1960-01-21

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRIME MINISTER AND FOREIGN MINISTER OF JAPAN

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: By leave of the house-and I think the house generally would agree that leave, in a case such as this, should be granted-I wish to mention the presence in the gallery of the Prime Minister of Japan, Hon. Nobusuke Kishi and, with him, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hon. Aiichiro Fujiyama.
This is the first occasion on which this house has been visited by a prime minister of Japan. Our country has had long relations with our nearest neighbour to the west. Seventy years ago the first consular post by Japan was established in Canada, and Canada, on her part, established in Japan one of Canada's first diplomatic missions. On behalf of all hon. members in all parts of the house I wish to express a hearty welcome to these two distinguished visitors, coupled with the hope that their stay with us will be as productive as it has already been enjoyable to us.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition and of myself I should like to associate ourselves with the words the Prime Minister has just uttered, words of welcome to the Prime Minister of Japan, the foreign minister and the members of their party. It is quite true, as the Prime Minister said, that this is the first occasion on which a Prime Minister of Japan has visited our House of Commons. In that respect, at least, we are ahead of Japan, because I think I am right in saying that two Canadian prime ministers have had the honour of visiting Japan besides one who hopes, one day, to be prime minister.
Our lines of development, interest and contact have, in this country, because of our history, been in the past primarily across the Atlantic ocean to Europe. But in recent years we have learned, and we are still learning, that we are also a Pacific nation; and in the development of our Pacific contacts I am sure nothing has given greater pleasure to Canadians than the growth of close and friendly relations between Canada and that other great Pacific power, Japan. We have now
reached the point where our interests, economic and otherwise, are most important to each other and we all, I am sure, want to keep it that way.
Therefore it gives me very great pleasure indeed to associate our party with the words of welcome to our visitors which the Prime Minister has addressed to them both on their own behalf and on behalf of the great country they represent.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the C.C.F. party I wish to welcome our two distinguished visitors, Hon. Nobusuke Kishi, Prime Minister of Japan, and Hon. Aiichiro Fujiyama, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We are pleased with the friendly relations that exist between Canada and Japan. We are hopeful that in the future trade between our two great countries will continue to develop. We realize that it is in the economic sphere that friendly, peaceful relationships can best flourish. We are pleased to see trade between Canada and Japan growing and indicating great promise for the future.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. He will recall the pleasant exchange that took place between us the other day. I asked him a question which is to be found at page 80 of Hansard of January 19:
Could the minister give us the number of active claimants for unemployment insurance benefits as of the same period, that is January 7, the date he has used, in the figure he has just produced for the house of 722,834 people who are applicants for jobs in this country?
Is the minister now in a position to reply to this question?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, those figures are not available as yet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give us the figures for live claimants for unemployment insurance as of December 31, 1959?


Mr. Grafftey:: What is a live claimant?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The figures are 667,715 regular claimants and 17,976 fishermen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the minister not recognize in these most amazing figures-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The opening remarks of the hon. member for Essex East suggested to me that he was about to comment, and that was the reason I rose.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think you know I would be the last one to comment. I ask the minister, in view of this figure of close to 700,000 people who are actually claiming unemployment insurance benefits, if he does not place more stress on the figure of unplaced applicants than he does on the dominion bureau of statistics figures?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not recognize that when he was in the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member for Essex East will await the first opportunity properly presented to him under the rules of the house to debate the matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of such great importance that I believe I have a right to put this question. In view of the statement made by the minister I am simply-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will state his question-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what I was about to do, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not recognize that his last answer is exactly contrary to the answer taken down-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know hon. gentlemen do not like references to unemployment in this country; that is evident. But if the government will not do something about unemployment-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member would finish his statement without paying attention to the interruptions it would expedite our proceedings.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I want to say by way of extenuation that I think the Speaker will recognize that since


this session began the government as a whole has been very touchy about questions put to it by members of the opposition-


William Heward Grafftey: That is your opinion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and it has been difficult for us to put them.


William Heward Grafftey: Put your question and get on with it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should take advantage of the opportunity given to him to ask his question and not introduce irrelevant matter. If he has a legitimate question I will hear it. If not, we might pass to the next business.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: The question was, does the Minister of Labour, in now affirming that the D.B.S. is the standard to employ, not recognize this is not the position his party took when they sat on this side in opposition?


Michael Starr: It is hard to give an answer to a hypothetical statement.


Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, based on an answer given a moment ago by the Minister of Labour to the effect that there are 700,000 people in Canada at the present time who are actually claiming unemployment insurance benefits. Can the Prime Minister say immediately that not one of those people will suffer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I am sorry I have not been able to send him notice. Can the minister comment on press reports that the Lacrosse ground to ground missile has been tested at Fort Churchill. Does this mean that it is considered to be a suitable weapon under northern conditions?
As a further question, can the minister say whether there is any intention to have the Bomarc missile tested at Churchill?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minisler of National Defence):: There has been one firing of the Lacrosse missile at Fort Churchill, which took place on January 19.
With regard to the second part of the question, there are no plans at the present time for the firing of the Bomarc missile at Churchill.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to acquire the Lacrosse missile for the army irrespective of the result of the tests which are now going on?


George Randolph Pearkes: Will you repeat the first part of the question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of the reply the minister gave yesterday, and it is this. Is it the intention of the government to acquire the Lacrosse missile for the army irrespective of the result of the tests now going on at Churchill?


George Randolph Pearkes: Certainly not. We shall await the tests now going at Churchill, and a decision will be made then whether or not to acquire the Lacrosse.
(Translation):



REPORTED USE OF U.S. OR U.K. SUBMARINE FOR TRAINING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Associate Minister of National Defence a question? According to an item in the Financial Post for January 16, 1960, the Canadian government is seriously considering the purchase or rental of a submarine from the United States, or perhaps Great Britain. Could the minister tell me whether there is any basis for this report?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for St. Denis, I want to say that, as a matter of fact, in order to provide adequate training for our naval units stationed in the Pacific, the government is considering the rental of a submarine for naval training purposes in the Pacific.
(Text):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It consists of two parts, and it relates to the Canadian National Railways. Has the minister received any protests or comments from any persons or organizations regarding new medical requirements for employment on the Canadian National Railways? If not, can the minister check to determine if such requirements as alleged now rule out the employment of men 79951-0-lli
Inquiries of the Ministry or women with such serious disabilities as ingrown toenails, corns, allergies or hypertension?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not received any such communication. I will be very glad to look into it and speak to the Canadian National Railways' management and report to the hon. member and to the house as soon as possible.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Limburg Houck: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation to hon. members for the reception given me on my return. I thank them from the depths of my heart; I really appreciate it. I should like to ask the Postmaster General if he is taking steps to avoid a recurrence of the difficulties which arose last Christmas, when literally thousands of Christmas cards sent from the United States to Canada could not be forwarded to this country because of insufficient postage being affixed.


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid there are no steps that the Postmaster General of Canada can take to deal with the situation such as this, because the decision as to the course to be followed comes entirely under the United States postal administration. I can only say that in Canada we follow the practice of forwarding to their destination short-paid articles of this nature as long as at least 1 cent of postage is affixed.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport on a matter which concerns hundreds of my constituents. They will read his answer with great interest. In view of the fact that many Canadians are denied the opportunity to enjoy television owing to the present broadcasting regulations and the prohibitive cost of coaxial cable installations; and in view of the fact that the minister and his officials, as the result of representations from various organizations
164	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry and communities and the member for Kootenay West, have been studying this situation, will the minister inform the house whether as a result of these studies a policy decision has been made with respect to this matter that is so very important to many Canadians?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. 1 wish to thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. As a result of the study of numerous representations the department has developed draft technical standards, draft licensing procedures and draft application forms which are designed to simplify and improve this situation. These documents are now in the process of being discussed with the board of broadcast governors, and we hope to promulgate them later this year.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister mind providing copies of these documents when available to members who are interested in this question?


George Harris Hees: I will, Mr. Speaker.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In a press release published in Le Droit it is said that Premier Barrette of Quebec is ready to start discussions with the federal government respecting a new interprovincial bridge, but he says that the initiative should come from Ottawa. Is it the intention of the government to take the initiative in this matter?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for doing me the honour of asking me such a question in my capacity as Minister of Public Works, but I suggest that he should direct the question to someone else.


An hon. Member:: To whom?


An hon. Member:: Since when?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Then I will go directly to the Prime Minister and ask him. Following this press release indicating that the premier of Quebec is ready-


John George Diefenbaker: What date is that?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Wednesday, January 20-to enter into discussions provided that the initiative comes from Ottawa, is the government ready to take that initiative?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will first have to read the press dispatch and communicate with the government. Having done that I will be in a position to reply.
As a matter of fact this matter has been under consideration for a number of years. I seem to recollect that the former government interested itself in this problem and realized that it required the co-operation of the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario. The matter has stood in that way for some years. I am very interested in the press statement to which the hon. gentleman has referred. I shall examine it and communicate with the government in the regular way.



AUTOMOBILES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the reported effort of the Soviet union to capture a market in Canada for automobiles, will the minister inform the house whether motor cars imported from the Soviet union are subject to customs duties, excise and sales taxes, as are charged on passenger vehicles imported from Germany, France and Italy?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister wishes to answer the question he could dispose of the matter, but it is the sort of question that should be put on the order paper.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I say
with great respect, Mr. Speaker, it is a question that is very live. There was a report in last night's newspapers that the Soviet union would take steps with Canadian importers to capture part of the Canadian automobile market. This is a matter which affects an industry in which there is much unemployment. I think the question is most urgent.


Mr. Speaker:: I normally regard a question on the application of the customs tariff as one which should be placed on the order paper. However, in view of the current discussion mentioned by the hon. gentleman it may be topical.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister ol National Revenue):: The answer is yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the event of the Soviet union being obliged to pay excise taxes, sales taxes and the tariff, would the minister and his department take into consideration the relative values of similar production in countries whose economies are more like Canada's than is the Soviet union's.


George Clyde Nowlan: All I can say in that connection is that the minister and the officials of his department will, as if, and when the circumstances arise, fix a valuation in accordance with the principles in the Customs Act.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillingale):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the very encouraging reports some of us heard this morning about the attitude or probable attitude of the United States to the convention on the law of the sea, will the government give early consideration to making the necessary provision for the enforcement of the wider area reserved for national fisheries, if we are fortunate enough to get it; because I am sure the minister will realize that it takes some time to get the necessary patrol boats.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is departing into the realm of hypothesis when he asks what the government will do in uncertain circumstances.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was asking the minister if they would make plans now.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Problems having to do with the enforcement of fisheries laws are always under review in the light of present and possible future events.



INQUIRY AS TO SPEED-UP OF SHIPMENTS THROUGH VANCOUVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to present a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and to preface it with an answer he gave on January 18 regarding the movement of grain from the prairies to the port of Vancouver. May I ask the minister whether the hopes he expressed at that time about the increased movement have been realized as yet.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: That is my understanding of the situation, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Howard: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. May I ask the minister if he knows how many ships are presently tied up in Vancouver harbour awaiting facilities and a break?
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I do not carry
that information with me from day to day. If the hon. member will give me notice I will be glad to get the information for him.


Frank Howard: Then I hope the minister will take this question as notice.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. J. V/alker (Minister of Public
Works): May I answer a question that comes within the purview of my department. On Monday last the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) questioned me about a contract for a rental housing project in Cornwall, as reported at page 42 of Hansard, and I undertook to reply to him today.
The federal-provincial partnership, that is the government of Ontario and ourselves, along with the municipality of Cornwall, had earlier determined the need for such a project. Accordingly tenders were called for its construction. Last week, however, some questions were raised to the federal-provincial partnership as to the need for this project. The partnership, in consequence, sent officials to Cornwall to reassess the whole situation. Their report indicates quite strongly the continued need for the project. Consequently, on behalf of the federal-provincial partnership I wish to announce that the project will be undertaken forthwith. As is customary the tender of the lowest bidder will be accepted.
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister tell us who caused this second investigation to be made?


David James Walker: Yes. It was done on the joint responsibility and at the suggestion of both the responsible minister in Ontario and myself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On whose representations?


David James Walker: If my hon. friend will write me a letter I will give him all the details, but suffice it to say that we have had many representations from various people from time to time, and using our own discretion we decided that the matter was worthy of investigation.



ELLIOT LAKE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: May I
ask the Minister of Public Works the following question. Has the government any plans under consideration to handle the mortgage and property problems which may face many

Inquiries of the Ministry people in the Elliot Lake area who have homes under the National Housing Act and who must plan a shift to another region in order to earn a living?


David James Walker: I am glad to say, in reply to the hon. member, that we are giving this question our constant consideration.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the house whether his department is considering taking steps immediately in order to prevent the recurrence of the pollution of the waters of the St. Lawrence below Montreal, which caused considerable damage last year and about which so many complaints were lodged.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any complaints so far. Perhaps my department has, but they have not been brought to my attention. If complaints have been made regarding this matter, if the hon. member will bring them to my attention I will be glad to look into the matter.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerse whether, in view of the difficulties now being encountered in the great uranium production area of Bland River-Elliot Lake, the government has considered transferring the proposed atomic power establishment at Kincardine to that area.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member's suggestion will be taken into consideration.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, arising out of his well known intrest in the field of social security and his support of parliamentary committees of this house. Is the government giving any study to asking

a committee of this house to study the old social security system, particularly in the field of increased old age pensions, portable pensions and survivors' benefits?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in anticipation, quite a few committees have already been referred to. I have heard hon. members say that it is going to be difficult to find the necessary membership to fill all these committees. In those circumstances no consideration has yet been given to the setting up of another committee such as suggested by the hon. gentleman.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, since our group would support such a committee, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has given any consideration to having the Clark report referred to such a committee, or to some committee of this kind?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the support of the group referred to by the hon. gentleman scarcely constitutes a majority in this house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since the majority of the Canadian people expected that the government meant what it said when it appointed Dr. Clark-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -is the government considering a reference of his report to a committee of this house? I take it from the Prime Minister's silence that he intends to take no action in this matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question in view of the statement the Prime Minister made on the Clark report on February 26, 1958, when he said: "I believe it will not be very long before we would be in a position to introduce in the new parliament a contributory social security system." Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation this year based on the Clark report; and if not this year, will it be introduced in a session immediately prior to the next general election.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman apparently considers that this government would act similarly to the course followed by the government of which he was a member.



N.H.A.-INQUIRY AS TO AMENDING LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the minister's statements and in particular his statement of October 30

Inquiries of the Ministry
that parliament would be asked early in the had a meeting with the five members in session to provide additional funds for house order to come to a conclusion and prepare building, can the hon. gentleman now tell this a report from the committee, house when we may expect that the necessary Mr, Speaker, while I am on my feet may legislation will be introduced to amend the j fog permitted to give, in a few words, the National Housing Act in this regard?	picture as it concerns the coal mines?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Works): That matter is under consideration,	,	...	,	. .	,
and after consultation with the leader of the Mr' Speaker: Has the minister leave to house and the cabinet a date will be deter- make a statement on this subject, mined and the house informed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: May I
address a question to the Minister of Labour. I must apologize for not giving him notice of my intention to ask this question, and he may consider it as notice if he wishes to do so. In view of the fact that the civil servants of Quebec are not under the unemployment insurance scheme, and in view of the fact that many of them are laid off during the fall, I wonder if the Minister of Labour will consider the possibility of taking the initiative in communicating with the provincial authorities with a view to convincing them that the civil service of Quebec is entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have had no representation from anyone, including the civil service of Quebec, in regard to that matter.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can he advise the house whether the federal government will receive a report from the special committee of labour, management and the provincial government now studying the problems of the Nova Scotia coal industry? If so, when does the minister expect to have that report?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago I met the chairman of the committee, Mr. Manson, the minister of mines for Nova Scotia. The report is under way, and we expect to have it in a few weeks. Mr. Manson told me that he was working hard on it and


Paul Comtois: It is a short statement. When I said I had not sought full information on the possibilities of lay-offs in the Nova Scotia mines, I did so, of course, in the context of a previous reference by the hon. member for Gloucester to this same possibility. I had not sought further information because there was no information to be had from the coal company which was more recent or accurate than the information already in our possession.
I think I should now say further that the dominion coal board, in order to keep idle time to a minimum in the coal mines of Nova Scotia, has been working intensively for some weeks with the sales, production and financial officers of the Dominion Coal Company. I am informed that it is not yet possible to estimate accurately the market for, and consequently the realistic production of, Cape Breton coal in the coming year. Until market estimates are complete, production schedules, based on facts, obviously cannot be set. Until production schedules are available the amount of idle time, if any, will not be accurately known.
I am further informed that a close estimate of markets cannot be made for several weeks. It has been the practice for years for many of the large industrial consumers of coal to place their annual orders just before May 1. I can assure hon. members that when accurate information is available as to possible lay-offs in the Nova Scotia mines it will be given to the house at the first opportunity.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Could the minister tell the house whether the chairman of the coal board is taking part in the work of the committee which I mentioned in my first question?


Paul Comtois: I do not think the chairman of the coal board takes an active part in the work of the committee. He gets the details or information, or gives information when he is requested to do so.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A further supplementary question. Is the minister aware of an article in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, dated January 1, 1960 in which the minister of mines

Inquiries of the Ministry is reported to have said that the dominion coal board chairman would attend the January sessions?


Paul Comtois: I am not aware of that fact. It may be the case.


Augustin Brassard: I have a supplementary question to that asked by the hon. member for Gloucester. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the recent appointment to the Senate of the former secretary of state, whether he would be good enough to assure the house that he will make the necessary inquiries of noted specialists to assure himself that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys enjoys the necessary health to perform his duties.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production in connection with the Hornet rifle. Yesterday I asked how many of these rifles had been distributed by the crown assets corporation, and whether the crown assets corporation had received or sought any advice from the R.C.M.P. or the R.C.A.F. as to the suitability of these weapons for public use.
Your Honour ruled out the first part of my question because I was asking for statistical information. I should like to ask the minister today if he is ready to answer the second part. Did the crown assets corporation receive or seek any advice from the R.C.M.P. or the R.C.A.F. as to the suitability of these weapons for public use?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: In reply to the hon. member for Dollard, may I say that the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation has been disposing of equipment of this type passed over to them by the Department of National Defence for years, and knows what procedure has to be followed. In the disposal of these rifles the same procedure was followed, but it was one of those borderline questions involving the length of the barrel of the Hornet rifle, and on the authority of my department and the defence ministry the Hornet rifles are being recalled.


Guy Rouleau: In view of the fact that in a press release issued by the Minister of Justice on December 23, 1959, a statement was made to the effect that details of arrangements for the repurchase of the Hornet rifle would be

announced shortly by the Department of Defence Production, is the minister now ready to make such an announcement and also to tell the house what price the government is now offering for the repurchase of these rifles? Perhaps the minister would also tell us what was the amount received from the crown assets corporation in respect of that sale.


Mr. O'Hurley:: I think the hon. member should have followed the advice you gave him yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and put his whole question on the order paper.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Public Works whether in view of the statement he is reported to have made, which appears in Tuesday's Halifax Chronicle-Herald, that an estimate of $90 million for the Prince Edward Island causeway was too low, and now obsolete, and that an estimate of $450 million was too high, and fantastic, he would now tell the house what cost surveys to date have revealed as to the probable estimated cost of the project.


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Would my hon. friend, who I am sure wants a definite answer to his question, be good enough to put it on the order paper?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should be glad to, but I think the house would like to know on what basis the minister considered that the other estimates were fantastic.



PROVISION FOR ADVANCE PAYMENTS TO PRODUCERS

Gordon Minto Churchill: the second reading of Bill C-32, to authorize provisional payments for the 1959-60 crop year in respect of unthreshed grain in the prairie provinces.
He said: In speaking to the resolution I set forth the harvesting position in the west. As nearly as can be ascertained there are about 100 million bushels of unthreshed grain in the three prairie provinces and in areas in British Columbia which fall within the designated area.
It is in connection with this 100 million bushels that the government has brought forward this bill. While the extent of the problem has decreased in the past two and one half months, many individual producers

face great difficulties because they have not been able to complete their harvesting. The bill is directed primarily to producers in this position.
This legislation is essentially of a short term nature. In very simple terms, it proposes that producers with unthreshed grain from the 1959 crop will be able to apply for limited provisional payments pending the completion of harvesting. These funds will be available to producers through their local elevator agents between the date on which the legislation is proclaimed and May 1 next. It is hoped that the provisional payments taken by producers will be fully repaid out of one half of the proceeds of their deliveries during the balance of the crop year.
The legislation before the house contains most of the provisions of the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act with which members of the house are familiar. These provisions are necessary to provide: (a) the necessary funds; (b) procedures whereby producers may secure provisional payments; (c) the basis upon which provisional payments will be authorized; and (d) the procedures relating to repayment of the provisional payments.
Basically, the formula under the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act has been preserved. The amount of a provisional payment will be calculated on the basis of one half of the unthreshed grain multiplied by 50 cents per bushel in the case of wheat, 20 cents per bushel for oats and 35 cents per bushel for barley; provided that the one half of the unthreshed grain does not exceed the quantity which will be deliverable under a general quota of 6 bushels per specified acre less a deduction for prior deliveries. Up to this point the formula generally follows the pattern of the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act with which producers and elevator agents are familiar.
In the case of the present legislation, however, another factor will enter into the determining of a provisional payment. The quantity of threshed grain which the applying producer has in store on his farm will also be deducted. The reason for this deduction is that a producer can secure an advance payment on threshed grain under the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act, and advances on threshed grain should be exclusively under that act. The producer will therefore be applying for an advance solely on that quantity of unthreshed grain which falls within the limitations which I have described.
The repayment provisions are similar to those under the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act, with one exception. Under the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act deliveries under the unit or initial quota are exempt from the repayment provisions of 79951-0-12
Advance Payments to Grain Producers the act. This legislation is being enacted at the half-way point of the crop year and, in order to facilitate the discharge of the producer's obligation promptly, one half the proceeds of all deliveries subsequent to the date of the producer's application for a provisional payment will be applied on repayment. I should add that at the present time, all delivery points are now off the unit quota and in most instances the unit quota has already been delivered even in those districts where there is considerable unthreshed grain still in the fields.
I can summarize the operation of the formula very briefly:
1.	If one half of a producer's unthreshed grain is less than the quantity which he would deliver on a 6-bushel general quota, then his maximum provisional payment is one half his unthreshed grain multiplied by 50 cents, 35 cents and 20 cents per bushel respectively for wheat, barley and oats, less the deductions to which I have referred.
2.	If one half his unthreshed grain is more than he can deliver under a 6-bushel general quota, then the maximum of his provisional payment is the quantity of grain he can deliver under a 6-bushel general quota multiplied by 50 cents, 35 cents and 20 cents per bushel respectively for wheat, barley and oats, less the deductions to which I have referred.
3.	The maximum provisional payment on unthreshed grain is $1,500.
I would like to say a word about the maximum provisional payment of $1,500. The limit of $1,500 would be equal to 50 cents a bushel on the quantity of wheat a producer could deliver under a 6-bushel general quota from a specified acreage of 500 acres. In 1958-59 the wheat board issued 227,000 permits. Of these permits 188,000 or 81 per cent showed a specified acreage of 500 acres or less. I believe these observations place the maximum limits under this legislation in proper perspective.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the minister will allow me to interrupt him. I have been waiting for the house to settle down and give its attention to this debate. It seems to be noisier than usual. I wonder if those hon. members who are talking would either moderate their tones or retire to the lobbies to carry on their conversations.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The main safeguard in the case of cash advances under the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act, and in the case of provisional payments under the present bill, is the endorsement on a producer's permit book when a cash advance or a provisional payment is made to him. Once an endorsement is on the permit book all elevator
170	HOUSE OF
Advance Payments to Grain Producers agents are required to deduct one half the proceeds of deliveries of wheat, oats or barley delivered under the permit book for remittance to the wheat board in repayment of the cash advance and/or the provisional payment. From experience we know that this type of security is effective, and is respected by producers who take cash advances. Over and beyond this there is an undertaking on the part of producers under the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act and in the present bill that they will deliver grain in sufficient quantity to repay cash advances or provisional payments as delivery quotas are made available to them.
When this bill has been enacted a producer with threshed grain will, as in the past, be eligible to apply for a cash advance up to a maximum of $3,000 under the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act; a producer with unharvested grain will be eligible to obtain a provisional payment up to a maximum of $1,500 under the proposed legislation; and a producer with both threshed and unthreshed grain may use both statutes subject to a maximum of $1,500 for unthreshed grain and up to an over-all maximum of $3,000.
The government has introduced the present bill at this time with confidence that its prompt enactment by parliament will be welcomed by many farmers and their families in western Canada.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, when the resolution preceding this bill was under discussion on January 19, several speakers from this side of the house including myself indicated that it was their intention to support this bill. As the minister said, in essence it simply provides the same form of cash payments under the machinery of the wheat board and its agents with respect to unthreshed grain in western Canada that is provided with respect to threshed grain under the provisions of the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act.
As such it obviously is not a form of agricultural assistance that it is likely could be utilized by other producers in other parts of the country, because the grain that is subject to the advance payments under this bill is grain as defined by the Canadian Wheat Board Act and the area where the benefits will apply is, of course, the geographical section as described in the wheat board act.
This legislation appears to be reasonable, because the producers of grain, as defined by the Canadian Wheat Board Act, are in a different category with respect to payments from other agricultural producers in the country, particularly with respect to two


features relating to their activities and production. In the first place they are under compulsion to deliver their produce, namely the three grains named in the wheat board act and in this bill, to the government agency, the Canadian wheat board. In addition, as all hon. members realize, those particular products do not benefit from any form of price support.
Therefore, while there was some discussion on Tuesday last about the desirability of at all times, when presenting legislation, ensuring that it will have national effect and benefit, perhaps in connection with this legislation that is not as appropriate as some might have thought. No one would have any quarrel with national application as a basic principle, but this particular bill deals with produce that is under compulsory marketing in accordance with a government statute, and it deals only with the western grain producers who are subject to that act with respect to three grains.
Now, we are dealing with this legislation on an emergency basis, having interrupted in the early stages of this new session other business that normally is proceeded with in the first ten days of the session. As was indicated the other day, we over here are well aware that this is just one of several forms of assistance that it is felt will meet the deplorable situation that we are all aware has been existing in western Canada by reason of the early snows that made it impossible to harvest the western grain crops and other crops in a normal fashion.
I was disappointed to hear from the minister in introducing this bill at this stage no reference to the discussion we had the other day which I thought was reasonable, to the effect that we have agreed to give emergency attention to this bill and another bill that will follow when this debate concludes. We indicated that from the press we had learned that there are other forms of proposed government assistance, of which we officially know nothing although we have been in session now for a week. Since the aid contemplated in this bill and in the second bill which will follow this one is not likely to involve the taxpayers of this country in any expenditure of great consequence, though there is the likelihood that the other form of aid in co-operation with the provinces, about which we can get information only in the newspapers, will be something of substance, we reiterate that we think it is, as I said the other day, a contempt of parliament to by-pass us in this way so that in some leisurely fashion, at a time that suits the

Advance Payments to Grain Producers
government, they can bring on discussion on the other important matter in the form of an estimate.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that under this kind of procedure we are surely being asked simply to shadow-box with reality. 1 think it is obvious that while we are supporting this legislation we have every reason to be indignant. We are indignant, it is so clear that the government and the Prime Minister particularly, who has had so much to say in the past about parliamentary rights, are making a cat's paw of this parliament in connection with this agricultural relief program for western Canada in this emergency.
There is as I say, Mr. Speaker, no quarrel with the content of the bill which, in its provisions and in the contemplated machinery for making the advance payments, so closely parallels legislation with which most of us now are so familiar and which has been working very satisfactorily indeed. I do want to say that the advance payments legislation is operating very satisfactorily. I would in no way quarrel with the experience we have had with it for a couple of years. I can well understand that members of the government are pleased to take credit for that legislation and for such merit as it has.
However, I do want to point out to the house, and particularly to the agricultural constituencies in western Canada, that we learned on Tuesday just what it actually means in expense to the crown. I think in each of the three years we have had this form of advance payments in operation the actual cost to the federal government, to the taxpayers, has been only about $450,000 annually.
On the other hand, while it was rather disparaged, the legislation of the previous government with respect to the assumption of storage costs for grain in excess of 178 million bushels a year is, as experience shows, worth somewhere between $35 million and $40 million each year to western grain producers.
I will have further comments to make in connection with the individual sections of the bill, Mr. Speaker. Again I was disappointed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who avoided something that I think was legitimate questioning on our part when I referred to a desire to obtain in the house some detail as to the extent to which it had been found possible to assist in this emergency in another way. The Prime Minister, when he talked to the press about introducing this particular bill, also indicated a possibility that money would be put into circulation at a more rapid pace by speeding up the payment provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
79951-0-124
I say that when this house is considering the plight of the western grain producers, and we are asked to pass this bill, we are entitled to find out whether it is adequate assistance. We cannot find out whether it is adequate and whether it is meeting the need unless this house is taken into the confidence of the government and we receive information to which we are properly entitled with respect to payments under P.F.A.A. and with respect to the payments that are proposed to be made through the instrumentality of the provinces on a 50-50 cost sharing basis relative to relief payments.
In addition to that I think the Prime Minister, when he issued the press release, also made reference to the assistance that will be given also through the instrumentality of the provinces with respect to the movement of fodder because of the need that arises by reason of the early and heavy snows in western Canada. I asked the Minister of Agriculture on Tuesday-he is not with us today-for information as to what relief is already in motion. He displayed a considerable lack of knowledge of that very important aspect, and I then suggested to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that since he came from Manitoba perhaps he could comment at least on some press reports I spoke of indicating nothing was being paid out yet in Manitoba, the western province that I know best.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, this legislation introduces some very logical amendments to the cash advance statute now in effect, and makes it possible for the Canadian wheat board to provide advances, with the permit books as security, to farmers who have grain under the snow. This legislation is possible because over the years western producers have had the foresight to market their grain through a public marketing board, and the machinery that is available under the Canadian Wheat Board Act lends itself very readily to such legislation as is before us today.
In discussing this legislation I think we should keep in mind the amount of money that is likely to be involved as far as the individual farmer is concerned, and what the total outlay is likely to be. As the minister has said, the individual maximum is $1,500, and in the context of an advance on a 6-bushel quota the fact, as the minister pointed out, that this will make it possible for 80 per cent of the farmers to receive the maximum amount as far as their acreage is concerned means that it is probably a reasonable ceiling.
But having said that may I say that I think this demonstrates very vividly the economic position in which western farmers
172	HOUSE OF
Advance Payments to Grain Producers find themselves. Just imagine any urban group suffering a loss of income and coming to the federal parliament to ask for legislation which would provide them with an emergency gross income of only $1,500. The fact is that our western farmers will have a maximum of $1,500 out of which to pay all their living expenses and carry on their farming operations until next April or May. We know that with the gross national product going up the average income earner expects to get something like $4,000 a year, and that without many expenses attached to earning such income. Yet the people who are in the business of producing grain and who have a heavy investment in land and machinery are so destitute that they are pleased when the government introduces legislation to provide them with the opportunity of getting even a small sum of money as an advance.


William Moore Benidickson: Even on the relief scheme Premier Roblin says it will only pay the taxes.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is really just a relief
measure for an industry that is in financial jeopardy and has looked to the government for some assistance. The Prime Minister talked of a great vision, of a new Canada in which all industries and all groups would receive equitable treatment and a fair share of the national income. I do not think there is any part of Canada where the vision has disappeared so rapidly as it has in the prairie provinces where the people live who are affected by such legislation as this.
I asked previously that the government, together with this type of measure, provide deficiency payments on western grain, and immediately there was objection from the government side of the house. It was said, what if a man did not produce any grain? I would imagine that if deficiency payments were made they would put cash into the hands of about 99 per cent of the farmers now involved, and without forcing them to repay. They would have it as of right without having to repay. In my opinion the government has betrayed western agriculture by failing to act in this regard.
In my view the legislation now before us is not likely to be used by the majority of the farmers who could qualify for payments. I say that because of the history of the cash advance legislation itself. I am all in favour of the legislation because undoubtedly some farmers will use it, but I contend that the majority of farmers are not likely to make very much use of it.
The minister pointed out in the house, as recorded on page 119 of Hansard, the very limited use that had been made of the cash advance legislation, and I use the word "limited" in relation to the proportion of


farmers who were entitled to such cash advances. Some 45,000 to 50,000 farmers have obtained advances in each year of the three year period, and total advances amount to something like $35 million. This means that about 20 per cent of the farmers who are permit book holders are taking advantage of the legislation. It seems a very good business proposition that a farmer should have the opportunity to get an interest-free cash advance in the fall against grain to be delivered some months later, usually almost a year later. It would look like very good business on their part, and I think those people who are active in the financial field would advise every farmer to rush in and get a cash advance and save the interest.


Mr. Lambert:: I think either the hon. member is under a misapprehension or we are. Is he suggesting that all these people in the northern parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan who feed grains rather than sell them are necessarily in need of cash advances, and that they will take advantage of the legislation? Does he say that 100 per cent of the farmers must necessarily qualify?


Hazen Robert Argue: One hundred per cent of the farmers who have permit books qualify. There are farmers in the prairies who do not have permit books because they feed all their grain. Therefore they do not qualify and would not ask for such advances. But if a farmer is delivering as little as 100 bushels of wheat a year he must have a permit book, and if he has a permit book he is entitled under the regulations to ask for a cash advance after taking into account the unit quota. You have to have a permit book to come under this legislation, and one would think that farmers generally who have permit books would rush to the elevators to get this interest-free money -especially farmers in Alberta, I would think, because interest-free money has been such a popular thing there for so long in the minds of many people.
But 80 per cent of the farmers did not take advantage of the interest-free money. Why? That is an interesting question. I have been asking farmers why, and this is the answer I get. They say that they are short of money and would like a cash advance, but if they take a cash advance then next spring when they deliver their grain, at a time when they have a great many expenses in seeding their crops, they can only get approximately half the proceeds and are placed in an impossible financial position. From a business standpoint the farmer is actually sacrificing the amount of interest-free money that is involved in such advances because he does not want to put himself in the position of being able to get only one half the value of his grain in cash when he makes delivery in the spring.

Advance Payments to Grain Producers
The result is that under the present government the financial position of the prairie grain farmers has not improved but has in fact worsened with the steady increase in the farmers' costs of production. Cash advance legislation, in my opinion, is good legislation. As I have said, it has only been used to the extent of 20 per cent or 25 per cent of those eligible, but that still brings a good deal of benefit to a great many producers.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) made the statement that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Conservative government could take credit for the cash advance legislation. Well, certainly the Liberal party could not take any credit for it, because they sat over there with their arms folded for about 20 years when this was a very important problem. They said, "You cannot do it; it will not work". The former minister of trade and commerce said the wheat board would resign, so everybody thought that would be a great calamity to see the wheat board resign. Then we asked for the correspondence. We asked for the exact statements of the wheat board, and we found that the statements, in the main, were in the mind of the minister. The wheat board did not resign. Under this administration they are still very much the same efficient people who were operating it under the former administration, and the legislation has worked out.
I should like to know from the minister the amount of absolute loss entailed in cash advances under this legislation, and the percentage of advances that have not been recovered, that are in arrears, and that it is expected will be written off. I would think it would be a very insignificant percentage, because the risk involved is very slight indeed.
Sometimes government members get rather impatient with the members who sit over here when they take part in extended debates. Members who are in this parliament for the first time really have not seen an opposition that is operating as an opposition. They should have sat in the gallery a few years ago when we had the bank loans legislation before us, and they would have seen an opposition that fought that legislation for three weeks. Government members of the day were very impatient with us. The names they called us; the terrible things they said to us in the elevators as we went up to our offices after the debates were over. There is some of that impatience now, though this impatience does not take so long to come to the fore.
When the bank loans legislation was first introduced, members of the C.C.F. group in the house fought it. We fought it for many
days. At first the Conservatives said they were going to support it; then they switched, because they found that supporting the bank loan legislation was not too popular. We attempted to get the government to introduce cash advances, but they refused and the electorate took steps to see that this condition was changed.
We have, therefore, made some progress in this regard, and we in this group believe it was, partly at any rate, because of the very active part we took in the debate some years ago. If the Liberal party was wiped out on the prairies because it failed to listen to the producers, I think this government could lose a tremendous amount of support in the prairies. I do not believe they will be wiped out, mind you; there will be a few survivors, but I think they could lose many seats, particularly in the rural constituencies of the three prairie provinces, if they fail to heed the united voice of the prairies requesting financial assistance that is not repayable but that takes into account the tremendous increase in the cost of production without any compensation by way of increase in the prices for their products during the past 15 years.
I wish the government had introduced the third piece of legislation, the third measure that must be undertaken in order to round out the program of assistance to western Canada. As has already been announced, this government along with the provincial governments will bear the cost of making these payments. I feel that in a national emergency, as I think this is, it is the national government that should act. I believe this government is too much inclined to ask for cost-sharing arrangements with the provincial governments. There is no cost-sharing arrangement with the provincial governments under prairie farm assistance. We feel that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act could have been used to a much greater extent. First of all, it could have been considered a crop failure where all the grain is under the snow. I do not believe I would want to go that far, because if the farmers are fortunate enough to get out their grain next spring I do not see why they should have that kind of consideration; that would be a little too much.
However, I do feel that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act should have been made to apply next spring on an individual basis to those farmers who have lost their crops. The farmer cannot pull a tarpaulin over his crop to hide it; he cannot go out during the night and carry it away to show that he did not have a crop when, in fact, he did. It would be a very simple thing for inspectors to go out through western Canada about next May or
174	HOUSE OF
Advance Payments to Grain Producers early June to ascertain from the individual farmers whether or not they had a complete crop failure. We believe that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act could and should be used on an individual basis in such a situation. The Minister of Trade and Commerce-


William Moore Benidickson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


William Moore Benidickson: I believe he will
recall that the present Prime Minister made a similar suggestion in 1951. The hon. member for Assiniboia referred to P.F.A.A. payments on the individual basis. Would the hon. member relate that to the concept of the P.F.A.A. which, as I understand it, is on a township basis?


Hazen Robert Argue: The payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act are on an area basis. The area is becoming smaller as time goes on and amendments are made to the act. However, it is still an area basis and not an individual farm basis. The Prime Minister when he was in opposition, as the record will show, was a very strong advocate of fixing prairie farm assistance compensation on an individual basis. I was not being quite as radical this afternoon as the Prime Minister was in those former days. I was merely saying that as a first step toward getting prairie farm assistance on an individual basis it could be paid on an individual basis to farmers who had lost their crops because of harvesting conditions during the winter and spring.
The government could have introduced this third piece of legislation to make these emergency payments. Spokesmen for the Liberal party have made it clear and we have made it clear that we were prepared, and are prepared, to deal with the third question, the matter of emergency payments in co-operation with the provinces to the farmers who have grain under the snow. We think it is contempt of this house, that it is contempt of the prairie grain producers themselves, that they should have to wait for some weeks before this legislation, in fact, becomes law. This house is the master of its own rules. I am quite certain that if the government would just make the request, parliament would agree that this legislation should be advanced, and advanced at this time; but this is not, you see, an emergency in the mind of the government.
The emergency in the mind of the government that they want to avoid is the debate on this third proposition, which we feel is inadequate and through which we feel the federal government has failed to shoulder its proper share of the financial responsibility. We would suggest that the easiest way for


the government to avoid the contempt of the house and of the agricultural producers is to ask this house, as the house leader himself asked, to give consent to advancing the other legislation.
We are quite prepared, Mr. Speaker, to support this bill. It will be of some help, too, if this legislation was advanced and some of the other things to which I have referred were taken into consideration, particularly the taking of some action on the question of deficiency payments. The farmers would be much more pleased than they are now, and the government would be in less difficulty in the prairies than it is now.


Mr. J. S. Speakman (Weiaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say very much on this bill, but I feel that I do have to say something because in my district, as in the case of the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu), there is a very serious situation. We had, like the Meadow Lake district, an unprecedented amount of late summer and early fall rain, followed by very wet snow which pushed our unswathed and uncut grain flat on the ground, and it has remained there. This grain is going to lay, as it has laid since before freeze-up, on wet ground in puddles of water, and we will suffer a very severe loss from loss of grades and loss of quality. The grain itself, when we get it-if we get it-will not bring anything like it would have brought had we been able to harvest it in its normal condition.
I would say to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson), and the other hon. members who have drawn parallels to the effect that there have been similar falls before, that there is no parallel here because of this extra moisture which is on the ground.
I would also like to say that this assistance, which is going to help materially, is not going to help the crops of smaller farmers who worked very hard to take their grain off under damp, tough conditions, because their grain is going to deteriorate the minute the warm weather comes in the spring. During my time at home before the session opened I was on farms and saw bins of grain which were one solid block of ice. This grain will certainly deteriorate and suffer very materially the minute it begins to thaw.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask the hon. member a question?


James Stanley Speakman: Certainly.


William Moore Benidickson: Is the hon. member apprehensive that the unthreshed grain the bill contemplates as security for advances on the basis of 50 cents a bushel would not be sufficient to perhaps ensure no losses?

Advance Payments to Grain Producers


James Stanley Speakman: In some districts, Mr. Speaker, yes, because of this very factor I am now mentioning.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the hon. gentleman permit a further question. Is it not likely that the advance would be paid out of next year's crop, so the security is still good?


James Stanley Speakman: In reply to this last question, I might say that these people will not take cash advances because of the danger of being unable to repay. The hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. Argue) suggested that 100 per cent of our farmers should take these advances, and I refute that.


Hazen Robert Argue: I never said any such thing.


James Stanley Speakman: He implied it.
As I was saying, these farmers who have this damp and wet grain in their bins will be put to very great expense to try and save it. I would like to urge very strongly on the minister and the government that they have the wheat board do everything possible to facilitate the movement and drying of this grain so as to give these people some opportunity of salvage.
In closing, I would like to say that in my opinion it would have been better had the joint assistance between the provinces and the federal government been paid on all unharvested acreage to the maximum of 200 acres.


Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springiield):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to commend the minister for introducing this legislation as early as possible in the session. I should also like to commend the opposition for their courtesy in allowing the government to bring in this legislation and also for the support they are giving to it, as it is of great benefit to the farmers of western Canada.
When the cash advance legislation was first brought in, it was brought in with the purpose of allowing farmers who through no fault of their own were unable to deliver their grain to the elevators, a source of income at a time when they had a great deal of expenditure in the harvesting of their crop. The principle embodied in this bill goes a step further in recognizing the needs of farmers who, again through no fault of their own, through the adversity of the weather have been unable to harvest their crop, and are therefore in need of some assistance.
One of the things I would like to bring to the attention of the house is the fact that this has been a very bad year for the farmers, especially those in Springfield. As a matter of fact, last December the Minister of Agriculture declared all the grain unharvested in the
area east of Red River a complete loss. To give some indication of the extent of the loss, I might say that last year under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act we paid out something in the vicinity of $20,000 to people in my area. This year I would estimate that under that act we will be paying out over $1 million to the farmers in my constituency alone.
Of course, these payments are being made out of a fund to which the farmers themselves have contributed. When we consider the total amount of the payments that it is estimated will be paid by the province, jointly with the federal government, disaster payments will amount to just about $1 million for the whole province. Therefore, I think hon. members will appreciate the very grave circumstances in which many people engaged in farming find themselves.
We were very unfortunate in the spring to have floods and excessive rainfall which prevented our farmers from seeding. As it turned out, often they were the most fortunate ones, because those who did seed could not harvest their crops. In fact, several times I travelled through my constituency and saw large areas which were complete lakes with ducks swimming in among the grain.
At this time I would like to say that we should pass this legislation as soon as possible, and it again emphasizes the great necessity for a comprehensive crop insurance scheme to be adopted by the provinces, so that in the future, legislation such as this may not be as urgent as it is now.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I believe when the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue) was speaking he left the wrong impression with the house. He spoke in connection with the stand of the Conservative party with regard to cash advances. If I understood him correctly, originally he said they were for the bank loans but then changed their minds and came over to the C.C.F.'s way of thinking.
If we go back to the debates of 1956 when this bank loan measure was first included in the throne speech debate, I believe, we can consult the record in that regard. I would like to refer to the remarks made in that debate on January 12, 1956, as reported on page 40 of Hansard for that year. The speaker on that occasion was the leader of the Conservative party at that date, the Hon. George Drew, who said this:
These figures tell why there should be cash advances to the prairie farmers for farm-stored grain, and without further delay. The government never really intended that this system of farm loans should have any broad application to the problem. I think that was made perfectly clear on November 28 by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in a speech he made in Calgary.
176	HOUSE OF
Advance Payments to Grain Producers
These are his words:
It is my hope and belief that comparatively limited use will be made of the lending facilities; that most farmers are either in a position to carry on without borrowing or are in a position to finance in the ordinary way.
That statement is not borne out by discussion with any representative group of prairie farmers at this time. The system which has been adopted is open to many objections. These were pointed out right away. The banks are not in a position to carry out any system of cash payments. There was a perfectly simple method, and that was to make cash payments as advances on the quota book in the ordinary way in relation to a stated quota of the grain grown last year and then to have the grain made deliverable upon demand. I think that makes perfectly clear the stand of this party in this respect. My only other comment is that this is a good piece of legislation which will help a great many people in my area.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I might just say a few words in closing the debate, and thank the hon. member for Rainy-River (Mr. Beni-dickson), the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and the other hon. members who have contributed to this debate for their help in getting this measure through. I note that there is virtually complete approval for the measure as a measure; I presume it will shortly be complete, until we come, perhaps, to the study of the particular clauses where there may be some technical points to consider. In general, however, there is agreement that this measure is necessary at the present time.
I have been asked by hon. members opposite to make comments with regard to some issues which were raised the other day on the resolution stage. I think, perhaps, I will refrain from doing so because I think those remarks were not closely related to the issue that we are considering. As to questions concerning other measures which may be introduced, or questions raised with regard to deficiency payments and topics of that nature, I think those might more properly be taken up in a general debate such as the debate on the address or on some other occasion, because those matters have no part in the discussion of this particular bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: You just do not want to talk about them. You want to avoid them like the plague.


Gordon Minto Churchill: At an appropriate time I shall be glad to deal with them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will recall
that when he closed the debate on the resolution he said

and said he meant it seriously -that the government would give consideration to the request made by my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River and myself that the government should bring in another bill today. Surely, as a courtesy to the house the minister should tell us what the result of that consideration has been.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am always pleased to be courteous to the house. That matter, as I said the other day, has been given consideration, but it did not seem possible to bring in anything further today other than the bill which we have before us and the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). Consequently we are going ahead on that basis.
In reply to the hon. member for Assiniboia, I am prepared to debate those other issues at the appropriate time, but I do not consider that this is an appropriate time to discuss the matters he raised in his speech.


Hazen Robert Argue: You will not even give us an answer on deficiency payments.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the hon. member for Assiniboia left a wrong impression, perhaps inadvertently, when he was talking about cash advances and the fact that some farmers did not take the cash advance because when spring came and they delivered their grain they would, he said, get only half the value for it. I think the hon. member should have gone on to say that any man who took out a cash advance in the fall or winter months and then made delivery really got the full amount for his grain, but in two payments rather than one. I think the hon. member left a wrong impression that there was a disadvantage attached to a farmer getting a cash advance. I do not think that is the case at all.
I think if other questions should arise the committee stage offers the best opportunity to discuss them. I hope we can proceed in the same cheerful spirit as that in which we have begun this afternoon, and continue the committee stage with dispatch and complete this business today.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Hazen Robert Argue: I just want to make a brief reply to the hon. member for Gloucester. I did not say that the official opposition, at that time, had opposed cash advances. I merely said that on the resolution stage of the debate introducing the bill to provide guaranteed
JANUARY 21, I960	177
Advance Payments to Grain Producers
bank loans the official opposition had supported the resolution, while the C.C.F. had opposed it, and that subsequently the official opposition, at the bill stage of the debate, changed its mind-very wisely, I think-and voted against the guaranteed bank loan legislation. We voted against the legislation, and the official opposition voted against it, not because we thought it was bad legislation -because that is the very next bill we shall have to deal with-but as a protest against the government, telling them that we were opposed to bank loans as a substitute for cash advances; that if the government saw fit to do both we would be very much in favour, but the preferable legislation was that dealing with cash advances.
I return to my statement about the reason why farmers are not making more use of the cash advance legislation, and repeat what I originally said, namely that farmers are so short of income and have so many obligations to meet, costs of production being so high, that they are fearful of taking a cash advance equal to approximately half the value of the grain they can market in one year because they fear that to do so would leave them in an impossible financial position in the spring. Rather than obtain interest-free money in the fall and get themselves in an embarrassing financial position in the spring, they prefer not to take a cash advance. We hear of many people who get themselves into trouble by accepting too much credit when the interest rate is very high.
Some farmers are in such a difficult financial position that they feel they cannot afford-for these reasons, not because there is any interest involved because there is not-to accept cash advance legislation.


Mr. McIntosh:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is the hon. gentleman suggesting that western farmers are poor managers?


Hazen Robert Argue: On the contrary, they have to be excellent managers to stay alive under the present government's legislation and continue in business. I think our farmers are splendid managers and that they are wise not to accept too much credit even if it is interest-free. I have a profound admiration for the financial ingenuity of farmers who are sometimes able to come close to making ends meet under an administration that fails to carry out its commitments and the promises made to farmers in two election campaigns.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am
prompted by the observations of the hon. member for Assiniboia to point out that no member of this party has voted against this resolution in protest over the fact that when
there was a similar disaster on the Atlantic coast fishery last year nothing whatever was done about it by the present government.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Payments authorized.
Mr. Korchinslti:: Mr. Chairman, I direct the attention of the committee to subclause 4 of clause 3:
No person who has received a provisional payment is entitled to receive another provisional payment.
I am concerned about the case of a farmer who underestimates his needs and then finds himself in a position where he might require an additional provisional payment after already having obtained one. He might not have taken a sufficiently large payment. This subclause would bar him from receiving another. I feel that is not the type of provision we should make. We should not force the farmer to take as large an advance as possible in the first instance because, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Assiniboia, he does not want to go too far into debt by accepting too large an advance and if he cannot harvest his grain it will have to be repaid. Therefore I believe a farmer would tend to restrict the amount of the initial provisional payment in the first instance although it may not be sufficient to meet his needs. I should like an explanation of this.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister would indicate to us the reason for subclause 2 of clause 3 where the phrase is used:
Notwithstanding the Canada Grain Act-
What is the conflict with the Canada Grain Act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Under the Canada Grain Act cash tickets can be used only for the purchase of grain. That was the reason for indicating that cash purchase tickets may be used here.


William Moore Benidickson: I direct the minister's attention to subclause 3 of clause 3 and ask the minister to compare the brevity of the language used in the bill before us with the detail that was given to parliament when the advance payments act for threshed grain was enacted; what would an applicant have to sign in connection with advance payments. The Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act, spelled out what would be required of the applicant and refers in particular to a verifying affidavit, and so on.
Is the minister going to arrange this by order in council? Is it the new procedure that the prescribed form is something that
178	HOUSE OF
Advance Payments to Grain Producers no one will know anything about after we pass this bill? Is no one to know what is required to be signed by the farmer? Is this going to be done by the cabinet?
I point out that detail of this nature was spelled out for parliament in the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act in 1957. It says that the application will show the amount of the advance payment, the kind and quantity of threshed grain in storage, it will indicate the land on which the grain was grown, et cetera. Then referring to subsection 2 of section 4 of the act it says an application shall be verified by affidavit and shall include certains things. Will there be affidavits connected with payments of cash advances on unthreshed grain?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Section 4 of the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act is a rather large section and lists several things which shall appear on the application form. The wheat board in consultation with the elevator agents who will be the ones to administer this legislation decided that practically the same form can be used with minor changes. That is why it was felt unnecessary to write the whole thing into the measure before us. There is no intention of concealment nor will any special action have to be taken. This measure is so closely parallel to the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act and the forms to be used are so closely parallel we felt it was unnecessary to write everything down this time.


William Moore Benidickson: I am glad to have the minister's assurance because I recall that when he sat on this side of the chamber he was very loath to pass sections embodied in legislation referring to something to be prescribed by the cabinet. In view of the fact this was all spelled out so clearly in the act passed in 1957 I was anxious to have from the minister an assurance that there would be no material departure in the mechanics of getting a loan under this measure from the procedure spelled out in the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act.
While I am on my feet I shall put another question to the minister. Subclause 5 of clause
3	makes reference to default under the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act. Would the minister give the committee some information as to the numbers currently in default in the three years of operation of the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Before answering that question may I reply to the hon. member for Mackenzie who was asking about subclause
4	of clause 3 and wondering if a farmer might find himself somewhat embarrassed if he misjudged the amount he required on his provisional payment and then would be unable


to come back for a second one. The measure we are now discussing will be in operation for such a short interval that we were of the opinion this particular difficulty would not arise. After all, we are nearing the end of January and there are three months to go. By the time this measure is passed by both houses and the application forms have been put in the hands of the elevator agents and the farmers have made application some further time will have elapsed and before we know it spring will be around the corner and the farmers who are so active will be out harvesting their grain.
I think it will not work out unsatisfactorily if that provision stays in. There would scarcely be time for a farmer to make one application for a provisional payment and then go out and do some harvesting and discover he had misjudged the amount he required and then come back for a second payment. By that time spring would have arrived. I point out that this measure is for a temporary period.
In answer to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, I have not the numbers of people who are in default but I have here the amounts of money involved. For the crop year of 1957-58, out of a total amount advanced of $35,203,467 a total of 99.9 per cent was repaid leaving an amount outstanding of $30,999. I believe that is a remarkable showing with regard to the first crop year in which that act was in operation. In the second crop year, 1958-59, the total amount advanced was $34,369,653. The percentage refunded, as of January 11, 1960, was 99 per cent, and the amount outstanding $311,858.


William Moore Benidickson: It is conceivable that even that amount of $311,000 might not be in a position of default. It may be that the opportunity for deliveries have not been such as to permit that to be repaid but without default.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, yes, that is quite likely. In view of the fact that those advances, and in this case the provisional payments, will be entered in the permit book, and each farmer gets a new permit book each fall, there is every chance in the world of having those amounts repaid in full. I think it is really a remarkable tribute to the way in which the farmers in western Canada conduct their business when we see there is only a default of one tenth of one per cent in one year and 1 per cent the second year.


William Moore Benidickson: I am glad to say that my question has brought this information to the fore because, as I said not only in the debate today but on Tuesday, there is a misconception that this type of legislation involves a substantial handout to the western grain producer. This information indicates that is not

Advance Payments to Grain Producers
so. I recall that with respect to the guaranteed bank loans the losses were also negligible in so far as claims were sent back to the taxpayer, and I am glad to have that information on the record.


Mr. Rapp:: Does this clause mean that if a farmer is in default in paying back his advances for the previous year and this year was not able to thresh any grain he would not be in a position to get an advance?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If a producer is in default on a prior advance under the other act he obviously, according to this, is not entitled to a provisional payment under this legislation, nor is he to a further advance under the other act. But, from the figure I have just given, the hon. member can see that this is a negligible factor. The number of people in default is very small indeed. I should add to that, if the default is small, just a few dollars and as this is a new advance and if he has the security for it on the one hand in the form of threshed grain and under the act in unthreshed grain, he can remedy that default immediately. It may only be $75, or something of that nature.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a very brief comment and to say I agree with the statements of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River as to how successfully the cash advances legislation has worked in reference to his amount of repayment and the very small percentage of accounts that is now in default. I think the record of repayment of 99.9 per cent does demonstrate that the western prairie producers are not only successful grain farmers but are very good businessmen and know what they are about when they take cash advances.
So far as the 99 per cent for next year is concerned, I would think that as time goes on the 1 per cent will also be very greatly reduced. I would think, as has already been suggested, the main reason why there are some farmers in default is the fact that quotas have not been as good as had been expected, or that the quotas are available but for some reason or other perhaps there was no space in the elevators toward the end of the crop year, or perhaps the roads were very bad, or acts of God, or some other reasons have made it impossible for one farmer out of a thousand to meet his obligations.
This is a remarkable tribute to the farmer. It shows how right my hon. friend and I were when we were together in the opposition and saying that cash advance legislation
was a very practical means of placing some money in the hands of the grain producers in the fall.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Producer to execute undertaking.
William Moore Benidickson: In clause 4, in subclause 2 the words "prior to default" do not seem to be reproduced in a similar manner as in the comparable section in the advance payments act. There is probably a good reason for that which I do not readily see. I am wrong; it is there. I made a note the other day which indicated that it was not there, but I see it is there.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Payment to joint producers.
Mr. Woolliams:: May I ask a question with respect to clause 5? I notice that the interpretation section describes a producer in this way:
"Producer" includes, as well as an actual producer, any person entitled as landlord, vendor or mortgagee, to the grain grown by an actual producer or to any share therein.
Subclause 1 of clause 5 reads:
Where two or more producers are entitled to deliver grain under one permit book, no provision of payment shall be made unless all such producers named in the permit book jointly make the application and execute the undertaking-[DOT]
I was wondering whether some consideration had been given in drafting this clause to the situation where a landlord may be in another province or another part of Canada. The application then would have to be signed by both, and it could work, and in some instances has worked, a hardship in that regard.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This clause is identical to
the one in the other act except for the change of provisional payment or, at least, to change the advance payment to read provisional payment. We found in the other act that for purposes of security it was essential to get signatures of all those whose names were in the permit book.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Amount of payment.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, we are
now dealing with probably the most important clause of the bill, namely the one that has to do with the maximum amount that would be payable and the formula for calculating the advance that would be provided on unthreshed grain. Hon. members will notice that in subclause 1 the only phrase determining the quantity of grain is the
180	HOUSE OF
Advance Payments to Grain Producers phrase, "the amount of a provisional payment to a producer shall be one half of the unthreshed grain, irrespective of its grade". How do we arrive at a calculation of the amount of unthreshed grain? What is the procedure going to be? We can all understand perhaps that in the case of threshed grain there is some method of calculating quantity, but here we are dealing with unthreshed grain that is under snow and there is no indication here just how the measurement or the calculation would be made.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I think you have to read the whole clause in order that this may be clear. There are four limitations set out by the four subclauses of this clause which apply when we compute the provisional payment. Mark you, you start with an estimate on the part of the producer as to how much unthreshed grain he has.


William Moore Benidickson: That is the point I am getting at; it is just an estimate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right, it is an estimate.


William Moore Benidickson: It is what the producer says on his application he is likely to have under snow, verified by affidavit; is that it?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right, but as most of the farmers have been on the same land for years the past record would be an indication to the elevator agent whether or not the estimate was fairly accurate. The elevator agents will be just as careful in this instance as they have been under earlier legislation because the elevator compnay is responsible for a portion of any loss that is incurred.


William Moore Benidickson: Any loss that is incurred under this measure as well as under advance payments.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, that is right. I might say that under these four subclauses the payment is computed on one half of the unthreshed grain as estimated by the farmer or the amount deliverable by the applicant under a six bushel quota, whichever is the lesser, multiplied by the appropriate amount set forth and the money payment that is arrived at must not exceed $1,500, or if there is an advance payment under the other act he can get $1,500 under this one and $1,500 under the other for a total of $3,000.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister provide for the record a few illustrations and engage in a little arithmetical exercise in practical terms of acreage and normal type of production? Having regard to the quota referred to here and having regard to the likelihood that most farmers will have had some advance payments, can the minister 

give us a few practical illustrations of what size of farm and what quantity of production will entitle a farmer to the maximum of $1,500 under this clause?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to do that but it would be a little difficult and it is also hypothetical. If the hon. member will raise that question later this year after the act has been operative I think we will have that information. It would be interesting indeed to have it but I hesitate to enter into the field of forecasting what farmers will make application under this legislation, the size of their farms and things of that nature.


William Moore Benidickson: All I say is that I am not very impressed that average or typical farmers in the west will find that this formula will enable very many of them, if they so desire, to obtain the maximum of $1,500 as provided in the legislation, and in the absence of some illustrations I will have to continue with that belief.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-Borrowing powers of board.
William Moore Benidickson: Subclause 2 of clause 8 seems to be pretty broad in its wording. It reads:
The board may make such arrangements and enter into such contracts or agreements as the board considers necessary or advisable for the administration of this act.
Would the minister indicate to the committee the type of arrangements and contracts that were in contemplation when this provision was found desirable?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The wheat board in consultation with the elevator companies arrives at a conclusion with regard to the contracts between the elevator companies and the wheat board and the necessary agreements that are required so that the elevator companies will accept part of the losses, if any, that are incurred. We went all through this in 1957 under the other act. Preliminary discussions have been held already with the elevator companies and if the legislation is approved I think the board will then be very close to being able to reach final agreement as to how these arrangements will be carried out and the distribution of responsibility. There is nothing in this going beyond that type of arrangement except that in subclause one there is provision as to the means by which money may be borrowed for the purpose of making these provisional payments.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.

On clause 9-Deductions on deliveries.
Hazen Robert Argue: It was not clear to me from the remarks of the minister, although I am certain it was because I did not hear him properly, whether or not farmers are able to get an advance on the unit quota and whether or not in delivering their units a part of the proceeds is taken to repay the cash advance under this particular legislation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It works both ways. They may get an advance on the unit quota and it is subject to deduction.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
Oil clause 14-Recovery afier default jrorn other moneys payable.
William Moore Benidickson: What is the reason for the phrase, "notwithstanding the Canadian Wheat Board Act", in this clause? What is the conflict in the Canadian Wheat Board Act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Canadian Wheat Board Act requires the wheat board to pay to the producer money owing to him on his producer's certificate and this empowers the board to withhold sums that are owing to the wheat board by the producer with respect to a cash advance or provisional payment that he has received.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
On clause 17-Offence and penalty.
William Moore Benidickson: Clause 17 outlines offences and parliament is always anxious to watch such provisions carefully. What comparison can the minister make between the offences of this clause and any offences in other statutes having to do with lending on grain?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is identical with section 20 of the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act. It is exactly word for word.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 21-Commencement.
Mr. Mclnfosh:: Before the last clause is carried I would ask the minister to comment on subclause 2 of clause 6 where there is reference to a quota of six bushels per acre. Does that mean the equivalent of six bushels of wheat per acre when you are referring to, say, oats at 25 cents per bushel? Does the same average apply to all grains in the case of this measure?
Short Term Loans to Grain Producers


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is six bushels across the board-wheat, oats, barley-on the specified acreage which includes the area that is planted and the area that is under summer fallow.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Well, Mr. Minister, if by chance a farmer had only oats, he would need a great number of acres to get any payment at all because that would only be 75 cents per acre that he would be allowed to borrow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is taken from the present legislation for cash advances.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Gordon Minto Churchill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide, by way of a guarantee for bank loans made before the 1st day of June, 1960, for short term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to thresh their grain; and to provide further that any amount paid to a bank under the Act shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: This resolution forecasts a bill which will supplement the Prairie Grain Provisional Payments Act, just passed. Its purpose is to assist prairie grain producers who are in financial difficulties because of the abnormal harvest conditions during the current crop year. The bill to be founded on the resolution will make provision for government guaranteed bank loans on the security of both threshed and unthreshed grain. The loan measure, together with the bill just passed, is further evidence, if I may say so, of the government's determination to help prairie farmers who have been able to deliver little or no grain in this crop year.
Turning to the main features of the proposed legislation, it may suffice at this stage to indicate that all producers will be able to obtain a short term bank loan in respect of a wide range of grain crops, wheat, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed and rapeseed. Repayment will be made out of deliveries and the producers will be required to assign to the bank one half of the proceeds from the sale of their grain. Loans may be obtained at any
182	HOUSE OF
Short Term Loans to Grain Producers time up to June 1, 1960. A maximum limit of $1,500 will be placed upon loans to any one farmer. The banks will calculate individual loan entitlement on the basis of one half of the estimated value of the grain which the producer expects to deliver in the course of the crop year.
In order to encourage bank lending under this program, each bank will be guaranteed against loss up to 25 per cent of the aggregate loans made where this does not exceed $150,000. A guarantee of 20 per cent will be applicable to the total loans made by each bank in excess of $150,000. There will, of course, be a maximum limit on the aggregate guaranteed loans to all banks, and this will amount to $50 million.
I might just repeat in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that this bill supplements the legislation just passed authorizing provisional payment by the Canadian wheat board in respect of unthreshed grain. As explained, loans may be made on rapeseed in addition to those grains which are marketed through the Canadian wheat board. This will provide a means and opportunity, on a comprehensive basis, whereby the producer can improve his cash position. As a result, the government's proposal should prove to be of material assistance in alleviating the temporary financial difficulties due to the interruption of the harvesting operation in western Canada.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, may I first take this opportunity to extend my personal congratulations, and those of the members in this party, to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, who has just stood up before us this session for the first time since his official appointment. We recall how competently he fulfilled the duties of that position in the 1957 session. Some of us were very disappointed indeed that it was not seen fit to restore him to that position in 1958, but better late than never. We know that he will fulfil his duties and assist the minister in a very worthy way.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to make some remarks on the resolution that is before us. I was disappointed that neither in the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the earlier debate nor in those of the parliamentary secretary now have we obtained what I feel is necessary and desirable recognition of our entitlement to some information about the balance of the program to assist the western farmer in the predicament in which he finds himself because of climatic conditions. I am exceedingly disappointed in this. I do not know when we have been more badly treated in this manner. There seems to me to have been a quite unnecessary amount of legerdemain in treating


parliament in this hanky-panky fashion. Surely it is important to provide us with some information about the cost-sharing plan with the provinces as a basis for properly appreciating the adequacy and justification of this measure. I regard the other as the more important form of assistance to western agriculture under present conditions. We are not getting any information about it.
I feel that this is certainly not something one would have expected from a party that had so much to say recently about parliamentary rights. Not very long ago I was talking to one of the candidates of the Conservative party who was not successful but who, however, has been observing the government from outside the house. I can assure the government this particular candidate was looking rather sadly upon actions of the government such as the by-passing of parliament we are experiencing in connection with this western farm legislation. The only comment that this unsuccessful candidate had to make about the government and the Progressive Conservative party and the change in attitude that seemed to be displayed in matters like this was, "Well, unfortunately power seems to corrupt."
Mr. Chairman, we are told nothing about the base of assistance being provided in another measure in western Canada. We are told now about one of the measures-one of four, only two of which are presented to us-which deals with bank guaranteed loans. This is rather interesting because we had a similar, if not identical situation in 1951. I think the hon. member for Wetaskiwin said the situation today was quite different from previous seasons when there were also misfortunes in the west because of early onslaught of snow. But in any event, 1951 presented a serious problem similar to that we are discussing today.
The minister of trade and commerce at that time, Mr. Howe, introduced what was called the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act, 1951. Not only has this government changed its attitude with respect to the rights of parliament and particularly the rights of opposition members, but it seems, in recommending this legislation to us at this time, to have changed very radically its position with respect to the merits of guaranteed bank loans to western farmers. Indeed, it seems to have radically changed its views as to the commercial merit of making loans with respect to grain that is either still standing or under snow during winter.
This afternoon the hon. member for As-siniboia was endeavouring to present to some of the new members of the house a comparison of the attitude of the present members

on the government side when they were sitting in opposition with the attitude that they, and particularly the new members, are adopting when there seems to be any desire to have even a minimum of discussion about some of these matters. They are impatient when we say we are exceedingly annoyed when we are by-passed with respect to a proposition as important as that offered to the western provinces in connection with relief to western farmers.
In 1951, when we had a proposition from Mr. Howe along these lines, I would like to give the new hon. members of the house an idea of the kind of obstruction and opposition presented at that time. Everything was wrong with the legislation. We have not taken that attitude this afternoon at all. We have said that we are supporting this legislation. We have said we also accept the legislation preceding this. We have indicated we are prepared to accept this legislation for what it is worth.
By the way, may I say the legislation in 1951 due to a fall weather emergency was introduced, much earlier than has been made possible this time. The bank loans legislation then was introduced to the house on December 14. Again in 1956 when certain relief was necessary, parliament even made the guarantee retroactive from January back to loans which were encouraged from the middle of November, 1955 when the need was urgent.
I want to present the view of the present Prime Minister with respect to the value to western Canada of bank guaranteed loans to farmers, particularly with respect to wheat lying on the ground under snow. This is what he said, as reported on page 1970 of Hansard of December 14, 1951:
I am sure the banks will make no advances against wheat laying on the ground, having regard to the probable toughness of that wheat next spring. I think in a case such as that there should be some provision whereby payments similar in nature to those under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act would be made available to farmers.
A few minutes before that as reported on page 1969 of Hansard, this was the Prime Minister's view as to the merit of guaranteed bank loans with respect to grain under snow:
I now come to the third matter, and that is in connection with the farmer who has not been able to thresh his crop, whose crop today is either standing in the fields or lying on the ground in swaths. I am not suggesting and I have not at any time suggested that there should be loans made on crops under those conditions, for there would be a considerable risk.
The amused comment of Mr. Howe immediately following that remark of the present Prime Minister was this:
Yet we are doing it.
Short Term Loans to Grain Producers
That was the kind of scoffing and opposition we got with respect to legislation of this kind.
Then again in 1956, with respect to the amount of advances that might be made under a guaranteed bank loan, the present Minister of Agriculture had a great deal of sneering to do. As indicated on page 627 of Hansard for January 27, 1956, he complained that the interest rate-which, by the way, was 5 per cent-was not justified; he said it should not be more than 3 per cent. He said:
The next point is that the maximum amount of $1,500 by way of a loan is too small. It is not sufficient to meet the farmer's harvesting expenses and carry him through the winter
That was the kind of quibbling opposition we got in those days with respect to any proposition to aid western farmers with guaranted bank loans.
I say, look at the contrast now. We are giving the government co-operation in a desire that any aid that is possible at this late date after the emergency has arisen will be dealt with by this parliament. But it does not reduce in any way our expectation of, and entitlement to information with respect to all other methods of relief to deal with the same emergency and the same conditions, and we reiterate that in this respect we are being by-passed.
I now want to indicate to all hon. members that, contrary to the view held by the present Prime Minister in 1951 that the risk would be considerable and that there was a very dubious value in making an advance to western farmers for grain under snow, I think the record shows that assistance of value was given, and that the loss to the taxpayers was relatively small indeed. I think the words of Mr. Howe at that time were borne out; I share the view he expressed then, now. At page 1968 of Hansard of December 14, 1951, when that legislation which the present Prime Minister scoffed at was being introduced, Mr. Howe said:
-these loans are not in any sense to be regarded as a form of relief. They are interim advances made available at commercial rates of interest to producers who have grain on their farms or who have crops which they have every reason to believe will be harvested in due course.
In connection with loans of this kind, the Minister of Agriculture in 1956 sneered at anything in the nature of a rate of interest at commercial rates. He indicated that the farmer was being abused if he paid even 5 per cent in connection with a government guaranteed bank loan.
In addition to that, I would like to know from the parliamentary secretary-perhaps we will have to wait for the bill-what the
184	HOUSE OF
Short Term Loans to Grain Producers proposal is with respect to interest under this legislation. Certainly one of the features that in the past has always excited hon. members who now sit on the government side was any suggestion that the rate of interest would be not disclosed to parliament, and that it might be left to the discretion and judgement of the cabinet. Having in mind their strong views of the past in this respect, I hope that we will not find that they are in any way departing from the old stand they used to take in this as they have departed in some of these other matters.
I do feel that at this stage it is also proper to ask the parliamentary secretary for information as to the experience of the last measure which provided guaranteed bank loans to western farmers. I refer to the legislation entitled the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act of 1956. When the cash advances were provided in 1957, Mr. Gardiner, the former minister of agriculture, was then in the house, in opposition and in supporting the cash advance legislation he indicated to the new government that, in his opinion, there was considerable value in maintaining alongside the new legislation the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act. Indeed, the former government, in the spring of 1957, took steps to make sure that that legislation would not lapse.
The parliamentary secretary has indicated that, unlike the bill we passed a short time ago, the type of grain eligible for some financial assistance under this bill is considerably wider. The other bill restricted advances to crops under the jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board, but here, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out, in addition to grain such as wheat, oats and barley it will be possible for banks to make loans and have them guaranteed by the federal government on flaxseed, rapeseed and rye. Rye was covered by the legislation of 1956, and I wonder if a spokesman for the government would indicate why this legislation of
1956,	extended in 1957 by the former government, was allowed to lapse, because there was in the provisions of that bill an opportunity for bank guaranteed loans in respect of grains which have no eligibility for cash advances under the advance payment act of
1957.	Perhaps, also, the parliamentary secretary would give us any information he has on crown losses with respect to the 1951 and 1956 bank guaranteed loans legislation.
Here we have before us legislation in connection with farm credit. I think there are a great many farmers who are re-reading somewhat ruefully some of the advertisements
[Mr. Benidlckson.l

about credit which were made by the Conservative party in the recent election campaign. I have in my hands an advertisement from the Family Herald, dated March 27, 1958 and I quote:
As promised, the government is now moving to ease farm credit as such. The general easing of the credit situation has already benefited the farm economy.
We know that the discount rate at the central bank then was about 2.52 per cent and at that time, as on so many other occasions, the government took credit for the lowering of that rate. They said they had created a general easing of the credit situation which had benefited the farmers. But today they run away and say the commercial banks or the central bank or someone else must bear the responsibility for the fact that the discount rate is practically double what it was at the time they were making those boasts and taking credit for a reduction in the rate. It is hoped that in the stringent money market of the moment experienced by farmers, along with all others in other segments of the economy, this legislation will be of some value to those it is intended to benefit.
We will have questions to ask about the rate of interest and certain other provisions when we see the bill, but unlike the type of opposition shown in respect to these matters in the past by those who are now sitting on the treasury benches we are prepared to support something that is going to give some aid to the western farmer in present conditions. We will not put up a lot of petty objections to every single feature in connection with the bill as the Prime Minister and some of his friends did in days gone by, indicating that they were not satisfied with the interest rate, the amount of the loan, or anything else and suggesting that there was not a tittle of value in anything which was done by the government through the banks to aid western farmers.


Hazen Robert Argue: In listening to the parliamentary secretary one would have thought that very large sums of money-exceedingly large sums-would likely be made available under this legislation. However, as I see it this is merely a companion measure to the one already passed. I regard it as a minor measure compared with that other bill, and consider that only a small minority of farmers are likely to be in a position to borrow money under its terms. I should like to know from the parliamentary secretary or from the Minister of Finance whether or not a farmer who has obtained a cash advance under the bill just passed is entitled to a guaranteed bank loan, because if farmers who have obtained cash advances for grain under the

Short Term Loans to Grain Producers
snow are excluded from this legislation then, of course, this measure will apply only to a very small proportion of the farmers.
The Minister of Finance is in the house. He has been very vocal in the past. He has been a valiant scrapper for the rights of parliament. He, and the Prime Minister, when they were in opposition, spent a large part of their time on this theme. They complained about everything which in their opinion interfered with or by-passed parliamentary control. I think we have a justifiable reason for complaining to the government today about the gratuitous insult to parliament and the insult to the prairie producers which is constituted by the failure to come forward with an estimate or legislation which would provide the acreage payments for grain under the snow.
Parliament is in session. The government should take parliament into its confidence. We have a right to know from the government and from the Minister of Finance the exact extent to which the government is committed to payments for grain under the snow by way of cash assistance. The rights of parliament, so dear to the government in the past, have become a plaything today. Parliament is a plaything. The consideration of the address in reply to the speech from the throne was interrupted at the convenience of the government and resumed again at the government's convenience, which shows just how co-operative the opposition is in this regard. But the government is in contempt of parliament because it will not divulge the commitments which it has already made to the provinces, the amount of those commitments and the type of legislation it intends to introduce.
I wonder why the Minister of Finance is not recommending that this legislation should be introduced at the present time. I think a good case could have been made in late October, November or early December for calling parliament into session in order to deal with this emergency; to pass the legislation which we are now considering and introduce legislation to provide for payments direct to the producers in respect of grain under the snow. That was not done. Instead, the government has waited until well into the new year before calling parliament into session. But with parliament in session the government persists in insulting parliament, in by-passing the house and forgetting all the speeches which were made in the past about the rights of hon. members.
There is only one conclusion at which one can arrive, that the government now has no consideration for the rights of parliament, that all those speeches in the past were phony speeches, fabricated for the day, or
put forward merely to attempt to persuade the public that members of the Conservative party really believed in the rights of parliament, because now they are in a position to defend parliament and to show that they meant what they said a few years ago.


Edward Nasserden: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Apparently they did not mean what they said. Today they have no concern for the stand they took in the past.


Augustin Brassard: They talk about it a lot, though.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, yes, and they put window dressing on it now. But whenever they start to cuddle up to us and say, "We are looking after the interests of the opposition and the rights of parliament," we need to look at their statements very closely to see what is happening and what in fact their real intentions may be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The cuddle of the boa constrictor.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is right, I agree.


Edward Nasserden: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the government will soon discover that the public is aware of its lack of interest in the rights of parliament-


Edward Nasserden: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not know why people are hollering "Order" because the chairman has said nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not think I have to accept questions from my babbling friend from Saskatchewan who is now on his feet. He is the most vocal person on the government side. Of course, I have some admiration for him because he does talk on every matter that comes up and in which he has not the slightest interest. If there is a muzzle on some of the members of the government party apparently there is none on this hon. gentleman because he is very free-wheeling and vocal. Of course, he has not too much concern for the statements he makes but when I sit down he will have an opportunity to make a 30-minute speech if he wishes.
This legislation is different from former legislation in that the banks today are being given a very much larger guarantee than they were given on previous occasions. I would think it is necessary, all right. It is not necessary because there should be any real
186	HOUSE OF
Short Term Loans to Grain Producers doubt as to the extent to which producers will repay the loans that have been made since the history of cash advance legislation in the past indicates that farmers do meet their obligations. I imagine this is another indication of the tight money situation. Bankers approach the subject of lending new money in new fields with great caution. Apparently they have now asked for a much greater increase in the guarantee, an increase of 25 per cent, I believe, before they will loosen up the strings on the money bags and make some very small loans available to western producers.
Another disturbing feature of this legislation, I understand, is that the interest rates to be charged are likely to be greater than under the legislation of the former administration. I ask the minister or his assistant whether or not that is correct? I am sure that this government with its great opposition to tight money and the resultant high interest rates, would not bring forward a bill that would allow interest rates higher than those that previously obtained under similar legislation in the regime of the former administration.
It would be a rather strange state of affairs if one found that after all of this noisy complaint about tight money and high interest rates following tight money the present government approved of tight money and higher interest rates by introducing a bill that would result in the farmers, who are in a desperate financial position, being asked to pay a higher rate of interest. I hope I am entirely mistaken. I would think on the basis of the record of the government I must be, but I would like a statement from the minister as to what interest rates the farmers who borrow money under this legislation are likely to have to pay to the banks.
I apologize for overlooking in my opening remarks seizing the opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Carleton on his appointment as a parliamentary secretary. I think he is a very capable person. I believe he will do a good job for the Minister of Finance and I hope that they will be able right now to assure me that I am fully mistaken in thinking it might be possible that under this legislation the farmers will have to pay a higher interest rate than they paid on previous occasions.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I must say I was surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia in bringing up the matter of the supremacy of parliament in the handling of this matter. I believe the provincial government of Saskatchewan has proceeded to pay out over $2 million in relation to this measure even before their legislature


has met. When one examines it from that point of view it can be seen that they are doing exactly the same thing that we are doing here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Except that parliament has met here.


William Moore Benidickson: The federal government is doing it by a back door method.


Edward Nasserden: The government of
Saskatchewan recognizes, as does the federal administration, the extreme need of the farmers for assistance of this type.
Let me say that if there is anyone in the House of Commons who is a babbler and has filled more pages of Hansard dealing with subjects about which he knows little or nothing than the hon. member for Assiniboia I should like to know who he is. One has only to peruse Hansard to see who is the champion babbler in the House of Commons today.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am only half way along toward meeting the record of the Minister of Finance but I am closing the gap.


An hon. Member:: At least he talks sense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, it is with the greatest regret that I rise in the committee again today because I had expected that after the reply which was given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on Tuesday evening to the appeal made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River which I seconded, that the government should reconsider, and pay some consideration to the rights of parliament about which, when members of the treasury benches were in opposition, they were so insistent and at times even eloquent, that they should take this first opportunity of asking us to authorize the expenditures which they have told the press-but which they never bothered to tell parliament-they have authorized the provincial governments of the three prairie provinces to make on their behalf.
There is no parallel that I can see with Saskatchewan. I have no interest in defending the government of Saskatchewan. As a matter of fact I hope it will not be long before it is replaced by a better government.


Hazen Robert Argue: It would not be a Liberal government with your man out there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would certainly be a better government if it were a Liberal government. It seems to me that the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan is doing precisely what we did when we were in office with respect to the very legislation that parallels what is now being considered by the committee. The minister of finance of that day

told the banks that the government had decided to recommend this legislation to parliament and persuaded the banks on the strength of that undertaking to go ahead and make the loans on the assumption that if the legislation was brought in and it was good legislation it would have the support of the majority in this house, and that is what happened.
But what else did our government do? At the first possible moment after the session started-incidentally, the matter was mentioned in the speech from the throne-the legislation was brought before parliament and parliament was given a chance to consider it. Now, that is what we are objecting to. We are not objecting, and no one here has objected, to the undertaking given by the Prime Minister. Perhaps in form it might have been a little more scrupulously given; perhaps the Prime Minister in giving it might have shown a little more consideration for the paramount position of parliament, but I am not making much of that. But what I am making something of, and what I think everybody in the opposition is making something of and what everybody now occupying the treasury benches, and no one more than the Minister of Finance, should be making something of is the fact that at any rate one of the western provinces is paying out money, half of which the Prime Minister of this country has said will be repaid out of the treasury of Canada. Parliament is in session and the government, although it is asking us to support supplementary legislation, has not yet had the decency even to put on the record of parliament what it is that is being done in the main to meet this problem.
This is a disgrace, sir, to parliament. You can go through the whole 22 years that the previous administration had been in office and you will find nothing whatever to compare with it.


Michael Starr: They never did anything.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There were a good many occasions when emergencies arose and the previous administration undertook to bring things to parliament. Action was taken before they were brought to parliament and the government would, of course, have been defeated if parliament had not ratified it, but when parliament did meet no time was lost in bringing the matter before parliament.
Now, surely this is the essence of what parliament is about. Anybody who knows anything of the history of our institution knows that the first function of parliament is the granting of the money which the Minister of Finance spends on behalf of the crown. Here is an expenditure of a character which
Short Term Loans to Grain Producers we know about from reading the newspapers, but we have not been told about it all in this parliament. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has once or twice suggested that we are not even entitled to be told about it under the rules. We are told nothing at all about this and we are asked to pass supplementary legislation which will fill in the cracks, but for the structure it has nothing. We are bypassed, ignored, treated as though we did not exist.
That, sir, it seems to me, would have been a serious act for any government, but for this great saviour of the rights of parliament, the man who went all across this country saying, we are going to restore the rights of parliament which Mr. St. Laurent took away from it, for him now to be authorizing expenditures of public moneys when parliament is in session without any reference to parliament is, it seems to me, doubly disgraceful. It is disgraceful in itself, and it is disgraceful because of the person who is the author of it.
It does seem to me, that the Minister of Finance should give us an undertaking when this bill is through, and it will not be very long, I expect, before it is, because we are not, as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has already said, going to take the captious attitude that hon. gentlemen opposite adopted in times past and make niggling objections to legislation that we think is really good although it is not the main legislation required to meet this problem.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, may I say to the hon. gentleman from Kenora-Rainy River, and to the hon. gentleman from Assiniboia that I appreciate their pleasant words. I do not propose to engage with them in the political in-fighting of which they sought to be guilty this afternoon. What we are interested in is getting this legislation on the statute books as rapidly as possible so that its advantages may be available as early as possible to all prairie farmers.
The hon. gentleman from Bonavista-Twil-lingate has largely repeated the speech which he made in the house on Tuesday. The arguments which he then made were effectively disposed of by the Prime Minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might remind the hon. gentleman that the Prime Minister spoke before I did.


Richard Albert Bell: The hon. gentleman has sought again to display his skill in setting up men of straw for the purpose of knocking them down, and has again engaged in a display of what I can only describe as amateur histrionics.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not pretend to be a professional.
188	HOUSE OF
Short Term Loans to Grain Producers


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Certainly, I do not intend to follow him in respect of that.
May I answer some of the questions which my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River mentioned? He mentioned the experience under two previous statutes. Under the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act of 1951 approximately $625,000 was lent to farmers. Of this, $602,000 was repaid and $283.35 is still outstanding. In respect of the 1951 act, approximately $23,000 went in default. Approximately $10,000 of this amount has been recovered by the Canadian wheat board through deductions from participation payments.
The experience of the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act of 1956 was this: the total amount loaned was $19,425,589.89; outstanding at March 31, 1959, was $357,691.90. The claims paid-that is, the losses sustained under the act-are $11,249.37.
The hon. gentleman mentioned the question of interest rate. Of course, with the great respect he has for the rights of parliament, which he has sought to display, he will appreciate how inappropriate it would be for the government to make a firm agreement with the banks before this legislation was actually on the statute books.
The hon. member for Assiniboia asked whether a farmer has a right to a government guaranteed loan under this bill and as well a cash advance under the bill which we have just passed. Of course, the answer to that is, it depends upon the amount. The total over-all ceiling can be made up partly by a cash advance and partly by a government guaranteed loan.


Hazen Robert Argue: A farmer who gets a cash advance of $1,500 cannot get anything under this legislation.


Richard Albert Bell: That is right. This is intended, as the hon. gentleman himself indicated, to be supplementary to the other bill and to provide an alternative technique.


William Moore Benidickson: Does the parliamentary secretary suggest that he is presenting this legislation to this house without someone in the government having had some preliminary talks with the banks to determine whether or not money would likely flow after we pass this legislation?


Thomas Miller Bell: I chose my language very carefully.


William Moore Benidickson: In that connection, has no one discussed what the rate of interest would likely be paid if an important amount of money is to go out in loans as a result of this bill if we pass it?


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. gentleman observed the language I used was that he would appreciate that no firm agreement could be made on the subject before the legislation was actually passed.


William Moore Benidickson: But you have discussed interest and the possibility of utilization of the bill with the banks?


Thomas Miller Bell: Of course, that has been carefully discussed with the banks.


Hazen Robert Argue: I take it from the reply of the parliamentary secretary that discussions have been carried on with the banks?


Thomas Miller Bell: Oh, yes, indeed.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do I also take it that the banks would not agree to a 5 per cent interest rate because, as I understand it, the former legislation had in it a clause which provided for an interest rate of 5 per cent? I am asking whether such a clause is in the new bill, or whether it is an open-ended bill which would allow a bank interest rate, of course, of 6 per cent.


Thomas Miller Bell: I might say to my hon. friend that discussions are proceeding. The hon. gentleman will see when the bill is introduced, which I hope will be very shortly, whether there is such a clause.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is scarcely good enough. We got information as to how much money the farmer would be entitled and that if he received $1,500 under the cash advance legislation he could get nothing under this legislation. Now we are asking about interest rates and we are told that we should wait to see the bill.


Richard Albert Bell: I might say to my hon. friend that the bill does not provide a specific interest rate.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am exceedingly disappointed in that information.


Mr. McGrath:: Good.


Hazen Robert Argue: Did somebody say "good" on the other side of the house?


An hon. Member:: You said it.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, one of your members is nodding assent. He said "good". Apparently it is a good thing to charge the producers of this country a higher interest rate. The statement just made by the parliamentary secretary shows that the farmers are becoming casualties of the government's tight money policy, that under this legislation farmers will undoubtedly be forced to pay an interest rate of 6 per cent. If they were going to have to pay an interest rate of 5 per cent there would be no reason for the

Short Term Loans to Grain Producers
parliamentary secretary to hedge. There would be no reason for the Minister of Finance to remain silent. There would be no reason for the bill not to have a clause saying that the interest rate will be 5 per cent.
In other words, the banks have vetoed any legislation providing an interest rate of 5 per cent. Apparently the banks have said, "Nothing doing, we will have nothing to do any longer with legislation containing a fixed interest rate of 5 per cent." They have either said that or the government has not requested the banks to make money available at an interest rate of 5 per cent. If the banks today, on the basis of a guarantee of 25 per cent, will not make money available at an interest rate of 5 per cent we can only conclude that all our farm improvement legislation, fishermen's legislation and other legislation carrying with it a guarantee from the government and a fixed rate of 5 per cent is in fact in jeopardy.
When the members of the government were in the opposition they complained of the evils of a tight money policy and they were right. Everything they said at that time was correct and is just as correct today. The legislation now being introduced means a 20 per cent increase in interest rates over the guaranteed bank loan legislation of 1956. Instead of improvement, instead of a loosening, the money situation is getting tighter and interest rates are rising.
This legislation is a casualty of the policy of the government in fostering and promoting a high interest policy. Of course the Minister of Finance has been paying more than 6 per cent on some of his treasury bills so it is understandable that the banks should say no and veto the government's request if such a request was made. All I can do is protest as strongly as I can against the government's repudiation of everything its members said about tight money when they were in opposition. Now that they are following this very bad policy which they once condemned so loudly, the question arises whether or not this very definite indication in legislative form of higher interest rates is an indication of other acts of the government that may result in still higher interest rates.
To foist a 20 per cent increase in interest rates on agricultural producers is completely unjustified. The producers in my constituency grow flax to some extent but very little rapeseed is produced. I am wondering whether the members who represent constituencies in which rapeseed is an important crop will say anything about this retrograde and backward step, the increase in interest rates to farmers who will be forced to take
advantage of this legislation. I should like to hear from some of them whether or not they condone what amounts to a 20 per cent increase in interest rates within a period of four years.
We in this group will have something further to say on this matter when we are in committee on the bill and we shall put forward an amendment that we hope the house will approve asking that an interest rate of 5 per cent be fixed rather than the government pillorying the farmers by increasing interest rates by 20 per cent and making them less able to pay and victims of a vicious tight money policy. I see an ad hoc cabinet meeting going on over there. Three important cabinet ministers have their heads together. Two of them are prairie cabinet ministers and they might well have their heads together because this is an important question. I hope they will refer this matter to their colleagues in the cabinet and see that an amendment is introduced to get them off the hook because they are on the hook when they try to foist on the hard pressed people of their own provinces an increase in interest rates from 5 to 6 per cent. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is smiling. I do not think this is any smiling matter. He should look glum. He should look as glum as the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources who understands that this is a serious matter.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, may I say that he was not smiling. I was looking right at him at the time the hon. member for Assiniboia was speaking.


Hazen Robert Argue: If he was not smiling then his face was going through a lot of distortions and he must have been taking this very lightly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He was probably having a vision.


Hazen Robert Argue: It might have been a nightmare but it certainly was no vision.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is always a nightmare when you speak.


Hazen Robert Argue: The vision is gone; the vision has disappeared.


Mr. Brooks:: He was smiling at your distortion.


Hazen Robert Argue: Now we have a rather unique situation. I have heard a lot about cabinet solidarity but as to the question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce smiling the Minister of Northern Affairs and National
190	HOUSE OF
Short Term Loans to Grain Producers Resources says he was not smiling and now the Minister of Veterans Affairs says he was smiling.


The Chairman:: I think we have heard enough about smiles and I would ask the hon. member to come back to the subject matter of the resolution.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since everybody is in good humour and is smiling now, there is no question about it. It is unanimous. The cabinet is now solid on the question of smiles. They are all smiling.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is no division as to the facial expressions of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, I see this small but, I take it, important cabinet discussion going on. I hope that as a result of what has been said, as a result of the discussion, for the protection of the vision and for the protection of the integrity of the position so well taken by the Minister of Finance years ago he will move in committee on the bill an amendment to the appropriate clause so that our agricultural producers will not be made the victims of a high interest policy.


Mr. Smallwood:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words. As a western member I am probably more interested in interest rates for the western farmer than is the hon. member for Assiniboia. You will remember that last session we passed a long term farm loan bill with an interest rate of 5 per cent. I was one of the members who, along with my colleague, had a great deal to do with keeping the interest rate at 5 per cent. At the same time, the province of Saskatchewan introduced a long term loan measure, and I should like to ask the hon. member for Assiniboia what the interest rate is. It is 6 per cent.


An hon. Member:: It is 6J per cent.


Hazen Robert Argue: I can tell my hon. friend that the provincial government of Saskatchewan is not in the business of making loans, so that the question is not a valid one. The loans that are being made are by the Cooperative Trust Company as a result of a guarantee made to this co-operative company by the Saskatchewan government carry an interest rate, I have been informed, of 6J per cent.
It is rather a strange state of affairs, is it not, when members say the interest rate should be 6 per cent and they go thousands of miles from the city of Ottawa to try to


malign a provincial government and use provincial legislation as an excuse for the failure of this government to keep its election commitments.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I was not using it as an excuse, I was using it as a comparison to show how your government out there operates while you come down here and holler about this one.


William Moore Benidickson: There is more than one point in connection with this interest rate. I have pointed out to the large number of members in the house who were not here either during the debate in 1956 or the debate in the spring of 1957 that we are shocked at the somersaulting that is being done with respect to so many of government policies. In 1956 the opposition of that day, the Conservative party, said it was unconscionable for farmers to pay an interest rate of 5 per cent. The present Minister of Agriculture went up and down this country saying that the interest rate should not be beyond 3 per cent. This was when an interest rate was in the bill but there were days of arguing.
The following year, there was an amendment which proposed to eliminate the fixed rate of interest in order that there might be what some hon. member referred to earlier as a commercial rate of interest which might be flexible. This was in the spring of 1957. What astonishes us is that the members of the government in power today seem to be prepared to abandon completely the things they held out to the people of this country as being important, almost sacred. I referred to and quoted part of the debate of 1956, but I might say there was a completely different situation in 1957. The other point is the aspect of not admitting in the bill what the rate is going to be. We know the maximum rate under the Bank Act is 6 per cent. If that is going to be paid, and there have been discussions with the banks, why does the government not have the courage to come and tell this House of Commons what the interest rate is likely to be? This is what they said formerly was important, necessary and desirable for any government to do. They said when they got into power they were going to do things differently, including stating in a bill of this kind what the rate of interest was going to be.
On March 13, 1957, the Minister of Agriculture, who was then in opposition, had this to say when he looked at the bill of that day; as reported at page 2162 of Hansard: What that means, in effect, Mr. Chairman, I would say is that interest rates are going to be increased. This move is going to be very badly received by the farmers of western Canada. These are guaranteed loans, and as such there is very little risk
JANUARY 21. I960	191
Short Term Loans to Grain Producers
involved in them so far as the banks are concerned. Last year we maintained that the rate of interest which was provided in the act, at that time 5 per cent, was not justified in view of the risk situation.
Even a year later, he admits what I have told you was his attitude in 1956. What did the present Prime Minister have to say with respect to the proposition that we should have a rate of interest left to the cabinet to fix? On page 2189 of Hansard for March 14, 1957, the Prime Minister had this to say:
In addition to the general objection, there is also the further objection this year that instead of the interest rate being properly placed before the house and the country it is left with the uncertainty of fixation at some time in the future.
Surely the government will give some consideration to these past pledges that were given to the house and to the country that if they were given the administration of this country they would carry out some of the things that they said were important and necessary in the administration of a measure of this kind.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the resolution carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, Mr. Chairman. I think after the discussion we have had on this question of interest rates, and after the cabinet meeting we have seen in progress over there, we should have an indication from the government as to whether or not between this stage and the introduction of the bill consideration will be given to placing in the bill a 5 per cent interest rate. I believe that this type of discussion is an indication of the importance of this stage of the debate. Here is an opportunity for the government, before the bill is given second reading, to have it altered and to have placed in the bill a 5 per cent clause. I would forecast, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to win on this because I think little money is involved. It is an important question, but the legislation is not so all-embracing or so extensive that the government's heretofore consistent policy of keeping the 5 per cent interest rate in guarantee legislation of this kind should be set aside.
Since it is six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to see the clock and I am hoping there might be some cabinet discussion over the dinner recess and that there will be a fixing of the interest rate of 5 per cent.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Jacques Flynn: Shall the resolution carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, Mr. Chairman. I am wondering if either the parliamentary secretary to
the Minister of Finance or to the Minister of Trade and Commerce can say whether or not since the discussion this afternoon there has been time for any further consideration of the question of the interest charges which will be provided for in the bill which is to follow this resolution? I would hope there can be written into the bill a clause limiting the interest rate to 5 per cent.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, the
situation was made very clear this afternoon, and I do not think there is anything which can usefully be added to what was said at that time. Frankly, I found the fulmina-tions of the hon. gentleman somewhat incredible and difficult to understand. He, perhaps more than anyone, understands fully the importance of getting this legislation on the statute books, and of getting this legislation on the statute books in a way that money will flow to the farmers of western Canada. What he seeks to do now, I think, is to delay that in such a way that the farmers will not get the money at the proper time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the statement which has just been made is most ridiculous, that one member could so delay this legislation as to prevent the farmers of western Canada getting the money that may be provided under this legislation. That is, of course, a measure of the intemperate and intolerant attitude of the government, to say that a short debate of a few hours duration suggests that we are trying to prevent this legislation going through. Nothing could be further from the truth. It demonstrates very vividly that a government with an overwhelming majority intends to let power go to its head and to be very impatient with the opposition when it makes a few short statements on this very important legislation. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary this simple question: Were the banks asked to make money available at 5 per cent?


Richard Albert Bell: The banks were asked to make money available, and negotiations with respect to the interest rate are being carried on, Mr. Chairman. Those negotiations will continue.
What I find so extraordinary in the attitude of the hon. member for Assiniboia as well as the attitude of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is that, with their respect for parliamentary rights so very recently acquired, they seek to get us to tie this situation in a specific way without legislative sanction. What do they ask us to do? They ask the government to make a firm commitment, a binding agreement, with the chartered banks of Canada in the total absence of any legislative authority, and they do this at the very
192	HOUSE OF
Short Term Loans to Grain Producers time they are complaining of the negotiations which are going on with the provincial governments, negotiations which they suggest ought not to have gone on, commitments which they suggest ought never to have been made. They ask us to make commitments to the chartered banks but to no one else, and they ask us to do all this in the absence of parliamentary authority.
If the government did this, visualize the howls of imaginary anguish which would go up from the hon. member for Assiniboia and the venial sins of which the Minister of Finance would be accused. This is simply the position: the negotiations are going on and will continue. This government will make certain that the rate of interest which is provided is the very minimum rate of interest which it is possible to achieve and keep money flowing into the pockets of the farmers of western Canada.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is certainly a very strange attitude for the government to take.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I recognized the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort.


Reynold Rapp: Just a few words, Mr. Chairman, in answer to the challenging remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia, when he said that if anyone in this house is interested in rapeseed he should stand up and talk about it. With regard to the interest in rapeseed, I would like to say there are many hon. members in this house who are interested in the rapeseed industry. Since I have come to this house I have not observed that the hon. member for Assiniboia has shown any interest.
There are two points I would like to make, and they are these. Some farmers harvested their rapeseed very early and they were able to take their crop off. Second, as far as rapeseed is concerned, it is the same as flaxseed and it can not be left out over the winter because it will deteriorate and will not be worth while harvesting. Consequently no farmer would take any loan or advance on a crop out in the fields.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow the last remarks of the parliamentary secretary to remain unchallenged. I do not know whether he was in the house when the other legislation was being piloted through by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but if he was he certainly was not paying attention to the debate as evidenced by his remarks here, because they were a complete distortion of any position which, at least, I took and anybody in this party took, as far as criticism related to legislation to deal with this


emergency existing in western Canada is concerned because of the failure to harvest the normal crop.
We at no time criticized the government because it entered into an agreement with the provincial governments. What we have criticized and what we continue to criticize is that the government, having apparently made some binding arrangement under which a substantial amount of money will be called for from the federal treasury now at a time when we have adjourned our regular procedure in this house to discuss agricultural problems, particularly with respect to western Canada, by-passes this parliament. Neither members of the opposition nor many members, I am sure, on the government side who would like to discuss the matter of the fifty-fifty relief sharing arrangement, are given the opportunity to do so.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman seeks to have a firm commitment made with the banks without parliament being consulted.


William Moore Benidickson: That is not the point at all. When the Conservative party was sitting in opposition they did not object to the fact that when legislation dealing with guaranteed bank loans appeared necessary the ministry of that day entered into an undertaking with the banks to recommend to parliament certain legislation that would accelerate the opportunity for payment out of loans to western Canada at a time when the farmers needed it most, early in the winter. The Conservative party never took objection to that. We have not suggested we would object to that if that had been done in this instance. What we have said-certainly what I have said, and it is something which the hon. member has avoided in reply-is that in 1957 the present Minister of Agriculture, the Prime Minister, and everybody in the Conservative party, went up and down this country saying it was wrong not to have a fixed rate of interest in connection with a guaranteed bank loan to western farmers. If it was wrong then, what makes it right now? That is the point.
In addition to that I indicated that when in 1951 legislation of this kind wa's proposed by the former administration it was scoffed at by the present Prime Minister, in particular, and by the present Minister of Agriculture. The Prime Minister said that loans of this kind would be meaningless and useless. What can the parliamentary secretary tell this committee, from the discussions he has had with the banks, which would indicate that there is some reason to believe that this legislation may be worth while when, in the past, the

Short Term Loans to Grain Producers
members of the ministry always held the opinion that this kind of legislation was useless?


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the hon. gentleman not think this legislation will be useful?


William Moore Benidickson: I do, yes. I said I thought it would be of some help, and if it will be of the slightest help we will not oppose the legislation.


Richard Albert Bell: If that is the hon. gentleman's opinion why should I argue with it.


William Moore Benidickson: What is your defence for doing this in the same way you said was heinous when we did it some years ago?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Speaking primarily as the member for Qu'Appelle, an agricultural riding in the prairies, I should just like to point out one or two salient facts, because the house and the committee seems to have overlooked them in this present discussion.
I should like to recall that when the tragedy of the heavy rains occurred on the western prairies this fall, followed by early snowfalls, the government in Ottawa along with the farmers' organizations and the provincial governments on the prairies announced to the people of the prairies that action was being considered on their behalf. This was immediate action, even though the form of it was not resolved at that time. Immediately the emergency took place, the federal government, in co-operation with the three provincial governments, offered to provide the federal assistance which has been given in the past so that farmers whose fields were under snow and whose fodder was being destroyed might know that they would get free freight to provide food for their cattle, so that they might not have to move them out.
The federal government met with the three provincial governments and the ten farm organizations, besides one or two other groups, and laid down in friendly discussion a cooperative plan of action which would look after the situation to the best ability of the governments concerned. In this action not only was freight assistance and assistance by the provincial governments considered, but it was also promised to speed up the application of P.F.A.A. Then those farm organizations and the three provincial governments asked the federal government if the old legislation respecting loans to farmers which had previously been used in a similar situation some years ago could not be reintroduced.


Hazen Robert Argue: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is the point I should like to make. I went out to my own province of Saskatchewan and into the province of Alberta. I travelled across the province from west to east; I moved up the east side as far north as Kamsack and then back to the west side of the province to Meadow Lake. Then I came across the centre of the province. On that tour I had the personal experience of meeting municipal secretaries, members of parliament, members of the legislature and many farmers, and I asked what was the thing which would be most useful at this time. The farm organizations of the three prairie provinces have asked for the re-introduction of the type of loans that we had before, and I tell this committee in all sincerity that out of every 20 farmers to whom I spoke, 19 at least were not particularly interested in the loans as envisaged in this bill. They said: you have legislation on the books now, the legislation your government brought in in 1957 covering cash advances; can we not have something which would simply give us in some degree the same provision as you have made under this cash advance legislation. So we brought that legislation in which it said that if you had grain-


William Moore Benidickson: We have just passed that bill. We know what was in that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -unthreshed on your farm you will get the amount in the bill. This is where the question of the loans comes in, for the great majority of the farmers-almost all of them-naturally wanted a type of advance on which there was no interest. Why, then, bring in this bill which is under discussion? The reason is simple, practical and obvious. There are a certain number of farmers, measured not in thousands but only in hundreds at the most, who are unable under the cash advance legislation to get on their permit books the signatures of their co-partners or landlords as the case may be.
In simple terms, if I am a tenant farmer and the man who owns my land is in Europe or in the United States or in South America- and this has happened in one case in my experience-and I want him to sign my permit book authorizing me to go to the elevator agent and draw a cash advance on unthreshed grain and that man is not available, what can I do? 1 have over 50 per cent of my crop under snow. I have to pay certain bills. I would like to get this money if possible under the cash advance legislation because there is no interest on it, but in my particular case there is no help for me. It may be that my landlord will not sign my permit book for reasons of his own, and that has happened. It is the relatively few farmers
194	HOUSE OF
Short Term Loans to Grain Producers who are in this position that the legislation now under discussion is designed to protect, and they are numbered not in thousands but in hundreds.
The second point of my observations is this: why all this discussion about interest rates?


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is a matter of sadness to me-


William Moore Benidickson: You were not here when the Prime Minister insisted it was important.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -and regret that at a time like this when our provincial governments and the federal government are working in co-operation trying to help these farmers who are faced with the problem of a shortage of cash because their assets are lying in the fields, we should get into a discussion of this nature. The point I want to make most emphatically is that this party, since 1952, has not favoured the technique of using loans. This party has since 1952 supported publicly the use of cash advances as the best way of handling this type of shortage of cash in the fall. This government went to the country in 1957 and promised cash advances to the farmers of the west, and in that promise there was no question of interest.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: At the end. This government was elected on a pledge of cash advances with no question of interest, and if hon. members will read the record they will find that the farm organizations were asking for cash advances at a small rate of interest. We came in and provided an act with no interest. We believe that in this type of situation, where the farmer is under a socialist system of marketing and where he is a complete prisoner of the system of economics, this is the best solution.
The program we have at this time is to try and provide a system of getting cash into the farmers' hands without interest but if there are a few farmers who cannot get the signature of their landlord on the permit book, this legislation is made available to them. This is a short term type of legislation, as was mentioned earlier in the debate. If it was a long term commitment, like that under the farm credit legislation, it would be a different proposition. This government set that rate at 5 per cent when governments in other places, like in Saskatchewan, set it at 6i per cent.
We have measured up to our responsibilities in regard to the agricultural industry of Canada in providing that reasonable interest
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1

rate. This is a short term measure applying to a few hundred farmers in each province who will not be able to take advantage of the fact that this government provides cash for them interest-free. That is the essential point, Mr. Chairman, that the great bulk of the farmers who have a choice of receiving money interest-free or of paying interest wil take it interest-free, but in case there are a few who cannot take advantage of the interest-free cash advance technique that has been provided. Therefore, on a short term interest rate the best deal we can get from the banks will be provided.
It must be remembered that the farmer who needs this assistance requires it for a short time. If he is unable to take advantage of interest-free cash advances because of his peculiar circumstances and the impossibility of obtaining the signature of his landlord on the permit book he will be able to take advantage of the present measure. I am sure the farmers will be glad that this legislation is available to them on that basis. In all fairness to the agricultural industry of western Canada and to those of us who have the responsibility of trying to introduce measures to assist those engaged in it I believe it must be said that this combined free interest type of advance and loans for those small numbers who will not be able to take advantage of the interest-free advances represents a sensible arrangement.
I believe that if one were to ask a thousand farmers in any area of the west about this they would agree that it is a very sensible deal. They will not take fire at the extreme statements that have been made by some hon. gentlemen in the committee today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that when he had completed his remarks he would answer a question of mine. The question I am going to ask him is why, if he thought that the discussion of interest rates was a matter of no importance, his leader said what he said on the same kind of measure on March 14, 1957 as reported at page 2189 of Hansard which I should like to read for the instruction of the hon. gentleman who was not here at the time. These words were spoken in relation to legislation of precisely the same character as this. This is what the present Prime Minister said at that time:
In addition to the general objection, there is also the further objection this year that instead of the interest rate being properly placed before the house and the country it is left with the uncertainty of fixation at some time in the future.
I should like to read that again because that is what the present Prime Minister,

Short Term Loans to Grain Producers
speaking from over here, said to the government of the day in 1957:
-instead of the interest rate being properly placed before the house and the country it is left with the uncertainty of fixation at some time in the future.
The government of the hon. gentleman who said that is doing precisely the same thing in respect of this legislation now. How does the minister justify that?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My answer is very simple, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are in office now, I suppose.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This government is providing assistance to western farmers today at no interest whatever which the previous government refused to do.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I was rather intrigued by what was said by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance because-


Mr. Drysdale:: Parliamentary secretary.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, parliamentary secretary.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: You have to get something right.


Hazen Robert Argue: You know, I thought he had a promotion, but I am afraid that you people are trying to take it away from him.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: We are just anxious to have you get something right for once.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I did, I would not be in your class after that.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Thank heaven.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that the remarks of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance seemed rather strange because he said it would be impossible to state that there would be an interest rate of 5 per cent in the absence of parliamentary authority-


Thomas Miller Bell: I did not say that. I said that the hon. gentleman would howl if, in the absence of parliamentary authority, this were done.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is the parliamentary
authority and I am howling because you did not do it. I think you should announce now that the minister is prepared to recommend at the proper stage of the proceedings on the bill, in the committee of the whole- on clause 3, if it is the same as the old bill -another paragraph saying that the interest rate will be 5 per cent.
This would not be in the absence of parliamentary authority; this would be with parliament in session. This would be the 79951-0-131
government saying to parliament, "We want parliament to decide the interest rate, we do not want the interest rate to be decided by the bankers." That is what is going to happen. The minister will not be in negotiation with the bankers for a 5 per cent rate. He has had those negotiations and they turned him down flat. Obviously they said to him, "You either give us a 6 per cent interest rate or we will not lend any money."


Richard Albert Bell: Oh, that is not true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is true?


Hazen Robert Argue: Why not put the five per cent rate in? You see, Mr. Chairman, the government has gone to the banks and they have discussed this. They have had thorough negotiations. The bankers, however, told them nothing and so in the absence of information they have come to the house and asked for parliamentary approval to go back and find out at what rate the bankers will lend money, I do not think they really expect us to believe this.
The fact of the matter is that the bankers are on strike as far as 5 per cent loans are concerned. They are saying to the government, "We will not provide the money." They are holding a gun to the heads of the government with obvious success. We therefore have an open-ended bill which parliament is being asked to approve and the bankers will ultimately charge the maximum rate under the legislation.
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources says that he travelled throughout the west and as he moved about the farmers told him they wanted the old legislation. I do not know why he did not take them at their word and introduce the old legislation. The old legislation under section 3, subparagraph (d) provided:
(d) The rate of interest charged by the bank on the loan did not exceed 5 per cent per annum simple interest-
I refer, of course, to the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act, 1956.


Mr. Jones:: No, that is not what he was talking about at all; he was talking about the cash advances.


Hazen Robert Argue: The cash advance legislation is not that old. Where is the minister at this moment? He has left the chamber. It is too bad he is not here to answer for himself.


Henry Frank Jones: He is still in the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not see him, nor do I hear him speaking in his own defence. I am obviously interpreting him accurately. The phantom minister is somewhere in the house
196	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Short Term Loans to Grain Producers but we cannot see him. Perhaps he is a part of the great Conservative vision not discernible to everyone.
The old legislation set interest rates at 5 per cent. This legislation says in effect that after parliament has given its rubber stamp approval the government will go, cap in hand, to the bankers and find out at what interest rate they will lend money to the farmers.
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources engaged in some strange reasoning. He told us that his government favours cash advances without interest rates. Then he pointed out the wonderful progress that has been made since the days of the former administration. It used to lend money at 5 per cent but now money is available to farmers without interest. He then went on to say that of course there are just a few hundred farmers who cannot get interest-free money because the landlord is in South America or the farmer is producing flax or rapeseed. He said: For the few hundred who do not get cash advances, we will make money available at an interest rate. We will let the bankers impose the interest rate. We will not change the 5 per cent rate that was levied under the legislation of that terrible Liberal government. We will go one better. We will increase the interest rates and we will go from a zero interest rate-an absence of interest-to the vast majority of farmers and single out a few hundred misfortunate farmers on whom we will allow the banks to levy an interest rate of 6 per cent." I think, Mr. Chairman, that is rather shabby treatment for a few hundred farmers, if it is only a few hundred who can take advantage of this legislation.
When the legislation was introduced this afternoon I heard a reference to a $50 million limit for a few hundred farmers. I wonder whether this ever got to cabinet because the spokesman for the cabinet said that there was a $50 million limit. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources says it is for a few hundred farmers in each province which adds up to $50 million, apparently; but the minister asked us this question: why all this talk of interest. The answer is obvious. Don and John are on a high interest rate policy. Those gold-dust twins are in favour of higher interest rates for the banks because apparently the cabinet is solid in thinking a few hundred farmers should have to pay this very high interest rate of 6 per cent in comparison with most farmers who can get an interest-free cash advance under the legislation passed earlier today. This is just an example of what happens when we

have a high interest policy, and I am fearful, Mr. Chairman, that this may be just the beginning of higher and higher interest rates as far as agricultural producers are concerned and perhaps also as far as fishermen are concerned.
This is apparently the bankers' thin edge of the wedge. Prior to this it has been a stable 5 per cent, but now they are breaking through, and if they break through for a few hundred farmers I am afraid this government will bring in legislation which may allow them an even higher rate in other fields.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources indicated that the earlier bill of the Minister of Trade and Commerce seemed to fall short in a particular way to assist a handful of farmers in the west, and that apparently is the reason for this particular legislation. I wonder whether all the ministers from western Canada have thought of another method that some spokesmen of the Conservative party in days gone by have suggested could be of assistance to the western farmer. I indicated that on December 14, 1951, when we had similar guaranteed bank loan legislation before us the present Prime Minister felt that it was an undue risk to lend money on unthreshed grain. He then had little faith in that kind of proposition before us at the time.
For the life of me I just cannot see how any bank is likely to make a loan to a producer who has some obligation to share the returns from his crop with another person and apparently on that account would not be able to get an advance through the wheat board agent because it would be concerned about having the consent of this other person who has some interest in the crop. I cannot imagine that any bank would be any more likely to make a loan without the signature of that person with a co-interest than apparently the wheat board would be. Because surely one of the first things that a western banker would want to see today in connection with making a loan would be that man's permit book. And if that permit book disclosed an interest on the part of someone else to be shared with the person who presents himself to the bank I think the bank would want to communicate with the person just the same as the wheat board does. Therefore, if this type of person is not going to get a bank loan-and we are told he is not going to get assistance under the unthreshed grain provisional payment bill-has the Prime Minister re-advocated, as he used to advocate, that western farmers be permitted to get payments for the storage of

wheat on their farms. At page 1969 of Hansard of December 14, 1951, the Prime Minister had this to say with respect to a measure of relief for western grain farmers. This is the same speech that I referred to before the dinner adjournment. I quote:
I now come to another matter with which I had hoped the minister would deal, although he has denied on more than one occasion that the government had any intention of making payment to the farmers for the storage of wheat on their farms. Since he made those statements he has visited the western provinces. He attended the farmers union convention in Saskatoon. According to the press, he met them in a most congenial manner, and in keeping with his best tradition when meeting farm delegations. The farmers ask that payments be made for the storage of wheat on the farms. There would be no cost to the Canadian people in accepting that idea. After all, if it were not for the fact that the storage facilities in both the line elevators and the elevators at the head of the lakes were congested by unmarketable tough or frozen wheat of the 1950 crop, most farmers who did their threshing or combining this fall would have hauled their wheat to market immediately. I repeat that it was not a shortage of box cars but the allocation of available cars that resulted in the wheat being piled up on the farms.
If the wheat had been stored in the elevators the price the farmer would ultimately receive would have been subject to the deduction of the monthly amount allowed for storage. If the farmer stored the wheat on his farm he should be paid what otherwise would have been paid to the elevator companies.
This was advocated by the Prime Minister in recent years when he went up and down western Canada. If certain farmers are likely to have difficulty in connection with the first bill as presented to us, I surmise they are not going to be any better off with this bill when a banker sees someone else has an interest in his crop. What consideration has the cabinet given to this other proposition or program that the Prime Minister used to peddle up and down western Canada?


Mr. Clancy:: I sat here all afternoon listening to, let us call it, malarkey. There is not an hon. member on the opposition side who is a farmer or has anything to do with farms. If they want to make political hay out of this legislation, let them go ahead. The hon. member for Assiniboia represents that he is a farmer. Is he a farmer? So am I; I own a section of land. Let us get down to the facts and get away from all this discussion.
We listened to the hon. member for Assiniboia talking about interest rates. He has as much interest in the farmers of Saskatchewan as some other people I could name. He is playing politics. I am interested in the farmer. Let us get on with the business.
(Translation):


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, may I
express a few ideas with regard to our way of thinking in the province of Quebec about
Short Term Loans to Grain Producers the bills which were to be introduced according to an announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).
The day before yesterday we passed the resolution preceding the bill tending to assist the western farmers whose grain crop was buried under the snow. The resolution before us today tends to guarantee loans granted by the banks to a certain class of farmers.
The principles at the base of the two bills we are considering are good. We passed the first bill and we also shall approve this one. We have no objection to the passing of this legislation, because we sincerely believe that it will help western farmers, more particularly those in the Prime Minister's riding.
I also want to point out our attitude, as eastern Canadians, when considering the adoption of a bill concerning our fellow citizens in the west.
The day before yesterday I was somewhat shocked to hear the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) make an unfortunate remark. As can be seen on page 100 of Hansard, he said:
You are jealous because the farmers of eastern Canada are not getting the chance to get something.
He made this interjection during the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). May I prove that we in the east have never been opposed to the voting of bills favouring the west?
As a matter of fact, I shall quote certain items voted last year during the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
At that time, we adopted special estimates under the prairie farm rehabilitation and water storage act.
We voted $5,132,141.00 for the carrying out of important projects-


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member is straying a bit from the subject matter of the resolution now before the house, so I would ask him to stick closer to the subject matter of the debate.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, in quoting those figures I wanted to prove that eastern farmers are not being obnoxious, as some hon. members implied two days ago.
I shall only quote a few figures, and especially remind you of the special amount we voted last year to help western farmers. We voted a total of $42 million to help western farmers whose crops, while not entirely destroyed, had yielded much less than usual, due to adverse weather conditions.
198	HOUSE OF
Short Term Loans to Grain Producers
When this amount of $42 million was voted, there was, as far as I know, no objection on the part of hon. members of this house, nor on the part of eastern farmers.
As far as the P.F.A.A. is concerned, another amount of $6 million was voted; we have here more legislation favouring the western producers.
Mr. Chairman, we were pleased to pass these bills, and, tonight, we are again happy to support the resolution we are now considering. The two bills which had been pointed out as urgent and necessary will be passed in the near future; but we wonder when we shall take up that other bill which, as the Prime Minister announced, was to be introduced on November 27 last, concerning the proportion of 50-50 which the federal government is to pay the producers who have sustained losses.
We were told that the bill which was passed today, as well as the resolution now under consideration was of urgent character. To my mind, the last bill we are supposed to study is more urgent still than the former two. Therefore I wonder why the Prime Minister has not introduced the resolution which should precede it.
There are also other bills that are very important, like the legislation with regard to deficiency payments for grain to western producers. It might be remembered that, last year, a delegation of 1,100 western farmers came over to present a petition to the Prime Minister and his cabinet

*


Jacques Flynn: Order. I think the hon. member is again straying from the subject matter and I would ask him to comply with the directions of the committee chairman.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to be able to stray as far from the subject matter as certain hon. members did during the present debate. If I departed somewhat from the matter under consideration, I don't think I have gone beyond the limit.
I simply wished to show, Mr. Chairman, that the legislation discussed in the last two days is not as valuable as western farmers were entitled to expect it to be.
A moment ago, I heard the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) say that farmers were satisfied with legislation introduced by the federal government in the course of the last


two years. I challenge him to say that farmers are satisfied with the conditions prevailing at the present time in western Canada, in any area of agriculture, and especially as concerns grain. Farmers are expecting-


Jacques Flynn: Order. For the last time, I would ask the hon. member to stick to the resolution, if not I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.


David James Walker: That's it; you are right.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I shall then close my remarks by expressing all the bitterness we feel as a result of the statements made by the hon. member for Acadia, who failed to appreciate the condescension shown by eastern farmers, and we look forward to the day when he will have the grace to apologize-


David James Walker: Shocking.


Samuel Boulanger: At which time we will thank him.


Mr. Racine:: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the resolution
carries, I should like to endorse what has just been said by the hon. member for Beauce. It does seem to me that we are thoroughly in accord with this bill. We have indicated that over and over again.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We do think that if these guaranteed loans are a good thing to help farmers who face disaster in one part of the country, it would be better to have generalized legislation that would apply to all parts of Canada. I feel that the whole house should be grateful to the hon. member for Beauce and to the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska for bringing this point to our attention.


Hazen Robert Argue: I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Lest anyone think that as a representative of the prairies I wish something for prairie farmers that is not available to others I should like to say that so far as I am concerned if this legislation is required, and we are told it is, in other parts of Canada I would like to see guaranteed bank loans made available to other producers. However, I feel that if producers in other parts of Canada had this legislation it would not be long until they were supporting a better type of legislation which we have in our cash advances legislation.
But if people in other parts of Canada require this, which is second best legislation, we certainly would be in favour of extending it to other parts of the country. We would go one step farther. We think the government, in cases of emergency, should provide interest-free loans and advances.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Churchill thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-35, to provide for short-term credit to prairie grain producers.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are agreeable to going ahead with it now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: the second reading of Bill No. C-35, to provide for short term credit to prairie grain producers.


William Moore Benidickson: Is there no further comment to be made by the parliamentary secretary?


Richard Albert Bell: think there is nothing that could be added usefully to the discussion we have just had.


William Moore Benidickson: I want to make a comment or two. The opposition has agreed to waive the normal rule which would require that this next stage in the debate take place at an interval of not less than 24 hours. We remain disappointed that some of the questions that relate to the whole problem still remain unanswered. I did not say, in the early stages-


Richard Albert Bell: Which ones?


William Moore Benidickson: We need some information in connection with the agreements with the provinces; some information as to whether or not-


Richard Albert Bell: That has nothing to do with this legislation.


William Moore Benidickson: They are all related. We were asked to deal with this as a package and interrupt the speech from the throne in order to do so.


Richard Albert Bell: I thought I had tried assiduously to answer every question the hon. gentleman asked.


William Moore Benidickson: You certainly have not satisfied us in these respects. At the conclusion of this bill, I assume we revert to the speech from the throne, and we will remain in ignorance about this basic proposal which is the assistance that might be required at this time in western Canada because of climatic conditions.
We are dealing piecemeal with situations of this kind when they arise. I was quite impressed with a presentation that was made in November to the federal-provincial conference on agriculture. I refer to the brief that was presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in which they urged that the time had come when we should have something that was national in scope such as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) and the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) and some others here this evening, namely that we should have available for assistance when emergencies of this kind arise a kind of emergency or disaster credit.
200	HOUSE OF
Short Term Loans to Grain Producers
Certainly something of that kind should be in such a form that it would apply in all sections of the country and would apply to a wider range of crops than are affected by this bill. I point out that, unlike the provisions of the bill that preceded this one which was confined to the constituency of the wheat board patrons, this bill goes beyond that. There is every justification for members of parliament saying, if you are using a form for advancing credit to a certain type of agricultural producer and when you are making available credit assistance to one kind of producer who is not subject to the arbitrary marketing provisions of the wheat board, it should not stop there. The farmers all across Canada today are suffering from the difficulties of restriction of credit. Here we have an extension from the field that is related to the wheat board; there is an opportunity for guaranteed bank credit with respect to the producers of flaxseed, rapeseed and rye. The question, of course, arises, why not the producers of other crops? Why, under these circumstances, restrict guaranteed credit in these difficult financial times to farmers in the geographical area as defined in the wheat board act because other parts of the bill are by no means tied down to the restrictions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Minister's liability to a bank.
Hazen Robert Argue: On clause 3, Mr. Chairman, I would like to advance once again my argument in favour of a 5 per cent interest rate. I feel that 5 per cent is high enough, particularly in view of the argument and well-stated fact that other producers are able to obtain cash advances without any interest charges at all; also, under the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act of 1956 there was a section which limited interest rates to 5 per cent.
If we are to have an interest rate of 6 per cent, which seems obvious, then this will mean an increase of 20 per cent in the interest rate since the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act was placed in the statute books in 1956.
In order to give the house a chance to approve a 5 per cent rate of interest instead of 6 per cent, which undoubtedly will accrue after this bill has passed, judging at any rate from the statements made on the government side of the house, I would like to move:


That clause 3 be amended by adding there to the following paragraph (h):
"the rate of interest charged by the bank on the loan did not exceed 5 per cent per annum simple interest."
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is presented in order to give hon. members a chance to express their opinion on the interest rate, and I feel that such an amendment should be approved at this time. What I have in mind is to add to the first paragraph of clause 3 a sub-paragraph (h), which would limit the guarantee to bank loans that have been advanced at a rate of 5 per cent interest, and I am hoping that the house will approve of this amendment.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the amendment carry?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, may I submit to you that the amendment is out of order. I do so on this ground, that the adoption of this amendment may conceivably enlarge the liability of the crown in relation to this bill. If it does, as I submit, so enlarge, possibly, the liability of the crown, then clearly under the rules of the house it is out of order when moved by a private member.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, I would submit that the point of order advanced by the parliamentary secretary cannot be well taken. This is not an amendment having to do with the direct expenditure of government money. This is merely an amendment that has to do with the administration of this act, the guarantees under the act. On former occasions we have moved a similar amendment to similar legislation which has been considered in order. I appeal to the government members, the cabinet ministers in the house, to cease objections to this motion, because I have every confidence that it is in order. I think the best thing to do is to take a vote on the motion itself, rather than risk the chance of taking the vote at some other stage.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the hon. member not believe in following the rules of the house?


Hazen Robert Argue: Absolutely, and I am sure I am in order.


Thomas Miller Bell: Well, let the chairman rule.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, as I understand the amendment offered by the hon. member for Assiniboia, it imposes limitations as to what the banks of Canada may or may not be able to do. Therefore, I see no relevancy to the finances of the government of Canada. It seems the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance implies

that the government of Canada would have to offer a bribe out of public revenues to the banks in order to implement the legislation.


Thomas Miller Bell: That remark is as nonsensical as the hon. member usually is.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the guarantee is in this bill. The financial commitment of the government is in the bill. This merely says the commitment is made only if the banks make loans at 5 per cent. I suggest that this amendment does not deal with the government's guarantee, which is dealt with elsewhere in this legislation.


John (Jack) McIntosh: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, what assurance have we that the banks would make any loans if the interest rate were 5 per cent? If we vote for this and the banks did not make loans at 5 per cent, it would be useless to the farmers.


Hazen Robert Argue: Now we know that the banks are running this government.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am inclined to think that the amendment would be a restriction on the conditions that may be imposed by the bank, and will not create any additional burden on the public treasury. However, I would like to hear from hon. members as to the possibility that this amendment is irrelevant because it goes beyond the scope of the bill now before the house. If any hon. member would care to discuss this, I would be obliged.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I think the answer to that is very obvious. It does not go beyond the scope of this kind of bill, because we have almost an identical bill in the 1956 statute book. Such a provision was in that legislation and I can see no argument why a motion of this kind could possibly go beyond the scope of this bill. We have a good example of this amendment in a bill in the statute books.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: The hon. member for Assini-boia was here in 1955 and I was not.


An hon. Member:: And you will be here next time, and he will not.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: He knows the interest rate as well as I do.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I must point out to the hon. member that we are discussing the validity of the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for Assiniboia. At this point I would like to hear the views of hon. members.
I do think, myself, that some value attaches to the argument I raised, because this bill intends to guarantee loans made by banks, and there is no question in 79951-0-14
Division
it of the interest, and the object of the bill is to me, simple, namely to guarantee the loan. I feel that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Assiniboia goes beyond the scope of the bill and is irrelevant, and for these reasons I declare it out of order.


Hazen Robert Argue: With great respect we wish to appeal your ruling.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
In committee of the whole, when clause 3 of Bill C-35 to provide for short-term credit to prairie grain producers was being considered, Mr. Argue moved an amendment as follows:
"That clause 3 be amended by adding thereto the following paragraph (h):
The rate of interest charged by the bank on the loan did not exceed 5 per cent per annum simple interest."
The chairman ruled the amendment out of order on the grounds that it was irrelevant and beyond the scope of the bill, whereupon Mr. Argue appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question is an appeal to the house from a ruling of the Chair as follows: in committee of the whole when clause 3 of the Bill C-35, an act to provide for short term credit to prairie grain producers, was being considered Mr. Argue moved an amendment as follows:
"That clause 3 be amended by adding thereto the following new paragraph (h) 'the rate of interest charged by the bank on the loan did not exceed 5 per cent per annum simple interest".
The chairman ruled the amendment out of order on the grounds that it was irrelevant and beyond the scope of the bill, whereupon Mr. Argue appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


Jacques Flynn: When the committee was interrupted we were considering clause 3. Shall clause 3 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before it carries I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he shares the view of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that the banks would make loans under this legislation to persons who would be turned down by the wheat board because landlords would not be able to be co-guarantors, or if he does not agree with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that the banks would insist on the same kind of security that the wheat board would?


Richard Albert Bell: Of course, that is as inaccurate a representation of what the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources said as is the usual case in what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate utters at any time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would give the committee the benefit of his own judgment on the question. With regard to his interpretation of my interpretation of what the minister said, that will speak for itself in the record and will be found to be correct. I think the parliamentary secretary should tell us whether the government has assurance from the banks that they will accept a lesser security than would be required for these cash advances by the wheat board. Surely the parliamentary secretary is going to answer that question.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, the situation is as has been indicated. Negotiations have been going on for a period of time with the banks. I have no doubt whatever that the rate of interest which will be established will be one which will meet with the approval of the farmers, and that the whole approach to this will be one which will be entirely satisfactory to the farmers of western Canada.
As has been indicated in the discussions which have taken place earlier tonight, there are two parts of this particular legislative program. The first is one which provides for cash advances without interest, and for those who wish that it is simple and it is straightforward. There are some others-the minister of northern affairs has mentioned some types-for whom the remedy is not so simple, and for them this legislation will be suitable. This legislation, as has been indicated, will apply probably to a minority group, but it is an important minority and one which I think all hon. members of the house, judging by the indications we have had, will wish to see upheld.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would still like an answer to my question.


Erhart Regier: I wonder if the parliamentary secretary might be able to explain to the committee why the banks ought to express an interest in lending money to farmers, even at the maximum rate they are allowed to charge, if they can buy treasury bills offered by the Minister of Finance, as he did on August 19 last, yielding 6.82 per cent? Does the member not believe that the banks ought to have more confidence in offerings of the Minister of Finance than the offering of the personal assurance of a farmer?


Thomas Miller Bell: That is a purely diversionary tactic by the hon. gentleman.


Erhart Regier: May I remind the hon. member that there was offered on the money markets a total of $358 million of treasury bills that had yields in excess of the allowable bank rate of 6 per cent. Why ought the banks, in all logic, be interested in making loans to the farmers at the maximum rate allowed by the Bank Act, 6 per cent?


Richard Albert Bell: At the appropriate time, and in accordance with the rules of the house, I shall be delighted to deal with that matter and deal in particular with the courage which the Minister of Finance showed in handling the particular situation to which reference is made.


Erhart Regier: All I would add is that the bank management is most realistic and if they can get a higher rate on offerings of the minister I do not believe the banks are going to be very interested in lending their money to the farmers.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Power of bank.


William Moore Benidickson: Clause 6 is preceded by a statement that this refers to the special powers of the banks. I realize that this bill is drafted with regard to some previous legislation along this line in 1956. I do not see any reference in the 1956 act to special
Business of the House powers of banks. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would give us an explanation of the need for this under the particular circumstances here.


Richard Albert Bell: I think, Mr. Chairman, the explanation is quite simple. The 1956 act deals only with threshed grain. This bill deals as well with unthreshed grain, and for that reason this special power is mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now, by leave.


Gordon Minto Churchill: the third reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if, before we adjourn, the leader of the house would tell us what it is proposed to do tomorrow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to thank the house for its co-operation today in getting this legislation through. We will recommence the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne tomorrow, and the same order of business will hold for Monday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the hon. gentleman tell us whether it is now proposed to go through with the debate on the address to its conclusion, without interruption?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes; unless some unforeseen incident occurs, we are not going to interrupt the speech from the throne debate again.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
79951-0-14£
[Stage Direction]
Questions