that has a big majority. If you people had provided the leadership when you had the chance you would not be where you are today. You failed the policies and the principles of your party as laid down by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the great Liberal of the country, the party of the people. This group has moved in to the left of you people, judging by the speeches we heard from you this afternoon.
Here we have a government out talking to the people. Food is surely a blessing to mankind, Mr. Speaker. The records of the United Nations and the records within our own empire show that two-thirds of the world population are hungry. We in Canada allow

our food to spoil and those engaged in producing food to be ruined. We spend millions of dollars on armaments to try to win the good will of the world, to try to protect ourselves. We need the good will of the hungry and backward nations of the world. The provision of food is one way in which we can help those people and show them that we mean something when we talk about brotherhood.
Sputnik reminds us that we have to learn to live in brotherhood or be destroyed, or destroy ourselves. Surely it is the duty of every part of the world which can produce food-heavens knows Canada can-to use that commodity and help to bring about the brotherhood of man.
I urge this government to continue this policy. I assure them that it will be with great pleasure that I support this bill and I assure them that the same kind of support will be given to real policies that provide a sound economic base under agriculture, not only in the west but from coast to coast and which will take in all the provinces.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to take part in this debate, as I am not familiar with matters that affect wheat, but since my hon. friend from New Brunswick recently spoke I thought I should say something. It seems to me he has misunderstood this whole legislation as outlined in this bill or else he has endeavoured to carry a message to my province that this legislation is put forward with the idea of being a cure-all for all agriculture and fisheries.
This legislation is carrying out only one point of the program which was laid down by the Conservative party before the election. We went into the election promising that if elected we would provide cash advances on farm-stored wheat in the west. My people who voted for me, and others who voted in New Brunswick, understood that, Mr. Speaker. This bill is not shoved on us members from the east as a surprise. This is only one point.
As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton] said not long ago when he read the program, we are looking forward for more legislation, something that is going to put the farmers in general across this country in a position to get their fair share of the money that is distributed. I am looking forward to that and there is no reason not to believe it. I am not like the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) who thinks, or tries to make the people of my province, and no doubt the whole maritime provinces, feel that this is the final, the last and only bit of legislation that this government intends to introduce.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Gage Workman Montgomery: Yes.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: If the government had these plans, and since there was no budget to be brought down, why were they not forecast in the speech from the throne? Why was this one group singled out and all other primary producers ignored? If that is part of your program, where is it?


Gage Workman Montgomery: I would like to ask the hon. member to read the speech from the throne again. I would also remind him that we have been in power only a short time and this session is called more or less to wind up old business and put through emergency business. Why did he not get his government, which was in power for 22 years, to do that?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The hon. member has asked me a question, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The hon. member
has asked me a question. Does he want it answered?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton has the floor.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: He asked me a question. I want to know whether he wants an answer. The hon. member asked me why the government I supported-


Gage Workman Montgomery: You can speak later.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Do you want my
answer?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: It is all right if you do not want an answer. I can answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Will both members please resume their seats. We can have only one member speaking at a time in this house. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton has the floor and unless he wishes to concede it while the hon. member for Charlotte answers the question he must be allowed to continue.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I did not notice you standing or I would have sat down. I think I answered the hon. member's question and there was no need for a second answer.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Excuse me; you
asked me a question.


James Sinclair: A purely rhetorical question.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I am going to support this legislation because it is part of the program. I am justified in doing it because my people
Grain
voted for that type of program and I am very glad they did. I am very happy to be able to stand up here and say it is not a hand-out to the west; therefore, I am supporting it.


Peter Stefura: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to speak briefly in support of this bill having to do with cash advances on farm-stored grain. I must agree with the hon. member who just took his seat that this is not a cure-all for the entire agricultural situation as we find it today. The conditions that the farmers find themselves in, are such, that a bill of this type or something similar to it had to be introduced if the farm people were to pull through. This bill having to do with cash advances is perhaps the quickest and the best way to get much needed money into the hands of the farming people to enable them to carry on until such time as the grain is moved or until such time as the government is able to bring about further agricultural policies to solve the difficulties or to aid the agricultural industry.
I have listened to the Liberal members with a great deal of interest and although I have never been in this house before I am sure that under no conditions have I ever heard more words spoken nor have I read more words in Hansard against a bill; at the same time heard arguments that the bill did not go far enough, or that the measure was not good enough, and at the same time not committing themselves to any policy of their own, or taking any definite stand.
Every time some long-winded politician- and I cannot think of anything else to say- would rise to his feet and speak his piece in the allotted time that he had, he would qualify every statement that he made, and every statement had a double meaning. He would also leave enough loopholes to enable one to drive a bulldozer through them before he got down to anything definite. We saw the former minister of agriculture do that today. I suppose if somebody questioned him, the hon. member for Melville, whether black was white he would stand up and say no, that white was black. We have seen that happen a number of times today.
It was not until I listened to and later read the speech of the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Gour) that I was able to get a good idea of what the Liberals were trying to put across, what their ideas were and what their stand actually is on this question. It is not my intention to take the hon. member's speech apart. Instead, I should like to congratulate him because he was very brief and to the point and I believe very honest when he said what he did. As I have said, it is not the individual member whom I wish

Grain
to attack. As found on page 377 of Hansard of October 24, these are his words:
In my time in the house and prior the Liberal government provided large amounts of money to help the people of the west when they had no crops. At that time the federal government gave many millions of dollars to help the farmers who were in a bad position. In 1947, I think, we voted, and I was in favour of it, for a Liberal government measure that gave the western farmers $65 million and we did so because of the price of wheat at that time.
I should like briefly to bring out that it was not a matter of the price of wheat alone at that particular time. The $65 million and, indeed, a lot more than that, actually belonged to the farm people. Tonight a member stood up and said that he would not vote for this measure because it would only assist one particular group of people, the western farmers. I have one question I should like to ask him that he might answer when he has an opportunity to do so. When a bill was passed that took away about $500 million from the farm people under the British wheat agreement was that money taken away from all the people? Wheat was also sold in Canada at that time at the same price. Was that money taken away from all the people or only from the western producers?


An hon. Member:: Let him answer.


Peter Stefura: 

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

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


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue this debate and then go on with the resolutions standing in the names of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask-
Business of the House


Howard Charles Green: I should say we are going to go into committee on the bill we are discussing once it has had second reading.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask if there is any intention of going back to the speech from the throne debate during the course of this week?


Howard Charles Green: That will depend on how long it takes to get these measures through.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS	death sentences
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Hahn: How many widows of imperial war veterans are resident in Canada for more than 10 years but whose husbands predeceased them before they became eligible for the war veterans allowance, as provided for under the War Veterans' Allowance Act?
Answer by: Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of
Veterans Affairs):
8,600 (estimated).



WAR VETERANS


Mr. Hahn: 1.	How many war veterans in Canada are over the age of 60 years?
2.	How many single and married veterans received the war veterans pension in the past year?
3.	What is the total of war veterans allowance paid them in the past year?
4.	What was the total cost of administration of the pensions given under the means test to these veterans?
5.	What is the estimated cost of placing all veterans over the age of 60 on a war veterans allowance pension?
Answer by: Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of
Veterans Affairs):
1.	207,000 (estimated).
2.	At March 31, 1957, war veterans allowance was being paid, (a) at single rate to 15,696 veterans; (b) at married rate to 23,994 veterans.
3.	War veterans allowance paid to veterans only during fiscal year 1956-57: $31,140,437.
4.	During fiscal year 1956-57, administrative expenditures for the war veterans allowance board amounted to $146,368. Certain additional expenses are incurred by district authorities which are established in each D.V.A. district to deal with and adjudicate on all applications, revisions, suspensions and cancellations of war veterans allowances. The district authorities consist of departmental employees who are drawn from the staff of various branches. Their activity in administering war veterans allowances cannot be precisely separated from their other functions.
5.	In the fiscal year 1957-58, the estimated additional cost is, at current rates and ceilings, $184,000,000.

Question No. 25-Mr. Christian:
1.	During the last 10 years how many persons (a) have had the death sentence imposed upon them in Canada: (b) have actually been hanged?
2.	During each of these years how many persons have had their death sentence commuted?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):
1.	1947 to 1956 inclusive: (a) 223; (b) 95.
2.	1947, 3; 1948, 5; 1949, 6; 1950, 3; 1951, 3; 1952, 8; 1953, 6; 1954, 4; 1955, 9; 1956, 5.- total 52.



LOBSTER LICENCES, MARITIME COUNTIES

Mr. Robichaud: What was the total number of lobster licences issued in each of the following counties, during the period January 1 to September 30.	1957:
Charlotte, Westmorland, Kent, Northumberland, Gloucester, Restigouche?
Answer by: Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of
Fisheries):
*Charlotte	 536
Westmorland	 833
Kent	 1,062
Northumberland	 370
Gloucester	 724
Restigouche	 113
* As season in Charlotte county opens in fall figure is for period October 1, 1956, to September 30, 1957.



LOBSTER CANNING, ETC., GLOUCESTER COUNTY, N.B.

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What was the total number of cases of canned lobsters processed in Gloucester county. New Brunswick, during the months of May and June, 1957?
2.	What was the approximate number of cases of canned lobsters processed in the same area, during the months of August and September, 1957?
3.	What was the total number of lobster traps destroyed or confiscated, during the period August 1 to September 30, 1957, in waters adjacent to Gloucester county, New Brunswick?
Answer by: Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):
1.	9,614 cases on basis of 48-1 lb. cans to a case.
2.	Nil.
3.	2,175.



APPENDIX &quot;A'


[Stage Direction]
Average Monthly
Prices .... Flax .... 1955-56 Crop Yr.
Average Monthly Prices Rye .... 1955-56 Crop Year
Source: Coarse Grains Quarterly.
Sanford Evans Grain Trade Year Book

[Stage Direction]
Text of communique issued at close of conference of commonwealth prime ministers,
held in London, June 26 to July 5, 1957.

[Stage Direction]
The meeting of commonwealth prime ministers was concluded to-day. This was the first commonwealth meeting at which Ghana was represented, following her attainment of independence in March, 1957. Other commonwealth ministers welcomed Ghana's participation in the meeting as a full member of the commonwealth, and took note of this occasion as further practical evidence of the progress made by the United Kingdom government in the pursuit of their policy of fostering constitutional development in their dependent territories.
In the course of their discussions the commonwealth ministers have reviewed all the major international questions of the day which are of common concern to their countries. In this association of free and independent nations it is inevitable that there should be some differences of viewpoint and opinion. But these meetings reveal a broad similarity of approach and purpose. It is not their function, nor is it the object of this communique, to record agreed decisions or formal resolutions. Their value lies in the opportunity which they afford for a full and candid exchange of views in the light of which each commonwealth government can formulate and pursue its separate policies with deeper knowledge and understanding of the views and interests of its fellow members.
The primary objective of all commonwealth governments is world peace and security. They believe that this objective can only be assured by increased co-operation between nations. They themselves accept the principle and practice of co-operation; it is the foundation of their own association. They will continue to work for its wider adoption.
The United Nations was designed to provide one of the main opportunities for the practical exercise of the principle of co-operation between nations. Experience has, however, revealed certain deficiencies and weaknesses in the functioning of the organization. The commonwealth ministers agreed that constructive action is needed to strengthen and improve the United Nations as an instrument for preserving peace, justice and co-operation throughout the world in accordance with the principles of the charter.
In discussion of developments since their last meeting, commonwealth ministers expressed their grave concern at the' tragic events in Hungary. They took note that the forthcoming consideration by the general
assembly of the report presented by its special committee will provide the occasion for the United Nations to record its views.
Commonwealth ministers reviewed the course of the developments in the current discussions on disarmament. They noted that proposals relating to a first stage of disarmament were put forward on 2nd July in the disarmament subcommittee on behalf of the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and France. They recognized that even a limited agreement, by reducing the suspicions and tensions throughout the world, would help to create conditions in which a more comprehensive scheme of disarmament could be developed.
The commonwealth ministers discussed the international problems of the Middle East. They agreed that, in the long term, economic and social progress must be the foundation for stability in the Middle East. They agreed, however, that in the short term the need is to work toward a relaxation of the tension arising from the dispute between the Arab states and Israel, the plight of the Arab refugees and the unresolved problems in connection with the Suez canal. They considered that solutions of all these urgent questions should continue to be pursued by all practicable means.
Consideration was also given to the contribution which might be made by the commonwealth governments concerned toward the easing of tension and the maintenance of peace, stability and political freedom in the Far East and southeast Asia. Commonwealth ministers welcomed the important contribution already made by mutual assistance under the Colombo plan toward raising standards of living and promoting economic development in the underdeveloped countries of this area.
In their general review of economic questions the commonwealth ministers gave special attention to the impact of the major programs of development on which many of their countries are now engaged. These programs call for high levels of domestic saving which can only be secured by sound internal policies. But they also call for conditions favourable to investment from other countries. The United Kingdom will continue to play its leading role in furthering economic development in the countries of the commonwealth, and important contributions are also being made by other commonwealth members. But, in view of the continued need for capital investment, it is also important to encourage

investment from other sources on suitable conditions.
The commonwealth ministers noted the progress made since their last meeting toward the freeing of trade and payments. In this context they discussed the proposals for the creation of an industrial free trade area in Europe as a complement to the European economic community to be set up under the treaty of Rome. They agreed that, as part of the continuous exchange of views between commonwealth governments on these matters, particular aspects of the proposals which might specially affect certain countries of the commonwealth should be examined in London next week by officials of all commonwealth countries in the light of the ministers' discussions.
The commonwealth ministers noted that the annual meeting of the international monetary fund and the international bank for reconstruction and development will be held in Washington in September. The normal practice is for this meeting to be followed by a meeting of commonwealth finance ministers. The Prime Minister of Canada extended an invitation that this meeting of finance ministers should be held this year in Ottawa.
The commonwealth ministers recognized the value of the work carried out over the past
thirty years by the commonwealth economic committee. They agreed that the committee should be invited to examine and suggest to governments what expansion of its scope and functions might usefully be undertaken for the particular purpose of drawing attention to the economic resources of commonwealth countries.
The commonwealth ministers reviewed the progress of co-operation within the commonwealth in the use of nuclear energy for civil purposes. They recognized the growing importance of the contribution which nuclear energy can make to the peaceful development of their countries and of the rest of the world and the value of close collaboration between members of the commonwealth in this field. For this purpose nuclear scientists from commonwealth countries will be invited to an informal meeting in the United Kingdom in 1958.
The commonwealth ministers noted that the federation of Malaya was on the eve of attaining independence. They extended to the federation their warm good wishes for its future, and they looked forward to being able to welcome an independent Malaya as a member of the commonwealth on the completion of the necessary constitutional processes.
London,
5th July, 1957.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 29, 1957