1960-01-19

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to the house the resignation from the ministry of the Secretary of State, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche). I express my personal deep regret as well as that of my colleagues that the state of the minister's health has made it necessary for him, in his own interests, to tender his resignation.
The hon. member has had a distinguished career as a member of this house between 1949 and 1953 and again since June 10, 1957. He has given of himself unselfishly in the service of parliament and of Canada, both as deputy speaker in this chamber following his appointment on October 14, 1957, and as a member of the administration since May 12, 1958.
I am sure the house will join with me in expressing the hope that in the days ahead he may be able to continue his public service in whatever capacity his health will permit.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the resignation of the Secretary of State delay the nomination of the queen's printer?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is no.



INQUIRY AS TO RESPONSIBILITIES OF DEFENCE MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: May I address a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to tell the house what are the duties and responsibilities of the new Associate Minister of National Defence as compared with those of the Minister of National Defence?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether that is a question asking for a legal opinion. I suppose the hon. member is asking for an interpretation of the act establishing the ministry.


Azellus Denis: I believe you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that this position is a new one-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Ricard:: Where have you been?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubt about the question the hon. member asked, and he is endeavouring to explain what he has in mind.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: A point of order is already before me. Is this the same one?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Minister of Justice as soon as I have heard the hon. member for St. Denis.


Azellus Denis: May I point out that when I said this was a new position I meant that last year there was no associate minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not concerned about that. I am asking the hon. member why he should ask that question. I have given him some reasons why he should not, according to our practice.


Azellus Denis: I did so because it seems to me there is some confusion as to the responsibilities of the two ministers. I want to know this. When an important question of national defence arises, which minister attends to it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should have thought that the answer to why a question of this sort is not in order on the orders of the day, where questions of urgency are supposed to be asked, was self evident to the hon. member. A request that the Prime Minister make a statement as to the difference between the duties of two ministers-a minister and an associate minister-is surely not a question of a nature which should be asked on the orders of the day.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: On this point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it not important, in order to assist us in the direction of our questions, to know how these two equal ministers in one department have divided their duties?


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is undoubtedly important to know the division of responsibility as between the two ministers, but I doubt if this is the proper time to inquire into that subject, and I rule the question out of order.
78	HOUSE OF
Colombo Plan-Statement on Aid to India

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: May I direct a question to the associate minister of defence. Would the minister tell the house the date of the provincial election in Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot accept that question as being within the administrative responsibility of the associate minister. I rule it out of order, and refuse to allow the question to be answered.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short statement to make concerning Canadian Colombo plan aid to India.
The house will wish to know that under the 1959-60 Colombo plan program Canada has agreed to make available to India $25 million, which will be used to provide Canadian commodities and equipment requested by the Indian government to help carry forward its second five-year development plan.
This $25 million will be used for the following purposes: $11.5 million for the provision of industrial metals including aluminum, copper and nickel which are required to maintain an adequate level of industrial activity and employment for the balance of the current five-year plan; $7 million for the provision of wheat to meet urgent food shortages; $2.55 million for fertilizers which will be used to help meet one of India's most urgent problems, increased production of food; $2 million which will be used to purchase diesel locomotives; $130,000 for three cobalt beam therapy units; $700,000 for further work on the $8.7 million Canada-India reactor which is being built near Bombay; $250,000 for radio teletype equipment to assist India in expansion of its meteorological facilities; $120,000 for raw asbestos required for the construction of factories and industrial housing; $750,000 which will be used to carry out feasibility studies on four hydroelectric projects which India has requested Canada to consider for financing under the Colombo plan.
In addition to the foregoing capital aid allocations, Canada is continuing its program of technical co-operation in India as part of its over-all Colombo plan program for south and southeast Asia.
With reference to the 1958-59 program for India, it has now been agreed that $380,000 which had not been allocated to specific projects in that program will be used to provide


$250,000 worth of copper and $130,000 worth of equipment for a scheme to improve the milk distribution system in Calcutta.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the house will, of course, welcome any measure of support under the Colombo plan to assist underdeveloped countries in the world, particularly in Asia and especially India. The Colombo plan was not established within the last two years but is a program that has now had an opportunity of exercising a very beneficial effect, along with the assistance of other countries in the commonwealth and the United States.
The assistance to provide for diesel motors, the assistance given to India by way of purchase of equipment, particularly such things as cobalt 60, likewise does not mark a new effort on the part of the Colombo plan. One can only say that in so far as it is within our power to join with other countries in assisting underdeveloped countries in the world, we are making a very definite contribution to the peace of the world.
However, we would want to be sure that the initiative, for instance, in respect to wheat, came from India itself, and that it was not as the result of a policy created by the government for the purpose not so much of carrying out the main objects of the Colombo plan but of relieving the government from some of its own domestic embarrassments. It would therefore be interesting to know whether or not the initiative for wheat came from the government of India.
Mr. Speaker, the house generally will approve of the main objects of a program designed to assist a country with which Canada has such close traditional and mutual interests.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, as always we in the C.C.F. group welcome and support any move by the government to make moneys available for the operation of the Colombo plan. We think that economic assistance of the type the minister has outlined for a country like India is a service to democracy, and is very much in the interests of the peace of the world. India today faces very grave economic difficulties. Tens of millions of people in that country live on the edge of starvation. For a country like ours, with all the huge surpluses we have of food, this kind of move is one which is not only in the interests of India but is one that we could readily make, and I am hopeful that Canada in the days ahead will be much more generous in this field.
I am not now speaking in criticism of the government, but I hope the Canadian nation


I960
[Stage Direction]
and parliament itself will expand our operations under the Colombo plan and that we shall do far more of this kind of work which is so vitally necessary for the peace of the world.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs with a view to clarification of his statement made earlier today on the subject of the Colombo plan. My question is this. Does the contribution of wheat to the value of some $7 million by Canada involve the setting up of counterpart funds by India to be used by that country to develop her economy, or is it meant as a direct gift without the necessity of setting up counterpart funds?


Howard Charles Green: I will have to take that question as notice.



FINANCE


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies in English and in French of a report which I have received from the chairman of the tariff board. It covers that part of reference 123 which relates to automatic record changers. I am tabling also a transcript of the evidence presented to the board at its public hearings.
Reference 123 was sent to the tariff board in 1957 by my predecessor. The list of tariff items which he referred to the board covered a wide range of products of the radio, television and electronics industry, as well as automatic record changers. Subsequently it developed that the sector of the Canadian industry which produces automatic record changers was anxious that the board proceed as soon as possible with hearings in relation to its products, but that other sectors of the industry wished to have more time to prepare their proposals for presentation to the board. Accordingly I requested the board to deal with record changers separately from the remainder of the reference. The present report has been submitted pursuant to that request.
As hon. members will see from the report, automatic record changers are at present included in tariff item 445o(i). This item provides for free entry of a long list of parts and components, most of which are of a class or kind not made in Canada, when
Tabling of Tariff Board Report imported for use in the manufacture or repair of radios, record players, combinations, etc. The item is at present bound free under GATT.
Automatic record changers have been manufactured in Canada since 1947 by Audio Tool and Engineering Limited or by Seabreeze Manufacturing Limited, an affiliate of Audio. From 1947 to May 1958 Audio produced changers for sale to both Seabreeze and to other Canadian record player manufacturers. Since May of 1958 Seabreeze has been making automatic record changers for its own use, using tooling and manufacturing facilities leased from Audio.
In its presentation to the tariff board, Audio Tool and Engineering requested that the provision for automatic record changers be deleted from item 445o(i). If this were done, both automatic record changers and finished parts thereof would become dutiable under tariff item 597a(2) at the same rates of duty as complete record players and combinations. These rates are 15 per cent under the British preferential tariff and 20 per cent under the most favoured nation tariff.
On the basis of its examination of the evidence the tariff board came to the conclusion that without tariff protection Audio would not be able to resume the production of automatic record changers for sale to record player manufacturers other than its affiliate, and that in time the production of such changers in Canada would be likely to cease entirely. On the other hand the board found that the imposition of a tariff on changers and parts at the rates proposed by Audio would increase the cost of changers to Canadian manufacturers of record players and combinations, and that this might reduce their ability to meet competition from imports of complete record players and combinations. Moreover, the board saw little advantage in the imposition of a duty on parts. It concluded that if parts continued to be admitted free, Audio could be assisted effectively without the imposition of duties on changers as high as those which had been requested.
The tariff board's recommendation, which is set out on page 24 of the report, is to impose a duty of 7J per cent under both the British preferential and most favoured nation tariffs on automatic record changers, while leaving parts of such changers free of duty.
I can assure hon. members that the board's recommendation will receive careful consideration by the government. In this case it would not, of course, be possible to implement the board's recommendation without first securing a modification of our commitment under GATT with respect to item 445o(i).

Inquiries of the Ministry



&quot;CANADIAN ECONOMIC OUTLOOK FOR 1959&quot;   REQUEST FOR TABLING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twil-lingate):: I wonder if the Prime Minister could let the house know how soon the government will table the 1959 edition of his favourite secret publication, the "Canadian Economic Outlook"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before the Prime Minister
answers, I should like to assure him that if he will table it we will circulate it.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


Mr. A. D. McPhillips (Victoria, B.C.) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-31, to amend the Old Age Security Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Mr. Speaker, the short explanation is that this bill, by way of amendment, would remove the restrictions upon outside residence of those pensioners who are Canadian citizens.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ACT


Edmund Davie Fulton: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Department of Justice Act to provide for the appointment of two associate deputy ministers of justice.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question arising out of the joint press release issued today by his department and the Department of Trade and Commerce with regard to the unemployment situation in Canada as of December 10, 1959 in which it is reported that on December 10 there were 549,084 persons on the list of unplaced applicants for jobs as compared with 355,565,


according to the release, on November 12, an increase of 194,319. Will the minister tell the house how many unplaced applicants for jobs there are as of the latest date for which figures are available and in the hands of the minister?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the jump between the two figures from November 12 to December 10 referred to by the hon. member is the result of the seasonal benefits coming into effect on December 1. I do not have with me figures more recent than those that were released by the national employment service as registrations. I do not know the date in which the hon. member is interested.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister may not have available any figures other than those that are in this release of the unemployment insurance commission and the minister's department, but I am asking him if he will give to the house now, particularly in the light of the important debate that began yesterday, the latest figures he has at his disposal showing the number of unplaced applicants for jobs in Canada. I suggest that he give us the figures, let us say, for January 6.


Michael Starr: The number of persons registering at our offices and applying for unemployment insurance was 722,834 as of January 7.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of figure I have asked for, and I am grateful to the minister for giving it. It is a figure which as he knows represents a tremendous increase-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry the hon. member went on to make a positive statement which is not in accordance with the rules.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. 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?


Michael Starr: I have not that information available, but I will be glad to supply it to the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the minister. Would he be in a position to say whether the figure would be between 600,000 and 700,000 persons?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I am not in the same habit as the hon. member for Essex East of projecting figures or even taking guesses.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the recent announcement of the closing of the United States base at St. John's, Newfoundland, the Pepperrell air force base, would the Prime Minister advise this house if his government has any plans to offset the unemployment which will follow as a result?


John George Diefenbaker: All I can say is that everything possible will be done to alleviate the resultant unemployment consequent upon the withdrawal of the United States force in that area.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if there is any truth in the rumour that 50 to 60 Department of Transport employees at Gander airport have received notices of dismissal.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I did not hear the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I could not hear it either. Perhaps, if the hon. member still thinks it is in order, he would repeat it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps we could hear the question.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: Is it true that 50 to 60 employees of the Department of Transport at Gander have received notices of dismissal?


George Harris Hees: Would the hon. member mind repeating the number?


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: Fifty to sixty.


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. The answer is that 30 employees at Gander received notice that their services would no longer be required; and if the hon. member will look back in his file to June 23 he will find a three-page letter from myself explaining in great detail why at this time it would be found necessary to dispense with the services of these employees.



DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry whether he has had further requests from officials of farm organizations with regard to the need for deficiency payments on western grain. Can the Prime Minister say when he will give farm organizations a reply to this submission?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is that the matter is receiving most extensive consideration in the light of all the circumstances.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister say whether it has been brought to his attention that farm unions on the prairies today are engaged in a buyers' strike in an endeavour to get the Prime Minister to come to an early decision?


John George Diefenbaker: I did not know, Mr. Speaker, that they were engaged in a buyers' strike. Not knowing that, of course, I am unaware of any reason for such a suggestion.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourget (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell the house whether the icebreakers stationed in Quebec city harbour and in the lower St. Lawrence are there to maintain ocean shipping in wintertime up to Quebec city?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, we do not have sufficient icebreakers to perform that task. As the hon. member knows very well, the small icebreaker in Quebec harbour has three specific tasks: first, making sure that the ferry goes across from Levis to Quebec city and back; second, to make sure that ice does not accumulate under the Quebec bridge; and third, to see that much needed supplies are delivered to certain island communities that otherwise would not receive supplies. Other icebreakers are working farther down the river and in the maritime area and in the gulf. They are kept busy all the time, and our icebreaker force is taxed to capacity at all times during the winter months.


Mr. Hellyer:: This government is used to being taxed to capacity.


Maurice Bourget: Is the minister aware of the statement made by Captain T. N. Beaton, commander of the British ship Granwood, to the effect that winter navigation to Quebec city requires a definite undertaking that icebreakers will be available to assist the ships?

Inquiries of the Ministry As I understood the answer given by the minister, there are not enough icebreakers. The minister must know that there are shipyards at Levis-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Maurice Bourget: Does he mean by this answer-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has given sufficient of his question now to get an answer.


George Harris Hees: May I answer the question and say that the rate of production of icebreakers since this government came into office is considerably greater than when the government of the hon. member's party was in office.


Maurice Bourget: A supplementary question. Is the minister not aware that with respect to most of the icebreakers that have been built, all the plans were prepared by the previous government?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I was unable to hear that question. If the hon. member wishes to repeat it, and if the house will remain silent, I will determine whether it is in order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was a statement.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
a supplementary question of the minister, which I hope he will answer. Is it the minister's intention to assist ocean ships which desire to service the city of Quebec by means of the transportation of cargo?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, we assist all ships that we can up to the limit of our capacity, and our capacity at the present time has already been reached.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direot a question to the Minister of National Defence, notice of which I sent to him. In the event of a seaman serving on one of Her Majesty's Canadian ships absenting himself without leave in a foreign port, what measures are taken or procedures followed to find him?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Hubert Badanai: How many days are allowed to elapse before steps are taken to track him down?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, if a seaman serving in one of Her Majesty's Canadian ships absents himself without leave in a foreign port, the procedure is that the port authorities will be notified, and the senior naval authorities are also notified. If it is a foreign country which is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, then that country is required to assist in the arrest and handing over to Canadian authorities of the absentee. If the country is not a member of the NATO organization, then that country has the right to apply its own immigration laws.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, to whom I offer my congratulations and best wishes upon his appointment. However, there is a matter which I think should be cleared up right at the beginning of his tenure of office. I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to either confirm or deny a statement reported by the press to have been made by him shortly after his appointment as Minister of Public Works, to the effect that only Conservatives-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he is framing his question in a way which forces me to rule it out of order. He knows the practice is not to permit questions which simply ask for confirmation or denial of press reports. If he has some request for information perhaps he could put it in a form which would conform to the practice.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Perhaps if I worded it in this way it would be all right. Is it still the intention of the Minister of Public Works to permit members of the Conservative party to have the privilege of announcing public works projects in their ridings, when this privilege is denied to members of the Liberal or C.C.F. parties?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his congratulations, and to say that it is most difficult to give a definite answer to a hypothetical question.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Does the minister deny having said what was reported in the press?


Some hon. Members:: Order.



I960

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry ARTS. LETTERS AND SCIENCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Payne (Coast-Capilano):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Will the minister inform the house whether her department is taking any action with reference to the alleged illegal entry into this country of Chinese persons from Hong Kong, as reported recently in articles appearing in the Canadian and Hong Kong press?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the alleged illegal entry of persons into Canada from the mainland of China, Macao and Hong Kong has been a matter of grave concern to my department for some time. Early last year I directed that the situation should be thoroughly investigated. A departmental official went from Ottawa to Hong Kong to consult with the British police, and an exhaustive examination of the situation has been in progress for some months in close co-operation with the authorities of the colony.
It is a little early as yet to evaluate the extent of the alleged illegal entries, but there are indications that a number of persons may be involved both in Canada and in the Far East. I think that is about all the information I can give at the present time.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister relating to his announcement last night of a Hoover type commission on efficiency in Canada, and his other views on the much sharper division of the executive and legislative functions in the United States. Has the government considered the possibility that such a commission may necessarily make recommendations on the function of the executive, and perhaps even judge the executive on its merits, thus invading the responsibility of this legislature?


John George Diefenbaker: If any such commission is set up there will be no invasion of any of those constitutional rights which are not proper subjects for the consideration of such a commission.



UNIVERSITY GRANTS-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will he be good enough to table the correspondence between himself and the provincial premiers in connection with university grants; and would he see, as has been the custom in the past, that this correspondence is printed as an appendix to Hansard?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.
gentleman will agree that the permission of the provinces will have to be requested. If that permission is granted I will comply at once with his suggestion.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the Prime Minister
would, at the same time, seek permission to table all the correspondence with the provinces with regard to the proposed amendment to the constitution?


John George Diefenbaker: I made no suggestion, Mr. Speaker, concerning correspondence with the provinces as of this date. I simply expressed-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The speech from the throne does; I refer to the amendment mentioned in the speech from the throne.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I beg your pardon.
Yes, that will be done, again subject to the usual qualifications.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might be allowed to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question now. Has there been any correspondence with the provinces with respect to a project for amending the constitution in Canada at any time by the present government?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is a rather
broad matter to put as an oral question. It seems to me that it involves inquiry over events of the past two years. There is nothing urgent about it. The hon. gentleman can get the information through the order paper in the usual way.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, dealing with your statement; you will be aware, of course, that the Prime Minister mentioned this matter last night. It is not

Inquiries of the Ministry one that is in the speech from the throne, and it is one that has caused a great deal of interest, so we are seeking to elicit information on it.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that the hon. member is entitled to the information, and to ask for it, but I suggest that the proper way to do so is the way I have mentioned.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On that point, Mr. Speaker, how can we debate this matter during the speech from the throne debate which is now taking place unless we get this information at once from the government?


Mr. Speaker:: That is not what is meant by urgency, as I understand the rules.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO CALLING OP CONFERENCE ON FISCAL MATTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: So that the Minister of Finance will not be left out of these important matters, may I ask him, now that the seminar and study groups on fiscal problems have been completed, if he has yet succeeded in persuading the Prime Minister to set a date for the promised federal-provincial conference on fiscal relations? If the minister would be embarrassed by answering I will fully understand.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman is all mixed up as usual. He keeps talking about a seminar or study group, but that is not a proper way to refer to a very important continuing committee of officials first established, I may say, under the government of which he was a not inconspicuous or always silent member. The committee has continued its studies. It rendered very valuable services in its reports to the meeting of finance ministers and provincial treasurers that was held in this capital in October, and that continuing committee is pursuing its important studies with a view to rendering assistance to future conferences of ministers of finance and provincial treasurers, as was intended from the outset.
As to the dominion-provincial meeting the hon. gentleman, if he has not been completely oblivious to what is going on, must be aware that an announcement was made on behalf of the government last October that in mid-1960 it is the intention of the government to convene a dominion-provincial conference for the purpose of discussing fiscal arrangements between the dominion and the provinces with respect to the period following the conclusion of the present quinquennial period on March 31, 1962.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank my
hon. friend for the full information he has given us. Is that the conference which was promised and which was supposed to have been held two months after the federal election of 1957?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, that will be a better conference than any the hon. gentleman ever called or attended.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and ask him whether it is true that he himself or his government exerted any pressure or influence on the air transport board with regard to its issuance of a licence to Canadian Pacific Air Lines for a domestic air transcontinental flight.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the name of the company.


Frank Howard: Canadian Pacific Air Lines. A licence was issued to establish their domestic transcontinental flights.


George Harris Hees: No, we have not exerted any pressure whatsoever.


Frank Howard: As a supplementary question, may I ask the minister to communicate that information to the Progressive Conservative party national association, so they can get their propaganda more in line with the facts.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arihabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is there any import control on turkeys, broilers and chickens coming from United States?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minisier of Agriculture):: There is in effect import control on turkeys coming into this country from any source. There is no import control on chickens.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I ask
the Minister of Public Works whether he is in a position to answer the question which I asked of him yesterday?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to have an answer ready for the hon. member on Thursday next.
[Later:}


Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, and ask him if it is the practice of the government to postpone either the awarding of a contract or a housing project or plan itself on the recommendation of a member of parliament?


David James Walker: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question. Why, then, was the housing project in the city of Cornwall deferred on the recommendation of the hon. member for Stormont, in accordance with his own statement to a local paper, which I will read if the minister wishes, in which it is clearly stated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has completed his question.


Lionel Chevrier: Then will the minister answer it?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the date for awarding the contract is February 12. When that day arrives the matter will be dealt with on the responsibility of the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I might ask another supplementary question, because the minister did not answer my question. My question was, how is it that a member of parliament can, by recommendation made to the minister, defer a contract of this nature, as he so stated to the press?


David James Walker: I have already answered the question, with great respect.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. In view of the critical unemployment situation in the Atlantic provinces-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Ask your question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the house is getting unduly critical when it refuses to hear the question. It is quite customary to introduce a question with an "in view of" prefix, as long as the hon. member does not attempt to make a speech. Would the hon. member please put his question.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I will abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker, although the unemployment mentioned today in the report that was released by the minister is extremely critical.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Ask your question.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not necessary for the hon. member to comment on my ruling. I am trying to obtain a hearing for him.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In order to avoid mass lay-offs in the coal mines of Nova Scotia similar to the release last month of 600 workers at the Eastern Car Company plant in Trenton, Nova Scotia, can the minister advise the house whether he has consulted with the dominion coal board in this regard and also whether action is being contemplated by the government in order to avoid periodical lay-offs in the coal mines similar to the one which took place in the winter of 1959?


Hon. Paul Comiois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Gloucester I must say that this matter is under full consideration every day of every week of every month by this government, which has done more than any other one since it has been in power. I do not have the report on the lay-offs at the Trenton company, but there have been no lay-offs in the coal mines, as far as I know, and I do not think there will be any more lay-offs than there were last year, in spite of the reduction in production. The proof that this government looks after the matter is that it has instituted a royal commission on coal. Mr. Justice Rand is already working on this inquiry, and he will start his inquiry in Regina at the beginning of next month.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have a supplementary question. As the hon. member is not aware of any lay-offs taking place, has he been informed by the companies concerned that lay-offs will take place this winter?


Paul Comtois: No, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rosemoni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In the light of the last figures on unemployment

Inquiries of the Ministry just given by the minister, and in view of the seriousness of the situation, does the minister not think a date should be set immediately for a general debate on unemployment? If so, when can we expect such a debate to take place?


Michael Starr: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Order. I think the hon. member is inquiring into the business of the house at this time, and I should think his question should more properly be directed to the leader of the house.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the leader of the house. In view of the last figures just given by the Minister of Labour on unemployment, when can we expect that a general debate on unemployment will be provided for in this house?
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): The figures to which the hon. member refers are not the accurate figures.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister gave them.


Michael Starr: They are not accurate figures. That is manipulation by that man over there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: And he is prepared to manipulate more.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has just suggested that the figures that have been given are as the result of manipulation by me.


Michael Starr: That is right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member now confirms that statement. The word "manipulation" is a reflection on my character.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think I need to spend any more time other than to say that the figure of 722,834 representing men without jobs was given by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order did not relate to the figures given by the Minister of Labour. It related to the reflection on the character of the hon. member for Essex East, who has indicated to the house his objection to the expression that he manipulated the

figures. I leave it to those concerned to say anything further on the subject if they wish to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point that has been raised by the hon. member for Essex East-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member permit the hon. member who made the statement, if he wishes to do so, to say something on the matter?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I used the word "manipulation", and I used it correctly as it reflects on what has been said by the hon. member for Essex East. The hon. member for Essex East as well as others received a dominion bureau of statistics release in January on the labour situation. The official release shows those who are seeking work, and the correct figure is 370,000. However, this did not suit the hon. member for Essex East, because it was not what he expected; so he looked up the registrations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Has the minister anything to say about the expression to which objection has been taken?


Michael Starr: No. I used it only in the mildest of terms.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rose to deal with the points which had been raised. Your Honour gave an opportunity to the minister to reply, and he did not give any reason why he used the word "manipulation"-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: -with reference to the figures given by the minister himself. The word "manipulation" constitutes a reflection on the character of the hon. member for Essex East, and the minister should withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may deal with the question of privilege, it seems to me members are getting a little touchy too early in the session, if they feel that the word "manipulation" is really a reflection upon their character. After all, one would have to manipulate the rules quite a bit in order to arrive at that conclusion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As you yourself said, Mr. Speaker, there is no point in being needlessly touchy so early in the session, and I rather thought I had indicated that was not my concern. However, the minister has now put in his own release, and I call your attention, in defence of what has been said, to table 2, in which in the first column a figure of 549,000-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to have the question of the meaning of these labour figures debated; it is not the appropriate time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree.


Mr. Speaker:: In order to ease the feelings of the hon. member, may I say that the dictionary says that the word manipulation means "to handle with skill".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I say, very humbly, that I recognize the validity of that reference.


Frank Howard: May I address a question to the house leader, who was apparently manipulated out of answering- perhaps because of the hon. member on this side-the question with respect to a debate on unemployment.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting patiently to answer the question, and I was going to say that there will be plenty of opportunity to raise such matters during the course of the debate on the address, or subsequently on supply motions during the course of the session.



BILL OF RIGHTS-INQUIRY AS TO REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question which also has something to do with manipulation. Would he inform the house whether it is his intention to send the bill of rights to a committee, and if so, what kind of committee?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when the bill of rights is introduced there will be a discussion and an indication as to the procedure to be followed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister if he does not think it would be fair to the opposition to let them know in advance of the introduction of the bill and the procedure which will be followed with regard to its later consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: I agree entirely.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the hon. member for Mackenzie
Inquiries of the Ministry River asked a question, which appears on page 11 of Hansard and is as follows:
Did the government request the Federal Electric Company to issue orders under threat of dismissal to D.E.W. line personnel against fraternizing with Eskimos? If not, can the Prime Minister tell me under what statute a foreign company can prevent Canadians from such fraternizing?
This question has been transferred to me and the answer is as follows: The Federal Electric Corporation is contractually bound to abide by the provisions of an agreement dated May 5, 1955, between the governments of Canada and the United States to govern the establishment of a distant early warning line in Canadian territory. This agreement provides, among other things, at the specific request of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, that contact with Eskimos, other than those employed on any aspect of the project, is to be avoided except in cases of emergency.
The purpose of this provision was to reduce to a minimum the disruption of the Eskimo economy, the exposure of Eskimos to diseases against which their immunity is often low, and the general impact of large numbers of single men in a barracks type of life among numerically smaller groups of people living as family units.


Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, my question referred in the first place to an order by the Federal Electric Company to its employees dated September 10, 1959, and I asked: Did the government request Federal Electric to pass on such an order?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I tried to make it clear in my answer that any instructions given to Federal Electric Corporation were part of a contract drawn in 1955. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has not issued any specific instructions. I presume that the company looking at its contract, has decided to issue the order on its own initiative.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: May I ask a supplementary question. Is this order applicable to the whole D.E.W. line?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member is referring to an order issued by a private company. In those circumstances it would scarcely be within the administrative responsibility of the minister.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: May I ask the minister if he would interpret as a contravention of that order the picture of the Minister of Transport and his wife, who were depicted on a Christmas card last year as fraternizing with Eskimos.

Advance Payments to Grain Producers FISHERIES



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver East asked if I had received any request for assistance to enable the re-establishment of the herring fishing industry in British Columbia, which has now closed down. To this date I have received no such request.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Bourget: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister inform the house when the contract for the construction of a post office at St. Maxime de Scott, county of Dorchester, for which tenders were received on December 16, 1959, will be awarded to the lowest bidder?


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear all the question, but I think it relates to something which is not of such urgency that it might not be placed on the order paper. Would the hon. member agree with that?


Maurice Bourget: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not hear you.


Mr. Speaker:: Then we are both in the same difficulty. However, if the hon. member would place his question on the order paper I think that would be the better course.



PROVISION FOR ADVANCE PAYMENTS TO PRODUCERS

Gordon Minto Churchill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the making of provisional payments to the producers for the 1959-60 crop year in respect of unthreshed grain in the designated area, as defined in the Canadian Wheat Board Act; and to provide for the costs, expenses and other financial obligations required in the making of such advances; such measure to include such further related and consequential provisions as are necessary to give effect to the foregoing.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, before commencing my remarks on the resolution may I take this opportunity of congratulating you on your appointment to the high office you
[Mr. Hardie.l
now hold, and wish you well in the performance of your duties which I know you will carry out with great capability.
I have, Mr. Chairman, a short statement at the resolution stage; holding the view that the debate at the resolution stage need not be prolonged if the measure is not highly controversial, though I know that view is not held by all hon. members of the committee because we have had discussions on it on other occasions. However, I propose to make a short statement at the resolution stage and reserve a more lengthy discussion of the bill until later stages.
The government has been concerned in recent months with the problem faced by western grain farmers who because of abnormal and unseasonable rain and snow storms have been prevented from harvesting their crops. The wheat board undertook a survey of unharvested grain and flaxseed as of October 16. This survey indicated that 250 million bushels of wheat, oats, barley, rye and flaxseed remained unthreshed as at mid-October. This represented about 27 per cent of the estimated 1959 harvest in the prairie provinces. It was more serious for producers in wide areas in central and northern Alberta, in northern Saskatchewan and in northern and eastern Manitoba where from 50 per cent to 100 per cent of the 1959 grain crops were unharvested.
In November and again in the first half of December weather conditions were such that producers in many areas could get on with harvesting operations. The wheat board surveyed the position again in the first week of December, and at that time it was estimated that 100 million bushels of grain remained unthreshed. Thus, according to the best estimates available, the quantity of unthreshed grain diminished by about 150 million bushels between mid-October and the first week of December.
While the over-all problem has diminished in extent there are many producers in each of the western provinces, especially in the more northerly areas, who have been unable to complete a major part of their harvesting. These producers must await the spring before they can thresh the grain under the snow.
The proposed legislation is designed specifically to meet the needs of producers whose income is deferred until they have an opportunity to complete harvesting operations. The fact that considerable progress has been made in harvesting since mid-October does not in any way subtract from the problems of producers who have been unable to make substantial progress in threshing their 1959 grain crops. In the light of the experience with

cash advances under the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act the government feels that the principle and procedures of that act can be applied in meeting the exceptional circumstances which now exist in respect to that portion of the 1959 wheat, oats and barley crops which remain unthreshed or partially unthreshed.
In the case of unthreshed grain the future position cannot, of course, be precisely defined. Neither producers nor elevator agents know how much grain will ultimately be threshed or to what extent weathering will affect the grades. However, it is felt that this element of uncertainty can be overcome through the practice of endorsing permit books when advances are made, and by prudent limitations on the amount of advances on unthreshed grain.
I would like to make it clear that the resolution does not anticipate legislation which will in any way interfere with the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act, which provides for cash advances on threshed grain. The proposed legislation will have a limited operative period and will be supplementary to the legislation now on the statute books.
That is a brief summary of the purpose and scope of the legislation which will be introduced on the passage of the resolution now before the committee. I will, of course, have more to say about the details of the proposed legislation at the proper time.


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, it gives me very much pleasure as the first speaker on this side of the house who rises after you have assumed the chair as Deputy Speaker this session to express on behalf of those on this side our satisfaction with the appointment that has been made. Many of us who have sat with you not only in the house but more intimately in the committee work of the house have become well aware of your high qualifications for the position you are assuming, and of your fairness. We have every confidence in the good judgment that you will exercise in the very high position you now enjoy.
We were interested in the information that has been provided at this stage by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We are asked in this resolution to make some provision on an emergency basis for the difficulties that have been encountered by the grain growers of western Canada through no fault of their own who, by reason of climatic conditions, are finding themselves unable to harvest a very substantial portion of the fruits of their summer's labour.
We have in recent memory, of course, had three or four similar experiences, and I think
Advance Payments to Grain Producers on each of these occasions, fortunately, the subsequent harvest in the spring resulted in a loss somewhat less than was feared in the autumn. I hope that again this year with respect to this crop the disaster we are considering will be potential and will not prove to be already assured.
The minister reported on a wheat board survey taken in the first week of December of last year, in which it was estimated that after the harvest that followed the early snows, instead of the original estimate of 250 million bushels of grain under snow we found in the beginning of December some 100 million bushels of grain of all types. That may be, but on the other hand there have been some other sources of information at approximately the time referred to by the minister. The largest grain growing province, Saskatchewan, in a crop report dated December 8, 1959, indicated that on a provincial basis as of November 30 of approximately 17 per cent of the wheat and 14 per cent of the oats, barley and flax acreage remained unharvested. While I have not done the mathematics on it in relation to the minister's 100 million bushel figure, I believe we may readily appreciate that the Saskatchewan report would indicate there is much more grain remaining unharvested if a similar experience has been the result in the provinces of Manitoba and Alberta as well.
We realize there are many sources for providing the needed funds in this emergency to the families of these producers who are in this predicament because of the weather. I was glad to hear yesterday from the Minister of Trade and Commerce an announcement to the effect that attention was being given to a means of generating funds that would be important in this area, namely the greatest possible expedition in the provision of an interim payment under the Wheat Board to the producers who have been able to deliver some grain; and of course even those who have grain under the snow have in most cases, in addition, some other grain to deliver.
In addition, when on November 27 the Prime Minister made what I suggest was his rather belated statement to those anxiously awaiting it, he indicated that an effort would be made to accelerate the payments that would be forthcoming under the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The minister made no reference to that. I hope that at the earliest opportunity during this debate he will endeavour to inform the house as to what speed-up with respect to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act payments has been found possible in accordance with the Prime Minister's assurance on November 27.

Advance Payments to Grain Producers
The problem is worthy of attention on an emergency basis, and this party has no intention other than to accept the provisions of the provisional payments bill which, under the circumstances, we were given an opportunity to read over the week end because the throne speech debate was to be interrupted for that purpose. But after I say that I want to say with the greatest possible emphasis that when we read the bill I personally, and all in our group, were astonished to find that it has no reference to another form of assistance in this emergency, which we have read about in the press and about which no statement was made by the minister, the Prime Minister or any member of the government since we assembled last week. I refer, of course, to what we have been hearing in connection with an offer that has been made by the government to the three western provinces under which, under certain conditions, the federal government indicated that it would be prepared to make a proposition on a 50-50 basis that would provide some form of relief or assistance to these same grain growers for the same purpose.
There is a second resolution on the order paper. I may say that we are not the only ones caught by surprise by the emptiness of the information that has been made available in these two bills. In addition to the legislation that we are called upon to deal with at this time, I may say that it was our expectation when the throne speech debate was interrupted for the purpose of dealing with this problem that probably the first and foremost of all of the proposals would be the proposal that I referred to and that we have been reading about, namely assistance to those who had more than 50 per cent of their grain under snow.
I say that we are not the only ones caught by surprise, because I find that just as we ourselves had this expectation, the Canadian Press, whose items are circulated throughout the country, had indicated that this procedure was likely to be followed, and the despatch says that the major provision would be the federal assumption of half the cost of the payment of $3 an acre to a maximum of 200 acres to farmers with 50 per cent or more of their grain unthreshed because of snow. We find nothing with respect to that interesting and important proposition in either this resolution, in the bill that follows or in the second resolution or the bill that accompanies the resolution with respect to guaranteed bank loans. I say that this is a very great surprise.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, if my hon. friend will permit me I think he
[Mr. Benidickson.l

will appreciate that this is the sort of proposal that requires an item in the estimates, and it will be forthcoming in the supplementary estimates.


William Moore Benidickson: Oh, Mr. Chairman, that is an astonishing statement for the minister to make, whom we regard as being in charge of the treasury and who believes that parliamentary approval is of the utmost importance in anything as large as this.
I want to point out that when the Prime Minister made his statement about the various things that might be done to deal with this emergency in western Canada he indicated that what we are dealing with now was merely a possibility, not a probability or a certainty. He did say that what was a certainty was a proposition to the provinces in connection with this relief or assistance, but that is not put before us in any legislative shape or form for this debate which is called an emergency debate. I say that we should be presented with that proposal, because that is the basis for assistance. We should be presented with that before we are asked for these other measures which will really be built upon that base.
To show the consistency of that position, I understand that when this communication was given to the three western premiers in late November the premier of Saskatchewan replied immediately and said: I note that you have made this proposition to us with respect to a 50-50 undertaking for relief under the terms that have been outlined but, in addition you assure the country and us that these farmers will also have, when parliament assembles, legislation in the form of guaranteed bank loans. Premier Douglas said, "The emergency exists now, suffering is taking place now". He said that in times past when this type of thing had to be dealt with, previous administrations had gone to the banks and indicated that the situation demanded relief immediately, and as soon as parliament assembled the ministry gave an undertaking that it would submit to parliament legislation that would have a retroactive effect in so far as a bank guarantee was concerned.
What was the answer of the Prime Minister of this country to that question from the premier of Saskatchewan? I can just see him. Oh, he threw up his hands. He had the appearance of great respect for parliament. He said, "My goodness, I could not possibly anticipate the opinion of my parliamentary colleagues with respect to a matter of this kind. We have to await the assembly of parliament to see".
Now, what was he talking about? He was talking about a guarantee to banks which is



I960

[Stage Direction]
not likely to involve the crown in any expenditure whatever. We have had something similar in the past on several occasions, and on no occasion have those guaranteed loans to farmers under those conditions resulted in any loss of a substantial nature to the crown under the guarantee. But when it comes to something that does involve perhaps a substantial amount of financial contribution on the part of the federal government and involves a policy that, as has been said by the minister of agriculture in Alberta, sets a precedent and is unique, is an I.O.U. or virtually a promise in some form, the promise is given by the Prime Minister without any reference to parliament and when parliament assembles it is not even put before us.
I say that if there has ever been in the past an affront to parliament of that magnitude I would like to have the ministry give me some illustration of it. I feel it is completely improper to ask this house to deal with these two forms of relief under the circumstances without at the same time, and even in advance of these two resolutions, asking us to deal with the proposition that involves a financial contribution of substance namely the partnership proposition with the western provinces.
With respect to this piece of legislation, as the minister has said, basically it simply provides the same form of cash advances for unthreshed grain as are presently available under the 1957 legislation for threshed grain. With that, this party has no quarrel and has a desire to support the proposed legislation. But we say that this legislation should be preceded by legislation that properly puts before the house the entire plan for dealing with this emergency in western Canada, and most particularly the one proposition out of three that has some financial commitments and consequences connected with it. This particular legislation is really concerned only with cash advance payments to wheat board permit book holders and the only liability of the crown is in connection with the interest charges until such time as there is default on the part of the producer, if any default occurs.
I have not a report subsequent to the first year of operation of the 1957 advance payments scheme, but I find that the interest charges which were passed on by the wheat board to the government in that first year amounted to about $450,000. We have no information whatever, either from the statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Prime Minister, with respect to the cost or indeed the plan or indeed the degree of acceptance of the plan by the provinces with respect to the third important part of the program. It is not in this legislation. In
Advance Payments to Grain Producers fact, what we have today is really government by press release; that is all we know, what was provided by the press. We are put in an impossible position to try to properly debate this proposal with respect to provisional payments in the absence of any information as to what is being done, what acceptance there has been of the proposition or the terms of it. We understand that each province is imposing special need tests which are considerably more restrictive than the broad outline of the proposition which was made by the federal government.
In addition to that, we know that there are farmers in other parts of Canada who have had similar catastrophes as a result of weather. They have a very earnest interest in a matter of this kind. The legislation that will follow the second bank guarantee resolution, of course, is not restricted to production that is related to the wheat board act. It is broader than that, so farmers in other parts across Canada are concerned about it. In addition, I understand that the arrangements with the provinces embrace not only the type of production that is subject to the wheat board laws, which more or less demand that the producer deal exclusively with the wheat board, the government agency, but other production as well. The western wheat farmer is not free, like some other producers, to deal with anybody but the government. I believe the minister will agree that the new proposition to the provinces goes beyond that, and therefore farmers in other parts of the country naturally have a considerable interest in it. This, as the minister of agriculture for Alberta has said, is precedent making, yet we hear nothing about it whatever.
I suggest to the minister he give consideration to this, and give assurance that he will bring forward for immediate discussion, parallel with the measure we are now discussing and not sometime later in the session, legislation upon which the basic proposition rests and upon which all the rest of it is built, namely, the offer that was made to the provinces of the west.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. gentleman tell the house how it is possible at this stage of the session to introduce supplementary estimates? There is no committee of supply. It would be against constitutional practice to propose a committee of supply when there is a want of confidence motion pending. The committee of supply is not set up until the debate on the speech from the throne has been disposed of.


William Moore Benidickson: I am astonished at this proposition coming from the Minister of Finance, who is so well informed, not only about the experience of this house over the

Advance Payments to Grain Producers years but also the fact that time and time again where new programs are introduced involving cost sharing responsibility with respect to something that includes provincial participation, we do it without any estimate but with a bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are getting away from the point entirely; it is a question of estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We want a bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a question of the rights of parliament.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My, how you have changed since those brave days of 1956.


William Moore Benidickson: As I pointed out, the Prime Minister said it would be an affront to parliament if, in advance of its assembly, he indicated to the banks they could, as in other past similar emergencies, start paying out funds to these needy farmers and then subsequently the banks would get from parliament, in legislative form, the necessary guarantees. The Prime Minister says he could not give that, but he has given an i.o.u. in the same form without consulting parliament and bypassing parliament in connection with this major expenditure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is untrue, and you must realize that.


William Moore Benidickson: It is not untrue in any shape or form. My. hon. friend has a great habit of calling black white and vice versa.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I call that untrue right now.


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend will have an opportunity to speak and explain the proposition, but he simply cannot answer that. We have from time immemorial, when introducing a new shared responsibility program, put it in legislative form. I refer to such things as unemployment assistance, old age assistance, and so on. All of those propositions in which a new principle is involved are introduced in this house by legislation, and it is that which provides the government with the authority to make the agreement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are fine people to be talking about that now.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I have leave, before the leader of the C.C.F. party speaks, to ask the hon. member a question? Am I right in assuming, where there is a statute dealing with a certain matter, that the Prime Minister should make a pledge to the premier of Saskatchewan-


Lester Bowles Pearson: What statute?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -that he will take certain action in contravention of that statute, without calling parliament?


William Moore Benidickson: I am saying the Prime Minister has done exactly that without a statute. He has given an i.o.u. to the provinces upon which they apparently are relying because machinery has been set up-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before it has been introduced.


William Moore Benidickson: -for these payments. I am not objecting to that. I am saying an emergency existed and probably some proposition to the provinces was necessary. What I say is that now parliament has assembled, at the first opportunity parliament should be asked to ratify the proposition of the Prime Minister. Surely, the Prime Minister has enough regard for parliament that he would want the opinion of the parliamentarians assembled here with respect to this proposition.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is room to take objection to the method that the government is following in introducing these two measures without introducing the companion measure that would provide the farmer with some cash. What the government is really doing, particularly under the legislation that provides for guarantees on bank loans, is to say to the farmers of the west who are in this emergency, we will ask the unanimous consent of the House of Commons to interrupt its procedures so that you can get a mortgage, so that you can incur a debt from the bank, but we will not ask parliament to interrupt its procedures in order that money be made available to pay you cash for the grain under the snow.
One would wonder whether the government by this operation, without the companion operation, is interested in putting the farmers more deeply in debt, getting them further obligated to the banks of this country. I would hope that the government will ask the members of the house to take this emergency action. As a matter of fact, and I do next think this would be breaking a confidence-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Is the hon. member opposed to the bank loans?


Hazen Robert Argue: Is that not a bright remark, Mr. Chairman? I did not expect to be able to get ahead of my hon. friend.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Hazen Robert Argue: However, I thought that I would be able to get this point across, namely that we should like to have been asked to deal with all three measures, particularly the one that is of the greatest benefit, instead of being asked to deal with only two measures.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Would you
answer my question?


Hazen Robert Argue: We are very much in favour of this legislation. I was about to say, Mr. Chairman-and I do not think this would be breaking a confidence; if it is, I will apologize-but I was asked by the government whip whether I or our group would have any objection to following the procedure of interrupting the debate on the speech from the throne so that we might deal with legislation having to do with the emergency grain position in western Canada. My immediate reply was that I was sure we would be pleased to follow this procedure. The hon. gentleman did not spell out to me exactly what was involved and I therefore assumed that the government was going to ask parliament to set aside the debate on the speech from the throne so that we could take the appropriate steps to make the money available to the farmers, namely the $3 per acre payment. Hence, instead of being opposed to anything that has been going on, as the implication has been made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, we have been most happy to co-operate in every way to see that this legislation is passed through parliament.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It did not sound like it.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Finance takes
a rather strange position. His is a procedural opposition to giving some money to the western farmers at this time. I think it is not only an important practice but the most important practice of parliament, namely that parliament is the master of its own procedure and that while there are important practices and procedures, these can be interrupted or can be modified with the unanimous consent of the house. Instead of raising this procedural objection in order to withhold money that is badly needed at this time I suggest that the Minister of Finance, through the leader of the house, should ask the house for unanimous consent to proceed with the other measure at this time so that the farmers will have a chance to get the money they so badly need. I ask the minister from Saskatchewan whether he would not support this procedure by parliament so that the money might be made available at this time.
When the resolution was being introduced the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that he did not think that at this particular stage of the debate very much discussion would be needed and that the main discussion could take place on the bill. I am rather sceptical of statements by ministers of the crown with regard to the value of debate on the resolution preceding a measure that
Advance Payments to Grain Producers is to come before this house. I consider the debate on the resolution stage of a money bill is an exceedingly important part of our deliberations. There is here afforded the opportunity for members to bring forward their objections to legislation, their criticism or their suggestions for improvements in time for the government to consider important changes to the bill before it is in fact introduced.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I judge that the hon. member, from my earlier remarks on the importance of the resolution stage, did not draw the inference that when I was in opposition I discussed this point at great length and reached the conclusion, from a study of historical documents and rule books, that the resolution stage is not as important as are other stages of the bill. Just because I happen to be a minister of the crown now I am not suggesting any curtailment of debate. My opinion was based on my survey of the situation years ago when I was on the other side of the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is an even more disturbing statement than the original one, particularly in view of the statement that has been made by the Prime Minister dumping the whole question of procedure and changes in the rules in this house in another debate. I want to warn the government that they will be in serious difficulty if any effort is made by the government to have its majority override the minority group or groups in this house in order to bring about a change in the rules that will curtail the necessary opportunity for discussion by members of parliament and by members of the minority groups.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no such suggestion as that, and the hon. member knows it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not too sure. I have watched this government in operation for some time. I remember when they were on this side of the house how strongly they obj ected to legislation-


Mr. Jones:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. What has this to do with the resolution?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I think this has an extremely important bearing on the resolution that is before us. I am discussing the procedure of the house in bringing forth this resolution and there has been substantial discussion on this very point this afternoon.
I was about to say, Mr. Chairman, that when hon. members opposite were on this

Advance Payments to Grain Producers side of the house they took the greatest exception possible to the government's legislating by an item in the estimates. I think it would have been preferable, not only to have brought in the matter of payments for grain under the snow at this time but to have done so by legislation in the proper and regular manner.
As to the problem itself on the prairies, may I say that this is not a problem that has occurred this year only. It is a problem we have had in various degrees in other years in the past. No one knows just how serious the problem may finally be until we know whether or not and to what extent the grain now under the snow can be salvaged in the spring. A few years ago when a much larger percentage of the crop went through the winter, spring conditions were exceptional and a very high percentage-almost 100 per cent-of the grain was recovered in the spring, and it was very often in better condition than the grain that was harvested in the fall before the snow came.
I was not aware of the figures until the minister made them public to us of the great progress in harvesting that had taken place during the month of November. There is one thing of which western farmers are capable, namely using their machinery and their know-how, in spite of adverse conditions, in order to do things that are almost miraculous. We now know that there is approximately 15 per cent or 16 per cent of the grain under the snow as far as the western crop is concerned. We would hope that of this 15 per cent a very substantial part may still be recovered when spring arrives.
We are being asked to pass a resolution which will precede a bill to provide provisional payments for unthreshed grain in the prairie provinces. I take it that this legislation is to be temporary, and I ask the minister that question. I take it this legislation is to be for this year only, and that if another situation like this should arise next year, then presumably it will be necessary for parliament to introduce a similar bill and go through the same type of discussion.
I am very anxious at all times that emergency legislation should not be made permanent legislation, but I do feel that the government should consider whether or not it would be possible to amend the cash advance legislation so that the wheat board and its officers may be entitled to make money available when grain is unthreshed and under the snow.
After all, in making this money available a great deal of protection is given to the Canadian wheat board, because they take possession of the farmer's permit book, and if the


farmer is to stay in the business of producing grain, even if he should find it difficult, he nevertheless has to repay, as he will, the loan when he delivers grain to the elevator. I would think that this kind of legislation is valuable legislation. Although there are only a few years where a large or substantial percentage of the grain is under the snow, nevertheless for certain individual farmers it does occur rather frequently. Therefore, instead of asking parliament to deal with this situation every few years, the Canadian wheat board, under the cash advance act, could have the right to make these kind of advances.
The legislation to provide guaranteed bank loans, the payment of $3 an acre, is necessary. But all of this legislation applies to prairie producers who can qualify for payment, and it provides very limited sums of money, or allows them to borrow very limited sums of money. I think the government should know why there is such pressure from western Canada for legislation of this kind when 15 per cent or 16 per cent of the grain is under the snow. Why are thousands of farmers who are adversely affected by the weather putting so much pressure on the government to get payments that are very small payments, and guarantees on rather small sums of money, as far as an individual is concerned?
The fact of the matter is that a large part of the grain producers of western Canada find it extremely difficult to keep on their farming operations and to stay in business. If the farmers of western Canada were engaged in a prosperous occupation, if they were engaged in an occupation in which during an ordinary year they could make a reasonable net income, they would not have to demand the kind of emergency legislation with so much strength as they are now doing.
There is other action that the government could take. I would like to see the government act by paying deficiency payments, as a result of the requests which have been made by farm organizations. If the government would make the deficiency payments available to farmers, as the farmers have requested, then there would be much less need, if any need at all, for guaranteed bank loans on which the farmer will have to pay a very substantial interest charge. I am hopeful that the government will come to a decision on this matter soon, and will meet the price-cost squeeze which is the great economic problem facing the farmers of western Canada.
As far as the legislation to provide bank loans is concerned, and as far as the action taken by the federal government to meet the emergency by paying some monies out of the federal treasury is concerned, the government is responding to requests which have

oeen made oy all of the farm organizations in western Canada, in addition to requests which have been made by three provincial governments. As I understand the negotiations which have gone on so far, the Social Credit government of the province of Alberta, the C.C.F. government of the province of Saskatchewan and the Conservative government of the province of Manitoba have asked the federal government to consider the situation a national emergency and to pay from the national treasury monies to farmers with grain under the snow. They asked the government to accept this as a national emergency.
Instead, in spite of the unanimous request of these three provincial governments, governments of different political complexions, the federal government has refused to consider a national emergency by paying the full cost of the payments for grain under the snow. Indeed, the government is asking provincial governments to pay half of the cost, which means, in many instances, that they are asking the very people who will get assistance to pay through their taxes to the provincial government a substantial part of the assistance that they are about to receive.
There is other action which could be taken in this regard. I believe provincial governments have been acting by providing payments to farmers in order to assist them in moving fodder for livestock, in the moving of seed grain, to provide a work and wages program, and to undertake other expenditures within the jurisdiction of provincial governments. They have asked the federal government to accept its responsibility in this field by considering the situation a national emergency.
Mr. Chairman, we are, of course, quite prepared to support the legislation, and we shall, but I think the minister might give consideration to my suggestion that changes could be made in the cash advance legislation so as to empower the wheat board to make advances on grain which is unthreshed so that it would not be necessary to come to parliament on repeated occasions to get the kind of legislation we are now being asked to pass. The government is taking some action; but I think in view of the request which has been made by the spokesman for the Liberal party in this house and the request that I have now made the government should consider a further interruption in this debate, or an extension of this interruption in the throne speech debate so that we can take action to provide the emergency payments in cash to the farmers who are in difficult circumstances at this time.
Advance Payments to Grain Producers


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the opposition, as is not unusual, appears to be in a very considerably confused state of mind in regard to this resolution and the other proposals which have been made by this government in order to relieve the situation caused by the early snow in western Canada.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, in dealing with the matter, mixed up several things which are actually quite separate. When the Prime Minister announced, in the latter part of September, the assistance that this government would be prepared to provide to farmers who had their crops under the snow, there were four distinct things-


William Moore Benidickson: Does the hon. minister mean the latter part of November?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. Did I say "September"?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was November 27.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Thank you. There were four things that were mentioned. First, there was something which the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River mentioned, namely that P.F.A.A. payments would be speeded up as far as possible; second, that a bill would be introduced as soon as parliament assembled to provide for government-guaranteed bank loans on unthreshed grain and, third, that a form of cash advances, or what we are calling in this bill provisional payments, would be made as far as unthreshed grain is concerned.


William Moore Benidickson: He simply said he would give it consideration.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Fourth, we made an offer to provide a certain amount of assistance to farmers who had 50 per cent or more of their grain unthreshed. Each one of these provisions stands on its own feet, and any attempt to mix them together and combine them in one measure naturally causes confusion; a confusion which flows, I suspect, from the confusion which exists in the minds of the hon. gentleman and his friends opposite.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I asked the
minister a question with regard to the companion bill which is not now before the committee. Am I correct in saying that the provinces, under that, are paying out money to the farmers?


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member will hear me out I think he will get the answer to his question. There has, of course, been full information given in connection with these matters; that information was made available a considerable length of time ago,
96	HOUSE OF
Advance Payments to Grain Producers and the farmers in western Canada are certainly not labouring under the misapprehensions which hon. members opposite seem to share.
The remarks of the hon. member from Kenora-Rainy River were extremely contradictory. He said, to begin with, that we were very slow in making an announcement regarding the assistance we intended to give to these farmers whose crops had been snowed in, but a little later he said it was an affront to parliament that we should be doing anything in the matter. In other words, he completely contradicted himself in the space of two or three minutes.


William Moore Benidickson: I said no such thing. I said the' government had not taken advantage of the first opportunity to acquaint parliament of what the scheme was-a scheme involving financial contributions.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Hansard will show what the hon. member said. He went on at considerable length to say that it was an affront to parliament that we had provided for a form of assistance on the basis of $3 an acre without consulting parliament. Then, only shortly afterwards, he was saying that we were very slow in making any announcement in connection with this matter at all. Then the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River expressed great surprise when these two resolutions came on the order paper that there was nothing in them in connection with the $3 an acre payment. I do not know why he should have expressed any such surprise, because I distributed copies of the bills as requested by the Leader of the Opposition on Friday afternoon. The hon. member telephoned me afterwards to ask me about this matter, and said "I suppose you are going to introduce that in the form of an estimate?" and I said "Yes". Yet he stands up in the committee today and makes a great to-do as though he were terrifically surprised that the resolution should appear on the order paper without any mention of the $3.


William Moore Benidickson: I said that after parliament had adjourned for the weekend, to my surprise I found there was nothing which referred to the arrangement with the provinces on this matter which is of such great public interest, and I asked the minister how, legislatively, he proposed to deal with this, and he said, "By estimate". I say that is the wrong procedure.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Anyway, all this surprise on the part of the hon. member is so much eye-wash. The hon. member talked about it being an affront to parliament that the $3 an acre payment should be dealt with by an estimate, and the hon. member for Assiniboia


followed up his remarks to some extent though his complaints were on a somewhat different line. I will deal with that presently.
At the moment I should like to point out to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and to the committee as a whole that this is the manner in which these national disasters, with regard to which the dominion government has taken some responsibility for providing assistance along with the provinces, have been dealt with in the past. When the Winnipeg flood occurred, when the Rimouski fire occurred and when the Fraser river floods occurred they were dealt with in each case by means of an estimate, and we are dealing with this disaster in exactly the same way. As a matter of fact, it is, I think, the only reasonable way of dealing with a situation of this kind when it arises while parliament is not in session; you cannot wait for several months until parliament assembles in order to pass an act to deal with these events.


William Moore Benidickson: Parliament is now in session. Give us the act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You have to make an
arrangement with the provinces as to what share the dominion government is to bear and what share they are to bear, and get a scheme into operation. That is exactly what was done in this case.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to put a question on that point. Is this to be an estimate in the final supplementary estimates of this year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, not the finals.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It will be in the first supplementary estimates which it is possible for us to bring in at this session.
The hon. member for Assiniboia made a great point that farmers are being denied payments because, he said, we are refusing to bring in a bill to provide for this $3 an acre payment at this time. He went on to say that procedural objections are being raised by the Minister of Finance which will cause money to be withheld from the farmers. He accused us of being unwilling to interrupt the ordinary course of parliament in order to make a contribution to these farmers while being willing to interrupt it in order to make them a loan. As a matter of fact, the cash advances we intend to provide in these provisional payments are not loans; they are cash advances which in this case we are calling provisional payments so that there may be no confusion. These are not loans. The farmers pay no interest on them and, therefore, the statement which the hon. member for Assiniboia made is not correct.

The whole point is this: in order that the farmers may be able to take advantage of these provisional payments and of the guaranteed bank loans as soon as possible it is necessary for us to put legislation through parliament because there is no legislation which covers the situation at present. All these statements about farmers being denied these payments and about delays in connection with these payments of $3 an acre are completely inaccurate. The farmers are getting these payments in each of the three prairie provinces at the present time. The schemes are being administered by the provincial governments. The provincial governments are putting this money out right at the present time. There is no delay as far as any farmer is concerned because an act has not yet been passed.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is federal money being paid without an estimate being passed?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Each provincial government is administering its own scheme. It is making these payments. When it has made the payments it will call on the dominion government to pay 50 per cent of the amount paid out, but that time has not yet come and, therefore, we shall have plenty of time-


William Moore Benidickson: After the money has been spent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -to have this matter dealt with by parliament and covered by an estimate which will be before us fairly shortly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Shocking.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate says "shocking". But this is exactly the way in which the government of which he was a member dealt with the Winnipeg flood, the Fraser river flood, the Rimouski fire and any other disasters in connection with which they gave assistance. And yet the hon. member now says it is shocking.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister permit a question? Would he inform the committee what would happen if this estimate were not passed?


Hazen Robert Argue: Have the election this year instead of next year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows quite well what would happen in that event. The government would resign. In the meantime, of course, the provinces would have been responsible for the whole amount. They would have paid it out. But the provinces, of course, have confidence in this government. Unlike the Leader of the 79951-0-7
Advance Payments to Grain Producers Opposition they feel quite confident that they will secure a share of the $3 an acre payments that have been made.
Those are the only points I feel I should deal with at this time. I regret to say that there has been a great deal of argument this afternoon which is completely out of order on this particular resolution but in view of the fact that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and the hon. member for As-siniboia raised the question of the $3 an acre payment and confused it with the issue before the committee I thought I should make it clear to the committee exacly what the situation is and clear up any misapprehension and misunderstanding that may exist in regard to the matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am sure one would experience great difficulty in attempting to find at any time in the history of this parliament a more disturbing
statement of the responsibilities of a government to parliament than the statement we have just heard from the Minister of Agriculture. The only extenuating circumstance in this case is that as one who has devoted his activities prior to coming into this house to matters other than the law the hon. gentleman could not possibly be expected to have the same appreciation of constitutional practice that one certainly looks for in both the case of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce from Manitoba who sometimes acts as though he were the minister for Canada.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and others who have spoken in this debate, recognizing the plight of farmers in western Canada, have recognized the desirability of bringing forward and considering at this time legislation which is said to be of an emergent character to deal with an actual economic situation that confronts the farmers of western Canada. I am sure both of them would likewise have said, if the point had immediately confronted them, that such legislation should not be confined only to the farmers in one section of Canada but should also apply to farmers throughout the country who are faced with situations that are comparably serious to the one that provokes this particular legislation foreshadowed in this resolution.
By that I mean that the farmers in all parts of Canada are greatly concerned about the difficulties that arise as a result of acts of God. The farmers of one section of Canada covered by the bills envisaged in these resolutions have experienced a situation that also from time to time confronts farmers in my own section of the country. The beet growers of southwestern Ontario, as some hon. members know, have had their crops under the

Advance Payments to Grain Producers snow and have experienced great difficulty but there is nothing in this legislation, in so far as the statements of the ministers who have spoken thus far are concerned, to indicate that farmers in southwestern Ontario or anywhere else in Canada are going to be given the opportunities provided for in the two resolutions that are before us or in the resolution which should be before us soon with regard to the federal-provincial co-operative arrangement; but we will have an opportunity when we discuss these two bills to bring forward desired points of application to districts in Canada other than those in western Canada, districts which we all recognize require perhaps even stronger assistance than is provided for in the bills to follow the resolutions before us.
But what is the situation with regard to the measure about which the Prime Minister spoke so strongly in the statement he made on November 27 last? As the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River stated, the Prime Minister announced various programs that the government had in mind for assistance. There were, as the Minister of Agriculture just said, the P.F.A.A. payments which the Prime Minister said may be made-he did not say would be made but may be made-as soon as possible. He said the government had decided to bring forward guarantees on bank loans for unthreshed grains but he did not say, as the Minister of Agriculture has just observed, that the government would bring in amendments to the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act of 1957.
What the Prime Minister said on that occasion was that the government was giving consideration to an amendment to the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act of 1957. He emphasized in Winnipeg and in one other city in western Canada-I believe it was Saskatoon -that the government was going to bring forward without delay a measure in which the provinces would be invited to co-operate to deal with crops under the snow.


Hazen Robert Argue: And pay half the cost.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And pay half the cost, as my friend the hon. member for As-siniboia reminds me.
The Minister of Agriculture said we had no need to be surprised by the failure of the government to present to parliament at this time the third measure. The speech from the throne indicated that we had the right to expect that the measure to which the Prime Minister attached such importance would be presented to parliament in proper legislative form consistent with the practices of this and other similar parliaments in the


commonwealth of nations. These are the words to be found in the speech from the throne:
The severe, unseasonal snow in the prairie provinces interrupted the harvest rendering necessary emergency legislation which will he considered at the earliest possible opportunity.
If we did not have the right and the justification to believe that the legislation that was going to be presented at this time was that referred to by the Prime Minister in the language I shall now place on the record, then I think hon. gentlemen have not carefully read the speech from the throne or have not recalled the implications of what the Prime Minister said on November 27 last. Let us hear what the Prime Minister said on that day:
While it is hoped that a large proportion of the crops now under the snow will be salvaged in the spring, a considerable amount of loss is inevitable. Therefore, in order to provide some compensation to the farmers who have suffered misfortune-
Listen to these words:
-the dominion government offers to share on a 50-50 basis with each of the three prairie provinces in an assistance scheme of the following nature-
Then he went on to outline the scheme in these words:
(a)	A payment of up to $3 an acre on a maximum of 200 acres per farmer, on unthreshed crops of wheat, oats, barley, rye, and flax. The federal government would be prepared to regard as eligible for this assistance any individual farmer who has been prevented by snow conditions from harvesting 50 per cent or more of his field crops.
(b)	For specialized crops, such as sugar beets, potatoes, vegetables, sunflowers, etc., assistance up to a maximum of $600 per individual farmer, provided that snow conditions have prevented him from harvesting 50 per cent or more of the crop.


William Moore Benidickson: That is what they tell the press, but not parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what they told the press. That last statement serves to justify the merits of the observation I made that this particular kind of measure should apply not just to one section but to all sections of agriculture in Canada, particularly when one realizes the extension by reference to the various kinds of agricultural products that are included under this federal-provincial arrangement.
I tell the committee that in my judgment the reason why we are not dealing with the bill in regard to this particular measure is that the Minister of Finance is anxious in his budget to give the impression that he has transformed the country from a deficit into a surplus position. Because of his anxiety to present a balanced budget he has decided to defer this matter until the budget has been delivered and until all matters having to do with the budget have been completed in this house so as to reduce the amount

of the financial obligations that he as Minister of Finance will have to meet. He wants to be able to say-


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is not a
tittle of truth in what you are saying.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He wants to do with regard to this measure exactly what he did with regard to unemployment insurance benefits. Last year he brought in his budget with no reference to unemployment insurance taxes, and when the budget was passed-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -we were confronted with an additional $78 million in taxes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What the minister is now doing with regard to this measure he is doing by way of an estimate. The Minister of Finance is trained and has an understanding of the meaning of the rights and obligations of parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He is trained to recognize the hon. member's pretences.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But he is prepared to ignore parliament in order to achieve a certain purpose, to relieve himself of the embarrassment which has attended him in the matter of deficits ever since he assumed the office of Minister of Finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: False in every word.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why should not this be brought to parliament? Imagine the Prime Minister of Canada, a man who talks about parliament, and has talked about it as no one in the history of this country has, going out to western Canada and saying, "I will not consult parliament, I will undertake to see that my government pays 50 per cent of the cost of this measure," a measure which in principle all members recognize as necessary in order to meet the plight of the farmer at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order-


Paul Joseph James Martin: A plight which has been greatly contributed to by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member has put into the mouth of the Prime Minister words that he did not utter. The Prime Minister never said, "I will not consult parliament." I hope the hon. member will withdraw that statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is right, he did not say, "I will not consult parliament", but what I am saying, and what 79951-0-7J
Advance Payments to Grain Producers the Minister of Trade and Commerce fails to understand, is that the Prime Minister, without having first come to parliament, made a commitment which first of all should have been made in this parliament and resolved in this parliament. Even Mr. Bennett-


Douglas Scott Harkness: We should not have done anything for the farmer.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: No, that is not so.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My hon. friend has great knowledge of constitutional practice.


Peter Francis Martin: We recognize that something should be done for the farmer. We say that the government should take the earliest opportunity, because of the practices of parliament, to bring forward a bill on which parliament could express approval of this measure at the quickest moment.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Parliament was not in session.


Peter Francis Martin: Of course parliament was not in session, but that is all the more reason why the government should take the earliest opportunity to deal with this. The Minister of Agriculture says that moneys are now being paid out by the provinces. That, of course, is necessary; but does the hon. member not realize that what the provinces are now doing is paying out money, 50 per cent of which they are responsible for and 50 per cent of which the government and this parliament are now morally responsible for as a result of the act of the Prime Minister committing this parliament and this government without first having come here and asked parliament to approve of this measure. That is what we are complaining about. We are complaining about the use by this government, or the abuse by this government, of the rights and of the privileges of parliament, and particularly by one who is now going to bring in a bill of rights to safeguard human rights as well as to safeguard the rights of parliament. I say, furthermore, that this particular-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would you say that if the Prime Minister were in the house? He is not here at the moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would say it if the Prime Minister were here and he ought to be here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why is he not here?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In so far as the
public is concerned the Prime Minister is the one who is responsible for proposing this measure. I would tell the Prime Minister that if he were now sitting in his seat.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are very courageous in
his absence.

Private Bills


Paul Joseph James Martin: Bring in the Prime Minister. I will withhold what I am going to say until he comes. I would tell the Prime Minister what I now tell the Minister of Finance.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are jealous because the farmers of eastern Canada are not getting the chance to get something.


Peter Francis Martin: My hon. friend is right. I would like to see the eastern farmers get the benefit of this kind of legislation. T am sure the member for Middlesex West, the member for Elgin and all this galaxy of Tories from southwestern Ontario would join with me in saying that this kind of legislation should apply to the farmers of southwestern Ontario as well as to the farmers of other parts of Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: You have no snow down there.


Peter Francis Martin: My hon. friend says we have no snow down there. What this government has done in failing to recognize-


The Chairman:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but it being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, would you not think, since the occasion is unique and the Prime Minister has now come in, that the rules ought to he violated at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is your idea, violate the rules.


Jacques Flynn: Under standing order 15 I have to leave the chair to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of public bills, pursuant to standing order 15.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house would consent to revert to committee and proceed with the debate that was taking place at five o'clock. I think there is a general understanding that that would be the case.


Hazen Robert Argue: I might say something on that point. We in this group are in agreement with that procedure, not that we like to see the rules of the house set aside but because it is our understanding that the bills have not been printed, as yet. Since it is a long standing custom that we should not be asked to debate or consider legislation that is not in printed form and we cannot see, therefore we are agreeable to revert to the business that was interrupted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are also agreeable, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: On both counts, I think the matter can be arranged. Standing order 74 says that before second reading all bills shall be printed in the English and French languages. I regret to inform the house that none of the public bills has yet been printed in French and very few of them have been printed in English, and it would therefore be incompetent, under the rules, for the house to proceed with public bills, since they are not ready for second reading. There are no private bills. The house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was invited by the minister-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Wait until we get into committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Don't be so
impetuous.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Try to keep a little decorum.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is very difficult.



PROVISION FOR ADVANCE PAYMENTS TO PRODUCERS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Churchill-Mr. Flynn in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the making of provisional payments to the producers for the 1959-60 crop year in respect of unthreshed grain in the designated area, as defined in the Canadian Wheat Board Act; and to provide for the costs, expenses and other financial obligations required in the making of such advances; such measure to include such further related and consequential provisions as are necessary to give effect to the foregoing.
Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Chairman, during the course of my remarks the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that I would not repeat, in the presence of the Prime Minister, what I had said about him in relation to the failure of the government to present to parliament in the proper traditional and constitutional manner, the measure that provides for assistance on a 50-50 basis to farmers in western Canada whose crops are under the snow. The Prime Minister is now in his seat and I welcome the opportunity of saying in his presence what I had said in the presence of less distinguished ministers, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture. Although they are distinguished, they are not as distinguished.
What I had said was this: We all welcome the opportunity of passing at the earliest

Advance Payments to Grain Producers
opportunity farm legislation of an emergent character that would give relief to the farmers of western Canada, particularly when we consider that much of the need for this relief was occasioned by the policies of this very administration. I said also that while it was right that the two particular pieces of legislation should be before parliament we had all of us, with justification, having in mind the reference in the speech from the throne, concluded that the government was going to bring forward in parliament at the earliest opportunity the legislation, not an estimate, authorizing the payment of the federal share of this federal-provincial arrangement to assist farmers whose crops were under snow. I said that I thought it was execrable that the man who is now head of the government of this country, who has gone up and down the length and breadth of this land over the years talking about the rights of parliament, talking about civil liberties, the man who shortly is going to introduce in this parliament a bill of rights, should be the head of a government that would have committed this parliament without any authorization from this parliament for deserved assistance to farmers of western Canada under this federal-provincial arrangement.


Mr. Lambert:: What about the provincial governments?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Never mind; I am now dealing with the statement concerning the responsibility of the Prime Minister in this matter. I will deal with that one after. I am now dealing with the dare of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that I should say before this great champion of human rights what I said in his absence.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are warming up again; that is fine.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say this, that the Prime Minister of Canada cannot possibly justify committing this parliament until this parliament itself has been committed to any expenditure of public money. The precedent for this will be found in all kinds of measures, not only under Liberal but under other Conservative governments. Even the government of Mr. Bennett, the government of the blank cheque, got authority for the blank cheque by way of authorized legislation from this house. But not this Prime Minister. We are going to assist a particular group of people; we are going to commit ourselves with the three western provinces, whether or not parliament has given us any authority so to do.


An hon. Member:: Do you object?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says, do I object? Of course I do not object to giving assistance. What I do object to is, for one man, even though he may be the Prime Minister, acting when parliament is not in session as though he were himself the very embodiment of this free institution.
Now, I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce is satisfied that I have repeated in the presence of the Prime Minister what I said in his absence.


John George Diefenbaker: May I have the opportunity of replying, if that represents the entire statement because I came in for the purpose of hearing this statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the Prime Minister wish to speak on this particular point?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the Prime Minister mind if I just completed this point? What I wanted to point out was that the Minister of Agriculture said that what the Prime Minister was doing with this measure had been done by previous administrations on other issues; that is undoubtedly what the Prime Minister has in mind. I thought, therefore, I would anticipate him and correct him before he falls into any grave error. In the case of Rimouski, in the case of the Manitoba floods, and in the case of the floods in British Columbia, it will be found that the government of the day made an announcement not outside parliament but while parliament was in session. My hon. friend need not look surprised. He was here at the time. I know he said something in connection with the Manitoba flood. The then prime minister did not go out and make a speech outside of parliament saying to the provinces, we are going to pay a percentage of the amount of money you give to assist the people who require relief. The prime minister in all those cases did what the Prime Minister of Canada in this instance should have done.
What the Prime Minister should have done,
I say with great respect and confidence, was to say to the three western provinces, parliament is not sitting but my government will recommend to parliament a proposal along these lines. If the Prime Minister had taken that course; if he had come in here and said to parliament, I have told the provinces that the government is prepared to give assistance to the farmers of Canada whose crops are under the snow on a 50-50 basis and I am sure the house will recognize the desirability of acting at once on this matter, then I believe the bill would have passed within an hour.

Advance Payments to Grain Producers


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not if you had been talking.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says, not if I had been talking. Unless there is some reason that is not now apparent, I think it would have passed. In any event, as my colleague says, that does not affect the principle of this thing. I do not want the Prime Minister, in following me, to say that as a result of what I have said it is apparent that the members of the opposition are against this kind of measure. I know the debating tactics of the Prime Minister very well.


Norman Platt Lambert: He knows yours, too.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If you understand mine, then you will show greater condescension and knowledge than is apparent at the present time. Let me say to the Prime Minister at this time that we are in favour of this kind of measure. We would like the correspondence with the provinces to see whether or not the financial arrangements made by the Prime Minister are sufficient; whether they really meet the needs. We would like to have all the facts so that we can judge whether or not this measure is adequate.
With regard to the two other measures, bills for which have been supplied, as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River said, we are in favour of such measures. The Prime Minister, who is now going to reply to the constitutional, to the legal aspect, I hope will not fail to recognize that he has acted contrary to one who upholds the traditions of parliament. He sought, by his own commitment and that of his government, to assume a responsibility which belongs to parliament alone. If there is one thing of which this assembly is jealous, it is its right to vote public moneys. The Prime Minister has failed, in these circumstances, to recognize that right and no amount of debating contortion will be able to alter the situation.


John George Diefenbaker: I always enjoy hearing the hon. gentleman speak. Sometimes he generates more steam than is safe for him and he proceeds to enlarge and expand in that expansive manner of his-


An hon. Member:: Pompous manner.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why not?


John George Diefenbaker: No. In his expansive
manner he proceeds to build up a very good case. As a matter of fact, as I listened to him, it so happens that I was glancing over a book on parliament I had in my room. I am not going to say that there is any applicability at all. It is entitled "Orders of the Day, Memories of Nearly Fifty Years of the House

of Commons" by the Right Hon. Earl Winter-ton, P.C. I do not know whether or not the hon. gentleman has read it. It is most helpful in understanding the traditions of parliament and in maintaining those things which will be maintained so long as this government is in power, namely the supremacy of parliament. I can understand the degree of his exuberance when he looks back on the record of the government of which he was a member in that famous debate known as the pipe line debate in which he and other members of the government at that time learned the meaning of constitutional and parliamentary government. I should like to read from this book at page 16 as follows:
During the debate on the address, a new Liberal M.P.-Mr. Herbert Paul, the historian-in a maiden speech made a ferocious, though somewhat confused, attack upon the Conservative party.
I simply pause to point out-


An hon. Member:: The similarity.


John George Diefenbaker: -that the hon. gentleman has just spoken in a somewhat similar manner. The quotation continues:


Mr. Bridgeman (afterwards Lord Bridgeman):: who held high office after the first world war, followed with his maiden speech. He made one of the neatest retorts X have heard in the Commons. "The honourable member's speech", he said, "reminded me very forcibly of a passage in the Bible, 'Paul, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning hath made thee mad'".
As I listened-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Remember the words of St. John.


John George Diefenbaker: I will welcome any quotations that are applicable to the matter in question. However, I point out this circumstance. At all times it has been made clear that this matter would be brought before parliament. At no time was there any suggestion whatsoever that parliament should be by-passed. What was made abundantly clear was this. The general plan would be worked out with the provinces to present to parliament and at the earliest possible date the legislation and the particular estimate would be made available to parliament. That has been done as definitely and as clearly as the constitution will permit and also as the exigencies of the moment in western Canada require.


William Moore Benidickson: Will the Prime Minister permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


William Moore Benidickson: In his absence the Minister of Agriculture has indicated that payments are actually being made in all the provinces. Does the Prime Minister suggest that this matter has not been worked out?

Advance Payments to Grain Producers


John George Diefenbaker: I simply point out that the general plan had been arrived at to be placed before parliament. In no way in the slightest degree was there any action on my part or on anyone's part that denies the right of parliament or the assurance of the fullest opportunity to parliament. I am not going to deal with this matter at the moment. However, I say to my hon. friend that from time to time he makes disparaging references to Mr. Bennett and to his memory. He is the last member in this house who should cast disparagement on the memory of one whom he knew so well.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the right hon. gentleman refer to one thing that I said that would be disparaging of the personality of Mr. Bennett?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


An hon. Member:: The blank cheque.


Peter Francis Martin: Of course Mr. Bennett was guilty of the blank cheque. Mr. Bennett on occasion was as guilty of dictatorship as is the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going into that matter. I think the hon. gentleman will recall no one who was as friendly to him as was that distinguished prime minister.


Peter Francis Martin: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: He does not deserve to have disparagement cast on him so frequently as has been the case on the part of the hon. gentleman. I make that point clear.
I simply rose to say this, Mr. Chairman. We endeavoured to bring about at the earliest possible date the introduction of measures to benefit the western farmers in their circumstances. We discussed with the various provinces the plan which we would submit. That plan is before them. If it is not in keeping with the wishes of parliament, then all that hon. gentlemen opposite have to do is vote against it in order to say that the benefits to the farmers shall not be paid.


Peter Francis Martin: That is not before parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I realize that. Talk about mental manipulation.


An hon. Member:: Who is doing that?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman
realizes this. We followed the normal course, the necessary course. We had in mind the kind of legislation and the plan we would place before parliament to the end that unnecessary delays would not take place in the administration. The plans were placed before the various provinces. As I said on that occasion, the government has decided
to submit to parliament a measure, and then I set out the measure. Then I went on to say that the government is giving consideration to the amendment to the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act of 1957. Then following in the next paragraph there is reference to the plan which we intend to present through the medium of an estimate at the earliest possible date.
The course of action that has been followed on many occasions in the past is one which is in keeping with the traditions of parliament and which assures each and every member the opportunity to stand up and be counted. An opportunity is certainly going to be given to the hon. gentleman to vote either for or against the assistance which we have in mind to place before parliament through the medium of an estimate. He will then be able to carry his criticism to that limit that comes to all of us, namely to stand up and say, "I am opposed to this measure"-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am in favour of it.


John George Diefenbaker: -rather than indulge in a dialectical discussion about imaginary unfairness done to parliament.
I conclude there and remind the hon. gentleman once more of the facts, and also those associated with him on the front bench, including the hon. gentleman who is about to rise in his place, namely the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who will give us a dissertation on parliament which will not be in accordance with the views he expressed at the time of the pipe line debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I realize, Mr. Chairman,
that, the Prime Minister having made my speech for me, it is rather redundant for me to rise and attempt to make it myself. The Prime Minister began his brief-happily brief-intervention in this debate and ended it with two typical Diefenbaker tactics, with diversions. He read a totally irrelevant passage from the author called "Old Lace", by Mr. Churchill on one famous occasion, and ended by trying to anticipate what I had to say. But what the Prime Minister completely ignored throughout the whole of his speech was that the Minister of Agriculture told us that money is now being paid out of the treasuries of three provinces of this country, half of which the Prime Minister has given an undertaking that he will ask this parliament to reimburse.
Mr. Chairman, I take no objection to that at all, and neither does anybody on this side of the house. We recognize that there was an emergency last November. We recognize that it was perfectly proper for the Prime Minister to go to Winnipeg and make this
[	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Advance Payments to Grain Producers
offer, as the head of a government with a large majority, and say: "I will introduce this into parliament and ask parliament to vote it". I do not think the Prime Minister was as scrupulous in his use of language as his predecessor was; but he is not in any respect as scrupulous in his use of language as his predecessor, and perhaps it would be pedantic to object on that ground. We are not objecting at all to what was done in November. We are not objecting at all to the proposal which was made in November, and I think on this occasion I speak for the whole of the opposition on this side of the house. What we are objecting to is the fact that money is being paid before parliament, being in session, has the chance to say anything about it.


John George Diefenbaker: Paid by whom? By the provincial governments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Agriculture told us that this scheme was already in operation and money was being paid out by the provincial governments. It is not being paid out by the federal treasury.
It is true, as the Prime Minister said, that if a majority of this parliament voted against that payment, it could not be made; but no one anticipates that that will be so. However, I would remind the Prime Minister, as my colleague for Essex East has already done, that it is the preservation of forms, as the Prime Minister told us on many occasions much more eloquently than I, which must be preserved, and it is the preservation of the forms of parliament which is just as important as the substance if we are going to continue to have a free government. If the Prime Minister does not believe that, why does he suggest we should consider matters like the bill of rights?
The plain fact of the matter is that if what the Minister of Agriculture says is true, as I assume it is, and money is being paid out, it is because an agreement has already been reached with these provinces. Therefore there is no reason on earth why a bill should not have been brought in. This excuse that it has to be an estimate, is of course, the most palpable excuse. It would be much better done by a bill, although I have never objected to legislation by estimates.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Did the government to which he belonged ever pass a bill to deal with a disaster such as this; or with other types of disaster to which the dominion government gave assistance? Did his government ever pass a bill on any single occasion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The government to which I belonged never passed bills; in our day parliament passed them, and that is exactly the point I am making.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the pipe line?


Gordon Minto Churchill: And the use of closure?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister talks about the pipe line. At least we brought the bill in. We did not ignore parliament altogether as he has done here.
If I can answer the Minister of Agriculture, there was a crisis two or three years ago when we were in office over a very great surplus of grain, and my right hon. friend, Mr. Howe, who was sitting on the government side at that time, did not simply tell the wheat board that the government would pay the carrying charges on the considerable surplus. He brought in the legislation and gave parliament a chance to express its voice first, and that is what should have been done in this case. It is the most ridiculous thing we have yet been asked to do, to pass these two bills, which are only a supplement to the main measure. They are bills which will probably cost the treasury a good deal less than $1 million in all, if they cost anything.
The Minister of Finance, who above all is the minister who should protect the rights of parliament to vote the money he spends as the trustee of parliament, is saying: "We will go on and let someone else spend the money we have promised, and in our good time we will bring you in the bill after the expenditure has been incurred". The fact that we insist on the proper forms of parliament being carried out is no excuse for the cheap, backbench jibes which were made when the hon. member for Essex East was speaking about our opposition to this measure. We are not opposed to the measure. We want the measure here so that we can vote for it, but parliament is being ignored and bypassed, although some time later we will be asked to put our rubber stamp on it. I do not care how big the government majority is; that is not the right way to treat parliament, and that is what we are objecting to.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, these words come ill from the hon. gentleman. What happened on an earlier occasion will not be forgotten by those who sat in this house in 1956. The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate was a very vocal member of the administration of that time. On that occasion what happened was this. It was proposed in the fall of the year to ask the banks of this country to lend money to western producers without there being any legislation at all on the statute books for the purpose. A letter was written by the minister of finance

Advance Payments to Grain Producers
ot the day to the banks, in which he said: "It you will advance this money to the producers; we will introduce a bill in parliament to make it good".
Now, this hon. member who has just spoken was a member of the administration at that time which embarked upon that course. Parliament was not in session; the minister of finance simply wrote a letter to the banks and asked them to lend money. There was no statutory authority for it whatever. Then they said: "Oh well, we will get parliament to come along and provide that later".
It will be well remembered by those who sat in the house on January 27, 1956 when the minister of trade and commerce of that day rose in the house to move the resolution anticipating the introduction of the bill for the purpose. This is what he said, as reported at page 605 of Hansard:
It seems to me that there should not be a prolonged debate on this legislation. The provisions of the bill have been in effect since November 15.
That was the date of the letter.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I have made reference to the precedents in connection with relief for farmers, and that is one I had in mind because I had read the debate. I had taken no objection whatsoever to the government making a commitment in the emergency such as they have done. What the minister of trade and commerce at that time did, and what I say this government should do, was, at the first opportunity, to present to parliament the recommendation that they promised a partner they would present. What has been done here is that some form of guarantee and undertaking has been given to the provinces, and while we are asked to deal with supplementary or companion forms of legislation for the same emergency, we are not given the opportunity to put in legislation form at the first opportunity the type of relief for which the Prime Minister has given an undertaking to the provinces. That is what I suggest should be done at this time.
There seems to be some confusion. I think this has just been an oversight. I think the government was intending to put this through in the form of an estimate, but it is suggested that that is not the best way of dealing with something that is related to two other pieces of legislation which are put before us at this time, and I hope the government will reconsider this matter.
Surely, there would be no difficulty about getting ready in legislative form the outline of the willingness, as expressed by the Prime Minister, to share with the provinces 79951-0-8
in the cost of certain forms of relief in the present emergency. That could be done while we were discussing these other bills. The maximum terms are all outlined in the statement which the Prime Minister made to the press. There is nothing there which could not be put into the form of a statute, and this could be done within a couple of days while we were debating the two companion bills. However, this is what I fail to understand: the Minister of Agriculture says that payments are being made-I think he said this-in all the provinces. That is contrary to the information I have.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said that payments were being made, I thought, in all the provinces. But certainly they are being made in some of them.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister put it in such a form that one would imagine they were being paid in all the provinces, and I intend to rise at the first opportunity and ask him to verify his statement, because I read a few days ago in Winnipeg papers that the minister of agriculture of Manitoba, at least, had stated that his province was not in a position to produce cheques in payment to the producers until some time well advanced in February. I therefore think that some verification is desirable with regard to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture.
I still say that this is basic to a consideration of the other two measures. We are to have this legislation this week, and I have already suggested the form in which it should be presented to the house. The reason is this. The bill which will be founded on the resolution presented by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is, as hon. members will be aware, confined to the ambit of the products within the jurisdiction of the wheat board act. The proposition made to the provinces for cost sharing in connection with certain assistance is much wider than that. There is no reason, with respect to this legislation, to restrict the type of aid either to the western provinces or to certain kinds of producers in the western provinces. If these arrangements were incorporated in the bill we should have the opportunity right now to decide whether or not vegetable growers and others, who apparently are included in the commitments to the provinces but who are not referred to in either of the pieces of legislation, should, in other parts of the country, get similar consideration. But that opportunity for discussion and for advice to be given to the government is denied to parliament at this stage.

Advance Payments to Grain Producers


Mr. Cadieu:: Mr. Chairman, I, also, would like to congratulate you upon your appointment to your very important office. It is one, which, I know, you will handle justly and well.
While sitting here during the debate this afternoon my mind rambled back on several occasions, to my constituency and when I heard hon. gentlemen opposite speak, some of whom I thought got a long way from the matter which we are discussing, I wished some of them had been in my riding and seen the condition of the snowed-under crops. Possibly, then, they would have understood more clearly the nature of the bill which is before the committee this afternoon.
I feel I should say a few words about this bill, representing as I do, the constituency of Meadow Lake, a riding which was hard hit by the very unseasonable harvest weather. Many areas in my riding had the heaviest rainfall on record during the time when we usually expect harvest weather, only to be followed by 20 inches of wet snow in many parts of the constituency. A further snow storm followed.
This bill will help many farmers who are not qualified for a payment of $3 an acre up to a maximum of 200 acres owing to the fact that in some areas they have more than 50 per cent of their crop harvested. A large percentage of the crop which was threshed was damp and farmers received a very low grade.
I want to compliment the Minister of Transport on the very rapid action he took to make it possible to move tough and damp grain to the terminals for drying. Inspections under P.F.A.A. have had to be held up in many areas on account of the very low acreage harvested. Further inspections will have to be carried out in the spring when the harvest has been completed. I think many townships will qualify for assistance under the P.F.A.A., where crops were neither swathed nor stooked. The grain was standing when the storm hit, but was left lying flat on the ground. I think this bill is very urgent, and I certainly hope it will be passed without undue delay.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, my first words will be to congratulate you for having been appointed to the office of vice chairman of this house. We know that your impartiality will be appreciated by all and that wisdom will guide your every decision.
Mr. Chairman, after listening to hon. members this afternoon, I realized that I did not 
know much about parliamentary procedure, because I thought that when money bills were introduced, custom demanded that they be subject to the approval of parliament. As a matter of fact, I found that the discussion and also the way the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made his suggestions on November 27th last, had nothing in common with parliamentary procedure.
Indeed, in a press release of September 27, he had intimated that he would hasten the payment of funds distributed under the P.F.A.A. He said he would introduce a bill providing guaranteed bank loans. He also talked about interim payments for grain crops that have been covered by snow. At that time, he also stated that he would grant the farmers a 50 per cent compensation for their crops.
Last Friday, the Prime Minister stated in this house, that it would be appropriate to introduce with the least possible delay, two bills: one dealing with cash advances on unthreshed grain and the other concerning bank loans guaranteed by the government. This legislation, we admit, is known to be urgent, and we shall raise no objection to the Prime Minister asking that those bills be dealt with today. However, we are suprised not to see any bill regarding the Prime Minister's suggestion to the effect that the federal government pay 50 per cent of losses sustained by farmers whereas 50 per cent would be carried by the provincial governments.
Finally the purpose of the bills before us is to compensate farmers whose grain has remained under the snow. The situation is indeed pretty bad, since producers did not have the advantage of benefiting from the amounts which the sale of their grain would have brought in last fall. Those producers invested the cost of seeding and other work carried out during the year, and we can easily understand their plight.
We have witnessed various disasters in western Canada which were caused by bad weather conditions, and this reminds me of the year 1931, when I was staying as a trainee on a western farm in order to round out my practical knowledge of agriculture. That year, Saskatchewan had been particularly hit by a drought, such as the west had not yet known. The grain producers did not even try to harvest their crops. I remember the panic which seized the west at the time, when those farmers had lost all the fruit of their labour and could not count on any assistance from the government of the day which, of course, was then at a

dead end, economically speaking, as it is the case today, because there was also a Conservative government at the helm.
In those days, I realized that our western farmers were having a hard time. Today's state of affairs presents a certain similarity with conditions prevailing that year. And people have again to deal with a Conservative government.
Now I remember the remarks of some hon. members last year, and again, two years ago- and I refer now to one of the eight C.C.F. leaders sitting in this house-since each one of them has his own personal political ideology-and that is the hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. Argue) who intimated that I was not familiar with the problems facing western farmers, when he stated in his province that I was a funeral director. Well, I must say that, while I fully respect that profession-whose services the hon. member for Assiniboia as well as the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) will some day appreciate-the hon. member for Assiniboia made false statements about me, to increase his political capital, when he claimed that he was the only expert in this house on farm matters.
Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest liking for western farmers, and I have had occasion to know them. However, I must say that I have no less liking for eastern farmers. For two years in a row, disasters have completely ruined the crops in certain areas of that part of the country. In fact, in 1958, the crops were completely destroyed by hail, and the following year there was a flood, whose consequences were no less serious. Yet, no assistance was then given to those farmers by the federal government.
Mr. Chairman, I wish that when our ministers introduce legislation to protect western farmers they would display the same spirit when it comes to hardships also affecting eastern farmers.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we shall vote in favour of the resolution. I will say to the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner), who in the course of his unfortunate remarks a moment ago stated that we were opposed to legislation in favour of western farmers, that we will support the resolution and that we are not jealous of western farmers.
(Text):


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we witnessed a typical day in the House of Commons, the C.C.F. running in one direction and the Liberals in the other. The hon.
79951-0-8J
Advance Payments to Grain Producers member for Assiniboia started off by telling us that this was a measure by which the prairie farmers affected by the adverse conditions would not get payments. The hon. member for Assiniboia who I am sure is a close follower of The Western Producer should have read the January 14 issue of that publication. In bold print on that day it carried this headline: "Farm Payments Near $1 Million".
The article goes on to state:
Payments totalling nearly $1 million for Saskatchewan farmers who were unable to thresh their crops have been approved by the plant industry branch of the department of agriculture, it was announced by agriculture minister I. C. Nollet January 8.
Mr. Nollet said 3,000 applications have been received from farmers who have qualified for payments under the federal provincial program. The applications were from 24 municipalities and local improvement districts in northern and eastern Saskatchewan and the first cheques went out Jar-uary 8.
The Liberals, typical of their understanding of the agricultural situation in the west, started out by telling us through the spokesmen for their party that they knew nothing, a fact which did not require underscoring from our point of view. Those hon. gentlemen who sit in the front benches on the Liberal side and who participated in the debate today spoke about everything and nothing. Of particular interest were the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East who stated that the farmers in the west should receive this assistance provided it was also given to the eastern farmers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I never said that at all. I said that I recognized that this measure was necessary to assist the plight of the western farmer but I said that I also thought at the same time there were other farmers in other parts of Canada who were entitled to the benefits of such legislation. However, I did not say that if there was no extension to other groups of farmers at this time in this particular legislation I would, on that account, be opposed to it. I imposed no such condition and I am sure the hon. gentleman who is a very fair-minded member will readily admit that that is, of course, what I did say.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I have been trying to say. What the hon. gentleman just said is typical of the attitude of the Liberal government in the past-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes it was for all of Canada.


An hon. Member:: You did nothing for all of Canada.
108	HOUSE OF
Advance Payments to Grain Producers


Stanley James Korchinski: While telling us about the sugar beet situation in the east the hon. gentleman also indicated his support of the present resolution in the same breath, and attempted to create the impression that if the Liberal party were in office it would have provided this type of assistance. The attitude of the hon. gentleman which is so typical of his party somewhat reminds me of an epitaph on a tombstone:
Here lies the father of 29;
He'd have had more If he'd had time.
Hon. members of the Liberal party indicated that they lacked an understanding of the situation in western Canada. If they lacked that understanding they would have been unable to provide assistance to meet the general need that exists there.
I do not wish to digress from the main points it is my hope to raise at this time. I wish to point out to the committee why this legislation is necessary which may assist my Liberal friends in reaching the understanding they confess they lack.
Many of the reasons which were valid at the time when the cash advance legislation was introduced are valid in the present instance with respect to the present legislation. At the time of the introduction of the cash advance legislation the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as reported at page 351 of Hansard of October 24, 1957, stated:
The legislation is necessary because of the large surplus of wheat which has been accumulated in recent years due to a number of factors such as larger than average crops, a reduction in exports because of the loss of former markets, increased productivity per acre, subsidized competition from other wheat exporting countries, and so on.
It is ironical that in those days there was a great need because of abundance; today it is because of lack of grain that this legislation is necessary. Because my area is affected more than other areas I want to bring to the attention of the members of this committee a statement that was attributed to the wheat board reminding the farmers that they should not harvest their tough and damp grain. I say it is most unfortunate that that statement was made. Perhaps they should have reminded the farmers that they should not harvest their grain in a damp condition, but, as most farmers who have knowledge of the situation know, tough grain will keep perhaps for a long period of time. That statement should not have been made. The wheat board did not want any tough or damp grain. When they heard that statement many farmers having wet grain held back their harvesting. Elevator agents dissuaded the farmers from going into the field when the moisture content of the wheat was anywhere around
[Mr. Pickersgill.l

15 per cent. I am sure grain with that moisture content would have kept. Anyone who has any experience would have known that this type of grain would have kept.
I should like to read a quotation from the North Star of Norquay, dated Friday, November 27, 1959, just to indicate how serious the situation is, particularly in my area. The headline reads:
71. Sask. Municipalities Hit Hardest
The article goes on to say:
Seventy one Saskatchewan rural municipalities or local improvement districts contain 100 or more farms with at least 50 per cent of the crop still unharvested. A total of 30,233 farms were listed.
The tables were prepared by the statistics branch of the Saskatchewan department of agriculture and are the ones on which the bureau of statistics bases its summaries.
The article goes on to say:
The R.M. of Clayton tops the list in this area showing a total of 674 farms with 75 per cent and over unthreshed wheat.
In the list of municipalities having 50 to 74 per cent with unthreshed wheat, the R.M. of St. Philips is listed having 381 farms, R.M. of Keys 443 and R.M. of Livingston 537.
I think I have indicated the seriousness of the situation. There is another article in this paper entitled:
Farmers Meeting at Swan Plain
The article goes on to say:
A meeting of the Saskatchewan farmers' union was held at Swan Plain hall on November 19 with 44 members in attendance.
This telegram was forwarded to the Minister of Agriculture:
Disastrous conditions due to unharvested crops. Financial position of farmers desperate, urge immediate assistance.
I think this indicates why this type of legislation is necessary. The government is acting, as has been indicated by the Minister of Agriculture, to provide some form of assistance and has indicated what measures would be provided for relief. What the Minister of Agriculture did not mention was that the moving of hay and straw into areas where shortage existed on a 50-50 basis with each of the provinces was also to be undertaken.


William Moore Benidickson: There is no legislation on that either.


Stanley James Korchinski: I want to point out that the federal government has given an undertaking whereby they would assist the provinces in payments to the individual farmers to the tune of $3 per acre to any individual farmer who had been prevented by snow conditions from harvesting 50 per cent or more of his crop. The hon. member for Assiniboia told us earlier that the government

Advance Payments to Grain Producers
merely wanted the farmer to incur another debt. I have before me application form H which is the one used by the Saskatchewan government in making the 1959-60 acreage payments on unharvested crops. The second item states:
That I normally depend on the income from my farm for my livelihood and that due to bad weather I have not been able to thresh 50 per cent of my crop acreage.
This particular item disqualified many school teachers, elevator operators, caterpillar operators, service station operators, small grocery store operators who also farm, and we have many of those in Saskatchewan. Incidentally, it also disqualified members of parliament. It also disqualified the landlords because someone who is renting land but is also occupied in some other form of endeavour cannot qualify. For the landlords that is a hardship. They cannot qualify for assistance. It is because of this that legislation such as this is being provided today and this present legislation is necessary. I think that the opposition members as well as-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but it being six o'clock I now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman, when the committee took recess at six o'clock I was just remarking that the landlord who has rented land to a tenant who has an occupation other than farming could not qualify for the acreage payment. This is one of the reasons why the legislation preceded by this resolution we have before us today is necessary. Perhaps another reason that could be advanced could be illustrated by the clause which the provincial government of Saskatchewan has inserted. I must say that I am somewhat disappointed in this clause which requires a person to state he normally depends on income from the farm for his livelihood and that, due to bad weather, he has been unable to thresh 50 per cent of his crop acreage. These are the people who, for years, have advocated a change in the P.F.A.A., and I am glad to state that the present government introduced these changes. It is disappointing that Saskatchewan should insert a clause which would disqualify the very same people that they have been attempting to qualify under P.F.A.A., namely those who are gainfully employed in other occupations or who have been taking up other occupations to supplement their income.
I think that another point that should be advanced here is a point that one of the elevator agents made to me during my travels around the constituency. He mentioned that there is a possibility of a farmer in great need of assistance but who may have some grain that could later have been used for seed. This farmer could request a cash advance from the elevator agent and later find that he might have used this grain for seed. He would then be in a position where he would be almost perjuring himself. This is one of the reasons for giving the proposed legislation careful scrutiny and approval because we should not allow a situation which may cause a farmer to perjure himself. I mention that only as a possibility because I do not think you will find too many such cases.
I do not want to continue much longer, but there are a few questions to which I should like answers. Should losses be incurred after advances have been taken, either in the form of loans or cash advances, how long will the government permit for the repayment of these advances? I know that in my area particularly there is the danger of deer and elk roaming the field and mice and other rodents often invade the stooked fields. I should like to know whether the government will permit these farmers who, perhaps through no fault of their own, find themselves unable to harvest another crop next year, to extend the period for repayment.
In conclusion I would give a bit of friendly advice to the Liberal opposition by suggesting that if they do not know the subject they can always talk about the weather, and this time they certainly would be right.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I wish to join those who preceded me in extending to you congratulations upon your appointment which, I am sure, is a popular one. Yesterday afternoon, in reply to a question, the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a statement to the effect that the space available at the lakehead terminals was reserved for damp, tough grain. The minister should be aware that there are terminals at the lakehead which have no drying facilities, and consequently are in a position to receive dry grain without interfering with the shipment of wet grain.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but I am afraid that this subject of storage space in terminal elevators at Fort William bears no relationship to the resolution before us which has to do with payments to farmers for grain which has not been harvested.

Advance Payments to Grain Producers


Hubert Badanai: I would say that this afternoon two thirds of the discussion concerned unrelated subjects, even the resuscitation of grain. I think that what I am about to say on this subject is as relevant as anything that has been said this afternoon.


Jacques Flynn: I do not believe the fact that part of the debate this afternoon may have been out of order would change the rule. I would ask the hon. member to stay as close as possible to the subject matter before the house.


Hubert Badanai: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am definitely speaking on the resolution because it has to do with wet grain, it has to do with damp, tough grain, and therefore I would say this: I would be remiss in my duty if I did not mention the fact that at the head of the lakes we do have room for dry grain. The farmers in the prairie provinces, especially Manitoba, will likely sell little grain from now until three months hence which is approximately the nearest date to the reopening of navigation. I am informed that elevator companies have entered protests with the Canadian wheat board over their recent regulations permitting shipments of damp grain only. The restrictions imposed in November were designed to give priority handling to damp grain resulting from wet and snowy harvesting conditions.
The grain companies claim that the damp grain is not being moved and as a result they have considerable room in their lakehead terminals. I am told that the country elevators on the prairies have enough room to take care of whatever damp grain there is. One of the lakehead terminals, namely the McCabe Grain Company Limited, is reported to be only 40 per cent full and had to lay off men because of lack of activity. An official of the Manitoba wheat pool is reported to have said that their terminals are about one third empty.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order; I hesitate to rise again on this point, but what this has to do with grain which has not been harvested escapes me completely. The hon. member is talking about storage space in elevators. The resolution refers to grain which the farmers cannot uncover and thresh at the present time.


Hubert Badanai: I submit that what I am now speaking about is as a result of what happened, namely the wet grain condition. I am speaking on the resolution.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I will hear the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. The hon. member wishes to speak on this point of order, I understand.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, on the point of order. I simply want to draw to the attention of the committee the fact that this legislation is based on a need that is said to arise because of climatic conditions. The hon. member for Fort William is dealing with a tie-up in connection with the process of putting funds into the hands of western farmers and I submit it is quite relevant. If there was an improvement in the flow of funds, it would have a relationship to the degree of help that might be required legislatively at this time. Then I draw to the attention of the committee the last phrase of the resolution which doubtless was drawn up by our legal friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce and which reads as follows:
-such measure to include such further related and consequential provisions as are necessary to give effect to the foregoing.
With language as broad as that surely my hon. friend, in dealing with one of the factors in the movement of this product which would provide money in the pockets of western farmers, is dealing with something relevant to the discussion at this time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to submit on the point of order that I think the hon. member is quite relevant. If he had not taken the opportunity to make these particular remarks I would have done so. I feel that they are quite consequential. The situation we have at the lakehead stems directly from the policy of the government, tied in with the climatic effect on the grain on the prairies.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The logic of my hon. friend is most remarkable tonight.


Jacques Flynn: Order. It seems to me that the subject matter before the committee deals only with the payment to the producers for the 1959-60 crop year in respect of unthreshed grain. Although I do not want to be too strict, I would ask the hon. member who had the floor to leave the problem of transportation and to come back to the specific climatic conditions which are brought before the house by the present resolution.


Hubert Badanai: I thank you for your suggestion, Mr. Chairman. I also wish to thank my colleague the hon. member for Port Arthur for supporting me. What I am trying to say is absolutely tied in with what we are discussing, namely the resolution that is before us.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is quite out of order.


Hubert Badanai: In this connection I must say that a total of 250 men have been laid

off at the lakehead on account of the curtailing of the shipment of wheat to the lakehead area.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hubert Badanai: I will be very brief but I must say this. Submissions to the federal Department of Labour and the Department of Agriculture by the mayors of Fort William and Port Arthur were made in protest against this curtailment of shipments to the lakehead.


Jacques Flynn: Order. May I ask once again that the hon. member come back to the subject matter of the resolution? I think he will have other occasions on which to discuss the matter which he is now discussing and which, in my humble opinion, is not relevant.


Hubert Badanai: May I say this. The farmers themselves have been complaining to the Manitoba Federation of Agriculture and the Manitoba Farmers Union that they have been unable to deliver dry grain. That is their complaint. This is a situation which affects the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur. These communities can ill afford the laying off of more men.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, may 1 say that I cannot let this pass without drawing attention to the complete disregard the hon. member shows to the Chair? It seems to me that when the subject matter of debate has to do with unthreshed grain, that is the subject to which the hon. member should be addressing himself. However, he is not doing so. He is talking about a situation of unemployment at the lakehead and storage space in elevators and is neglecting to follow instructions from the Chair.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw your attention to a point that I am sure has escaped your attention and it is this. We are now discussing a resolution contrary to the rules of this house. With the unanimous consent of the house it has been agreed, at the request of the hon. gentleman who has intervened, that we interrupt the debate on the speech from the throne in order to enable us to discuss the resolution which is now before the house. Surely if the hon. member for Fort William, who is not in my opinion derogating entirely from the meaning of this resolution, wishes to discuss a situation in a particular designated area, such as is referred to in this resolution, in view of the fact that the minister has asked for the unanimous consent of the house in order to do this he should allow the hon. member to deal with the matter which is peculiar to his area.
Advance Payments to Grain Producers


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I point out that unanimous consent of the house was not required to carry on with government business of today?


Lionel Chevrier: Unanimous consent of the house was required to interrupt the debate on the speech from the throne.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No; on the contrary.


Lionel Chevrier: Of course it was.


Jacques Flynn: Order. Again I have been trying to find words with which to convince the hon. member for Fort William to be relevant. The fact that the house has given unanimous consent to suspend the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne does not change the rules of debate. The rule of relevancy is applicable. The hon. member must be strictly relevant to the subject matter before the committee and I feel that he has not been relevant up to now. I would ask his co-operation and that he follow the direction of the Chair.


William Moore Benidickson: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I think the Chair perhaps did not appreciate the significance of the last portion of the hon. member's remarks in which he pointed out that certain producers of dry grain-the same producers would have unthreshed grain; those same producers having both kinds of grain-are in a position of finding hardships owing to the build-up which he was describing. He is now dealing with those producers who have both kinds of grain.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, I promise to be relevant and nothing but relevant to the question we are discussing. In very few words I submit that every possible avenue to put men to work should be explored. One which would help is the re-appraisal of the wheat board policy with regard to shipments to the lakehead which incidentally has also affected the employees on the railways.
With regard to the help for farmers which this resolution before us is supposed to provide, we were taken by surprise, to put it mildly, when we discovered that it contains an entirely different proposal from that which was made to the provinces last November as reported in the press. Prairie farmers who have been unable to harvest because of bad weather-that was a proposal which we read about in the paper-were to receive up to $600 as a sort of special assistance. Actually, under this scheme the government intended to pay only $300, and that only if the government of the province concerned contributed an equal amount. In reality, the government has placed the provincial governments in a very embarrassing position.
112	HOUSE OF
Advance Payments to Grain Producers
There is also another condition, that to be eligible for this particular assistance a farmer must have harvested less than 50 per cent of his crop. Someone has referred to this condition as being callous and arbitrary, because if a farmer had harvested 55 per cent of his crop he would not share in the benefits, whereas his neighbour who had harvested, say, 40 per cent of his crop would be eligible for assistance. I would suggest that if assistance is contemplated the fairest method would be to treat everyone alike on a pro rata basis. However, this bill deals only with loans guaranteed by the government, with no specified rate of interest, incidentally.
I think that is an objection. There should be a specified rate of interest, in these circumstances which we are discussing, in any proposal which the government is advancing. We are not opposed to this relief which will be given to our western farmers. Every speaker so far on this side of the house has made it very clear that we are supporting this resolution.
Mr. Chairman, it is my duty to bring to the attention of this house the fact that there are farmers in my constituency who would welcome the availability of a loan guaranteed by the government. I would say that this provision should be made available, in the event of necessity arising in any community affecting the farmers, to all the farmers on an equal basis. As I say, Mr. Chairman, we are in favour of this legislation but I would express my sincere hope that similar legislation would cover all farmers in every part of Canada, wherever a similar need should arise.
I do not wish to take any more time, because I think every hon. member is very much concerned about the question. I do not represent a particularly large farming community, but there are some farmers in my constituency, as there are in nearly all constituencies, except, perhaps, the metropolitan areas of the cities. I would like to read in conclusion a letter which appeared in the Family Herald of Medora, Manitoba, which is as follows:
The October snowstorms of 1959 are the worst disaster that has ever hit farmers in Manitoba. There is a universal shortage of winter feed and bedding for livestock. There is no source of additional supplies of either hay or straw. Surplus hay has been bought up. The farmers without cash to buy hay must sacrifice their breeding stock.
I might say that that is exactly what is happening in my constituency. In the district of Thunder Bay the crop of hay was damaged last season, with the result that farmers have not been able to keep their livestock going to the same degree and extent they have in the past. There is need for assistance too. The letter continues:


Already many have done this at heavy financial loss.
P.F.A.A. survey of poor crop townships was made as usual. Why was not the P.F.A.A. survey used at the same time to estimate the farmers' losses? Why can not the P.F.A.A. be used to make relief payments? We need cash-not empty promises of long term credit, loans and future crop insurance.
This, Mr. Chairman, is merely an indication of what is happening, not only in Manitoba but all over the country. For that reason I say that the government should bring forward some legislation which will cover all farmers in every constituency of Canada.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, I would like first of all to congratulate you on the honour which 'has been extended to you in the office you now hold. All of us on both sides of the house wish you well.
I might say that this afternoon we have had a fine display of nonsense with regard to this important and necessary measure of assistance to those afflicted by unfavourable weather conditions, which have necessitated a great portion of the crops in some areas of western Canada being left under the snow over winter. I intend to stay quite close to this subject, and I do that because we will have further opportunity to discuss some of the other factors involved in due course.
The hon. member who has just sat down had a great deal to say about the space available at the head of the lakes, but if he knew the extent of the situation with regard to damp grain in western Canada he would not get up in the House of Commons trying to fill that space with dry grain. He must know that when grain is damp it can go out of condition when the weather warms up in the spring. Almost every western farmer in Canada-


Hubert Badanai: May I ask the hon. member a question, Mr. Chairman. Is he aware of the vacant space at the elevator terminals at the lakehead, and the millions of bushels that could be stored there at the present time?


Edward Nasserden: Yes, I am aware of that situation, Mr. Chairman. Furthermore, I am aware of the fact that there are millions of bushels of damp grain in western Canada today for which that space will be required when it is finally dried by the drying capacity of those terminals across the country.
Almost every hon. member on the opposition side has said today that he is not opposed to this legislation. All I want to say on that is this: Thou doth protest too loudly. If we go back to the debates in the House of Commons to an occasion similar to today, when those in the official opposition had the opportunity to bring in legislation somewhat

similar to the legislation in contemplation now, we will find where the members of the Liberal party stood at that time.
The hon. member for Assiniboia had some things to say upon which I would like to refresh his memory. He was particularly worried about those farmers in the province of Saskatchewan who were not going to get payment in time and who were going to suffer because of the actions of the federal government. The hon. member for Assiniboia should know better than to try to leave that misunderstanding to the country. He should try to tell that to the people in the province of Saskatchewan. I would like to draw his attention, first of all, to the statement made by the minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan on January 16-following on the remarks made by the hon. member for Mackenzie-which were as follows:
Farm relief payments in Saskatchewan are averaging $2.75 an acre, agriculture minister Nollet said Friday.
By Thursday night the government had approved payment of 6,800 applications covering 776,000 acres and involving $2,114,000.
At the end of the week it had close to 3,000 applications on hand that had not been processed.
About 3,000 cheques have been mailed to applicants.
This appeared in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix on January 16, 1960. The hon. member for Mackenzie pointed out that there were some 32,000 farmers in the province of Saskatchewan who needed help. I say to you in the House of Commons today that the people of Saskatchewan know who was responsible for the regulations which ruled out the possibility of so many receiving assistance in respect of their loss and hardship. And there were those who said that there have been delays. I think it was the hon. member for Assiniboia who said that there were delays in bringing aid to the farm people. When hon. members talk of delays let them remember that the premier of Saskatchewan, the Hon. T. C. Douglas, chose the period of greatest anxiety to leave his province in order to sun himself in the Mediterranean area.
Much has been said today about an affront to parliament. The hon. member for Essex East mentioned the responsibility of parliament, and I think he also used the words "abuse", "rights" and "privileges". He then went on to exhibit his true regard for the western Canadian farmers and the people of western Canada. He referred with sarcasm to the Prime Minister going out to western Canada to the meeting at Winnipeg. His colleague, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, was more friendly toward the western farmer.
Advance Payments to Grain Producers
During the past two days I have been refreshing my memory with regard to a certain famous debate which took place in the House of Commons on January 27, 1956, but before I go on to that let me recall that the hon. member for Assiniboia mentioned that the provincial governments were providing assistance for moving fodder. What the hon. member did not mention was that the federal government was sharing in the cost of moving that fodder.
With the introduction of this measure all members of the committee, those who sit in the opposition and those who sit with the government, have before them a vivid reminder of other days, those days in parliament when a party with an overwhelming majority cracked the whip so unmercifully in regard to its own private members that it even became dangerous for one of their distinguished colleagues to appear on television in this country. I refer to my distinguished predecessor, the former Liberal member for Rosthern, who felt the whip hand of a conforming demand by the cabinet. He was a good friend of the hon. member for Essex East, but notwithstanding that connection he came into the house on January 27, 1956 to take a stand which was, to say the least, not in conformity with the opinion he had expressed to his electors or to the press in western Canada or with his electors' opinions as expressed in a famous telegram sent by the former hon. member to his chieftain, the then prime minister of this country, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, and the minister of trade and commerce of those days, the Right Hon. C. D. Howe.
The measure now before us is complementary to the legislation which formed one of the first acts of a Conservative government. It reminds the people of my constituency of the valley of humiliation through which their member of those other days trod. We cannot ever think he did it voluntarily. And yet all Liberal-minded people in my constituency- and I say that word with a capital "L"-will never quite forgive the surrender of those rights and privileges enjoyed by an ordinary member of the House of Commons which ultimately led to the entire Liberal party wallowing in that same valley of humiliation which became epitomized in the pipe lines debate some months later. Oh, and how they upheld the supremacy of parliament and the rights of the private members, and the opposition with its rights. And Howe, the minister of trade and commerce, sat where the Minister of Trade and Commerce sits today.
I ask hon. members to turn back the pages of Hansard to the statement read by the Minister of Finance before the recess-page
114	HOUSE OF
Advance Payments to Grain Producers 605 of Hansard of January 1956. These are the words which the Hon. C. D. Howe used on that occasion:
It seems to me that there should not be a prolonged debate on this legislation. The provisions of the bill have been in effect since November 15.
Not satisfied with controlling his own supporters, he was trying to control the opposition as well. There was the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate; there was the hon. member for Essex East, the discoverer of abuse, affront and lack of privilege; and there was the rest of that unhappy group.
This legislation has been asked for by farmers and farm organizations. I know it is needed and that it will be helpful in assisting many people in western Canada, but I welcome it on another ground as well, and that is that it is a reminder to us all, wherever we sit in this House of Commons, of the comparative freedom from coercion which is necessary if a private member is to be enabled to do his job effectively and, likewise, if those who serve in senior positions are to be spared the humiliation that is the sure reward of those who might thus encouraged take on a "Howe" complex. The Prime Minister is to be commended for his action in calling the Winnipeg meeting of farm people in December which focussed attention on the plight of all those who had suffered such severe affliction, and I ask all members of the committee to support this measure.
(Translation):


Mr. Racine:: Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the previous speakers in offering you my most sincere congratulations for having been appointed to the office you now hold, and in wishing you well. I know, this is unnecessary, as you have the required qualifications and dignity for discharging the important responsibilities which have been entrusted to you.
This afternoon I heard the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) describing the wheat situation in western Canada. He gave us an alarming and dramatic account of the snow storm which covered a large proportion of the grain crops raised by our fellow citizens, the western farmers.
I think that, since we started discussing this resolution, all hon. members on this side of the house have sympathized with western farmers. I too sympathize with them, wishing that the government would come as much as possible to their assistance by means of this legislation.
If we read the text of the resolution, we find that it tends to introduce a bill guaranteeing


provisional payments to the producers for the crop year 1959-1960, in respect of unthreshed grain in the designated area.
Of course, we readily support the legislation, but we regret one thing, i.e. that the resolution does not apply to the whole country.
Those who have been the victims of a disaster have our sympathy because in eastern Canada we have been through similar conditions and shall probably experience them again in the future. Often, perhaps, unfortunately too often, our eastern farmers suffer damage either from wind storms, hail or other weather conditions impossible to prevent.
I recall that, last year, when we were dealing with a bill on the farm loan, I mentioned this lack to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness).
I am convinced that, if I take the matter up again, he will tell me that we were dealing at the time with crop insurance. He is, however, the same man who, in 1958, stated before the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that in the province of Quebec, a crop insurance plan would run into snags. I wonder why this government has not extended the bill so as to cover all provinces in Canada.
If we gladly support the legislation with regard to the western farmers, we, in the east, would like to benefit from it too.
Mr. Chairman, I have been deeply annoyed and even shocked by the interjections which the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) made this afternoon. He mentioned, among other things, that we in the eastern part of the country, were jealous. I may assure you, Mr. Chairman, that there can be no question of jealousy, for we support this resolution. However, if this legislation were to apply to eastern provinces, I wonder whether western farmers would be deprived of anything.
I have been a member of this house for only a very short time, but I repeat, I was somewhat shocked by the remarks of the hon. member for Acadia. As a representative of an eastern constituency, I felt I was working for the welfare of the country as a whole, and I do not admit of such discrimination, any more than I agree to that demarcation line between the east and the prairie provinces. We are very much interested in seeing that our fellow citizens, the western farmers, may, in such circumstances, get some assistance from the government, and for my part, I will support this resolution.
However, I reserve the right to say that we regret that the Conservative government, which claims to be the government of national unity and the representative of all parts of

the country, did not consider it proper to modify this resolution in such a way as to cover farmers in eastern Canada.
Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, the situation now prevailing in western Canada, often arises in our own area, and we regret that none of our many Quebec colleagues on the government side saw fit to rise and voice their demands in that connection. They know as well as I do that our farmers are in need of help and that, in such circumstances, it is not only a pleasure, but a comfort to approve and provide such measures.
(Text):


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, this is my first opportunity to address you as chairman of this committee of the whole. I should like to add my words of congratulation to those you have already heard on your appointment to this very important position.
We have had a surprising amount of politics injected into the debate today. I do not propose to add to those political expressions. In certain areas of the west the emergency is extremely serious and the people there will not take lightly the way some hon. members in this debate have treated the measure embodied in the resolution before us.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce is anxious to get the important bill foreshadowed by the resolution before us piloted through the house as quickly as possible. We on the government side are just as concerned to bring into effect the act to provide cash advances on unthreshed grain, the wheat, oats and barley crops that are now lying under the snow on prairie farms through no fault of the farm operators. I therefore intend to speak only briefly tonight.
As a member from the prairies representing a constituency comprised of urban and rural residents in almost equal proportion, I wish to congratulate the minister and the government on the quick action taken in bringing in this proposed bill, together with another proposed bill providing for guaranteed bank loans to farmers who still have their grain unthreshed. I am sure it will be noted by both farmers and business men on the prairies that the government took action as soon as possible after the opening of parliament to bring into effect what this proposed bill is intended to regarding snow-covered grain, something in addition to direct payments, payments of up to $600 per farmer to those adversely affected by the unseasonal weather last fall.
The bill envisaged by this resolution and the other legislation, concerning which notice
Advance Payments to Grain Producers has been given by the Minister of Finance relating to extra financial assistance in meeting the problem of unthreshed grain are the first measures that will come before us this session. The throne speech debate has been postponed in order to put the legislation through. I wish to draw this to the attention of the prairie provinces and to emphasize the fact that this government is watching the western farm situation very closely and is prepared to act quickly when an emergency situation arises.
My own constituency of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre was not too greatly affected by the adverse harvest weather. Most of the farmers in my area have their crops harvested and can obtain cash advances on their farm-stored grain under the plan brought in by this government-I wish to emphasize that it was brought in by this government-in 1957. Any calamity that hits one section of the west as the early autumn rain and snow hit the northern areas is the common problem of all farming areas and all who are engaged in the agricultural industry welcome the action of this government.
As a farm operator myself I recall a similar snow and rain catastrophe which struck one autumn a few years ago and to which reference has already been made in this debate. My own crop and those of many other farmers was under snow all winter. On that occasion there was no assistance available from the Liberal government of that day. There was not even a suggestion from the Liberal government that there would be cash advances on grain under the snow such as has been proposed by this government. Fortunately, the following spring, following the year I referred to in which we had the crop loss before, was an exceptionally dry one and we were able to salvage much of the crop. We did that without direct financial help from the Liberal government. We hope that this coming spring will be such that the farmers will also be able to salvage the crops still unthreshed. If it turns out to be a wet spring it may not be possible to recover enough grain to fully repay from crop proceeds the cash advances given under this bill. It is because of this possibility that I have risen to speak tonight for this short time.
On July 22, 1958, the Minister of Trade and Commerce brought in an amendment to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act of 1957 to provide for the consolidation of cash advances from one crop year to another. In other words, any amount owing on the cash advanced at the end of the crop year could be carried over as an advance to the next
116	HOUSE OF
Advance Payments to Grain Producers crop year. I should just like to refer to that, Mr. Chairman. At page 2526 of the debates of the House of Commons of 1958, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
The third major amendment provides for the consolidation of cash advances from one crop year to the other. This will make it possible for a producer who has not fully repaid his cash advance through no fault of his own, which means because his quota has not been large enough to permit him to deliver or because there has been some difficulty for which he is not responsible, to obtain a further cash advance on his new crop year if desired. The two advances would then be consolidated and recorded in the permit book, and as quotas were raised the producer would repay both advances.
I hope that at later stages the Minister of Trade and Commerce will at least make this point clear and thus answer some of the main questions that have been asked me regarding this measure.
Again I want to congratulate the minister and the government on bringing in this proposed measure so quickly.
(Translation) :


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Chairman, it is not merely out of courtesy that I wish to associate myself, not only with my colleagues of other parties, but with all those members who spoke before me, in congratulating you for the confidence this house has placed in you. I am sure that our confidence has been placed in good hands and that you will fulfil your duties with all the intelligence, sagacity and impartiality which we know you possess.
Mr. Chairman, in taking part very briefly in this debate, I should like to tell the house that I fully agree with the ideas expressed by my colleagues, particularly the hon. members for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidick-son), for Essex East (Mr. Martin), for Beauce (Mr. Racine), for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) and a few others.
About the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), who is C.C.F. leader in this house, could likewise say that he has spent a year of his life in eastern Canada, in 1931 or in any other year, at wages of $10 a week, as did the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska on a Manitoba farm, in an attempt to understand the problems of western farmers.
I should like to pay tribute to our official critic in the field of agriculture because, contrary to what the C.C.F. leader said in this house, our official spokesman has many other claims to distinction than that of selling coffins, which is nonetheless a profession or trade as respectable as any other profession or trade.

The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), who introduced the resolution this afternoon, contrary to his habit, was not very talkative. He told us very little about the legislation he was going to introduce in the house.
I am certain that this was a tactical move to find out if the opposition members were already familiar with several aspects of the bill which was to be introduced. We therefore were not at all surprised by his attitude, when he gave us very little information on the resolution now being considered.
The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner), as some of my fellow members said, accused us of being jealous. It is true that we are jealous, Mr. Chairman, but jealous for justice, jealous of the principle that all Canadians should be treated on an equal footing in a country where the Prime Minister himself intends to introduce a bill of rights in this house.
(Text):


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is a disaster fund.


An hon. Member:: A bill of rights.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I just wanted to enlighten the hon. member.


Augustin Brassard: Have you any questions?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to point out to the hon. member that this is assistance to arrest a disaster condition that has arisen in western Canada. I have nothing against equal treatment to all farmers in all parts of Canada. If one particular area has suffered a disaster such as western Canada has suffered this fall, then certainly it-


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: We quite agree with the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) that it is a disaster. Not only is it a disaster but a particularly unfortunate one, and all Canadians should try to help the poor farmers who are victims of it. Not only do we support the resolution, but we should like to go even further than the government: we would like the government to give the house an estimate of what we should spend in order to help the farmers. That is what we want. Furthermore, we want to ask what amount of money will be necessary to help those who have been affected, not only by what the hon. member for Acadia calls a disaster, but by what I would describe as a real calamity. That is what we want.

JANUARY 19, I960	117


Mr. Fortin:: And what does the hon. member tor St. Jean (Mr. Dupuis) think about that?


Augustin Brassard: The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) is again trying to interrupt me. I hope he will be one of the first Conservative members from Quebec to express his opinion on the resolution now at the committee stage.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Acadia seems somewhat ruffled over the opinions I am voicing at this time. However, to deal with the unfounded charges, yes, completely unfounded-I hear some hon. members laughing, particularly the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet. I hope he will have the courage, on behalf of his Quebec colleagues, to record his opinion on this resolution.
Mr. Chairman, again it gives me pleasure to say that we in the Liberal party stand 100 per cent behind the opinions expressed by our leaders in this matter. We are 100 per cent in favour of this measure. However, we regret the fact that the government, as was mentioned by the hon. members for Essex East, Kenora-Rainy River and Assini-boia (Messrs. Martin, Benidickson, Argue), has not seen fit to inform us, at this stage, how much money we shall be called upon to vote in providing assistance for our fellow citizens from western Canada who have really suffered hardship.
The Prime Minister of Canada, who no doubt must have taken a number of courses on dramatics, issued a press release in late November announcing that the Canadian government was prepared to share expenses on a 50-50 basis, with the provinces involved in the disaster. The Prime Minister, as I say, made a number of statements, as he usually does, to the effect that the government of Canada would help the farmers affected. There is no doubt that he made commitments to the western provinces on behalf of the Canadian government, and the best proof of that is that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) indicated this afternoon that the provinces involved in the disaster had already started making payments to the farmers, because this legislation is to be administered by those provinces.
Of course, the Prime Minister, who always shows great reverence and uses great emphasis when discussing the rights of parliament, has said to the provinces involved: "You know that I cannot make any commitment on behalf of the government, but I will talk to my colleagues and to the members of the opposition and ask them to agree to the sharing on a 50-50 basis of the expenses required for the relief of the affected farmers. That is the way the Prime
Advance Payments to Grain Producers Minister usually talks about the rights of parliament, and this has always been his stand in the house. And if he did not make any commitment on behalf of the parliament or the government of Canada to the western provinces, what is it that made the authorities of western provinces start paying a compensation to western farmers? And if he has committed parliament, why did he not do it in the manner referred to this afternoon by the hon. members for Kenora-Rainy River, Essex East and Assiniboia?


Louis Fortin: And the hon. member for St. J ean-Iberville-N apierville.


Augustin Brassard: The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet keeps interrupting me, and I myself keep on asking and urging him, on behalf of his constituents and the Conservative party to give his opinion about the resolution now before the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong this debate any longer; I will simply say that we want to help western farmers affected by this distressing disaster, as was said by the hon. member for Acadia. We are also in favour of giving equal treatment to all Canadians who have suffered from a similar disaster. We hope that the Conservative party, which had preached national unity in Canada, will be fair for everybody, for all those who go through similar difficulties.
Mr. Chairman, we will be glad-and I want to say it to my hon. friend from Acadia -to support this resolution and I trust that before they introduce a Bill of Rights in the house, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce will soon present to the house legislation which will give equal treatment to all Canadians who suffer from a similar disaster.


Mr. Dupuis:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to make a speech, but I want to say to the house, as did the previous speakers, that I am in favour of this measure designed to provide assistance to western farmers.
But I rise to clear up a point. The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) has repeatedly said: "and the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville". May I say that the member for St. Jean-Iber-ville-Napierville is one of those members from the province of Quebec who is not afraid to rise in the house and to express his views. I ask the member for Mont-magny-L'Islet why not a single Conservative member from Quebec rises to deny the assertions of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner), who attacks our people.
118	HOUSE OF
Advance Payments to Grain Producers
I therefore ask those Conservative members who are always interjecting to show the same courage as we have been displaying in this house, because when the Liberals were managing the country, whenever a western member said something against our section other members rose in protest, even against a Liberal member, to set the record straight.
I therefore urge the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, if he is a true representative of a Quebec constituency, to have the courage to rise and defend the opinions of his province, just as those who have spoken before me.
That is all I have to say.
(Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: I am always very much in sympathy with members who ask that legislation that applies to any particular area of Canada should be made applicable to all parts of Canada. I am certainly interested in the poor forgotten farmers of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: And the maritimes.


Hazen Robert Argue: -and the maritimes, British
Columbia and Newfoundland, and that they should have the right to all the advantages that may accrue to farmers who live on the prairies. I believe there are some differences. It has been stated, and I do not believe anybody has contradicted it, that farmers on the prairies have their grain under the snow. I do not believe that is the case in Quebec or Ontario.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What about fishermen?


Hazen Robert Argue: Fishermen have not any grain under the snow.
The second misconception seems to be that this money is coming out of the federal treasury. This is a measure to provide cash advances against the delivery of certain grain which, at the moment, is under the snow. It is expected that the farmers may thresh at least part of this grain and when it is delivered they will repay the cash advance. The main reason that this legislation can be brought forward is the fact that prairie grain producers have decided they want to market their grain through a government board. They support the government board. This is, in part, a measure that has been brought about because there is a public body, namely the Canadian wheat board, handling the marketing, assembling and the grading of grain.
If the farmers in other parts of Canada wish the same kind of general advantages that flow


from marketing their products through a central selling agency, then they would need to ask for the appropriate legislation to enable them to do so. Then if they should get into a disaster this kind of legislation might be brought forward by the government. The only charge on the treasury so far as this legislation is concerned is the cost of administration and the cost of interest on the cash advances for a very short period.
We have had a rather wide ranging discussion, Mr. Chairman, of the general grain situation on the prairies brought about by this emergency, and the various steps that have been taken to deal with it. There is, of course, one important step which the government has not taken. I asked the minister earlier-and I hope he will reply to my question-whether or not the government had considered the possibility of paying deficiency payments on grain that has already been marketed. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce will readily realize and as the Minister of Finance I am certain realizes, such a step would put much more money into the pockets of needy grain producers than will the legislation that is being brought forward. I think that this emergency, at least in a substantial degree, could have been met, along with other measures, by providing deficiency payments on western grain.
I am wondering whether the minister can give the committee any idea at all of what estimate there is as to the use that will be made of this legislation. I think the government must have at least some general idea of how much it is in demand and of what use can be made of it. When we had a debate a couple of years ago about general cash advance legislation I believe at that time it was the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources who estimated that there might be as much as $150 million or even a larger sum made available under that legislation. I am quoting from memory but I think my memory is probably accurate when I say that about $33 million or $35 million in cash advances was made available the first year. In other words, even though western grain producers under that measure had access to an interest free advance they did not rush in to get that advance since a relatively small proportion of the farmers who could obtain the advance availed themselves of the legislation.
In view of the amount of grain that is under the snow and in view of the bill that will be forthcoming as a result of the passage of this resolution, I am wondering whether the minister has made some estimate as to the use that is likely to be made of this

Advance Payments to Grain Producers
legislation, how much money is likely to be involved and just what the estimated cost may be to the federal treasury. When any legislation such as this comes before the cabinet I am certain that the minister responsible must bring to the cabinet at least some general estimate of how much public money will be involved if the legislation should be recommended to parliament and subsequently passed.
(Translation):


Louis Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to extend to you my heartfelt congratulations for the honour bestowed upon you and the trust put in you.
If I rise to say a few words, it is not that I want to take up the challenge put to me, but simply because I see fit-and I need not be told by anybody-that a member from eastern Canada should also give his opinion on a matter which concerns westerners only.
I want to say, in all sincerity and frankness, that I support without restrictions the legislation now before this house. As the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) said a moment ago, this is a case of distressing emergency, a serious disaster affecting the people of western Canada, and the westerners can be sure that the easterners will help them out.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, that should the eastern or maritime provinces be afEected by the same kind of disaster in the near future [DOT]-and I hope that we shall be spared similar hardship-I would suggest that they be treated the same way as the western provinces are now treated.
(Text):


William Moore Benidickson: I associate myself with the last question raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia. My understanding of the experience in the first year of operation of the advance payments was similar to this, namely that the total amount advanced was in the neighbourhood of $33 million or $34 million and the interest charged to the treasury was some $450,000. The minister knows that there is no other information in the hands of members as to the second year of operation. I believe that in the last year of operation, for some reason for which I have heard no explanation, the 1956 legislation providing guaranteed bank loans was not extended and in consequence certain grains, particularly rye, lost out in so far as any form of help was concerned. They were not eligible for cash advances. They had been eligible for a guaranteed bank loan and that legislation was allowed to lapse.
Then of course the next item we come to goes further with respect to the crops with which we are dealing, and goes beyond the constituency of the producers who must sell arbitrarily to the wheat board. For that reason I think it would be interesting to know to what extent the cash advance legislation, up to the commencement of the new crop year on August 1, has shown results.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I might answer that question in this way. I have not made any attempt to forecast the number of applicants for these provisional payments that we are proposing. However, looking at the situation with regard to the cash advances under the earlier legislation we find that in the first year of the operation of that act 50,412 farmers made application. The total amount of money involved was $35,203,467. In the second crop year of the operation of the cash advance legislation, 45,341 farmers made application. The total amount of money that was advanced was $34,369,653. In the present crop year, five months of which have now gone by, 45,076 applications have been received for cash advances, for a total of $35,545,444.
The areas that are affected in the northern parts of the three prairie provinces, when the estimate of damage was made in the middle of October, amounted to 25 per cent of the general crop. Subsequently that figure has been reduced because of the remarkable effort at harvesting grain during the months of November and December, and the number of applicants for assistance under this proposed bill may not be very great. I would hesitate to make an estimate as to whether it would be say another 10,000 people who would make application or whether it would be only half that number or as to whether the amount of money involved would be one eighth of what has already been applied for under the cash advance legislation.
Nevertheless, whether the number of applicants is large or small or whether the amount of money is large or small this legislation will meet the requirements of individuals who are having difficulty in obtaining cash this year, particularly those who are in the awkward position of not being able to harvest any of their crop. I think we shall find that a great many farmers have harvested some of their crop and on that harvested grain may perhaps already have received a cash advance under the other legislation. (Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I should apologize for rousing from his slumber the hon. member for Montmagny-TIslet (Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Advance Payments to Grain Producers Fortin) or whether I should be pleased over bringing him back to reality; anyway I was glad to have him say in the house tonight that if ever eastern Canada was struck by a disaster such as the western provinces had to suffer, he would gladly make a point to bring up the matter in the house. You can rest assured, Mr. Chairman, that if a similar situation happened in eastern Canada, I would rise again to shake up the hon. member in order to give him a chance to talk on behalf of his constituents.
Among the many Conservative members from the province of Quebec, I see the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), who represents a constituency where there are many farmers and who has not yet voiced his opinion. Nevertheless, only one Conservative member rose so far and for the only reason that he was shaken up.


Mr. Chambers:: There are western members on this side, which is not the case on your side.	.
(Text):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I wonder if the minister could tell the house if, should a similar disaster occur in eastern Canada, he would be willing to propose similar legislation to the House of Commons?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, that is a hypothetical question, but I think it would only be normal for the government of Canada to come to the assistance of any part of Canada which was in distress.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might assist the Minister of Trade and Commerce a little in answer to the question of the hon. member for Lapointe. I could not help but think of the contrast between this year and last year. This year the members of the Liberal party are supporting this effort to help the farmers of western Canada. Last year, when we had a complete failure of the fisheries, I made an appeal to the hon. gentlemen opposite, and the Prime Minister went off on a trip around the world and left it to the Minister of Labour who on the second day of the session said no, nothing would be done whatever.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to take part in this debate. However, I was here most of this afternoon and after listening to the intervention of the hon. member for Acadia, when he was accusing us of being jealous of what the government was doing for the west, I feel that it is my duty this evening to say a few

words. This is more so after the statement which has just been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in reply to the hon. member for Lapointe who said that although it was a hypothetical question, if such a disastrous calamity affected the east, the government would be prepared to act accordingly.
We are dealing with the problems of a primary producer, the western farmer. Only a few weeks ago our fishermen on the east coast, particularly in the bay of Fundy and Grand Manan area, lost practically 75 per cent of their lobster fishing gear and equipment after one of the most disastrous lobster seasons for years.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I expect hon. members want to know what this has to do with wheat. After listening this evening to the remarks made by the hon. member for Rosthern I feel I have just as much right to expose the problems of our fishermen, who are also primary producers and face disaster.


Mr. Winch:: Do not forget the herring fishermen of British Columbia either.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am glad the hon. member has reminded me of the herring fishermen of British Columbia who are also in a very serious position. The fishermen of Grand Manan and the Bay of Fundy have lost 75 per cent of their gear because it is now under hundreds of feet of water, just as the wheat is under six inches of snow.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I would ask the hon. member to bear in mind that if he enters this subject of the disaster faced by fisherman we will soon have a general debate on all disasters faced by Canadians. May I ask the hon. member to stick to the subject matter under discussion which is unthreshed grain during the 1959-60 season.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I was just at the point of making a comparison, and I feel it is a case where comparison is allowed. While the wheat of the western farmer is under the snow the fishing gear of our fishermen is under water. It has been lost, and that is why I think they should have the same treatment as the western farmer. We in the east are not jealous. We are prepared to support this resolution. We will support the bill and vote in favour of relief to the western farmers, but I think government should give the same consideration to our fisherman.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, earlier this afternoon and this evening I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether

the government, in view of this grave emergency in the prairies with grain under the snow, had considered the very practical step of providing not only cash advances but deficiency payments to the western producers. I think it is not only an insult to the house but an insult to prairie producers that they are not able to get from the government a statement as to what consideration was given to the question of deficiency payments as one of the appropriate ways of dealing with this emergency.
I asked the Prime Minister this afternoon whether he was aware that the farmers union in the three prairie provinces has undertaken a buyers' strike; the farmers would reduce their purchases in the next few months as a means of exerting pressure on this government to come to a decision and pay deficiency payments. We have heard a good deal about disasters amongst the fishermen of the mari-times and the fishermen of British Columbia. There seems to be a rather general disaster affecting the whole country, and that is the disaster of having a government that will not take effective action to meet the income problems of the agricultural producers. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce owes this house a statement as to whether or not consideration of deficiency payments was given in light of the emergency of grain under the snow. There are three prairie ministers in the cabinet, including the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself, and I would be highly surprised if the government had not considered every feasible means of dealing with this disaster.
The government cannot duck the question of deficiency payments. The government had a delegation of 1,100 farmers meet them on March 10 of last year and present a brief asking for deficiency payments, pointing out the farmers were facing a grave financial situation. But the government has not had the decency even to give the western producers an answer. I think when the Minister of Trade and Commerce is asked in this house whether or not consideration has been given to this point, the government should certainly answer and the minister should give us his reply.
For the third time, and in the hope that we may be able to get some information from the government, I ask whether or not the matter of deficiency payments was considered, and whether or not the government will bring forward an announcement soon that will help assist this emergency which exists in western Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the subject matter of my hon. friend's question is not closely related to the resolution before the
Advance Payments to Grain Producers house, and the bill which refers to cash advances or provisional payments to farmers who were unable to harvest their crop. The hon. member received an answer to his question from the Prime Minister earlier today and I would think that that would satisfy him on this occasion. Certainly it has not the relationship to this bill that other questions that have been asked during the course of debate have had.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, that is a most unsatisfactory reply. It shows either that the government has not come to a decision, or that the government lacks the courage to make public the decision which was made many months ago. More and more people are coming to the conclusion that the government has said no in a very loud voice to the delegation that came to Ottawa on March 10 of last year.
Time has gone on; the months have gone by; the critical situation on the prairies about which the delegation talked has become worse, and all we get from hon. members in this house is some mumbling of "order" when a member asks the government whether or not it has made a decision with regard to this matter and whether or not it is prepared to take some action to improve the income situation on the prairies. The attitude of the Prime Minister this afternoon, pretending he has not heard of the buyers' strike on the prairies, when in every newspaper for weeks-


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order. When the hon. member suggests that the Prime Minister was pretending, I think that on reflection he would like to withdraw that word.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am willing to alter it. Obvi-ouly, the Prime Minister has lost interest in his fellow Canadians who live on the prairies, because he is not reading the newspapers. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has told me-and I accept his statement- that the Prime Minister was not pretending when he said he did not know, and if he does not know-as he does not know-then he is not reading the newspapers from western Canada.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Where is the buyers' strike?


Hazen Robert Argue: In the three prairie provinces, promoted by the three farm organizations. The step they have taken has appeared in every newspaper on the prairies, but the Prime Minister is apparently not reading them.


Mr. Speakman:: Does the hon. member know that the farmers' union of Alberta, at its
122	HOUSE OF
Advance Payments to Grain Producers recent convention stepped back from the buyers' strike and will not participate until it has considered the matter further?


Hazen Robert Argue: I suggest that the hon. gentleman should inform the Prime Minister, who is not reading the Alberta papers and who did not know that this question was even discussed. But there is a buyers' strike, and it is being promoted by the farm unions on the prairie.


An hon. Member:: Which prairies?


Hazen Robert Argue: It is being promoted-


An hon. Member:: By the C.C.F.


Hazen Robert Argue: -because they are protesting the failure of the government to have the decency to come to a decision on a very important request which they have made. I do not think the Prime Minister can be reading his correspondence from the prairies if he is unaware that the farmers are so fed up and disgusted and disillusioned-


Some hon. Members:: Point of order.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Chairman, have we got to listen to this kind of talk which is nothing but politics?


Hazen Robert Argue: On that point of order, Mr. Chairman, this is a brave point of order which has been raised. The hon. member asks if we have to listen to this discussion which is a matter of politics. Since when is the parliament of Canada removed from politics? I draw to your attention that this is no ordinary member who is making this interruption. This is an important person in the government, one who holds the position of chief government whip. He is now, moreover, an influential parliamentary secretary. And he says: "Do we have to listen to this discussion about politics?"
This is another indication that the government's majority is too large, that they would like to ram their ideas through parliament without adequate discussion. This is another indication of the kind given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon-that when he talked about there being little need for a long discussion on this particular stage he had in mind the muzzling of the House of Commons at this stage.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, we are not going to listen to this type of distortion without a protest. I made no suggestion whatsoever with regard to the muzzling of parliament. I suggested-and the hon. member misunderstood me or, if he did not, he created the impression that a different conclusion could be drawn from my remarks-that on the resolution stage of a bill which is not controversial it was better to pass on without


undue delay, have the bill distributed and then, on second reading and in the committee stage, have all the detailed examination which is required.
This is the position I took when I was on the opposition side of the chamber. Obviously, this bill is not controversial, because every opposition member who has spoken in this debate has said he intends to support it. This proves I was right in the suggestion I made, and we might be much further ahead if we had not wandered astray as the hon. member for Assiniboia has wandered astray in the course of his remarks today. My admiration for the hon. member as a debater is sometimes diminished by the fact that he diverges from the subject under discussion which, in this instance, is the question of provisional payments for farmers who have not been able to harvest their crops. Yet the hon. member talks about all manner of other things, knowing well, from his long experience in this house, that he is completely out of order. He seized the opportunity to smuggle in a request for a statement of government policy, a request which was answered by the Prime Minister this afternoon. I wonder that a person occupying the responsible position which the hon. member does in the party he represents cannot follow more closely the example which was set him by his eminent predecessors.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not want to instruct you in your duties, Mr. Chairman. I am quite prepared to go ahead and answer the statement made by the minister, but I do not want to elbow anyone else out if you care to give him the floor. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said I was trying to smuggle something in-


Jacques Flynn: If the hon. member has completed his speech, I was going to recognize the hon. member for Acadia.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: First of all, I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on your appointment to the office you now hold and wish you every success in your difficult task. As my name has been mentioned frequently in this discussion it appears to me that I should say a few words.
It seems to me that a great deal of the criticism which has been directed against this bill has been brought about by a lack of understanding of the conditions in western Canada this fall. I do not think any of the old timers in the west can recall a similar autumn, or one that even compared with it as far as the disaster effect is concerned. I have spoken to a great many of the old timers in my constituency and they all tell me they have never seen anything like it.

Advance Payments to Grain Producers
As the hon. member for Meadow Lake said, there was a record amount of rainfall in the first part of the harvest season and then 20 inches of snow. Similar conditions occurred in my own constituency, particularly in the western half which had as much as six inches of rain in the last two weeks of August and then rain on about every second day during September. The fields were so wet that in many cases farmers could not get in with a tractor even to swath. I want the committee to realize that these conditions, which amounted to disaster, were brought about by the weather and that no fault at all could be attached to the farmers.
This government is prepared to take action with respect to the five measures that have been mentioned but we will proceed with one measure at a time. They will certainly be welcome in the west and will be of much benefit. It appears to be the general belief of hon. members of the opposition that these measures will benefit every farmer in western Canada. We would like to see that, of course, but let me inform the committee that these five measures will not have that effect. I hope they will benefit those who need assistance most but certainly they will not represent a blanket benefit applying to every western farmer. I hope that is clearly understood.
The hon. member for Assiniboia spoke about deficiency payments. One could speak all night on that subject. I fail to see how a farmer with his crop under snow could benefit by getting an additional sum per bushel for the crop when he cannot harvest it until spring depending on weather conditions at that time.
The hon. member for Essex East said that this government should not have gone ahead with the measure until it had come to parliament with it. To do so would mean a delay of two or three months before the farmers would receive any benefit at all. Some are already receiving payments as was pointed out today due to the speedy action with which the government met this emergency.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River stated that he was surprised about all this. Certainly he should be surprised. His party while in office thought it was not possible to bring in cash advances. It was considered impossible by the Liberals. Resolution number 6 on today's order paper provides for the making of provisional payments to producers in respect of unthreshed grain, which is along the line of cash advances. Some hon. gentlemen appear to be of the view that this measure is one of the smallest of the five that have been mentioned but I believe it will benefit a greater number of farmers than
most of the other measures because no matter whether a farmer has 10 per cent or 90 per cent of his grain unthreshed it will still be possible for him to receive some benefit through the legislation foreshadowed by this resolution.
Those are a few of the points that I feel have not been sufficiently clarified in this debate. Another thing which should be pointed out is that Alberta has probably suffered to a greater extent than the other prairie provinces. That was borne out in the statistics released by the wheat pools throughout the fall. They indicated there were more bushels unharvested in Alberta than in the other prairie provinces. Alberta is a mixed farming area. An extension of cash advance payments will benefit mixed farmers assisting them to stay in business and maintain operations with respect to their other endeavours.
Much mention was made today about grain storage. I was pleased to hear there is storage on the west coast and the ports on lake Superior. As was pointed out, we will probably need this storage before the spring harvest. Much of the wheat is harvested damp. We should all thank the wheat board for extending permits to those farmers with damp grain. At this time in many cases farmers with damp grain deliver up to a 6-bushel quota on their crops. This is a good measure. The wheat board will endeavour to fill the storage as soon as possible due to these measures we have discussed today.
I do not wish to leave the impression that I am creating a rift between the east and west when I say that there appears to be some jealousy with respect to these payments. This is a disaster payment. In establishing it this government has created a splendid precedent. Certainly if a disaster occurred in central Canada or in the mari-times similar assistance should be considered. I believe that point was overlooked to start with and I hope my remarks will be of some assistance in clearing it up.


Hazen Robert Argue: In listening to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Chairman, I was further disturbed by the position he has taken when he stated that he felt if the bill was not controversial it would not need to be preceded by the resolution stage of debate. Then again, he said this particular resolution is not controversial. I do not know what would happen if we were discussing something which was controversial because there has been a great deal of controversy in this debate today although everyone here is in support of the motion. I would point out to the minister that if parliament is not given the opportunity to have a general debate on the resolution stage it would be impossible
124	HOUSE OF
Advance Payments to Grain Producers to have that kind of discussion on the clause by clause consideration of the bill because then it would be quite proper for the chairman to rule such discussion out of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Has there been any suggestion made to the effect that there should not be a debate on the resolution stage?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was referring to remarks the minister used to make when he was in opposition. He said that was not the position he took.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, I did not say that. At no time did I say that. Let me point out that I was on the rules committee in 1954-55. At that time the suggestion was made that this stage in the debating procedure should be omitted. I opposed that and would continue to oppose it if such a suggestion were made today. I think that stage of our procedure should be maintained.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am glad to have that clarification, Mr. Chairman, and I believe it was necessary. I am glad to see the minister taking that position and certainly I agree with him that this stage in our procedure should be maintained.
I do not think, nor did the Chairman, that I was violating the rules in asking questions about what factors the government had considered in bringing forward this resolution. I believe it is very much in order to ask the government whether or not it had considered the question of making deficiency payments which, by themselves, would put a great deal of money into the hands of the very producers who have grain under the snow.
The hon. member for Acadia wondered how that would help farmers who have not threshed their grain. The request was that deficiency payments should be made on grain that had been marketed in previous years. If that were done it would put money into the hands of the vast majority of farmers who are now adversely affected by weather conditions. The only farmer who could not be helped by such a measure would be one who was a young person and who started farming this past year. Deficiency payments would be a decided asset to western Canada. I am certain that the government will hear more during the session on this point and will receive many more delegations and submissions on the point until it gives a satisfactory reply.


Mr. Brunsden:: Mr. Chairman, as so many have said tonight, it was not my intention to enter this debate. This particular problem does not affect my area. Sunny southern Alberta is just her usual sunny self. We have had a good year. With respect to the discussion that has occurred concerning farm income, let me say I am fully confident that our particular locality will enjoy an income for 1959 equal to that of 1958 when the computations have been made.
I am constrained to say that if all the heat that has been generated in this chamber this afternoon and evening could be wafted over our western prairies the need for this legislation would have evaporated. We are all agreed on this proposed legislation and yet we go on talking about it. It is my hope that we may soon come to a unanimous decision with respect to it and proceed to other business.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, at this late stage these will be my last remarks if the minister will answer a question or two which I raised earlier and which I think are pertinent to the discussion that we have had. I am sure the minister will admit that part of the purpose of our procedure is to obtain certain information which will be helpful in debate at the next stage, which is the second reading of the bill.
We learn by the grapevine that the Prime Minister is anxious to proceed tomorrow with the speech from the throne and we will not be dealing with this legislation. Consequently, I urge the government to have a look at the desirability of bringing in legislation that would encompass the proposition that was outlined by the Prime Minister to the provinces. It seems to me that the limits of his proposition could easily be put in legislative form, and I am sure that not only members in this group but members in the government party would like the opportunity of discussing this with the government in a proper form and at this time when we are considering the plight of the western farmer who has unthreshed grain.
The essence of the resolution is that it is expedient to do something for the farmer with unthreshed grain. In that connection the Prime Minister indicated at the beginning that P.F.A.A. payments would be accelerated. We have heard nothing further from the ministers since I have advanced that reminder. In addition to this, we find considerable confusion and lack of information from the ministry with respect to the extent of helping the western farmer through the agencies or schemes of the provincial governments, and the degree of acceptance by them of the proposition that was made to them for outright

Advance Payments to Grain Producers
grants to the farmers in the most necessitous conditions, provided that they had more than 50 per cent of their crops unthreshed.
The Minister of Agriculture admitted that he was not fully up to date as to what has taken place in the matter of distribution of funds in the pockets of those helped under the proposition. We have had some help from the personal knowledge of some of the hon. members such as the hon. member for Mackenzie, the hon. member for Rosthern and others who have indicated that at least in the province of Saskatchewan some action has taken place. I indicated that, according to the press, in the province of the Minister of Trade and Commerce there apparently was some considerable delay. The minister may know something about it, but the Minister of Agriculture seemingly did not. In a press report dated January 7, 1960, we find the following:
Hon. George Hutton, minister of agriculture, has announced January 23 as the deadline for receipt of application forms for the assistance.
Therefore, presumably, there is something lacking there comparable to what has been announced by members from Saskatchewan as taking place there. When we are considering the plight of the western farmers we should have information to the fullest possible extent as to what some of these other supplementary forms of assistance have been right up to date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the minister replies, as I am sure he intends to do, to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, I should like to join in the plea that he has made to the ministry because I recognize that it is not for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to decide this. It is perhaps more for the Minister of Finance to decide and for the ministry to reconsider the attitude of ignoring parliament which they have taken with respect to the most important of the three aspects of this matter, and to bring in legislation. The reason I am prompted to intervene again is that the Minister of Finance, speaking just after I did before dinner, referred to what Mr. Howe had done in 1956, and that is precisely what we are asking the government to do now.
What the government did in 1956 was to tell the banks that they would ask parliament to pass legislation to underwrite those loans, and when the session was called this was in the speech from the throne, and legislation was introduced at the earliest possible moment. What we are asking the ministry to do now is to show the same respect for parliament that Mr. Howe did in 1956, instead of by-passing parliament, ignoring it altogether, and allowing the provinces to go ahead and spend the money and then come in months
later and ask us to behave like a lot of rubber stamps. The ministry have got a reprieve of 24 hours, and I appeal to them to remember those speeches made by the Prime Minister about parliament and to remember that the first function of parliament is to control the expenditure of the people's money, and to bring the legislation here and let us deal with it and let us deal with it on Thursday.


Mr. Graffley:: The hon. member has forgotten the pipe line.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not. There was
legislation on the pipe lines. We cannot have any legislation at all.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should express the thanks of those of us on this side of the house for the reprieve that has been granted to us by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. We are grateful to him for giving us a little longer lease of life. His remarks, and those of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, will be given the attention that they deserve, and I mean that quite seriously. We will consider their suggestions; we may not change our minds.
I think the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was under the impression that everything we might put forward with regard to assistance to farmers who have not been able to harvest their crops should have been presented all at once today. That does not necessarily follow. He expressed regret that nothing had been said with regard to P.F.A.A. payments. These are schemes of assistance on which the Minister of Agriculture can provide the information, but we were concerned today with this particular measure. Having disposed of that, we would then move on to the next one under the Minister of Finance, with regard to guaranteed loans. Having disposed of that, we would then proceed with other measures that might be considered necessary. This seems to be an orderly method of progress in parliament.


Hazen Robert Argue: Ten o'clock.


Jacques Flynn: Shall I report the resolution?
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Churchill thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-32, to authorize provisional payments for the 1959-60 crop year in respect of unthreshed grain in the prairie provinces.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


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


Lionel Chevrier: Next sitting.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader what we will do tomorrow, and can he inform the house as to what the business will be Thursday and Friday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening when I announced the business for today and Wednesday I had overlooked the fact that the Prime Minister of Japan is visiting Ottawa on Thursday, which will necessitate the absence of some people from the house; consequently, the order will be changed, and we will go on tomorrow with the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I am not in a position to say what we will do on Thursday and Friday, but that will be a matter for consultation tomorrow. I expect that we might on Thursday and Friday, proceed with the second reading of this particular bill and then the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Finance. However, I shall give adequate notice to the members of the opposition party.


Hazen Robert Argue: On this point, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the minister that I am
hopeful that on Thursday and Friday he will go ahead with this emergency legislation because it would make something of a farce of the deliberations of this house if we interrupt the speech from the throne on Tuesday because there is an emergency, then on Thursday and Friday we decide that there is no emergency. If this is emergency legislation, as I believe it to be, we should proceed with this legislation at the earliest possible time. So far as I am concerned, we should proceed with this tomorrow instead of making it possible for some of us to speak in the throne speech debate tomorrow. I do not believe that is nearly as necessary as the passage of this legislation. If we dealt with this tomorrow we might possibly make further progress.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wish the hon. member had expressed these thoughts earlier today.


Hazen Robert Argue: Those are exactly my thoughts expressed earlier today to the minister.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after 10 o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

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

Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Has the federal government received representations from any municipal body or city council, requesting the federal government to include a no discrimination provision in all National Housing Act transactions and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans, to prevent discrimination against persons because of race, colour or creed?
2.	If so, from whom were such representations received, and what reply was made to the representations?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of
Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	The Windsor city council.
The reply given was as follows:
Ottawa, December 16, 1959 Mr. J. B. Adamac,
Office of the Clerk, City Hall,
Windsor, Ontario.
Mr. J. B. Adamac,
The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to the resolution adopted by the Windsor council at its meeting held on November 9, 1959.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is the federal agency responsible for the administration of the National Housing Act, subscribes fully to non-discrimination in all its transactions.
The corporation includes in its construction contracts a clause providing that the contractor shall not refuse employment to anyone on the grounds of race, national origin, colour or religion.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in insuring loans made by lending institutions under part I of the National Housing Act, or making direct loans available, does not discriminate. It is primarily concerned with the ability of purchasers to meet their mortgage payments.
The corporation in approving purchasers who may buy houses from builders does not discriminate either for or against any race, group or class. The relationship between the corporation and the builder or home owner is that of lender and borrower. As the corporation is not a party to transactions between builders and purchasers it does not
Question
exercise control over the terms and conditions of sale which might be prescribed by a builder. Any attempts to take such action by the corporation, might be construed as violating normal property and civil rights; the corporation would be placed in the position of attempting to dictate the conditions by which a builder may sell his housing units.
I might mention that limited dividend projects built under the National Housing Act are for rental to families of low income and that is the only relevant restriction applicable to such projects. The corporation does not make limited dividend loans to sponsors who desire to rent exclusively to members of one particular group. The only restrictions on tenant selection of such projects are those governing family income and sometimes age.
As you know, federal-provincial projects are managed by local housing authorities appointed by the partnership in consultation with the municipalities. From time to time the corporation has had discussions with the province of Ontario in which the majority of these projects are located regarding their management and directions have periodically been given to the effect that no discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, creed or national origin to be exercised in the tenant selection thereof. The housing authorities have recently confirmed that they do not discriminate in selecting tenants.
I should perhaps mention that in slum clearance projects where a low rental project is to be built, the corporation inserts a condition in the contract that all persons displaced from the slum clearance area are to have the opportunity to be relocated in the rental project. In fact, there are a number of coloured persons residing in federal provincial projects, one of whom was the first chairman of the tenants association in Lawrence Heights.
There is of course, no discrimination in the selection of tenants in corporation-owned projects.
The government is in full accord with the principles of non-discrimination and you may be assured that your representations have our earnest and sympathetic consideration. Legislation covering non-discrimination affecting property and civil rights would not appear to come within the provisions of the National Housing Act.
Yours very truly, David J. Walker.

Wednesday, January 20, I960