1962-03-27

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of last summer's drought in western Canada, many areas in Manitoba and Saskatchewan are without adequate supplies of seed oats. The governments of these two provinces have requested the dominion government to share with them on a fifty-fifty basis the cost of a program of freight assistance to move seed oats into deficit areas. The cabinet has authorized federal participation in a program of this kind.
The assistance provided will be limited to a maximum of 75 per cent of the total freight costs and also to a maximum of $12 per ton. Assistance will be paid only if the distance the oats are to be moved is greater than 25 miles.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the prairie farmers who are involved will welcome this announcement, but the members of this group do hope this is not in any way related to a coming election.



EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask him whether he has any report to make in connection with the visit of the British officials here and the British negotiations to enter the common market.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No special report, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance, the Acting Minister of Agriculture and I met with the Lord Privy Seal of the United Kingdom government over the past two days. We had very constructive talks indeed. This is one of a number of meetings we expect will be held during the next weeks and months.
This program was announced when the Lord Privy Seal was here in January. We believe that these meetings are extremely constructive and useful from the point of view of both governments.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Finance agree with that reply?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has spoken for the government and for all the ministers who attended this very useful meeting. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Essex East is so attentive to this report, which I think if of a gratifying kind. I am pleased that he is now so well acquainted with the subject.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a further supplementary question. May I inquire of the minister whether he is now convinced that the British are going to enter the common market?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the British government has never said it is going to enter the common market.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not ask for the British government's view.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Its decision has been to negotiate. It has taken the view that when those negotiations have served their purpose their government will then be in a position to decide whether or not it will enter the common market in the light of the terms that will then have been negotiated. The whole purpose of the prime ministers' conference is that there may be opportunities for consultation within the commonwealth at the highest level before any such final decision is taken.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether it is a fact, as reported, that Mr. Heath visited Canada this year to forestall a visit by the Canadian Prime Minister to the United Kingdom.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member wearing that smile behind his hand at the moment knows perfectly well that is a rather far fetched suggestion. Mr. Heath has made it quite clear, as have the Canadian ministers, that this meeting held during the past two days was a matter of continuing

Inquiries of the Ministry consultation. Mr. Heath was here at the beginning of January. At that time it was intended that further such meetings would be held from time to time. Nearly three months have passed since the last meeting, and this week's meeting was timely. It has been extremely useful. It afforded Canadian ministers am opportunity of hearing at first hand from the minister who is conducting negotiations at Brussels on the British side.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. While my question is based on complaints I have received from Trail, British Columbia, concerning Canadian Pacific Merchandising Services, I judge the matter does represent some difficulties in other parts of Canada and therefore has national significance. Canadian Pacific Merchandising Services is a merger of express and freight traffic into one truck service. In view of complaints that since the merger express packages take twice as long to arrive as they did formerly, despite the high express charges, and since Trail and other Kootenay localities are non-competitive points for express traffic-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -and complaints to the C.P.R. are ineffectual-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think hon. members would better serve the interests of the house if they would allow the question to be completed before judging whether or not it should be on the order paper.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: If any hon. member wishes to raise a point of order I am only too ready to consider it. The hon. member's question undoubtedly is one that would be more appropriate for the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank you for coming to my rescue, Mr. Speaker, but this is a matter of urgency. Would the minister undertake to bring this matter to the attention of the board of transport commissioners and have it investigated promptly?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: I shall be pleased to do so, Mr, Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether it is the intention of the government at this session of parliament to extend the Freight Rates Reduction Act, which expires on April 30, 1962.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government will make an announcement in the house when it feels it is appropriate to do so.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE COVERING INTERIM PAYMENTS TO RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it the intention of the minister to bring down a supplementary estimate covering interim payments to the railways related to the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation, as was done in supplementary item No. 590 of the estimates for 1961-62?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to introduce any further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year 1961-62. I can only express the hope that the house will see fit to deal with those estimates now before it, because the payment of wages to a good many people is awaiting approval of those estimates. I would ask the co-operation of the house in that regard.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question. Does the Minister of Finance not think that if these estimates are of such urgency they should now be before the house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, they are before the house, and hon. members opposite know that it has been the practice of the house for long years, certainly when the hon. member for Laurier was a minister of the crown, for the final supplementary estimates to be dispatched through the house in a matter of a day or two.


Lionel Chevrier: Never under these circumstances.


Mr. Pearson:: Never.


Donald Methuen Fleming: These estimates, as is well known, are in practically every case simply to provide further amounts required to carry out purposes approved by parliament when the main estimates were approved and adopted.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Has the minister given consideration to the fact that supplementary estimates No. 4 are almost a complete duplication of supplementary estimates No. 3?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member would do better to reserve further discussion of this point, which now seems to be taking the form of a debate, until the estimates are called. After all, the ordering of government business is the responsibility of the government, and it is not a matter that should be debated before the orders of the day.


Lionel Chevrier: Speaking to the point of order, may I say that all 1 wanted to do was point out the parallel that exists between these two supplementary estimates, in order to show the utter confusion on the part of the government in bringing down supplementary estimates No. 4.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there is no overlapping whatever between supplementary estimates No. 3 and supplementary estimates No. 4 or indeed between supplementary estimates No. 4 and any other estimates whatever.


Lionel Chevrier: No. 5.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member speaks about confusion, and it is regrettable that the confusion is entirely on the part of the hon. member for Laurier.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Essex East rises on a question of privilege, and in that case I hope he is not going to resume this discussion, which as I have already indicated, the hon. member will have an opportunity to resume at another time.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I do propose to raise this issue on a question of privilege, because the question of privilege does arise out of the arrogant statement just made by the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the minister's statement.


Murdo William Martin: But I have not stated my case.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has said a question of privilege arises out of the arrogant statement made by the Minister of Finance. I heard the statement made by the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Finance, and in my opinion there is no question of privilege arising out of it.


Murdo William Martin: Would you allow me to state that I do think there is a question of privilege?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Don't be so arrogant.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know what more the hon. member can say, because I heard the statement and he heard the statement. In my view there is no question of privilege arising from what was said.


Murdo William Martin: That may be your judgment, sir, after you have listened to me, but surely I have the right to state why I believe I have a question of privilege. The Minister of Finance has indicated that supplementary estimates No. 4 ought to be dealt with with dispatch. It is within the control of the government to decide what business we deal with from day to day, but it is not open to any minister to charge that we have got to deal with particular estimates by a certain period. If we are denied the right to debate these questions, then that is a course of action which I believe is contrary to the rules of this house.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have an opportunity, when the estimates are called, to express his views about the course the government took in ordering its business. As I suspected, there is no question of privilege, and in my opinion the hon. member was seeking to continue the debate.
(Translation):



BELLECHASSE CONSTITUENCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschalelels (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Following the statement he made in the house yesterday, could the minister now comment on the part his assistant secretary, Mr. Marc Andre Bouchard, played in that affair?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I stated that the R.C.M.P. has been asked to make a full investigation.
As early as last Thursday, I personally gave the names of the people whom I felt could be advantageously questioned so that the investigation might be completed during the week end.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Since then I obtained further information which I passed onto the R.C.M.P. yesterday afternoon. As soon as the results are known, we will take the necessary action.
(Text):


Hon. Jacques Flynn (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The previous question was entirely out of order, as this is a matter which concerns the director of elections, so I am sure that any supplementary question would be out of order. It is about time that hon. members on the other side of the house obeyed the rules.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just one word on the point of order, as a former secretary of state. It is well known that the Secretary of State acts in this house as the channel of communication between the chief electoral officer and the house. I therefore submit to Your Honour that it has been a time honoured practice to put to the Secretary of State questions regarding the office of chief electoral officer, and I have never before heard exception taken to it.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure but that the question, if it relates to the same matter that was raised yesterday, was directed to the Secretary of State in his capacity as a member of parliament and not as Secretary of State. At least that is the way it appeared to me. However, I will hear the supplementary, and perhaps we can then determine whether or not the question is properly asked.
(Translation):


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he intends to suspend his assistant secretary pending the investigation?


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieite-L'Assomption-Monicalm):: That is none of your business.


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, until I get a report from the R.C.M.P., I do not think it would be proper and justified to take any action.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State.
Could the minister tell us who recommended Mr. Labrecque for the position of returning officer in the riding of Bellechasse?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest that the hon. member put his question on the order paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if it is a fact, as reported by the Canadian Press in today's morning newspapers, that the United States has offered Canada joint control over nuclear weapons on Canadian territory on the same basis as the Anglo-U.S. arrangement, the two key system?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, nothing has taken place since the last report in this connection, and any article that may have been published today is purely speculative in every way. I have nothing to add to what has already been stated.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Essex East asked this question:
-what consequences have flowed from representations which the Secretary of State for External Affairs said some six weeks ago would be made with respect to the apprehension of certain Christian trade union leaders in Cuba?
While the Canadian government expressed its general concern about the fate of prisoners in Cuba last February, representations were then made with special reference to the case of Reynol Gonzalez, who was well known in Catholic labour circles in Canada and was reportedly under threat of the death sentence. The Cuban authorities have informed us that Mr. Gonzalez has not yet been tried and accordingly is not yet under any sentence. We were assured that the Cuban government would take special account of Canada's interest in this case.



VETERANS' LAND ACT


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minisier of Veterans Affairs) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-80, to amend the Veterans' Land Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Churchill for the second reading of Bill No. C-75, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate adjourned last night I had been pointing out that the extension of the Canadian Wheat Board Act was something that would receive the overwhelming support of the producers in western Canada, and that over the years the Canadian wheat board had served the interests of the grain producers in a very efficient manner.
I had also referred to the discussions that had taken place to bring about another international wheat agreement, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs correctly pointed out two main reasons why the surplus grain situation no longer exists. The first of these, and I think this is the minor one, is the increase in Canadian sales of wheat, and the second reason is the very widespread drought experienced last year which followed a number of years of less than average rainfall. The minister also pointed out that 99 per cent of the delivery points are now on an open quota; but I contend that the grain producers, from the standpoint of potential income within the next few months, are in a very serious situation.
The anticipated deliverable grain from March 1, 1962 to July 31, 1962 totals 177.2 million bushels. This includes all grains, and I would point out that the figure for the same period last year was 554 million bushels. Therefore the income position of grain producers will be very serious during the next few months. This is not the occasion to advocate legislation to bolster farm income, particularly in relation to potential crop failures, but the government should take action in other legislation to protect the farmers from what is a very serious financial crisis at this time.
We have heard many statements about when the election will take place. I have guessed before and guessed wrongly. I probably could guess wrongly again, but the Prime Minister announced that the final payments, after all possible expenditures have been flushed out of the wheat board funds, will be in the producers' hands by May 28. I think that at least has some significant bearing on the date, of the election. I am not complaining in any way about the action that has been taken to make interim payments, or about the government doing everything possible to put more money in the pockets of the grain producers at the present time.
26207-1-141
but one can only wonder whether this action would be taken in a non-election year, or whether this is an instance of government action being influenced by the proximity of the general election.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs used some statistics to show the improvement being brought about in the ceiling prices by reason of the change in the international wheat agreement. It has been said that there can be a 12.5 cents increase per bushel in the prices to producers because of the increase in the ceiling, but I would like the minister to explain why the present selling price for No. 1 Northern wheat out of Fort William and Port Arthur is $1.90 plus a fraction of a cent, which is about nine cents lower than the maximum under the present international wheat agreement in terms of the Canadian dollar. Our dollar is at a discount today, and the maximum price for wheat under the international wheat agreement is certainly not being obtained for the grain that is being sold out of Fort William/Port Arthur. How can the minister contend, when the wheat board is unable to get the maximum price for wheat under the agreement at this time, that there is any real possibility of getting the maximum in discounted Canadian dollars, to which the minister referred last night, of $2.14 a bushel? I think the minister is just fooling the farmers when he puts forward those figures as a realistic possibility. I suggest to him that they are not; that as the minister introducing this legislation he probably knows they are not, and that he should not be using statistics of this kind.
My main question is this. Why is the wheat board unable to get the maximum price today for wheat out of Fort William/Port Arthur? And if it cannot get it now, why does the minister imply that the wheat board may be able to get the maximum price under the new wheat agreement which will come into effect on August 1?
This amendment gives us an opportunity to review the operation of the wheat board over a five year period, as the minister has said. There has been established under the wheat board something which is called a special account. The money in this fund was accumulated as a result of the fact that certain sums credited to grain producers from time to time have not been claimed. This money is set aside in what is called a special account, and it can be used upon the authority of an order in council set up by the government in what the government believes to be, or says it believes to be, in the interests of the grain producers. In the crop year 1959-60 an order in council was passed which is referred to in this report

Canadian Wheat Board Act as PC/1960/519. This took $775,000 of the farmers' money out of this special account to pay to the United Grain Growers Limited because they had an accident in one of their terminals at Port Arthur. The report states:
On September 23, 1959, the out-shore annex of the United Grain Growers Limited terminal elevator "A" at Port Arthur, Ontario, collapsed. The collapse resulted in the loss of 1,914,760.1 bushels of wheat, oats and barley valued at $2,406,175.22.
This was a loss suffered by one elevator company. True, it was a farmers' elevator company, but I suggest it is not a proper use of this fund to take $775,000 out of this special account and pay it to a single elevator company. The moneys in this account should be used, in my judgment, for the general advantage of all grain producers, and not as a kind of slush fund out of which dollars are made available to an elevator company because it lost certain sums as the result of an accident. I think such an accident as this is an ordinary risk which the company itself should cover by putting away proper reserves for an emergency, taking out insurance and so on. I would ask the minister when he speaks to tell us why it seemed appropriate to take this $775,000 out of the special account and pay it to one elevator company which had suffered a certain loss in grain in a terminal elevator.
The minister wound up his statement last evening by saying that the Canadian government, in presenting this bill, had demonstrated its support of the wheat board as a marketing agency for wheat, oats and barley. However, during the term of office of this government the jurisdiction and the effectiveness of the Canadian wheat board have been undermined. They have been undermined in relation to the sale of feed grain to the feed mills in the prairie provinces. The first excuse was that the wheat board did not have the legal jurisdiction to ensure its quota regulation. Then certain references were made to the supreme court, and the jurisdiction of the wheat board was upheld. But even in the face of this decision by the supreme court, members on the government side of this house carried on an attack directed against the wheat board, an attack on the marketing of oats and barley on the prairies by the wheat board to the feed mills. Led by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) and in face of stated opposition from the wheat board and from all the farm organizations, except perhaps one, they were able to remove the jurisdiction of the wheat board in this field.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: May I ask the hon.
member a question? Can he recite any opposition which has come from the wheat board with regard to the feed mill policy?
[Mr. Argued


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, yes. Opposition to this policy which is being followed was stated in the committee.


George Robson Muir: I was in the committee but I did not hear any opposition.


Hazen Robert Argue: You could not have been listening. The representatives of the board appeared and stated their opposition.


George Robson Muir: You could not have been there.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was there. The wheat board opposed this policy. The record is clear. Of course since then the government has arranged that this shall be done and the wheat board, I suggest, has no alternative but to support the government's action in undermining the board by taking out of its jurisdiction the sale of oats and barley to feed mills on the prairies.


George Robson Muir: May I ask the hon.
member-


Hazen Robert Argue: I have the floor. If the hon.
member wants to ask questions he can do so after I have sat down.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the hon. member yields the floor the hon. member for Lisgar will have to wait his turn.


Hazen Robert Argue: I suggest this was the thin end of the wedge. I suggest the Conservative members in this house were following the traditional Tory attitude of tearing down the jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board in this field.


Some hon. Members:: That is not true.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, the attack has been made, and it has been successful. The jurisdiction of the wheat board over the sale of oats and barley to feed mills within the prairie provinces has been successfully removed. And, of course, this has increased the pressure from other parts of Canada to have the jurisdiction of the board still further reduced. The hon. member for Melville, who is a genial member, believes that the jurisdiction of the wheat board should be tested even further in the courts. He believes that in future the wheat board should have to go to the Minister of Agriculture to get permission to prosecute wrongdoers who have been bootlegging grain from the prairie provinces across interprovincial boundaries.
I suggest that if this course were to be followed the whole system of the orderly marketing of grain in Canada would be completely undermined. I think the system of orderly marketing built up over the years under the wheat board system has been a good one. I think it should be protected, and

I think the policy of the government with regard to feed mills has been a mistake.
The Minister of Agriculture said that before the end of the crop year, July 31, 1961, he would provide for further submissions before he made his policy for the present year clear and final. My understanding from the farm organizations is that he has never consulted them. He never gave them a chance to make representations. He merely went forward in the present crop year with this policy which has undermined the jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board. I think any reference to the courts in the future instituted or supported by members of parliament or the government to restrict the areas of jurisdiction would be a great mistake. The Canadian wheat board is today supported by farm organizations and producers. Instead of attempting to tear down the jurisdiction of the wheat board as it now exists I feel further steps should be taken to strengthen the wheat board, to restore the jurisdiction it once had and to make it a more effective organization in the marketing of producers' grain both within Canada and in export trade.


Mr. Brunsden:: It still has wide jurisdiction.


Hazen Robert Argue: The announcement as to new prices in the international agreement is important, but I do not understand how the minister can make the claim that there is any real possibility of getting $2.14 a bushel in the future for wheat being sold out of Fort William. I should like the minister when he answers to explain the basis of his statements, and to explain why $775,000 of the farmers' money was paid to one elevator company. I should also like him to make it abundantly clear, if he will, that the government has no intention of further undermining the wheat board jurisdiction over the sale of grain both within Canada and outside our country.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, one would have thought that the hon. member for Assiniboia, now removed from the seclusion of the far corner of the house into the midst of the official opposition party, would have brought some moderation with him; however, it seems to me he has brought all his pessimism and his capacity for wild statements along with him. I would gather that since he could not compete with the hon. member for Essex East in this regard, he decided to join him. It appears to me the hon. gentleman has neglected to erect a partition between his imagination and his information.
I should like to deal with one aspect of the hon. gentleman's remarks, and that is the question of the policy with regard to the 26207-1-141^
Canadian Wheat Board Act feed mills. The hon. gentleman has suggested that I was the one who led the Conservative party into compelling the wheat board to adopt this change in regulations with respect to feed mills. Let me put the record straight. This matter was brought to our attention on a number of occasions not only by the members of the board but by farmers and feed mill operators. It was decided that hearings of the agricultural committee would be held and representations would be heard from all organizations interested in this matter. This was done, and upon the conclusion of all the evidence presented before the committee the decision was taken unanimously. I repeat that it was a unanimous decision.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not with my support.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I am sure the hon. member upon reflection-


Hazen Robert Argue: I opposed it all the way through.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has just finished his speech and the parliamentary secretary now has the floor.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, I do not want him to be unfair, Mr. Speaker.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I am not being unfair. I am merely pointing out that it was a unanimous decision on the part of the committee that the Canadian wheat board would examine this regulation. It is certainly not our fault that the hon. member failed to be present at that meeting.


An hon. Member:: There were other Liberals present.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: There are several aspects of the whole question of feed mills which have not been and should be fully dealt with. I think it should be made clear that in so far as jurisdiction regarding price is concerned, the Canadian wheat board never did have jurisdiction over the price of grain going into nonagreement feed mills. They were responsible for the administration of a quota for the reason that the board has outlined, simply to regulate the flow of grain.


Hazen Robert Argue: That affected the price. That fixed the price.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: In the terms of the Canadian Wheat Board Act it is stated clearly that the board has responsibility for the movement of grain in interprovincial and export channels. They have no jurisdiction over the movement of grain within a province. It is perfectly legal and it always has been for a farmer to sell grain to another farmer. I ask the hon. member what justification there is in allowing one farmer to sell his grain to a feed lot operator or to a feeder in perfect legality and

Canadian Wheat Board Act in penalizing another farmer merely because he sells his grain to a local feed mill.


Hazen Robert Argue: So you penalize them all.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Here again you have a problem affecting the smaller farmer. The hon. member for Assiniboia always claims to be the champion of the small farmer, but the very suggestion he is making would have the effect of penalizing the small farmer by compelling him to buy his grain at wheat board prices while the feed lot operator or the big rancher who has the equipment to go out and transport grain is able to obtain the advantage of a negotiated price from the producer. I ask the hon. member what justification there is for that policy.
It is elementary to law enforcement that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to enforce rules and regulations unless they have the support of public opinion. It was quite evident right from the start that public opinion was behind the wheat board changing their regulations in this regard. The only criticism of this policy we have heard has come from the hon. member for Assiniboia and some of his friends in the province of Saskatchewan. With the few exceptions I have mentioned the decision of the board in adopting this policy has received unanimous acceptance.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not true.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Certainly at this time the board has better jurisdiction and better authority in the administration of this policy than they ever had before. They have a better idea of the amount of grain that is going into feed channels and a better idea of what amount of grain is being purchased by the feed mills. After this has been dealt with so many times, and in view of its approval by farm organizations without criticism save for that of a few friends of the hon. member, I fail to see why he continues to bring up this old chestnut.


An hon. Member:: They were his friends.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Yes. Someone suggests that they were the hon. member's friends. I wonder how closely related to him they are now.


Hazen Robert Argue: What about the Saskatchewan wheat pool?


Edwin William Brunsden: What about it?


Hazen Robert Argue: It is opposed to this policy, and so is the national farmers' union.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: In this connection I would say that whereas under the old arrangement there were only 60 feed mills out of a total of 182 that had agreements with the Canadian wheat board, at the present time practically all the feed mills have agreements with the board, affording the board an opportunity to
[Mr. Jorgenson.!
exercise a greater degree of control over the moving of grain into the feed mills, in addition to helping the smaller producers in obtaining their feed supplies at local mills in the manner in which they wish to purchase these supplies. In many cases the farmers do not have the equipment with which to go out and buy the grain, truck it home, grind it and mix it; they depend on the local feed mills for this service. The change in regulations enables the feed mills to provide that service for the smaller farmers. Rather than being detrimental to the smaller producer, it is of great help to him. Regardless of what the hon. member may suggest, I am going to continue to make in this house recommendations and suggestions which will help the smaller producer rather than make it more difficult for him to compete.


Edwin William Brunsden: Will the hon. member for Provencher permit a question?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Yes.


Edwin William Brunsden: I would have addressed this question to the hon. member for Assiniboia, but I know he would not have the answer, as he bobbed into the meetings of the agricultural committee, asked a couple of foolish questions, got his name on the record, caught the odd headline and disappeared.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edwin William Brunsden: I have not put my question yet, Mr. Speaker, and it is this. In terms of bulk grain or in terms of millions of bushels, what is involved in sales to feed mills?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: In reply to the hon. member's question may I say that the total amount of grain involved represents about li per cent of the total volume of grain handled by the Canadian wheat board.


Hazen Robert Argue: About 10 million to 12 million bushels a year.
(Translation):


Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should simply like to add a few remarks to those of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) on the Canadian wheat board.
On March 26, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) replied to a question put by my colleague from Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger). The third part of starred question No. 315 reads as follows:
How many vacancies have occurred since 1957?
And here is the answer, as found on page 2157 of Hansard for March 26, 1962:
The Canadian Wheat Board Act provides for the appointment by the governor in council of

not less than three nor more than five commissioners. At no time have there been five commissioners serving on the board. Since 1957 there have been two resignations and two appointments.
The fourth part of the question asked by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska reads as follows:
Give the name, address and qualification of those appointed to fill such vacancies?
And here is the reply given by the minister:
4. Mr. J. T. Dallas was appointed a commissioner on September 1, 1958 and resigned on December 31, 1960, Mr. J. B. Lawrie was appointed a commissioner December 22, 1961. Prior to their appointments Mr. Dallas was executive vice president of the Continental Grain Company, Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Mr. Lawrie was European manager of the Canadian wheat board, London, England. Both these gentlemen, because of their successful association over many years with the Canadian grain trade in executive capacities, were highly qualified to assume the responsibilities of commissioners of the Canadian wheat board.
I remember very well, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture-following several requests made by eastern farmers and representations by my colleague from Drummond-Arthabaska, as well as by a few others of my colleagues-while he may not have promised it, certainly gave us to understand that he would appoint to the board a representative from the eastern provinces who would see that the interests of the eastern farmers, that is the farmers in Ontario, Quebec, the maritime provinces and Newfoundland, are protected.
I suggest that the minister should have had the time to make the appointment since that statement was made.
Before my hon. colleague from St. Hya-cinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) gets up and charges me of trying to set the western farmers against the eastern farmers, I should like to add that we are very glad indeed to note that the hon. members from the west are looking after their constituents, the western farmers. Such is their duty and they do not fail in that duty.
But, without wanting to set the western farmers against the eastern farmers, it is also our duty to look particularly after the farmers in Ontario, Quebec, the maritime provinces and Newfoundland. That cannot be challenged. For once, I should like the Minister of Agriculture to look into this problem and to help us to refute certain ideas currently expressed throughout the province; he should see that everyone is given a fair deal, for the people of Quebec-as well as those of Ontario-are Canadian citizens just like the people of the western provinces.
We are all proud to belong to the same country, Canada, but we wish to see every-
Canadian Wheat Board Act body treated on an equal footing, in the ten provinces. That is what we are asking.
I should also like to ask the Minister of Agriculture, or the hon. gentleman who is representing him in the house, if he intends to allow eastern farmers to buy directly from western farmers, without having to go through brokers, wholesalers or the Canadian wheat board. Since such a privilege is granted to western farmers, I wonder why the Minister of Agriculture should not give a similar one to eastern farmers.
One of the parliamentary secretaries to the minister said a while ago that they first have to know public opinion before they can make changes in the regulations of the Canadian wheat board. Hearing such an argument makes me wonder.
The hon. member for Assiniboia stated in very plain language that there was discrimination in that field. The government knows about that. Why should they have to wait for public opinion to take action? Do their actions depend on public opinion? Do they give more consideration to the votes they can get from public opinion than to justice towards all Canadian citizens?
That is the question I put to him and I should like to have an answer. Especially, I should like to hear someone tell me if, before long, eastern Canada will be represented on the Canadian wheat board.
(Text):


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, as a member from the west and one who represents several thousand farmers in the constituency of Bow River I could not sit silently today and hear statements made by a former graduate from Saskatchewan-I refer to the hon. member for Assiniboia-to the effect that the Canadian wheat board had been undermined. Sometimes it is necessary to go back and look at the record and at history. I think I can safely speak for other Conservative members and say that we stand wholeheartedly behind the Canadian wheat board and believe it is the only type of marketing agency that will serve the western Canadian farmer well. When the charge comes from the newly adopted Liberal member from Assiniboia to the effect that we were undermining the wheat board, it is necessary then to look at the history of the wheat board and ascertain who created it.


Augustin Brassard: Someone who
knew something about agriculture.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I agree with the hon.
member. I am glad that I was interrupted

Canadian Wheat Board Act by the hon. member for Lapointe. After listening to his speech and that of the hon. member for Assiniboia I found that they took opposite sides of the fence, and I wondered which one was the true Liberal after all. The hon. member has had his chance to make his speech. If he will just give me a few moments in which to do so, I will deal with the history of the Canadian wheat board.
If you go back, Mr. Speaker, to June 13, 1935, volume IV of the debates of the House of Commons, or in fact if you go through the whole volume you will see that it is made up of the debate on the Canadian wheat board. I think it is time some western Conservative member set the record straight once and for all, and made it clear that the Canadian wheat board came about through the instrumentality of a great Conservative who represented a part of my riding of Bow River but which at that time was called Calgary West. I refer to none other than the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. The farmers of Alberta, and I am sure the farmers of Saskatchewan, know that it was R. B. Bennett who created the Canadian wheat board as a result of which there was, in the words of the hon. member for Assiniboia, some facsimile of organized marketing.
One cannot deal with these amendments without going briefly into the history of the wheat board. Just read the debates. Who was it who talked for days and months in 1935, delaying the legislation creating the Canadian wheat board? None other than the Liberal party. That may be why the Liberal party had to go elsewhere for a representative from the Canadian west at this time. It is the reason they have had no representation in western Canada.
The farmers know who their friends are. The farmers know who created the wheat board and who are the friends of the wheat board. There has been talk about undermining the wheat board, but who was it who opposed R. B. Bennett in 1935 when he tried to create the board? The Liberal party; they opposed it. When the bill was brought in at that time they talked for days on the Canada Grain Act, out of which gradually grew the Canadian wheat board as we know it today. There is not a Liberal here who will stand up in his place this afternoon and deny that the foundation for the creation of the Canadian wheat board was the Conservative party. In fact, to the farmers of western Canada the Canadian wheat board is Mr. Conservative.
It is all hogwash for the Liberals to talk about undermining the wheat board and for them to say that the hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort-Tisdale who sits in front of me, has suggested that the Conservatives have

not been playing ball with the Canadian wheat board. I should like to say here that it is because of the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale, whose riding I know well because I lived there for almost 10 years, that rapeseed is now classified as a grain. As a member from another province I wish to congratulate the hon. member, because this shows what one Conservative is doing and it shows that we all work together for the common good of the western farmers.
Another charge was made in connection with the new international wheat agreement. It is not so many years ago that the western farmer when he was leaning over his back fence and talking to you would say, "Why did C. D. Howe not compromise to the extent of five cents a bushel", so that an international wheat agreement could have been consummated by those countries that wished to buy the best wheat in the world from western Canada? It was the Liberals who made the mistake, and it is time it was put on the record that because of that mistake a surplus of some 700 million bushels of wheat was piled up in bins, on the ground, in barns and other buildings, all stored in western Canada when we took office. However, because of the dynamic action of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton, Qu'Appelle) we were able to unload the surplus created by the former administration. The western farmer knows what I say is correct, because wherever you go western farmers will tell you exactly what I am saying in this chamber today.
The hon. member speaks about the Saskatchewan wheat pool. Everybody in Saskatchewan and Alberta knows that it was a Conservative government that kept the wheat pools in operation financially during the depression of the 30's. They know who are the friends of the wheat pools, the friends of the co-operatives and the farmers. Let us see what some of these distinguished men have had to say about the international wheat agreement. I refer now to the Wheat Pool Budget of March 16, 1962, where I find the following:
In view of greatly reduced supplies in most wheat exporting countries, exporters had hoped to get a somewhat higher ceiling.
It is obvious that the farmers want more for their wheat and everything they sell, but at the same time they are fair. We all want the best price.
G. L. Harrold, president of the Alberta wheat pool who attended the Geneva meeting, said: "We had hoped for another 2J cents", and that the current increase is "probably a compromise".
Let us pause there for a moment, Mr. Speaker. Was it not better that we reach a

compromise than turn down the agreement, as C. D. Howe did under the former administration, thus letting surplus wheat pile up on the prairies so the farmers could not meet their obligations? Let us see what the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool had to say about the recent agreement. These are men who represent farm organizations and speak for the farmers, and when the hon. member for Assiniboia says that we are undermining the wheat board or undermining the farm organizations the farmers just do not agree with him.


Hazen Robert Argue: Tell us about the feed mills.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The parliamentary secretary answered the hon. member very well in that regard, and I am not one who believes in repetition. Read his speech tomorrow if you did not listen to it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did you say "reputation"?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I quote:
Charles Gibbings, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, said that under the circumstances the agreement was the best that could be negotiated and still have sufficient countries involved to make it effective.
In other words Mr. Gibbings, the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, for whom I have tremendous respect, said it was necessary for a compromise to be reached. He said it was necessary under the circumstances in order to get a firm agreement. These two gentlemen, the presidents of the two great farm organizations of western Canada, have patted the government on the back and said that under the circumstances we have acted properly.


Hazen Robert Argue: They patted themselves on the back.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We can do that too, because we have something to pat ourselves on the back about. We got rid of the surplus that you talked about, and when you went back to Assiniboia you found out that the farmers like the acreage payments. That is probably why you switched parties.
There was one other charge that I think should be answered. It was made by the new wheat critic of the Liberal party, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith). He said it was rather unusual that the wheat board should be taken away from the Department of Trade and Commerce and placed under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture.


Hazen Robert Argue: Now it is back in veterans affairs.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let us face facts. We know it was a good move because since that time, and with the co-operation of the Department
Canadian Wheat Board Act of Trade and Commerce the government, through the Minister of Agriculture and the former minister of agriculture, has been able to negotiate large sales of wheat to communist China and other countries and unload the surplus. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Maybe the change should have been made in the days of C. D. Howe, because I am confident that Mr. Gardiner would have liked to have the wheat board under his thumb. He could not get along very well with Mr. Howe. He practically admitted that in Alberta on several occasions and apologized because there was such a large surplus of wheat at that time.
When we hear loose criticism of that nature I wonder whether the Liberals are not looking for something to talk about in the hope of influencing somebody and confusing the people enough so the odd farmer may vote for them. It will take more than the hon. member for Assiniboia, the new member of the Liberal party, to convince the farmers of western Canada that they need the Liberal party to look after their interests.
Let us review the situation. The Conservative party has always stood solidly behind the wheat board. We created it, and we believe it is a good marketing institution. It organized the sellers so they could deal with the organized buyers. We also believe that the Canadian wheat board should be under the Department of Agriculture, because then you have the proper relationship between the Minister of Agriculture and the board, and the minister can work hand in hand with the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his department. Finally, I say that when the hon. member for Assiniboia or any other member of the Liberal party says that we have undermined the wheat board, he is just whistling "Dixie" but he has got the wrong tune.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in the debate on this bill until the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) displayed another of his varied talents today and undertook the role of historian. He told us about the devotion of the Tory party in the thirties to the wheat farmers and how grateful the wheat farmers were to Mr. R. B. Bennett. I sent for a parliamentary guide, because I lived in the prairies in those days and I remember something about that devotion. Of course the hon. gentleman did not say that for 22 years after the event he described the farmers of western Canada expressed their gratitude to the Tory party in the following fashion:


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: By voting C.C.F.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In 1935 the Conservatives got three seats in the prairie provinces and the

Canadian Wheat Board Act Liberals got 29, which perhaps gives some indication of what the farmers thought. The hon. gentleman, perhaps, was not old enough to remember that. In 1940 the Conservatives got three members; in 1945, at the end of the war, they managed to get it up to five when Mr. Bracken was their leader; in 1949, they dropped to four and in 1953 the number went up to six.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Tell us how many we got in 1958.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not need to blow the hon. gentleman's horn. However, I point out that these people who can sweep the west can also be swept out of the west, and there is plenty of history to prove it. I suggest it is not only out of the west they are going to be swept.
It seems to me that perhaps we might more profitably be discussing the wheat board in 1962 than this denaturing of history in which the hon. gentleman engaged. His history, of course, is just about as good as his journalism, of which we have also had some recent examples. Having risen, I cannot refrain from reading the first paragraph of the order in council to which the hon. member for Ottawa West referred. I have had some experience with orders in council.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: You sure have.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 was clerk of the privy council at one time, and while I was clerk I reduced the number of orders in council by about 70 per cent. This was not of very great importance, but in a government that was supposed to be devoted to passing orders in council I thought it was a reasonable record. However, in all the time I was clerk of the privy council, which after all was only one year, and in all the time I was a bureaucrat, which was rather longer than that, and all the time I have been a member of this house, I have never read an order in council quite like this one. I should like to think, sir, I was eloquent enough to describe this order in council in the way it would have been described by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) if he had been on this side of the house and this order in council had been passed by the previous government.
This is the order in council which guarantees this China wheat sale. The government were scared to come to the house and ask parliament to vote a guarantee as they should have done. They preferred, in a backhanded fashion, to give a guarantee, and let us look at the legal authority for it. I quote: His Excellency
The Governor General in Council:
His excellency the governor general in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance-
[Mr. Pickersgill.)
This is not done on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Trade and Commerce or any of these other lesser lights, but upon the recommendation of that super guardian of the treasury, 18 hours a day, the Minister of Finance.
-pursuant to the Canadian Wheat Board Act-
He does not even mention the section. He does not dare do that because there is no section which has any relevance to this matter. I suppose it was felt that by mentioning a statute it would give the appearance of statutory authority to this incredible provision, and here it is:
-is pleased hereby to authorize the Minister of Finance (a) to give to the Canadian wheat board an undertaking-
Just listen to this, sir.
-to give to the Canadian wheat board an undertaking that, in the event of any default by the China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation in respect of payments due to the board under contracts for the sale of Canadian wheat and barley made under the long term agreement between the said board and the said corporation, such parliamentary approval as may be necessary will be sought to enable direct reimbursement by the government of Canada to the board of any payments in respect of which the corporation is in default-
Well, talk about contempt of parliament; talk about taking parliament for granted; talk about an arrogant attitude, this is an assumption by hon. gentlemen opposite that they will always occupy the treasury benches, because this is a long term arrangement. What is the undertaking? It is that they will come to parliament and ask for this money; that is the kind of guarantee that they purport to give. It is no wonder it was so difficult to get any of these details out of the government.
Now, the right course to take, as the hon. member for Ottawa West said last night, is to use export credits insurance. Everybody wanted to see this wheat sold. Everybody was glad the wheat board sold it. I do not think everybody was so glad that the Minister of Agriculture, after the contract was signed, wasted public money by flying to Hong Kong and pretending he had signed the contract there. This is the reason, of course, the government keep this date a secret. They do not want the plain fact to be revealed to the public, although it is well known throughout the trade. It is common gossip in Winnipeg, and the government has not dared to deny it because they know it is true. Here is another example of the attempt of this government to give the impression that these ministers do everything that is done by good administrative machinery which has been there all the time.

The wheat board was able to sell wheat to China because the Chinese were starving and had to have it. I am glad, speaking for myself, that starving people are going to be able to eat this wheat. I hope we are going to be paid for it. However, I say there should be some respect for the rights of parliament on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. They should have insured this sale properly under the export insurance act. If they felt the transaction was too large to come under that act-and I think that might have been a reasonable attitude to take-they should have come to this parliament and told us what they were doing. Then they could have asked parliament to sanction it.
We were reminded yesterday, sir, in very gentle tones that we had a tremendous filibuster, an awful fuss, in this house six years ago because the government of that day sought to lend $80 million, at a good rate of interest and with excellent prospects of recovery, to a company to build an important undertaking which prevented a much more serious recession than would otherwise have been the case in 1958. This was a big parliamentary matter. Here is a guarantee of a sale of $100 million and it is made in this back room manner, behind closed doors. This is the kind of undertaking given to the wheat board, which the wheat board was no doubt obliged to accept and keep quiet about. If there should be a default the government would come to parliament and ask for the money, treating us like rubber stamps.
I say, sir, it is a shocking thing that has been disclosed by the hon. member for Ottawa West. It does seem to me that this bill ought to contain a provision asking parliament to validate this matter instead of leaving it in this extraordinary state. The right hon. gentleman who is head of this government went back and forth across this country from the time he was elected to parliament 22 years ago yesterday until he became prime minister, talking about government by order in council.
This is the first order in council I have seen in my experience that appears to have no legal authority of any kind whatsoever. I am not a lawyer and I may be wrong, but I would be most interested if the Minister of Veterans Affairs or the Minister of Justice will show us the statute which gave authority to the government to give this kind of guarantee and this kind of undertaking without asking parliament for the authority to do it. It seems to me this is the kind of thing against which the right hon. gentleman used to be so eloquent in the past, and it is the kind of thing that should not be tolerated if we are to continue to have parliamentary government.
26207-1-142
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I am quite sure that distinguished hon. members of the house, like the hon. member for Bow River, will go about saying that the Liberals are opposed to the sale of wheat to China just because we want to know the terms on which it has been sold, but should that kind of lie be spread about in western Canada I do not think anybody will believe it.


Mr. Pascoe:: They know it now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is pretty good evidence of the kind of honest, honourable and straightforward campaign that hon. gentlemen are apparently boasting about carrying out, because they know there has not been one hon. member belonging to any party in this house who has opposed the sale of wheat to China. I do not know of any hon. member who did not welcome the sale of this wheat, and was not indeed very glad that, when there was difficulty about some of our other markets, this market was open and available to us.


James Ernest Pascoe: Backtracking.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is no excuse for saying that parliament should not know the terms on which the sale was made and the terms under which it is guaranteed. That is not saying that the government is justified in hiding these things and, when they are exposed, trying by blackmail to prevent a debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is getting his argument back to a decision already taken in this house, in the line he is now taking. I have been very doubtful about the relevance of the whole debate on the guaranteeing of the sale to China because the wheat board act, which it is now proposed to amend, apparently has nothing to do with the guarantee. But, as there was discussion yesterday, I have not been prepared to interfere. However, when he is reopening the debate which resulted in a vote in this house on the production of the contracts, it seems to me he is going beyond the scope allowed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, sir, I am quite unaware of having said anything that had to do with any vote in this house. I am discussing this order in council, which was produced in this house as a sessional paper, and I always understood it was perfectly proper for hon. members to do so. At no stage am I aware that any decision was taken in this house about it. That is precisely what I am complaining about, that this guarantee or purported guarantee is nothing more than an undertaking to bring a vote to parliament at some time in the future under certain contingencies. I am complaining that that is an
2214	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act improper act for the executive to take. It is contemptuous of parliament; it is a presumptuous act, and it deserves the censure of the house as an attempt by the government to usurp the control of finances by the house. I am saying that this bill now before us should contain a provision enabling parliament to determine this matter, and determine it now in the light of all the facts. That is my whole point.


Hazen Robert Argue: And protect wheat board funds. (Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I was quite astonished at the remarks made by the hon. members for Lapointe and Drummond-Artha-baska (Messrs. Brassard and Boulanger), and in particular by the latter's attitude, when he condemned the policy of the Canadian wheat board, charging that it causes serious harm to eastern farmers.
I hope the western farmers will remember these remarks made by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska because that is one of the ways that are used to try and divide the farmers of this country.


Samuel Boulanger: As usual, you misunderstood me.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, in order to prove my point, I am prepared to quote part of a speech made by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska last night and, instead of condemning the attitude of the Canadian wheat board-


Augustin Brassard: He did not condemn it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -or to criticize-


Augustin Brassard: He did not criticize it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I shall quote the remarks made by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, which appear on page 2197 of the official report for March 26, 1962. I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I think the grain transportation subsidy policy comes under the Canadian wheat board, at least indirectly. However, what I wish to say is that farmers in the east suffer from the government's policy and from that of the Canadian wheat board.


Augustin Brassard: Is that condemning the Canadian wheat board?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Surely, because he is blaming the Canadian wheat board.
If the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska had been in the house last night-
[Mr. Pickersgill.l


Samuel Boulanger: I was here.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -when the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) moved the legislation now before us in the name of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton), he would have heard him make the following statement, as can be seen on page 2188 of Hansard:
I should like to make a reference to the importance of eastern Canada as our primary commercial market for western feed grains. From time to time problems arise in the supplying of western feed grains for eastern livestock and poultry feeders. In order to bring about a closer liaison and a better understanding of these problems the Minister of Agriculture will shortly be announcing the establishment of a special eastern liaison committee to work with the Canadian wheat board.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that such a statement coming from the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who was then acting for the Minister of Agriculture, is very encouraging for eastern producers and will help to bridge a gap which existed under the former administration and which was never corrected.
Mr. Speaker, those are the remarks I wished to make in the interest of eastern producers.
Once again, I must say that the policy of the opposition is to set eastern producers against those in the west. I hope that hon. members from the west will remember the attitude of opposition members and will make it known in their respective ridings during the next election. For my part, I shall make this attitude known to the electors of the province of Quebec.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker,
would the hon. member let me ask him a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm if it would not be better to have an eastern representative on the Canadian wheat board, instead of setting up a liaison agency between eastern farmers and the Canadian wheat board. I feel that it would be much better to have someone who had his say on the board itself, and I should like to know what the hon. member thinks of this suggestion.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to answer that question.

As the minister explained yesterday, I believe that this special eastern liaison committee will be of great service to eastern producers and will enable them to place their views and their problems before the Canadian wheat board.
I feel that this way of doing things will be better than the do-nothing policy which always existed in the past. It is an improvement-


Augustin Brassard: But we have no representative on the Canadian wheat board.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is a remarkable improvement.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman-
(Text):


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fit and proper that I should rise at this time and join with others who have given the house the benefit of a little of the history behind the development of the wheat board. I do so because I well remember the time when Hon. Robert Weir was minister of agriculture in the Bennett government, and it was during his term of office that the wheat board was developed.
As it happens I served as an economist under Hon. Robert Weir, and about four or five of us were assigned to the job of hammering out the provisions of the wheat board act. If there is anyone who believes in and has supported the wheat board act in this house it is the member for Macleod, but to hear the hon. member for Assiniboia talk one would think he had something to do with its development. I am delighted to hear that he supports it and would be against anyone undermining it. I want to tell him that nothing this government has done has been in the direction of undermining the wheat board. The people of my province and of my riding are solidly behind the policies that have been put into effect since this government came to office, including the marketing of feed grain to feed mills.
In answer to some remarks which were made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate I wish to say there is no farmer in western Canada who is not fully aware of the Liberal attitude with respect to the sale of wheat to China. If the hon. member thinks that by a twist of his phrases at the present time he can convince the farmers of western Canada that the Liberal party takes a benevolent attitude toward the sales and is in favour of them, he has a bigger job before him than he ever tackled before.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I shall be through in just a minute, and then the hon. member can ask
26207-1-142J
Canadian Wheat Board Act his question. If there is any farmer in western Canada who would vote against this government and in favour of a Liberal government, it would serve him right if he had to put up with a Liberal government in the west.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member indicated I might ask a question at this point. Can he give me evidence of any statement made by any Liberal member in this house speaking for the Liberal party to justify his assertion that the party opposes the sale of wheat to China?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: In order to answer that question I would have to go back over the records and documents.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Surely it can be shown by their remarks each day.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: However, I should like to read this into the record-


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is that from?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: It is from the Ottawa Citizen of March 3, 1962, and it reads as follows:
In a particularly damning attack on the Prime Minister, Mr. Tardif said Mr. Diefenbaker had thought he was "God-sent" before being elected and subsequently decided he was God's equal and, now, God's superior.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is precluded by our practice from reading-


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Well, I should like, if I might
be allowed-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would resume his seat. I will explain to him the difficulty which I feel arises from what he is saying. It is neither customary nor proper to read editorials which reflect on the conduct of hon. members of the house. This editorial seems to reflect on the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Tardif). I am not sure if it is criticism of what he did in the house or not. If the comment refers to something the hon. member said outside the house perhaps it would be admissible, though it does not seem to me to be relevant to the debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might say a word on the question Your Honour has raised. It might simplify the matter. I asked the hon. member to cite, if he could, a single statement made in this house by any member of the Liberal party that went into Hansard, and there is none.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I should like to answer the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I am looking at this for the first time-


Hazen Robert Argue: Where did you get it?

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: -and I was having trouble finding the spot. I have it now and to continue:
He accused the Conservative government of favouring the western farmer in its agricultural legislation and referred specifically to the wheat deal with China.
That is the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter).


John Whitney Pickersgill: What does that amount to? How ridiculous can you get?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? If the minister speaks now he will wind up the debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have listened with interest to the debate so far, and I have heard with some amazement statements made by hon. members in the ranks of the Liberal opposition. Despite some of these statements, I find that generally the house is in favour of passing this legislation.
Unfortunately the debate has ranged far afield without reference, at times, to the bill which is actually before us. If I am to answer some of the questions which have been put forward I shall not be able to relate my answers specifically to the bill, either. However, the hon. member for Ottawa West began with a question as to a change in the ministry which might, of course, have been better directed to the Prime Minister. It is not up to me to answer questions of that nature.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: He does not give any answers, though.


An hon. Member:: He is too wise.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member then began to talk about the wheat sale to China, and other members of his party have dealt with the same subject. With loud protestations they put their hands over their hearts and say they are all in favour of the wheat sale to China, but nothing has disturbed them more than that magnificent action on the part of the Minister of Agriculture and the wheat board in bringing about a sale far beyond anything which has been made in the past, a sale which has lifted a burden of surpluses from the western farmers and put us in a position with regard to our wheat which is completely different from that which existed several years ago.
I recounted yesterday when I was introducing the bill the great change which had taken place in five years, during which period we have moved from a surplus position of 730 million bushels in July, 1957, with a new crop just around the corner, to a position today when the surplus is less than our average exports during the last few years, in other words a surplus of some

300 million bushels. This represents a tremendous change in the space of five years and the sale to China has capped it.
The Liberal party have protested time and again that they are all in favour of the wheat sale to China. Nevertheless they spend most of their time criticizing it. They say oh, yes, it is a great thing to sell this wheat, but you have done it in the wrong way. This is a very narrow method of criticism, and it is very shakily founded. The hon. member for Ottawa West, supported today by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, has criticized the method by which the wheat board has been given a guarantee with regard to its transactions with the China buying corporation. They are protesting vigorously that this arrangement represents some affront to parliament, and so on.
The complaint rests upon an interpretation of section 11 of the wheat board act, and it would perhaps better be left to the law officers of the crown to settle that matter than for us to attempt to settle it here. I do not find any difficulty as I read those sections in considering them to be adequate for the purpose for which they are intended. The wheat board is guaranteed against loss if the representatives of the Chinese government fail to make payment. Although they are very fond of the China wheat sale, as the debate progressed members of the Liberal party gave me the impression they would like to see a default in the payment. In fact over the last several weeks rumours have been started to the effect that China is already in default, and questions in that regard have been asked in the house. Only last week end another rumour was started that China was in default. The situation, of course, is that the payments are right up to date, and for the months of February and March payments have been made totalling almost $11 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Good.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no comfort at all for the Liberal party in this. We consider the deal to be satisfactory. This is not the first time there has been a sale of wheat to China. Memories are a bit short, but in the year 1958 ten cargoes of wheat were sold to China. That sale happened to be on a cash basis. The wheat board was active then with the assistance of Mr. Forsyth-Smith of the Department of Trade and Commerce who was stationed at Hong Kong, in the arrangements for the sale of wheat to China. That original contract away back in 1958 paid off in 1961 because the contacts with the merchandisers had been made and the wheat board with

its usual alertness and activity had kept closely in touch with the situation in China.
The hon. member for Ottawa West has accused the Minister of Agriculture of using the wheat sale to China for propaganda purposes. Surely there is nothing wrong in letting people know about a wheat sale of that size.


George James McIlraith: That was not the accusation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is unprecedented in recent years, and it is only good business to let people know what is going on. It has certainly been of great encouragement to everyone in western Canada; and although the hon. member for Ottawa West in the rather narrow circle that prevails here in Ottawa may not think it is important, no one in western Canada holds that opinion.
The hon. member for Ottawa West also mentioned certain details of the act which perhaps might best be considered when we study it in committee. The hon. gentleman continued his protests with regard to an alleged failure to disclose various aspects of the agreement with China. However, he had to admit in fairness that it would be quite wrong for the Canadian wheat board, engaged in competitive selling around the world, to disclose the nature of its contracts, because if it did that advantage might be taken of the situation by other countries that have wheat for sale. It has been the practice over the years for the wheat board to do as any prudent business concern would do, to keep secret the terms and details of its contracts.
The hon. member for Timiskaming in the course of his remarks said the credit for the China wheat sale should go to the wheat board and not the government. In the three and a half years I had the pleasure and useful experience of working with the wheat board I always gave credit to that organization, and so has the present Minister of Agriculture. But I suggest to the hon. gentleman that some credit should go to the government because when trouble arises the government receives the blame, and surely it must work both ways.
I recall that when I had responsibility in this field I was constantly under fire in the house from hon. members opposite with regard to such question as the box car situation, the quota situation out in the prairies, the shipping situation at the lakehead, whether the icebreakers were in operation opening the harbour at Fort William, whether demurrage should or should not be charged on railway cars which had wheat stored in them at the lakehead, what was the government going to do about wet and damp grain and how were we going to get it
Canadian Wheat Board Act dry, and things of that nature. When trouble hits the western agriculturist the government hears about it immediately, and hon. gentlemen on the other side have always been the first to lodge complaints. Therefore I think it is only fair, when things are going fairly well, that the government might reasonably accept some share of the praise for those conditions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the minister leaves his reminiscences, would he permit me to ask him a question? Has the minister yet found out which end of a box car is the front end?


An hon. Member:: We are leaving that to you.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As one historian to another may I say I did investigate that matter very closely, and there is a very slight difference which perhaps I will tell the hon. member about privately, as I am sure His Honour would interrupt us if we were to engage in a discussion of that subject now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. The brake is at one end.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. members for
Drummond-Arthabaska and Lapointe made contributions to this debate. In fact on the other side of the house we have agricultural spokesmen in the hon. member for Essex East who is, of course, the leader of the pack-although now the hon. member for Ottawa West has entered it-and in the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, on whom we can always count to talk on any subject that may be disclosed here.


Edwin William Brunsden: Whether or not he knows anything about it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That no doubt stems from the hon. gentleman's reminiscences of the days when he was clerk of the privy council. As I said, we also had contributions from the hon. members for Drummond-Arthabaska and Lapointe. And then, buried in the group over there, we heard from the hon. member for Assiniboia. That hon. gentleman was at least fourth on the list of agricultural spokesmen for the Liberal party. Quite a change has taken place in his position in parliament, and the ear of the country is not attuned to his discourses as perhaps it was in days gone by.


George James McIlraith: Would the minister permit a question? Would he not agree that this legislation has to do with wheat marketing?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Ottawa West had reached that conclusion yesterday.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what we were trying to talk about, not typographical errors.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Assi-niboia is interested in wheat marketing, or at least he has conveyed that impression over the years, and he spoke about that today. He engaged in a severe attack on the Conservative party and on the present government. He made a serious accusation in saying that this government is undermining the authority of the wheat board. Fortunately an answer has already been given to that accusation, but I should like to reinforce what has been said by hon. members on this side of the house in that regard.
Rather than attacking the wheat board or undermining its position, the present government has done its utmost to strengthen the position of the wheat board. We have repeatedly praised the activity of the board and given it every assistance possible within our means.
I rely upon the record of the Conservative party, which came to the rescue of western wheat producers in the autumn of 1930. The Liberal government of 1929 and 1930 had neglected the wheat producers, and the wheat pools were in difficulty. The government of that day had left it to the provincial governments to support the wheat pools. Finally the Conservative government under R. B. Bennett came to their rescue and guaranteed loans from the banks, and subsequently went on to stabilize the situation and develop the Canadian wheat board.
Hence our record is quite clear and quite good with regard to the Canadian wheat board, and it has been maintained up to the present time. The wheat board gets the full support of the present government.
However, the hon. member for Assiniboia felt called upon to reiterate a charge he has made in the past with regard to the Canadian wheat board. I suggest to him that he is going to have much more difficulty in the group with which he now finds himself than he ever had in the past, for this reason. Although in the days of the late Mr. Gardiner and the late Mr. Howe the wheat board was free from serious restraint, that is not going to be the case in the future. If the hon. member for Assiniboia, according to speculation which I read in the press yesterday, becomes minister of agriculture he will find himself in immediate conflict with the proposed minister of finance, namely Mr. Walter Gordon-


George James McIlraith: Repudiated by the former minister of trade and commerce.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -who is now one of the main advisers to the present Liberal party and whose attitude toward the western prairie producer and the Canadian wheat

board is shocking, to say the least. The hon. member for Assiniboia is going to have the greatest fight of his life to maintain the authority of the Canadian wheat board within the group with which he has now associated himself. I wish he had asked my advice before he took the hasty step he took a little while ago.


An hon. Member:: He is going to be sick.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In commenting upon Mr. Gordon's report Mr. Howe said this:
If any hon member wishes to be recorded in support of the recommendations of the Gordon commission I hope that he will rise in his place and state his position clearly and unequivocally.
The underlying theme of the Gordon report on wheat is "restriction". The report returns time and again to the theme that the producer must be confronted with a limitation under which he will make whatever adjustments he can. This conception is directly opposed to the present government policy, which is to establish fair initial prices, provide the largest possible delivery opportunity for producers and to assist by paying carrying charges on abnormal surplus stocks of wheat until markets can be found.
That statement can be located at page 891 of Hansard for February 1, 1957. I suggest to all hon. members from western Canada that they read, reflect and repeat those remarks of Mr. Howe with regard to Mr. Walter Gordon, who is going to determine matters through the position which the speculative press has suggested for him if the Liberal party ever gets back into power again-something which I doubt-and who is going to be in a position to control people like the hon. member for Assiniboia; and he will have his effect on the western farmer. He had no conception of the situation, as Mr. Howe pointed out. Mr. Howe said this:
Strangely enough, many people living in other parts of Canada who write and talk about the marketing of wheat obviously do not understand the detail of present methods of marketing Canadian wheat. It is to them that my explanation is directed.
He directed it right to Mr. Walter Gordon, who in the Gordon commission report indicated his complete misunderstanding of the Canadian wheat problem. I now suggest that the hon. member for Assiniboia has more work cut out for him in the Liberal party than he ever had with the defunct C.C.F. party. He had better now become a labour representative in the Liberal party rather than a farmer representative, as I do not know how he is going to make his policies prevail against the attitude of Mr. Walter Gordon toward the western grain problems.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister also like to say something about Mr. Mitchell Sharp's views on grain marketing?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. However, at this stage I wish to comment upon the slashing attack

made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate upon the present Clerk of the Privy Council. The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate told us at some length of his tenure of that office and of the number of orders in council he had produced. He implied that they were all perfect. Then he said "This order in council is the worst I have ever seen". I presume he meant that the present Clerk of the Privy Council is the worst Clerk of the Privy Council he has ever heard of.


An hon. Member:: This is out of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the former clerk of the privy council was the producer of orders in council, it follows that the present clerk is the producer of orders in council.


Mr. Crestohl:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are now discussing the question of wheat and not procedure before the privy council. I see no reason why the minister should swing his line of argument to the privy council when we are discussing the question of wheat.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am glad-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member's point is well taken. The issue was raised first by the hon. member for Ottawa West at some length yesterday, and reinforced today by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let the minister proceed. The hon. member can at the end of the minister's speech, exercise his rights with regard to correcting statements.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think perhaps with these few remarks on that narrow subject, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will spare us in the future with regard to his personal history.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Don't be too sure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Useful comments on the bill before us were made by the hon. member for Bow River, the hon. member for Macleod, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, and the hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort-Tisdale, who is an acknowledged authority on wheat problems and a friend of the farmer. The problem which he raised with us yesterday is one that I think we shall deal with at the committee stage. I shall have some comments to make at that stage on his proposal of a further amendment to the act.
Quite generally, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we bring forward the present amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act with confidence that the house will pass them and that the Canadian wheat board will continue its useful course of action with regard to western Canadian agriculture. To those from
Canadian Wheat Board Act eastern Canada who are so greatly concerned may I say that the Canadian wheat board represents the producers of that great wealth of western Canada which runs into hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Through the useful suggestion made by the Minister of Agriculture the eastern farmers, I think through a liaison committee, will be able to present their views to the Canadian wheat board with good results. However, I do not follow their argument that someone from eastern Canada should be a member of the Canadian wheat board, for the Canadian wheat board is a sellers' organization engaged as an agent on behalf of western producers.
The Canadian wheat board has had a long and useful history. In the marketing of western grain there is as great stability as I think can be achieved under world conditions. I think it is wise to look at the western grain problem, and particularly the wheat problem, not over a period of one year or two years but over a ten year period. In the course of that time it is possible to pass from a surplus position to a period of relative scarcity and then back again into a surplus position. However, we have now had a great deal of experience in the handling of western grain with regard to storage matters, marketing procedures and things of that nature. Through measures which this government has introduced with regard to cash advances on farm stored grain and the constant activity with regard to the selling of our grain in world markets, I think we have achieved, in so far as western agriculture is concerned, a very satisfactory situation at the present time. The amendment to the act now proposed will continue the wheat board in existence and it will be appropriate to review its activities five years hence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to exercise my right under the rules to correct a gross misstatement made by the minister with regard to something I was supposed to have said. The minister said I had made an attack upon the Clerk of the Privy Council. I did nothing of the kind even by implication. I assume that the present Clerk of the Privy Council, like me, does not make the orders. The orders are made by the governor in council and the ministers are exclusively responsible for their content.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The ministers take full responsibility, but I do recall to your mind, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate talked about the orders in council which he had produced and said, "Look at this; it is the worst example I have seen in my career".


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say "produced", sir.

Division


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would you call the yeas and nays?


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay. In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacEwan in the chair.
On clause 1-Grain.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to say a few words on this clause and move an amendment to it. There is an addition to this clause in paragraph (e) which adds rapeseed to the list of grains defined under the wheat board act.
This is an important addition to the act. It is the kind of provision which would enable the wheat board to provide quota systems for rapeseed, as for other grains, in the instance of a very heavy production and the necessity of marketing this grain in an orderly fashion. As the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale has pointed out, there is a further grain which is becoming of greater importance in western Canada. That is mustard seed and some time ago, when debating a bill which he had before the house, it was my privilege to suggest that in addition to rapeseed certain provision should be made to include mustard seed.
It is perfectly true that including mustard seed under this legislation would not by itself go the whole way, because there is also the necessity to have the grain defined in the Canada Grain Act. There is also the

question of having the Crowsnest rates apply to rapeseed and mustard seed, but I think it would be an appropriate step to add mustard seed under the provisions of this bill at this time. Perhaps I can move the amendment before five o'clock. I have some other general questions which I wish to put to the minister on this clause, but right now I would like to move:
That paragraph (e) of clause 1 he amended by deleting the word "and" as well as the semicolon In line eight and adding the following words: "and mustard seed".


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the committee ready for the question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman. The
subject matter of this proposed amendment was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale who has-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. Before the minister proceeds I have some doubt as to whether or not this amendment is in order. Perhaps the minister might comment on that aspect of it in the initial stages before we consider it as an amendment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, Mr. Chairman, I also wanted to have a little time to think it over. I thought that if I gave some of the background material now, it would soon be five o'clock and we would both have a chance to consider it.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister might like to move it himself.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It would be far better coming from this side. Originally, of course, it was proposed by a Conservative member.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not right. I have been on mustard seed for a long time.


Mr. Monieith (Perth):: You have been on a hot seat.


Hazen Robert Argue: Others prefer rapeseed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the present amendment which includes rapeseed under the definition of grain is due very largely to the initiative of the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale, who is known throughout the west as "the farmers' friend," and he had hoped that on this occasion we might include the words "mustard seed". However it is important to consider what we are doing, and to consider the size of the crops that are produced before we take any action.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could raise a point of order in a non-controversial spirit. It does seem to me that we should settle the point of order before engaging in debate. As it is practically five o'clock and as Your
Private Bills
Honour might wish to give this a little consideration, perhaps Your Honour could tell us what is troubling you about the amendment so that we would have a chance to reflect on it between five and eight o'clock.


George James McIlraith: It is in order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We would like to know what the difficulty is. Could Your Honour indicate what is the difficulty?


Gordon Campbell Chown: In my view it introduces a completely new subject matter to the bill and if you look at Orders of the Day, page 15, item No. 37, you can appreciate the fact, as does the chairman, that the suggested amendment is already under consideration by way of a private member's bill. For this reason I shall give consideration to the matter over the period of the supper hour and make a ruling on it at eight o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I assume Your Honour will
hear argument before making it.


Gordon Campbell Chown: For the reason that it is five o'clock I am not going to hear argument now.
It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-13, to incorporate Polaris Pipe Lines-Mr. Baldwin.
Bill No. S-14, respecting Canada Security Assurance Company-Mr. Stefanson.

Mr. Jack Wraiien (Brantford) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-ll respecting the governing council of the Salvation Army, Canada east, and the governing council of the Salvation Army, Canada west.


Mr. Fisher:: I wonder if the hon. member intends to make any remarks on this bill.


Jack Wratten: There are two main points. The first is intended to bring the financial arrangements of the Salvation Army into line with those provided for in bills already
2222	HOUSE OF
British North America Act passed by this house affecting other religious denominations. The second purpose is to bring the province of Newfoundland under the jurisdiction of the Salvation Army board, Canada east.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word in warm commendation of this bill. This is one of the things that are ancillary to the completion of confederation-to the union of Newfoundland with Canada in 1949-and I give it my warm support.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-28 to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1960, with respect to representation in the Senate.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling on the hon. member who moves the bill, may I remind the house that the last time this bill was called I raised the question as to whether it might be a money bill requiring a resolution and the authority of the ministry before it could be proceeded with. I have come to the conclusion, subject to such persuasion as may be exercised by hon. members who wish to discuss the point, that it is not clearly enough a money bill for me to take the responsibility of preventing debate. I am therefore disposed to allow the mover to proceed, unless some hon. member wishes to object to that course and persuades me it is not the right course.
I think I should state briefly what considerations arise, because it is not without importance. Bill No. C-28 provides for an amendment to sections 21 and 22 of the British North America Act so as to increase the number of senators from 102, the present number, to 104. In other words, the bill provides for the addition of two senators to the Senate. Now the consequence of passing this bill would be that those senators, under the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act, chapter 249 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, would become entitled to compensation as senators and would be paid accordingly. So an indirect consequence of passing this bill would be to expend from the public purse the emoluments which are payable under another act to the two additional senators, after they have been appointed. The consequence of passing the bill would, therefore, be an expenditure of public funds.
However, I rather take the view that the expenditure of public funds is already


authorized by the Senate and House of Commons Act which provides for the payment of senators apparently in anticipation of the appointment of additional senators as well as of additional members of parliament. So authority for payment has already been given by parliament. It was given when it passed the Senate and House of Commons Act; and this bill, which does not in itself provide for any payment, might therefore be regarded as not being a money bill, even though it sets in motion the other act and would, therefore, involve expenditure.
There is one precedent, and it is on the basis of this precedent that I propose to allow the matter to proceed. There is the Representation Act, chapter 15 of the statutes of 1952 called an Act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1951, with respect to the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons. This was introduced as Bill No. 221 on June 10, 1952. It was introduced without notice. It was not preceded by resolution, nor did it have the recommendation of the crown, although as a result of the bill the number of members of the House of Commons was increased from 255 to 265 and an additional member was provided for the Northwest Territories. In that case the house proceeded to increase the number of members of parliament and thereby to increase the emoluments to which members were entitled. It seems the cases are parallel. It is the only precedent and, therefore, I think the proper course would be to register this query about the bill so that it will not stand in the way of future decisions, but not to press the point to the extent that debate would be discontinued.
I am reinforced in my view by thinking that one should settle these matters giving the benefit of the doubt to the authority of a private member of the house to proceed to raise such matters as he thinks may properly be brought before parliament, not by ruling in a restrictive way.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Perhaps I could raise this as a point of order-I was just wondering if the government has any view on the matter you have raised.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It certainly would not be normal to express government policies or views during an hour which is devoted to private members' business.


Erik Nielsen: I hope the house will be as disposed to the acceptance of this bill as it was to the acceptance of the measure which I introduced a short while ago in connection with representation for the Keewatin and Franklin districts. The same reasons are applicable in support of representation in the other place for these areas of northern Canada,

perhaps to an even greater extent because we are dealing here with all that land mass and all those Arctic islands north of the 60th parallel, whose residents at the moment have no specific representation in the other place.
With the passage of the bill dealing with the extension of the franchise, or, rather, the facilities enabling Canadian citizens living in the Keewatin and Franklin districts to cast their ballots, no other Canadians remain in our nation who do not now have the opportunity to cast their votes and, by so doing, take part in the government of Canada. I gave as supporting reasons in favour of that bill that the citizens of Canada should not be taxed without having the opportunity of being heard in the parliament of Canada. I think it is trite to say that the parliament of Canada consists of two houses, this House of Commons as well as the other place. Matters concerning taxation are discussed here and laws concerning the taxation of Canadians are made in this chamber; but before their final passage they are considered, accepted, rejected or amended by the members of the other place. Surely, then, the Canadians of the north should be entitled to be heard on these matters in the other place.
It seems to me it is important to recognize the fundamental right that in a free and democratic society such as ours in Canada every adult Canadian is by law clothed with the right to take part in government. I advanced this argument in discussing the amendment to the Representation Act which I brought before the house a few weeks ago and I advance it again. The people of Canada in all parts of the country have a right to take part in their government and in my view the government of Canada consists of both houses of parliament.
This principle was embodied in the four kinds of rights to which I drew the attention of the house when I last spoke on my bill to amend the Representation Act, the rights expressed in the principles to which the United Nations dedicated itself in the universal declaration of human rights in 1948, a declaration which grew out of the public demand for recognition of the advancement of equal rights among all members of the human family.
In support of my argument that all Canadians have the right to be represented in both houses of parliament I would draw the attention of the house to the British North America Act of 1886 which is to be found in the Revised Statutes of Canada, volume 6, at page 159 where, after the preamble, it is set forth in section 1 that:
The parliament of Canada may from time to time make provision for the representation In the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, or in either of them, of any territories which for
British North America Act the time being form part of the dominion of Canada, but are not included in any province thereof.
In section 2 of the same act it is set forth that:
Any act passed by the parliament of Canada before the passing of this act for the purpose mentioned in this act shall, if not disallowed by the Queen, be, and shall be deemed to have been, valid and effectual from the date at which it received the assent, in Her Majesty's name, of the Governor General of Canada.
The act goes on to discuss the making of provisions for adding to the membership of the House of Commons and the other place. In effect, the act gives us the right to amend our own constitution as found in the British North America Act in so far as such an amendment may effect an addition to the House of Commons or to the Senate.
The second point I made in discussing my argument in support of extending the facilities of the franchise to the residents of the Keewatin and Franklin districts of the Northwest Territories was in relation to the Canadian Bill of Rights. I think it is of paramount importance, and I am sure all hon. members of the house will agree with me, that the Canadian Bill of Rights affords its protection to all Canadians regardless of their race, colour, creed or religion, and that essential protection is that there shall be no discrimination as between Canadians. It seems we fall short of the principle expressed in the Canadian Bill of Rights if we continue to refuse to grant to northern Canadians above the sixtieth parallel the right to have a voice in the other half of the Canadian parliament.
There are other and valid reasons for the house giving favourable consideration to this measure. I realize that the bill comes before us at a rather awkward time since there is a resolution on the order paper calling for the setting up of an independent commission to inquire into the redistribution of seats in this house. It might be one of the terms of reference of that commission that they may be called upon to look into the desirability of redistribution in the other place as well; of this I am not aware.
Another argument I would advance in support of the house adopting this measure is the developing autonomy of both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I wish to deal with those two territories for a brief moment.
In the Yukon territory we have a long history of the development of autonomy and we are rapidly approaching the point where we can see in the near future the possibility that the Yukon might become Canada's eleventh province. Certainly there is every reason for anticipating this development. It would seem incongruous in the light

British North America Act of the development there and the increasing population and industry that we should continue to turn a blind eye to the fact that the area is without representation in the Senate. The Yukon has had a sitting member in the House of Commons since 1902 after the Yukon was created a separate district, having been carved out of the Northwest Territories in 1901. In the Northwest Territories, the Mackenzie district has had a sitting member since the amendment of the Representation Act in 1947. As hon. members will recall the first sitting member for that district came to this house in 1949. We are slowly progressing toward the development of the political autonomy of the north and it seems to me the next logical step that should be taken by this House of Commons and by the Senate is to provide a voice for the people of the north in the other place.
Canada above the sixtieth parallel constitutes 40 per cent of the nation. I do not think the argument rests on the number of people in that area. It is a particular area, an Arctic area, and it has special problems. Those problems have to be voiced in as wide a fashion as possible in both places. I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that since the appointment has been made to the other place of a member of the Indian race we might anticipate the appointment to the Senate of an Eskimo to voice the views of those people who number approximately 10,000 in the Canadian north.
There may be those who say that in the development of this trend toward the greater autonomy of the north the federal government largely subsidizes the areas, and therefore we as the House of Commons should continue administering those areas until such time as the population and industry of the Canadian north reach the stage where autonomy is economically justifiable. I would simply refer those hon. members who take that view to the province of Manitoba in the years immediately before it became a province, when the local territorial government was heavily subsidized by the federal government and yet the province achieved autonomy while in the position of being so subsidized.
Of course there is the classic current example of Newfoundland, which is now heavily subsidized by federal funds. I think I should not leave the presentation of this bill without also remarking on the recent resolution passed by the Northwest Territories council when they met here last January. It suggested that from the existing three administrative divisions in the Northwest Territories we should carve out two new Canadian areas. The present area of the Northwest Territories is one third of the whole of Canada, to put

the matter in another form. On the northeast it snuggles right against Greenland and on the west it is flanked by the Yukon. At one point it is a mere 100 miles from Alaska. It is true that there are only 23,000 people in this vast expanse of the Northwest Territories. However, the council, when it met here last spring, began dividing the territories into two pieces. That was a logical move, in my view, and one which I think lays the groundwork for suggesting to this house in the near future that, once the division is made, it might be the time for introducing a measure which would give both the western and the eastern portion of the Northwest Territories a member in this house.
There are other arguments that can be advanced in support of the measure before the house. When one agrees to the principle that Canadians have a right to be represented in the Canadian parliament, I feel that the house would be remiss if it did not accept the principle that it does not restrict the representation spoken of to a right to be heard in the House of Commons. I contend that this right embraces also the right to be heard in the other place, where every piece of legislation passed by this house must be considered. Certainly the voice of the north cannot be heard in its entirety if, with respect to the opinions and views of the Canadian people who live in the north and who are pioneering the area above the sixtieth parallel, we restrict that right to one chamber, namely this House of Commons.
I believe there are others who wish to speak on the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker. With the simple urging to the members of the house to lend support to this measure I will now take my seat in order that those others might be heard.


Mr. Peters:: Question.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) for bringing to the attention of the house what obviously has been an important defect in our system of government. I refer to the fact that a substantial number of people have been without complete representation. That is something without which no democratic country is altogether perfect. He has obviously made a careful study of the matter. His research, references to the law and historical analysis of the situation have been well presented and indicate that this is a subject to which he has devoted a good deal of time and attention. I hope that in <due course this particular bill will go to join the ever growing number of private bills which members, particularly on this side of the house-and I say this without intending to introduce any partisan

note

have been bringing forward with such emphasis and such force that they have been able to commend themselves to the government and in due course have received the approval of the government and have become part of the law of this country.
I do not wish to traverse many of the points which have been dealt with over the past several years in connection with the north, its needs and requirements. I have a sympathetic feeling toward the principle involved in this bill. I represent a constituency which in size is more than a third of that of the province of Alberta. I know what it is like to be obliged to travel substantial distances. I know what it is like to be obliged to meet with a variety of problems of a number of people scattered over a great distance. That is one of the problems which beset the Yukon and the Northwest Territories at this particular time.
I know that the hon. member for Yukon is a member of the same profession as that to which I have the honour to belong. I know what is involved for him in representing at this particular time, when it is in the midst of its growing pains this tremendous area of the Yukon which will in due course, I believe, evolve into a greater, far more populous and much more economically prosperous region.
I can enumerate many of these problems and I do so because I think they have a bearing on the particular issue which the hon. member has raised. The hon. member referred to his hope that if this bill should in due course be approved and become part of our law and if a new senator was to be appointed, such senator might be a person of the Eskimo race. I heartily approve and second that proposition. I know many of the Eskimo people. I have travelled a good deal in the north. The Eskimos are fine people. They are now at a difficult period in their development from a simple nomadic race. Coming in contact in recent years with white people, white settlements and white industrial development they have discovered the problems which under those circumstances they are bound to experience. I think it would be a splendid idea to see in the other place a member of the Eskimo race, someone to speak for them, to tell of their problems and of the difficulties which they have experienced in the past and are bound to experience over the new generation. I think of the Indians. While we have, of course, legislation to some extent dealing with them, those who live in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon have particular and special problems of their own over and above the difficulties of the Indians in the other parts of Canada. I think of the economic changes which are now approaching in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon. I say all these
British North America Act things, Mr. Speaker, because I think they bear strictly on the problem for which I believe this bill will provide the cure.
I stop here to emphasize that there should be that additional representation in the parliament of Canada to which that particular part of our country is entitled. I know that the hon. member for Yukon has a great task to perform and he is performing it ably and adequately. I was well acquainted with the late member for Mackenzie River. I visited Yellowknife and district for several days last summer and had the privilege of meeting him and talking to him there on his return from an extended trip which he had made with his family into the vast hinterland of his constituency, an exhausting and demanding task even for one in the best of health. As I listened to the hon. member for Yukon speak it struck me that there should be additional assistance in the form of senatorial representation at this time to deal with all the problems that arise.
Great things are about to happen in the north country and I say that generally, not wishing to precipitate any particular issue at this time. Within the existing limits of the British North America Act and our own laws we have done certain things. We have provided a judiciary for the Yukon and Northwest Territories. We have provided the incipient beginnings of representative government by means of a territorial council both in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon. But we must look ahead to the time, in the not too distant future, when there may be additional political units in the form of provinces to add to the 10 we already have in Canada. This matter has been referred to by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources from time to time, as well as by other members of the house. I know that at the present time the population is not large but I believe I am correct when I call the attention of hon. members to the fact that as a result of the last census it now appears that the rate of population growth has been greater in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon than in any other part of Canada.


Erik Nielsen: It is 60.8 per cent.


Gerald William Baldwin: I thank the hon. member for Yukon for drawing to my attention the fact that it is 60.8 per cent. When I am home in the summer, in my riding of Peace River, the pathway to the north, day by day I see tremendous numbers of cars with tourists going north as well as others with people going in there with the intention of carving out for themselves a new home and a new career. This is one of the few places left on this continent where it is possible for men of courage, industry and imagination to go

British North America Act and, without too much influence or too much money, be able to establish a home for their families and a business and career for themselves.
From what I know, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that the fantastically high rate of increase in population is bound to continue. It is inevitable; it cannot be stayed. I believe it is up to us at this time to make a complete survey of the whole situation so that when new provinces are created, when larger populations become a fact, when new industries are established and we see a quickening of the economic pulse of the north we will have provided the necessary machinery of government so that the people there will have complete and adequate representation.
Someone has described the other place, I believe, as the repository of sober second thought. If that is the case, I am quite sure that any representation from the north will be largely influential in providing some change in that spirit. We heard something about that the other day in a debate, if I may be permitted to refer to it, when we talked about certain improvements to the old town of Dawson city. I would think that the spirit of Robert Service might well flourish in the other place.
On another aspect of the matter, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that it often happens, as was the case last year, that there are differences of opinion between the two bodies. This, of course, is the right of both. It might well be that the people of the Northwest Territories should be entitled to have representation in the other place so that they might be free to take a different view from that which we happen to take in this house.
I want to be careful in phrasing my final point. I know many people who went into the north country who have expressed the view I wish to express, and I have been there myself and have experienced this attitude of the people. Up until recent years the people there felt that Ottawa was a long distance away and that there was a complete lack of understanding, sympathy and appreciation of the point of view of the northerner, which I may say is completely different from that found elsewhere in this country. I do not wish to be critical in any sense of the departmental officials who went to that part of the country because in many ways they were faced with difficult tasks when they left other parts of Canada to make their homes in the north. They had difficulty in understanding, assimilating and interpreting the views of the people there. However, the people there felt that on too many occasions there was a lack of understanding on the

part of certain officials of what were the real requirements not only of the present but of the future.
Therefore, it is my view that if this bill as proposed ultimately becomes law it will have the effect of interposing additional representation in the form of two senators, one from each of these geographical units, so that the true views and real desires of the people in these territories can be presented personally in Ottawa by people who have lived in the territories and who have experienced the problems of the people of the north. For all these reasons I am most happy to lend my voice and support to what has been said by the hon. member for Yukon, and I hope the time may not be too far distant when we may look forward to the arrival in Ottawa of senators from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is
obvious, Mr. Speaker, as will be proven by the time the clock reaches six, that the government does not support this measure. However, I should like to say a few words upon it on behalf of this group. According to the explanatory notes, the purpose of this bill is to make provision for representation in the Senate of the territories which form part of the Dominion of Canada which are not included in any province, as authorized by the act of 1886.
I fully appreciate and well understand the interest of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in this subject, and his desire to see the Yukon and the territories have representation in the upper house or, shall I say, the upper house which some say is the counterpart in the parliament of Canada of the House of Lords in Great Britain. I know he has been interested in this subject, and I presume this is a good political move with regard to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories which contain the two constituencies that have recently been created.
However, in our opinion, Mr. Speaker, this move is a bit premature. You know, the members of this group always try to make two and two make four. We want to make certain what the future holds before we move forward, to make certain that what we are doing is necessary under the circumstances and will be of genuine advantage to the people concerned, not just of advantage to one individual. We say the bill is premature because, in our opinion, these areas should first become provinces and have selfgovernment like the other provinces that are represented in the upper house of this parliament. That definition should please its members. We should proceed in these matters a step at a time. First of all, let us provide

for self-government in the areas by virtue of the establishment of provinces. It is obvious that to date no government of Canada has considered that the population in the territories concerned could justify a provincial government or the expenses of its administration and so on. However, that is a matter of debate.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the hon. member
a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly.


Erik Nielsen: If what the hon. member says is correct and we are premature, and since the territories are not yet provinces, can the hon. member suggest the reason why, as far back as 1886, the mother of parliament was far-sighted enough to include in the provisions of the British North America Act a provision for the appointment of senators from the existing provinces and from all the territories which, for the time being, do not form part of the provinces but form a part of the Dominion of Canada?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can well understand that inclusion because the persons who drafted the legislation would interpret the legislation as the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) would on occasion, in the light of all the circumstances. In our opinion, the circumstances are such that the move on the part of the hon. member is somewhat premature for several reasons. First of all, we believe there should be a provincial government. Then, too, the question of Senate reform is in the air, or am I mistaken, Mr. Speaker? Is it up in the air? We are not quite sure what is going to happen in that respect. Before we approve of a measure such as this, I feel we should know exactly what the Prime Minister has in mind with regard to Senate reform. This is one of those unrevealed mysteries to date. We give that as a second reason, Mr. Speaker, for suggesting that, with all the good intentions in the world, this measure is somewhat premature.
Then again, the population would not justify the additional expense at this time. We believe that rather than create the additional expense, it would be more businesslike, shall I say, more practical, for additional moneys to be paid to members from the Yukon and other northern members to travel their constituency to a greater extent than is possible today. I believe that would be a more practical way. It would be far better to have members of parliament representing these northern constituencies provided with sufficient funds to go to these isolated places. We certainly understand the difficulties involved and the exceptional expenditures
British North America Act required as compared with representing a riding like Wentworth, for instance. It would be far better to have three members doing that than have a representative in the Senate and three members from these ridings simply representing the area in the House of Commons or in the upper house without sufficient funds to travel their constituencies. I suggest the cost of a senator could be used to better advantage in that way.


Erik Nielsen: Will the hon. member permit another question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure the hon. member agrees with me on the fundamental principle that there should be no taxation without representation. Since the other place has, in effect, a veto on taxation measures passed in this house, does the hon. member not think the citizens of the north should have a voice in the place where they are, in effect, faced with laws which impose taxes upon them?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think the hon. member's question is very easy to answer. In so far as the realities of taxation are concerned with respect to the people of Canada, the control exists in the House of Commons. I am quite sure that people are well protected, and I am quite sure the people of the Yukon are well represented in that respect. I am sure the hon. member for the Yukon will make certain that the people of his district are protected with regard to taxation, and they will have their views considered through him.


Erik Nielsen: That is true; but just recently the other place, for instance, refused to pass an item affecting the customs tariff. Now, there again the other place completely nullified the action taken by this house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This was not a case within the scope of the Department of National Revenue. It was not on the basis of a form of taxation that the bill was opposed by the gentlemen in the other place. It was opposed because it was considered something new in Canadian history, the denial of the right of appeal. The Senate were protecting the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
I do not wish to prevent other members from having the opportunity to speak. However, I wanted to give the house some reasons why this group considered this bill somewhat premature. We are not willing, therefore, to support a measure of this type at this time because we do not believe the appointment of a senator to the upper house representing the areas specified is justified under present circumstances.

British North America Act


Erik Nielsen: Before the hon. member takes his seat, I wonder if he would answer a question which arises out of his initial remarks? Does he not feel representation in the parliament of Canada, including the other place, would be of benefit to Canadians who live in the north?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I tried to make the point before that it might from a theoretical point of view be a benefit. However, their representation would be greatly increased by providing the members of parliament elected from those northern areas with the funds required to travel and meet all their constituents, rather than by spending this additional money in the appointment of a senator to the Senate of Canada to represent that area.


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: should like also to take this opportunity of congratulating the obviously sincere hon. member for the Yukon upon the introduction of Bill No. C-28. I was interested in this particular bill, so this afternoon I took the opportunity to check on the latest census figures. I note that the Yukon electoral district now has 14,628 people; the Northwest Territories, 22,998 and Mackenzie, 14,895. To me this is sufficient reason why representation should be given in the Senate.
I was very interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). All of a sudden the hon. member appears to be interested in saving dollars and cents. I have with me a book entitled "The Government of Canada" written by MacGregor Dawson and I should like to quote from it as it is appropriate in an argument against the cost involved, as put forward by the hon. member. It reads:
-the Senate was intended to act as a revising and restraining body to deal with possible errors or impulses of the Commons. On this point the opinion of Sir John A. Macdonald may be taken as typical:
There would be no use of an upper house if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or postponing the legislation of the lower house. It would be of no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the lower house. It must be an independent house, having a free action of its own, for it is only valuable as being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch, and preventing any hasty or ill-considered legislation which may come from that body, but it will never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people.
Apparently the hon. member for Kootenay West is a perfectionist. Therefore he makes no mistakes and can see no reason why the people of that area should have representation in the Senate. I wholeheartedly support the views of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) regarding the appointment of

an Eskimo to the Senate. The Prime Minister appointed the first Indian to the upper chamber and, as I say, again I support the views expressed by the hon. member for Yukon in this regard.
In the north we have such cities as Whitehorse and Yellowknife, that are growing daily. I have had some experience in the north and have travelled through it on two or three occasions. It is indeed a fast growing area and at the moment I wish to make reference to a speech made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dinsdale) at Winnipeg, some six months ago. He said that a satisfactory program for the north must clearly give full weight to natural resources development. It would fail, however, if it overlooked the human resources in the 35,000 people who live there. The territories are not overcrowded yet and it is startling to think that part of the country has a smaller percentage of people living there than in some of our larger cities. The population of the north is growing faster in percentage terms than any other Canadian province. Since the 1956 census estimate there has been a 60 per cent increase in population. I do not know if this is the actual figure. It is the greatest asset for development that the territories have.
I just want to go on record once more as saying that I wholeheartedly support this measure.


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: I would also like to commend the hon. member for Yukon for bringing this bill before the house. Anyone who has done considerable travelling in northern Canada can see the real need for the bill.
As a representative of a far northern riding and having had the opportunity recently of making an extended tour of the north, right up to the Arctic, I have seen the rapid growth that is taking place in that area. It would do a lot of hon. members good to see the development in progress in the north, and accompanying it the increase in population.
I also want to commend the hon. member for bringing the bill before the house in order to give the franchise to the people of Keewatin and Franklin districts. Returning to the present bill I, as one who represents a large population of Indian people, can fully realize what it has meant to those people to have a representative in the upper house. I know the great task which the hon. senator who represents that vast population has to do, and I can see great possibilities in the Eskimo population having a similar representative.
I know the hon. member for Kootenay West was talking about saving money, but when

one looks at the vastness of the north country and understands that these people want better representation than what they have at present, then his argument does not bear much weight. In conclusion I would like to go on record as supporting Bill C-28.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-75, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act-Mr. Churchill- Mr. Henderson in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
On clause 1-Grain.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Before going on I should apologize to the committee for having inadvertently referred to the Orders of the Day, page 15, item No. 37 which I find has to do with the Canada Grain Act, not with the act which is before the committee at the present time for consideration clause by clause.
I am now prepared to hear arguments on the amendment which was presented to the committee by the hon. member for Assiniboia as follows:
That paragraph (e) of clause 1 be amended by deleting the word "and" as well as the semi-colon in line eight and adding the following words: "and mustard seed".


Hazen Robert Argue: Do I take it the amendment is considered to be in order?


Gordon Campbell Chown: I only made the comment I did so that it would be clear, before we got under way, that I had made an inadvertent error before we rose for the dinner hour by making the reference I did to an item on the order paper which does not concern the bill I had in mind when I made that reference. I apologize for doing so. We now have to consider the question of whether or not this amendment is in order, and I would ask any hon. member who wishes to make a contribution in order to assist the Chair in this regard to rise now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps Your Honour
would indicate the further ground upon which you had doubt about the validity of the amendment proposed. I am not sure that all
Canadian Wheat Board Act hon. members will recall what the other ground was. It might shorten debate if you could indicate it briefly.


Mr. Rapp:: On a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps we could first hear what the Chair has to say.


Gordon Campbell Chown: There were two points I had in mind before we rose for the dinner recess. One was the question whether or not the addition of the words "and mustard seed" did not introduce a completely new and unrelated amendment. In this regard I may refer to Beauchesne at a later time if hon. members wish to make any contribution in this regard.


Reynold Rapp: On the point of order; yesterday I said I should like to see mustard seed included. However, I said also that under the present system mustard seed cannot be included because it has no statutory definition as to grade under the Canada Grain Act. It is not listed as a statutory grade in that act, neither is it listed under the western division which we find in the act on page 60. Consequently, I think, we shall not be able to bring mustard seed under the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Only western grain can be brought within the provisions of that act. In the Canadian Wheat Board Act it is stated that grain includes wheat, oats, barley, rye and flax seed. It is stated further in the Canada Grain Act, in section 2, that western grain means grain grown in the western division, and the western division means all that portion of Canada lying west of the meridian passing through the eastern boundary of the city of Port Arthur. Thus I regret very much that we cannot include mustard seed at the present time because it would be out of order to do so. I suggest that the amendment cannot comply with the regulations set out in the Canada Grain Act and in the Canadian Wheat Board Act.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, all I can say is that the remarks we have just heard come strangely from a member who obviously, on the basis of his past efforts, is interested in having these regulations apply to mustard seed. It is strange he should argue that the amendment is out of order.
However, I would remind the Chair that we are dealing now with the Canadian Wheat Board Act and that the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale, in arguing that this amendment is out of order, has referred to another act altogether. The definition of grain in the Canadian Wheat Board Act does not depend, according to that act, on some other legislation. It stands on its own feet. I submit that if this phrase "and mustard seed" were added it would be within the

Canadian Wheat Board Act jurisdiction of the wheat board to decide whether or not quota regulations would apply to mustard seed. It might well be that action should be taken to define grades of mustard seed under the Canada Grain Act, but I suggest that is another proposition and that it has to do with another act. In my view it is very much in order to amend the act which we are now considering by adding the words "and mustard seed" in addition to the amendment which is already before the Chair, namely that which refers to rapeseed. For these reasons I suggest we should deal with this matter not by declaring it out of order but by putting the amendment before the committee.


Reynold Rapp: Further to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct your attention to chapter 25 of the Canada Grain Act, where it refers to statutory grades of western grain. Perhaps I might read the grains which appear in the western schedule. They are: red spring wheat, winter wheat, amber Durum, mixed wheat, oats, barley, rye, mixed grain, flax seed, buckwheat, corn, sunflower seed, soybeans, peas and rapeseed. Your Honour will find that these are the grains which come under the western schedule. Only those grains come under the Canadian wheat board which are listed in the western grain schedule.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a word about the point of order. It seems to me that the point of order almost is answered by the fact that the whole purpose of the clause we have before us is precisely to amend the present list of grains to include rapeseed, and if it is competent for the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to introduce an amendment to include rape-seed surely it is equally competent for the hon. member for Assiniboia to introduce an amendment to include mustard seed. If the one is out of order the other would be out of order and it seems to me that is more or less an absurdity. This is not the kind of question it was ever intended that the Chair should settle. This is precisely the kind of question that the committee should settle by a vote.
This is a government measure. If the government in its wisdom sees fit to resist such an amendment, of course that is the government's responsibility, but it seems to me it would be a very dangerous thing for Your Honour to take upon his shoulders a responsibility that properly belongs to the whole committee.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Chairman, may I-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I feel I have had enough assistance from hon. members of the committee at this stage and wish to thank


them for the help they have given. I do not reject an amendment on the basis of whether or not it would be better put to a vote in the committee to let the committee decide, because I would fear the bad practice of establishing a precedent by which the Chair or his successors may not be able to abide. I start with the premise that is set out in section 59, paragraph 2 of the standing orders which reads as follows:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
That standing order is well known to all hon. members of the committee. If I may, I should like to refer to May's sixteenth edition at page 421 the opening paragraph under the heading "Rules with Respect to the form and Content of Amendments" which reads as follows:
The fundamental rule that debate must be relevant to a question necessarily involves the rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed-
It goes on to say:
Stated generally, no matter ought to be raised in debate on a question which would be irrelevant, if moved as an amendment, and an amendment cannot be used for importing arguments which would be irrelevant to the main question.
Paragraph 1 on page 554 dealing with the topic "Amendments" reads as follows:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill, or if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration.
This is the authority which leads me to believe that the committee should weigh very carefully the complex question of introducing a word which might enlarge the scope of the clause under consideration.
Finally, may I refer to the explanatory notes of the bill itself which generally describe the purpose of the bill. The explanatory note to clause 1 reads as follows:
The purpose of the amendment to paragraph (e) is to redefine grain to include rapeseed.
This is cast in pretty ironclad terms. It is for this reason that I feel the addition of the words "mustard seed" in the clause under consideration would enlarge the scope of the bill. I see that the hon. member for Ottawa West is anxious to rise to his feet. If he has something further to offer to assist the Chair I would be very glad to hear him.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word if I may about the point of order. The explanatory notes have no relevance at all in consideration of the matter because they can have no effect before the committee. If a minister includes explanatory notes in a bill that do not accurately explain

what is being done by the bill, that surely cannot restrict the bill when it is before the house or the committee for consideration. It is the bill itself at which we must look in order to determine the question of relevance or whether or not the proposed amendment is foreign to the object of the bill itself. That must remain the test.
On the question of whether or not the proposition embodied in the amendment offered is relevant, I should like if I may to point out exactly what the part of the clause with which we are concerned says. It is an amendment to the definition of the word "grain" which in the act reads " 'grain' includes wheat, oats, barley, rye and flaxseed" and the amendment merely adds the words "and rapeseed". In other words the word "grain" is being enlarged in part by adding another of the oil seeds to the definition.
The word "grain" it will be seen does not contain an inclusive definition but is defined by listing certain cereal grains and certain oil seeds. That is the method the government used in approaching the definition of the word. The amendment offered is merely to enlarge the number of oil seeds being included in that definition, so it is not foreign to the clause in the bill before us. It is squarely within it. It is adding after the definition now included in the bill the words "and mustard seed", which is another one of the oil seeds. Surely it would be perfectly competent, for instance, Mr. Chairman, to suggest that the word "grain" should include all the cereal grains and the oil seeds. It would be quite impractical to do it as a proposition for the house to adopt but surely it would be perfectly competent to redefine the word "grain" by offering an amendment that said simply that it includes all cereal grains and all oil seeds.
Since the bill is put forward in the form that it designates certain cereal grains and certain oil seeds, what is being offered here is an addition to the oil seeds already included in the definition. Surely that is competent. For instance, it would be competent to offer an amendment that would limit rapeseed to certain grades of rapeseed as defined under the Canada Grain Act, or to restrict them in any way. Here we are merely extending the definition of the oil seeds to include mustard seed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think Your Honour was on sound ground when you quoted from May at page 554:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill-
This is beyond the scope of the bill because as will be shown later the purpose of adding
Canadian Wheat Board Act rapeseed is very clear. Arguments will be advanced as we go along. If you now permit individual members to bring forward additional types of seed, of which mustard seed is only one that might be thought of, you might have half a dozen amendments extending the meaning of the word "grain" and thereby imposing on the wheat board certain obligations which are imposed upon it by adding, as we have done in the past, flaxseed, and now rapeseed, under the title of "grain", so that the wheat board will have certain jurisdiction over those seeds. But you are going beyond the scope and the intent of this amendment if other seeds may be added at the whim of individual members.


George James McIlraith: It is not the whim of individual members. It is the judgment of the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is what parliament is here for, namely to decide.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the other hand, an amendment which modifies the proposed amendment, as the hon. member for Ottawa West so wisely pointed out-that is restricting, for example, rapeseed to certain grades- I think would be in order; but I think this goes beyond the scope of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word at this precise point, Mr. Chairman, as it seems to me to be clear that the reservations in the mind of the minister have nothing to do with this clause of the bill. The notions the government has as to what this bill should be are just the government's notions. This parliament is supreme over the government, or should be supreme as the Prime Minister pointed out to us yesterday in another context. The word you have to take into account in making your decision, Mr. Chairman, is "grain". The subject of this subclause (e) is grain. The only question which Your Honour can ask yourself is whether mustard seed is or is not a grain.


Reynold Rapp: It is not a grain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member for Assiniboia had sought to put in apples, I would say that Your Honour would have been perfectly right to rule it out of order as being beyond the scope of the bill. If he had sought to put in trees, it would have been beyond the scope of the bill. However, is there anyone who will deny that mustard seed is a grain and yet say that flaxseed and rapeseed are grain? It seems to me that the word "grain" means seed. Anyone can look in the dictionary and find out. I can illustrate the point in another way, I think.


An hon. Member:: What about apple seeds?

Canadian Wheat Board Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: Apple seed might be all right but not apples, and I suggest not apple sauce either.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We are very sympathetic to this amendment, Mr. Chairman. Does the hon. member think it would be out of order if the hon. member for Assiniboia had put in peanuts?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I confess that I am not enough of a botanist to know whether a peanut is a seed or whether it is a tuber. As that question is not before us, I probably should not be wasting the time of the Chair in discussing that rather oily intervention. However, when the hon. gentleman interrupted me I was pointing out that I could illustrate in another way why this would be in order. Much as it might displease the government, and certain as they would be to ask their friends to vote it down, I am sure that, if I were to rise in my place and move that flaxseed be stricken out, that amendment would be perfectly in order. If it is in order to strike out flaxseed, it is surely equally in order to put in mustard seed if the committee wishes to do so.
The government has a huge majority in this House of Commons and it does not need to worry about this being done by whims, to use the word of the minister. All the government needs to do is to tell the large number of supporters it has in the house, of whom there are a good number here this evening, how he wants them to vote, and I do not think they are going to be defeated. However, that is no excuse for the government's seeking to restrict the rights of hon. members to speak about mustard seed; and as Your Honour pointed out, anything you can speak about, you can make an amendment about. However, I come back to the point that mustard seed is a grain, that the subject matter of this amendment is grain and that therefore it is indubitably in order.


Reynold Rapp: It is not a grain.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I had some reservations and that is why I allowed fairly wide latitude in the discussion with regard to this point of order. I again thank hon. members who have assisted me. It is, of course, impossible for the chairman to define what is grain. This is a responsibility with which he is not charged. I can understand quite readily the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that there would be nothing wrong with an amendment to delete from the act one of these designated grains. However, I cannot discharge from my mind the fact that in my view the addition of another grain would

widen the scope of the bill. If the amendment, for example, classified one of the grains named, this to my mind would be perfectly in order. However, because the addition of mustard seed in my view enlarges the scope of the bill, in my judgment it would be unwise to rule that the amendment of the hon. member for Assiniboia is in order. Accordingly, I must rule that it is not in order.
Shall clause 1 carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, Mr. Chairman; there is something I wish to say before clause 1 carries. This is the place where one can have a general discussion. I wish to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Provencher to the effect that no farm organizations had opposed the government's feed mill policy and the removal from the jurisdiction of the wheat board of feed grains sold to feed mills on the prairies. I refer to the submission to the government of Canada by the national farmers union on January 31, 1962, which at page 14 states as follows:
We again register our opposition to the present policy of allowing feed mills in western Canada to purchase their supplies of grain at open market prices and outside the price and quota regulations of the Canadian wheat board.
I do not mind the hon. member for Provencher putting forth arguments as to why he thinks the wheat board's jurisdiction should be reduced to this extent. However, I do not think it is fair to the farm organizations to make false claims about their position. The position of the national farmers union is made abundantly clear in its brief. It has been a consistent policy. It is no different today than it was in 1959 when the evidence was being taken before the committee.
It is my opinion that the Saskatchewan wheat pool is still opposed to this policy. That is my opinion. I have not seen any statements on this point in recent days. However, I would appreciate having from the parliamentary secretary or from the Minister of Veterans Affairs a statement, if he can give it, as to the position of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. I do not think this is a correct statement for him to make. However, if he is right I should like to hear it and I would think that the western producers who are members of the wheat pool organization would like to know whether this is the kind of submission that the parliamentary secretary has received from these organizations. I wish again to register the strongest objections, as I have done consistently, to this new policy which has been imposed by the government and which to my

Canadian Wheat Board Act
mind is cutting down the very basis of the wheat board and the orderly marketing of grain.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman-
(Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I have asked the parliamentary secretary a question. I think it is a pertinent one. I think it is one to which the committee has the right to hear a reply. He has made a general sweeping statement with regard to the position of the farm organizations. I have quoted a paragraph giving the policy of one farm organization and I have asked him whether or not he has any recent information about the position of the wheat pools.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: May I ask the hon. member a
question?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Assiniboia may I say that I have before me an editorial from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of March 12 to which I would refer him. In that editorial it is stated quite clearly that in their view and in the view of western farmers the feed mill policy is generally accepted and has worked out much better than the farm organizations predicted it would. In reply to the specific question I would say it is true that certain farm leaders were opposed to the feed mill policy but I am quite confident that they do not reflect the views of the entire membership of their organizations.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to get the reply of the parliamentary secretary clear. Did I understand him to say that he had in his hands and was referring to an editorial in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix'? If he had said the Western Producer, it at least is an organ of a farm organization, but I think it is an insult to refer to the position of farm organizations on the basis of an editorial in a daily newspaper which is completely divorced from those organizations.


Mr. Bigg:: A Liberal newspaper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is a Liberal newspaper.


An hon. Member:: Liberal or C.C.F.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Socialist Liberal.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the floor and I do not mind standing here while these interruptions take place.


The Chairman:: The hon. member for Assiniboia has the floor and no hon. member should interrupt from his seat.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I was just saying that I think it is an impertinence for the parliamentary secretary to refer to the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix as a basis for the position of farm organizations.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: It is a Liberal paper.


Hazen Robert Argue: If he had used an editorial from a newspaper connected with the farm organizations such as the Western Producer, then that would be evidence, of course, as to the position of the wheat pools.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Or the Country Guide?


Hazen Robert Argue: The Country Guide would reflect the position of the U.G.G., but I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that what he is saying now has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the position of the farm organizations, and that to use an editorial in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix purporting to indicate the position of the farm organizations is an insult to those organizations. Although the parliamentary secretary made the sweeping statement this afternoon that farm organizations support the government's feed mill policy, which in my opinion is undermining the Canadian wheat board, I am very pleased that he has not been able to substantiate that statement.
What does he say now? He says that certain farm leaders take this position but the membership does not. This can mean only one thing, that he is referring either to the national farmers union or the Saskatchewan wheat pool as taking this position. I suggest it is an insult both to the membership and to the leadership of these organizations to suggest that the leaders are talking one way and the membership is taking a different stand.


Mr. Lambert:: Come out to Alberta and find out.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the position taken in recent years by the farm organizations has not been altered in any way by evidence produced by the parliamentary secretary.
I should like to raise another point on clause 1. It has to do with the reference made by the minister, when he was introducing the legislation, to the maximum price for grain that can be obtained at Fort William-Port Arthur and Vancouver under the international wheat agreement. In making his statement the minister said that the maximum price, in accordance with the discount today on the Canadian dollar, could go as high as $2.14 a bushel at Fort William and Vancouver. I am not trying to misinterpret what the minister has said. I am asking for information and clarification. I did so this afternoon but the minister did not answer me in his general reply. I asked this afternoon why the wheat board has not been able to obtain more than $1.90 a bushel at Fort William when the Canadian dollar is at a discount today.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
I take it that the maximum price at Fort William today in United States funds is about $1.99 a bushel. The minister can adjust that to the precise amount but I think that would be very close. I ask him why the price at Fort William today is not above $1.90 and why the wheat board is unable to get this additional amount at this time. The minister seemed to imply in his statement that this might be accomplished by the 12J cent increase in the maximum price of wheat because the price in United States dollars has gone up from $1.90 to $2.02J. If the best the wheat board can do today is $1.90 and a fraction it would seem to me that the best they could do in the future under the international wheat agreement with the ceiling where it is would be $2.03 or thereabouts.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. member's interest in this particular question but it is quite obvious that I could not provide the answer tonight. I would have to consult with the wheat board with regard to the price range at the present time. I would be very glad to do that and endeavour to get an answer for the hon. member; but without consultation with the board I am certainly not able to give that answer now.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I may follow up that point, I wish to get an answer from the minister. I will appreciate an answer. I suppose he will have to write me a letter if the bill has been passed but I would appreciate an answer in any case. However, I will tell the minister now what I think the answer probably is, namely that wheat out of Vancouver commands a premium over wheat out of Fort William because of lower ocean transportation rates. The point I wish to make is that the ceiling that the minister has quoted for Fort William and Vancouver is really in fact the ceiling at Vancouver, and the price at Fort William has to be adjusted downward. I think that is the attitude of the Canadian wheat board. Therefore from the standpoint of the producers it is not realistic to refer to this ceiling as being the ceiling at both Fort William and Vancouver. In other words, the maximum ceiling under the international wheat agreement is not available for all Canadian wheat. It is available only for Canadian wheat that moves out of Vancouver and there is a discount in the case of wheat moving through Fort William.
I have given the minister what I think is the answer. I am not positive I am right. I do not have any particular information except what I have picked up by reading the newspapers. I wanted to bring out this point so that there would be further clarification of the sweeping statement made by the minister that $2.14 was the maximum price at Fort William and


Vancouver. My point is that even with the discount on the Canadian dollar this is in fact the effective maximum at Vancouver and there is a lower price at Fort William through which a large part of the grain moves.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, for the information of the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Jorgenson), I should like to comment on the statement he made this afternoon when he suggested that farmers would not be against the opening up of the Canadian grain market.
In this respect, I should like to put forward the views of eastern farmers who have repeatedly made representations to the government in order to receive the same treatment as the millers in western Canada.
Eastern feed mills are subject to the regulations enacted by the Canadian wheat board, while western feed mills are not. As a matter of fact, this is what eastern farmers have asked of the government since the Canadian wheat board regulations have been changed. The association for the development and protection of agriculture in eastern Canada pressed the government for:
The removal of all trade restrictions on the sale of barley, oats and other feed grains to restore equal prices across the country so as to ensure the orderly production and marketing of cattle, poultry, dairy products, etc.
We made criticisms last year, especially in the committee on agriculture and colonization, and we showed that grains sell for less in the west than in the east, that is at approximately half the price. On the other hand, we have shown that the situation is somewhat different today because grain supplies are at a minimum, and if the 1962 crop is a failure, we will probably be short of feed grains.
Moreover, certain western organizations have protested against changes in the regulations. Both the government of Saskatchewan and the Saskatchewan wheat pool made representations in that connection, the latter through its chairman, Mr. Gibbings.
As you can see, Mr. Chairman, it is not only the eastern farmers who have protested against these changes but certain western organizations as well. Last year, we said that the changes in the regulations would bring about a certain integration for the western feed mills.

I am able to say tonight that on June 1st, 1961-when looking back to the last ten years-hogs produced in eastern Canada and British Columbia numbered 3,149,000, which represents an increase of 87,000 over 1951. On the other hand, production in the prairie provinces went up from 1,800,000 to
2.700.000,	which is an increase of almost one million hogs in the west, to the detriment of eastern farmers.
Today, we, in the east, have to import from the west. We import a considerable quantity of beef, which is only normal. But when we have to import pork, there is something wrong; and that situation can be attributed to the short view policy, the day-to-day policy of the Conservative administration. We have told the government that there is still time to remedy that state of affairs so that our eastern farmers may enjoy a better standard of living.
The number of farmers in eastern Canada has decreased by 32,000 in the last ten years, whereas in the west it has decreased by only
16.000.	The reason for it is that eastern farmers do not have sufficient income to provide for the needs of their families. Last year, we passed an act for the development of submarginal farms, and it is time that the government put that legislation into force.
At this stage, I would like to make a correction-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I listened carefully to the hon. member and I hoped he would come back to the clause before us. I would ask him to keep to that clause.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I did not stray from the subject. I was on the point of making a correction, as my remarks with regard to the Canadian wheat board have been misinterpreted. I know that the Canadian wheat board was established by a Conservative government.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You said a "Liberal government."


Samuel Boulanger: I said, afterwards, that for 22 years the act was administered by a Liberal government. And, with regard to the act commonly called A.R.D.A., it was introduced by a Conservative government, but it will be a Liberal government which will put it into force in a few months, when it will again be in power.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Think twice before speaking in this way.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Acting Minister of Agriculture to carefully note our remarks, because they express the views of our eastern farmers.
I know that tomorrow night there will be a meeting of eastern mill owners, and I know that their recommendations will be similar to those I just made.
I would like to hear other hon. members from that area expressing their views with respect to the treatment meted out to eastern farmers. Some people of course, rise to praise the government and its farm policy. I hope that, during the next election, they will go on praising the policy of a Conservative government that has brought about an agricultural depression.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Why don't you tell us about Mr. Courcy, the No. 1 enemy of farmers and agronomists.


Samuel Boulanger: The agricultural policy of the Conservative government is a defeatist policy. Our farmers are leaving their farms to go and live in the cities, because they can no longer live on their farms. We only have to read a booklet issued by the Department of Agriculture, last year, to realize that 61 per cent of eastern farmers are hardly making a gross income of $2,500 a year. How can you expect them to make both ends meet when a floor sweeper, in industry, is earning $3,000-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Paul:: It is very interesting to hear the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger), but I think it would be more practical for him to stick to the consideration of this bill.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Not only would that be more practical, but it would also be more in order. As I have already asked him to do, I would again ask him to abide by the rules and to deal with clause No. 1 now under consideration. I know the hon. member will abide by my ruling.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have strayed away from the subject. It is perhaps the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Tell us about Mr. Lesage's policy.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. Such interjections should stop. On the other hand, the hon.

Canadian Wheat Board Act member, who has already acquired some parliamentary experience, knows that he must deal with item No. 1, and I hope he will do so.


Samuel Boulanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Each time I have the floor, I realize that I hurt the feelings of Conservative members. That is why I seem to be out of order more often than I should. I sincerely believe I am defending the opinion of eastern farmers, and I shall continue to do so.
(Text):


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: It is not my intention to follow all the wanderings of the hon. member but I do want to deal with one of the points he raised because I think he is labouring under a misapprehension and I wish to correct him.
The question was raised about feed grains moving into the eastern provinces, and he suggested that these should move without the authority and jurisdiction of the board. I should explain to him that the recent change in regulations simply permitted feed mills- the farmers all had this right before-to purchase grain within the provinces. The jurisdiction of the board does not apply to moving grain within a province, but if a farmer in the province of Saskatchewan wanted to buy feed grain from the province of Manitoba he would have to go through the Canadian wheat board, just the same as is the case in dealing with the movement of grain from the western provinces to the eastern provinces.
I am sure the hon. member for Assiniboia must be considerably embarrassed by the statements which his colleague made-


Hazen Robert Argue: Not at all.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: -because what he is seeking to have done is what the hon. member for Assiniboia has been criticizing.


Hazen Robert Argue: The theory is that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The mistake was made.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: The hon. member knows that in regard to the movement of grain between provinces there is no intention to tamper with the authority of the board.


Hazen Robert Argue: You have already tampered with it in the quotas.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I should like to quote from an article in La Terre de Chez Nous which appeared in the issue of November 29, 1961. It is an article which deals with this question of feed grains and with what happened when the government decided last fall to authorize the feed companies to import quantities of grain, particularly feed oats, from the United States. It reads:
[The Chairman.]
Feed is not "for the asking"; it must be paid for and at a high price just now. This is a common complaint. It is heard throughout eastern Canada-from the head of the Great Lakes to the easternmost tip of Newfoundland. In Quebec and Ontario, the various mixtures are selling from $1 to $5 or $6 a ton more than a year ago, and in some cases the difference is even much greater.
As everyone knows, the cause of the trouble is the small quantity of grains used in making feed, particularly oats and barley. Another well-known fact is that when stocks are limited, prices climb quickly especially at the consumer level. In the case of feed grains, the leading consumer, the one who foots most of the bill, is the eastern farmer. His plight is the greater because of the fact that products obtained from these grains show no sky-rocketing tendencies.
However, it must be admitted that the prices of oats and barley are no longer at the top of the ladder as they were in August. They have dropped a little, maybe two or three rungs, according to official quotations. The entry into Canada of a few million bushels of oats from the United States has had a wholesome effect; that fact must be recognized. According to one of our best economists, these American imports have helped reduce by about $3 to $4 a ton the price of oats and barley in Canada.
That quotation is taken from a newspaper published in the hon. member's own province. I might say in this connection that from August 17 to February 16, 1962, the board has issued permits for the importation of 10,370,300 bushels of United States oats. Each permit had a 30 day expiry limit and not all of the permits were exercised. Over 5,200,000 bushels of American oats have been brought into Canada, mostly to eastern Canadian positions, half of which have been used up and the remainder is still in storage.
At March 1 this year there were over 6 million bushels of feed oats in the elevators in eastern Canada. This included about
2.400.000	bushels of American oats and a small quantity of eastern Canadian oats. This total is almost double the quantity of oats in eastern positions at March 1 last year, when only
3.400.000	bushels were on hand.
Supply of Canadian feed oats in store at the lakehead at March 1 this year amounted to 7,300,000 bushels compared with only
3.400.000	bushels at March 1, 1961. Therefore the hon. member's charge that the Canadian wheat board has not been recognizing the difficulties of the eastern feeders is not well founded, and the charge that the board has done nothing to assist the eastern feeders is one which cannot be substantiated, as is shown by the article I quoted from La Terre de Chez Nous and as is indicated by the statement I have just made.
I am sure that the hon. member, on reflection, would be prepared to say that the Canadian wheat board has made a very strenuous effort to ensure that quantities of feed have been made available to eastern feeders at all times.


Mr. Tardif:: When I was absent this afternoon the hon. member for Macleod made a statement and attributed something to me that is not factual. He said that I was against the sale of grain to China. What I did say was that every member in the house was delighted with the sales made to China, that we deplored the fact that Canadian salesmen were not as good as Australian salesmen who sold considerably more wheat to China, that China could never be a permanent customer, and that the people charged with selling Canadian grains should devote themselves to trying to establish permanent customers. I also stated that when China was able to supply its own needs it would no longer be a customer of the magnitude it is now, but I was glad to see that we were selling wheat to China.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Group life insurance plan and group medical-surgical insurance plan.
Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall clause 2 carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: I would like some information from either the minister or the parliamentary secretary on what is really involved in this clause. Its scope is obvious. It states:
With the approval of the governor in council, the board may enter into a contract with any person
(a)	for the provision of a group life insurance plan, and
(b)	for the provision of a group medical-surgical insurance plan
for the members of the board and the officers, clerks and employees employed by the board under this act and their dependants, and may contribute a share of the premiums payable under such plans out of the funds of the board.
Subclause (2) reads:
Contributions made by the board pursuant to subsection (1) shall be deemed to be expenses incurred in connection with the operations of the board.
It is perfectly clear what this will allow to be done. With the approval of the governor in council contracts can be entered into to provide group life insurance and group medical-surgical insurance for members, officers and clerks of the board, and the farmers will foot the bill. The farmers will pay the cost out of the wheat board funds.
Now I am not objecting to this. I want to make that clear; but I believe the minister owes it to the committee to tell us how many employees could be covered by this clause, and give us some idea of the thinking that went into bringing this important amendment before the house. Has the wheat board on hand some tentative proposals with regard to this kind of coverage? If so, what would the cost be, and how many employees are involved. I think the grain producers of western Canada who are going to have to 26207-1-143
Canadian Wheat Board Act foot the bill and pay these costs, or a portion of them, have the right to know what may be involved.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The thinking behind this amendment, of course, is obvious. It is consideration for the employees of a first class business organization. It is just good business practice, recognized also in government circles, to provide the type of benefit which the board would like to provide for its employees in this amendment. I am sure the producers of western Canada who are now paying the salaries of the Canadian wheat board and the employees of that board would be only too pleased to go this step further, as most business enterprises are doing today, and provide for group life insurance and group medical-surgical insurance for the employees of the board. This is a contributory plan. It is not simply a handout on the part of the producers. However, there is the normal share paid by the employer toward the cost of the plans. What that means in dollars and cents I cannot say immediately because I have not got the figures in front of me showing the number of employees but, of course, that is readily available. I would think that after approval has been given to this measure, when the officials of the wheat board are here, as they are before the committee on agriculture every year, the detailed questions which the hon. member for Assiniboia has raised could very well be answered. However, unless hon. members intend to oppose this forward step I am not certain that we need go into some of the details the hon. member has mentioned.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to protest certain
features of the statement which has just been made by the minister and I want to protest the general attitude of the government in this regard. Here is a minister who is acting as the minister for agriculture. He is the minister in charge of this bill and he has sitting beside him a capable parliamentary secretary. Yet, when we ask questions that are pertinent to this clause he gives us no information. What the minister is saying to us is: pass the clause, rubberstamp it, and then call in the wheat board officials and they will treat the agriculture committee like a kindergarten class, after the law has been placed on the statute books. I think the minister should have the officials before him. We have the right to be given this information in this committee. We should not have to pass blank cheques even for a good purpose. The minister says the information is readily available. That may be the case, but he has not got it and he will not produce it.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Gordon Minto Churchill: All right. Sit down, and I will give it to you.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will not sit down. This is the parliament of Canada and I do not have to take that from the minister. My question was: how much money will this cost? How many employees are on the board? Yet I am told to sit down-


An hon. Member:: And he would give you the information.


George James McIlraith: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask you to see that order is observed in this committee. When members of the opposition speak, they have a right to be heard and to debate this subject. When supporters of the government rose to speak they were listened to without interruption, but when anyone in the opposition gets up he is not given an opportunity to speak, and that is not good enough for the Canadian parliament.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I would ask the co-operation of all members of the committee in order that the member who has the floor may be heard. The hon. member for Ottawa West is right in saying that all members, no matter who they are, have a right to be heard and I ask all to co-operate so that this rule can be observed.


Mr. Ricard:: I cannot let the affirmation of that gentleman go unchallenged. He says that we on this side were heard-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have asked for the cooperation of all members of the committee so that whoever has the floor may be heard. My remarks were not directed to one side or the other. The hon. member for Assiniboia has the floor.


Norman Platt Lambert: On that point of order-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Unless the hon. member from Edmonton West has another point of order to raise, I think this matter has been thoroughly dealt with.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have been asking some questions to try to elicit from the minister information which I think is relevant to the clause which is before the committee. I was trying to find out whether there have been any discussions with the board concerning any binding agreements or contracts which could be entered into with the employees with the approval of the governor in council to provide for group life insurance and group medical-surgical insurance. The minister says this information is readily available. This information is not readily available. The minister comes into this house without the figures for which I have been asking. I am not saying he should carry them all in his mind or even

in his briefcase. But I say that he should have the officials before this committee so that we can obtain this information. I say, Mr. Chairman, that in all my time in parliament I have never known a minister of the crown say to me in response to a question I put to him: "Oh, sit down". I think that is the height of arrogance from an arrogant minister in an arrogant government. It is hardly fitting coming from a minister in a government which says it does not want to impose closure but wants parliament to have the right to free discussion.
The grain producers of western Canada are being asked in this clause to give the government the right to impose an additional burden on grain producers. I am not saying they will object to the contracts. I think the grain producers have shown that they want an efficient wheat board efficiently run. But I also believe that in a time of crop failure and low incomes to grain producers, at a time when the government has felt, with the support of all the members of the house, that steps should be taken to do at least something to alleviate this situation, it is pertinent to ask how much this is going to cost-how much it may cost. I have the greatest regard for the personnel of the Canadian wheat board but I make the statement that people who are receiving salaries of $20,000 a year or more are just a little more capable of providing their own life insurance and their own group medical-surgical insurance than the hard-pressed grain producers who will be asked to foot the bill.
I do not intend to oppose the clause. I am going to vote for it. If the minister wants to call a vote, I shall vote for it; but I think it is a very bad thing for the minister to come here and ask parliament to rubberstamp this proposal, though it be the best clause in the world, without giving us the kind of information for which I have asked. While I shall vote for it, I wager that there are tens of thousands of grain producers who would say that in view of the attitude of the government it is an imposition in a year of crop failure to ask them for this kind of blank cheque without any explanation. It is not enough to say to parliament, "Pass it tonight and we will give you the information at some later date when we have a meeting of the agriculture committee".


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, Mr. Chairman, you have just heard the hon. member for Assiniboia who is a master of bluster and noise. He is acting now within the ranks of a great historic party as he behaved when he was ranting and raving in the corner to Your Honour's left. I must say the conduct of the group in that corner has been vastly improved since the hon. gentleman left that corner

because the group seated there is now under the genial guidance of the hon. member for Kootenay West.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not much opposition left, you mean.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Indeed, my respect for the group in that corner has risen immensely since the hon. member for Assiniboia left. He is now trying to re-establish himself by bluster and noise and that, I think, will not work within the party with which he is now associated.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would it not be more simple to answer the question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just wait until Mr. Walter Gordon gets after the hon. member for Assiniboia. During the course of his remarks which the hon. gentleman repeated over and over again, I said to him, "If you will sit down I will give you the answer".


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, no. You just said, "Sit down". You said, "You sit down".
Mr. Pallet!: You were talking so loudly you could not hear what was said.


Leon David Crestohl: You are getting a dose of your own medicine.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will take note of the interruptions from the other side of the house. I am not being given a chance to be heard. This is a shameful thing. This is destructive of parliament and it reflects on the reputation of the liberal party. I shall deal with the monstrous blustering of the hon. member for Assiniboia. I asked him to sit down and told him that if he did so I would give him an answer.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not what you said.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member kept
repeating his statement and then quite falsely he referred to half of my statement and accused me of ordering him to sit down. I did no such thing. The hon. member has been in the House of Commons a long time-
Mr. Pallet!: Too long.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and he knows better. If the hon. gentleman is going to re-establish himself as a suitable member of parliament the electors will send back to the house, he will have to modify his ways and become more moderate and establish himself as a proper member of the Liberal party and not just a blusterer who has no home at all.


Leon David Crestohl: The hon. member for Assiniboia will have to check Hansard tomorrow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said with regard to this measure-and I spoke with the greatest moderation-that this was proposed by the Cana-
26207-1- 143j
Canadian Wheat Board Act dian wheat board in the interests of their employees, just as any good business enterprise would do. I said with regard to the hon. member's question that the number of employees was readily available. The information appears in the annual report of the Canadian wheat board at page 23 where it is stated that on July 31, 1961 the board had 724 employees as compared with 708 on July 31, 1960.
With regard to the amount of money which this will cost the employees and the employer, I do not have those figures in front of me for this very simple reason. The Canadian wheat board is examining several schemes with regard to the proposal. This is quite normal. There are several schemes available, I understand, with regard to the provision of group life insurance and group medical-surgical insurance. I would think it would be through consultation between the wheat board and their staff that they would select the plan that was most suited to their needs.
We are not asking this house to rubber-stamp this measure. We are suggesting that the wheat board be given authority to propose this scheme and put it into operation if it is satisfactory. If it is not satisfactory and if it appears to be a burden on the producers of this country I am sure their voice will be heard. There is an advisory council which sits in with the Canadian wheat board representing the producer interests of this country and they will have something to say with regard to this. I am sure that the wheat board will listen to any representations from local authorities, if any have some objection. On the other hand, I feel sure that the producers of western Canada, satisfied as they have been over the years with the efficient operation of the wheat board and with the effective work being done by their employees, will be glad to co-operate in this regard.
Just the other day we discussed in this house one of the acts under my jurisdiction, the Veterans' Land Act. There we suggested that the director be given authority to work out an insurance plan for those farmers coming under the Veterans' Land Act who were getting land from him and who owed debts to the director. We did not spell out the exact cost or the exact plan because we do not know yet what these will be. Various plans are being considered. No one then suggested that we were rubberstamping a proposition brought before the House of Commons.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the
minister a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Assiniboia will not sit still and listen. He wants to get up and interrupt.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Hazen Robert Argue: I just wanted to ask a question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. gentleman does not wish to hear what 1 have to say. He wants to talk all the time and bluster and make a great deal of noise. Let the hon. member stay silent-


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let him stay silent while he is seated in his place. If the hon. member has the floor I shall be glad to listen to him as I did before. While I have the floor, however, let the hon. member be silent and listen to me.
On that occasion we did not ask parliament to rubberstamp the bill. We put a proposition before the house which was reasonable and sensible and the house very sensibly adopted it. The director under the Veterans' Land Act can now work out schemes. Similarly, we are suggesting the same here. This House of Commons, with the sole exception of the hon. member for Assiniboia, is a very reasonable house tonight and I am sure the committee will accept the proposition that is spelled out in the amendment before us.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, as I remember the veterans legislation referred to, while it gives the director the power to consider this kind of scheme-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-my impression was that the veteran would pay the insurance himself and would decide whether or not he wished to avail himself of the insurance. However, under the plan before us, if it goes through at some future date, it will be an imposition on the grain producers.
I notice that the minister is gleefully reading notes which are being passed to him. That is perfectly fine. The minister told me to sit down and then he told me to remain silent. If the minister does not care to listen that, of course, is his right and I am not objecting to his giggling over the notes he has received.
This scheme will be an imposition and the grain producers have a right to the information requested. I think it is the duty of hon. members to inquire what this will cost. The minister has given us a little information, not too much but a little. He has told us that two or three schemes are being considered one of which may recommend itself to the wheat board and may be brought before the governor in council. The minister has given us no idea of the range of costs of this scheme. He has given us no indication what this might cost the grain producers of western Canada.
I think the wheat board system is an excellent one. I am willing to take a chance on this clause and on what may come in

the future even if we should be so unfortunate as to have this government in power -and I do not think that will be the case- when any provision may be signed by the Canadian wheat board. None the less I think that when the grain producers have to foot the bill and pay part of the group life insurance plan and the group medical-surgical insurance plan, it is only realistic that the minister, before the provision is adopted by parliament, should be asked how much money might be involved. He might have given us the range of costs if he had that information. I think it is pertinent. While the grain producers are willing to pay reasonable costs and reasonable salaries-and I think they are paying reasonable salaries-I think they and the committee have the right to know what is involved.


George James McIlraith: There is one point I should like to have clarified with regard to clause 2. The difficulty in which I find myself arises out of the fact that the explanatory note says something quite different from what is contained in the clause itself. The clause provides that the board may, with the approval of the governor in council, work out a group life insurance plan or a group medical surgical plan. From that provision I take it that it is quite clear that what is envisaged is an attempt to bring the provision for the employees in line with the provisions usually made for employees in the government service and in larger private corporations, where there are sufficient numbers of them to work out a scheme of this kind. That is what is intended here, I take it. However, what I am not clear about is the latter part of subclause (1) of the new clause 8A wherein it is provided that "the board may contribute a share of the premiums payable under such plans out of the funds of the board". The explanatory notes say something quite different from that latter part of the clause which I have quoted. The explanatory notes say that the board would be permitted to contribute the employers' share of the cost. There is no such limitation on the board at all. The board could contribute much more than the employers' share. In the proposed legislation there is no limitation on them. What I want to know from the minister is this. Does he envisage any part of what is usually called the employers' share in these joint schemes being provided by the government and not by the board itself through the producers? The act is wide open in its language and permits payment from any source. It is merely permissive with the board to pay a part of the share if it so wishes. Does he envisage that

any part of the employers' share will be paid by the federal government out of public funds?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman. That matter has not been drawn to my attention. The wheat board has been operating all these years without government contribution. I would judge that principle would apply at the present time. As a matter of fact, the notes that have been given to me indicate that there would be no commitment on the consolidated revenue fund.


George James McIlraith: From the minister's explanation I am satisfied as to the intention of the government. However, I would point out that the bill does not express that intention. It does not make clear what is intended. For instance, it does not limit the wheat board to charging the producers merely with the usual employers' share of the cost of this scheme. If they wish to do so, under the legislation they are given authority to provide much more.
I am wondering whether the minister would take a look at the clause in order to ascertain whether it accurately expresses what I believe the government has in mind in this connection. I wonder whether he would have a look at that clause. If it needs clarification and correction, possibly it could be done at a later stage in the procedure on the bill in the other place.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes; we will have a good look at it. In connection with this proposed amendment may I point out that the approval of the governor in council is obligatory. Any scheme that comes forward from the wheat board would have to be considered by the governor in council. I would presume that the house would readily get the information at that time because of questions that would be asked, and so on, or statements that would be made by the minister.


George James McIlraith: I am willing to let the point go. However, I would draw the attention of the minister to the fact that, as the legislation is drafted, it is possible to put what would be quite an unfair charge on the producers. As the legislation reads, in this clause there is no protection for the producers on that point.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The question that has been raised is an important one. If someone can come forward with a suggestion to modify line 19, we would certainly consider it. Whether we should put in there the employers' share, if that would be a clarification, or whether we should say "its share", I do not know.


An hon. Member:: Let the clause stand.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Gordon Minto Churchill: We might allow the clause to stand and proceed with the others. Perhaps within a matter of minutes someone might have a satisfactory solution.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Is it the desire of the committee that clause 2 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
On clause 3-Duration.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the minister. Could he tell us how many grain elevators are under the control of the Canadian wheat board?
(Text):


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think I gave that figure the other day with regard to delivery points. It is something over 1,900. Offhand I would say it is 1,960.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Does the government intend to create a transport board in order to control
grain movement to eastern elevators, and at the same time the distribution of that grain in eastern Canada? I believe there was such a commission a few years back to look after grain storage and distribution. The establishment of such a commission was requested, I think, by the millers' association of the eastern townships as well as by the Catholic farmers' union.
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall clause 3 carry? (Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister a question which, I hope, he will be able to answer.
(Text):


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member
oblige me by repeating the question? I missed a word or two of it in the translation.


Samuel Boulanger: I will put the question in English, if the minister does not mind. I wish to ask the minister whether it is his intention to organize a transport commission in order to take care of the storage of grain in the eastern elevators of the country and to control the delivery of these grains. I am asking this question because a few years ago we had this commission and in the east the supply of feed grain was more adequate than it is now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not the intention to do as the member suggests. Although that is undoubtedly an important point, I think it would have to be raised at some other time and with regard to a different act. At the moment we are simply dealing with the
2242	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act Canadian wheat board whose jurisdiction does not extend further eastward than the lake-head.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4.
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask a question on clause 4 merely in order to get the opinion of the minister and the government. Some farm organizations-and I refer particularly to the national farmers union-have been asking that the Canadian Wheat Board Act be made a permanent one. I am not positive in my own mind just how that would be done if it were the intention of the government to do so, but I take it you would merely omit the termination date for these various pool periods and omit any termination date anywhere in the act.
I can see arguments both ways. I think what the producers have in mind is this. They want to be reassured that the Canadian Wheat Board Act is in fact a permanent statute and that there is no intention to bring it to an end. On the other hand, there is the argument on the other side that parliament every once in a while-by this amendment it would be five years from now-should have the chance to review the act. I can see good arguments on both sides. I am simply wondering whether the government has considered the representations of the national farmers union and what the thinking of the government is in making the termination date August 1, 1967.
I have no doubt that a future parliament prior to that date will extend the act for a further period. I cannot conceive of any government likely to be elected in this country throwing out the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Nevertheless the farmers in this country wish to be reassured that for all practical purposes this is permanent legislation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That question has been considered, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact,
I discussed it with the Minister of Agriculture just the other day, and there are points in favour of removing the five year review and making the act permanent. I think the hon. member for Assiniboia is quite right, that no future parliament would destroy the wheat board. Nevertheless, in conversation with the Minister of Agriculture we reached the conclusion that there might be some advantage in bringing forward for review at five year periods the operations of the wheat board.
As a matter of fact, I read the debate that occurred five years ago on this subject and may I say that the hon. member for Assiniboia made a very good speech on that occasion. It was well thought out and, insofar as Hansard indicates, moderately delivered. There were no interruptions.


Hazen Robert Argue: A different government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: But a terribly worse government in those days. On reflection I think there is a little more in favour of the argument for periodic review rather than simply making the act permanent. At any rate, granting that there are arguments on both sides, we reached the conclusion that it was better to have the act brought before parliament again in five years time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, clause 5 has to do with changing some words with regard to defining the separate account. I have read the clause carefully and it may clarify the provision for a separate account so-called in certain circumstances. I can see nothing of a substantive change in this clause.
However, at this time I do wish to get from the minister, if I can, information as to the amount of money in the separate account and the amount of money, if any, that has been paid out of the separate account during the last few years. In particular I should like to refer to one very large payment which, according to the annual report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year 1959-60, was paid out of the separate account by authority of order in council P.C. 1960-519. The report contains this statement:
On September 23, 1959, the out-shore annex of the United Grain Growers Limited terminal elevator "A" at Port Arthur, Ontario, collapsed. The collapse resulted in the loss of 1,194,760.1 bushels of wheat, oats and barley valued at $2,406,175.22.
From this information I take it that the United Grain Growers came to the government and said, "Look, we have had an accident. We have lost over $2,406,000. Will you help us out by taking $775,000 from the special account and making us this gift?" I am just saying that is my interpretation. If I am wrong, I ask the minister to correct me.
As I understand the situation, this special account originates from the fact that over the years, with so many grain producers accounts, some payments are not claimed; and with such huge sums of money involved in total over the years the moneys unclaimed have accumulated to a sizeable amount. I am prepared to listen to arguments and to say that I could be persuaded I am wrong, but my impression at this time is that this is not the best use to be made of these funds.
The minister can claim, and rightly so, that the United Grain Growers Limited is a farm organization and that this is a case of taking funds out of the special account in the general wheat board fund and paying the

money to a farmers' grain organization. I would also think that if a private grain company suffered the same kind of disaster it would have an equal claim, and I think it should have an equal claim for payment out of this fund. But if you are going to take funds out of a special account and pay them to grain companies I think that in itself is not the best use to be made of those funds.
I remember that when this legislation was first proposed years ago I said I would far rather see this money in the separate account paid into the general wheat board funds and go into the pockets of the grain producers in total. I suppose the only argument against that is that in relation to the total number of grain producers there is not so much money involved per grain producer and that it would be better to use the money in a chunk to greater advantage than to divide it among all producers. That is the argument on the other side perhaps, but I do not think it is valid in this case because the money has been paid to a group of grain producers instead of to all grain producers. I think this is a bad precedent and I hope it will not be followed in the future.
I want to say that I think that many of the uses to which this money has been put are excellent. Bringing over trade missions that may buy larger quantities of grain and using the money generally for the promotion of markets for all grain producers are good ways to use the money, but 1 do question the wisdom of making a handout, which is all it was in my opinion, to an elevator company even when that elevator company has suffered a disaster. I think this is not the right way to use the funds in this account.
I do not have the information that is available to the minister at my fingertips and I am prepared to be persuaded I am wrong. It may be because I lack some of the information that I have come to this conclusion, but I should like to hear from the minister what particular events or arguments persuaded the governor in council to take $775,000 out of this special account of the Canadian wheat board and pay it to the United Grain Growers.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, this was one of the most difficult problems that faced me as minister with some responsibility for the wheat board in the year 1959 and the spring of 1960. It involved a great many meetings and consultations between ministers of the government and representatives of the United Grain Growers, a tremendous amount of work on the part of the law officers of the crown consulting with representatives from the
Canadian Wheat Board Act United Grain Growers. The situation is now, of course, two years old. The settlement was reached two years ago.
However, the hon. member's query is a fair one. Should the money in the special fund be used for a purpose such as this? I tell you quite frankly that that was the question which was considered time and time again in the course of the many meetings that were held with regard to this problem. The problem arose as a result of the collapse of an elevator at the lakehead, one of the unforeseen hazards with regard to elevators. If my memory serves me correctly, at the time I asked if anyone could tell me of any similar occurrence in Canadian history. Relying again on my memory, I think they said no, other than the collapse of a wooden elevator that had grown very old. However, this was an elevator situation on the shore of the lake; the foundation gave way and the elevator collapsed. We are very fortunate that there was no loss of life because a ship was scheduled to arrive at the wharf for loading within a few hours of the collapse. Had the ship been tied up beside the wharf, the ship might have been destroyed, in addition to the elevator, and there may have been loss of life as well.
Well, we were faced with this situation, that there might have been litigation, a suit against the wheat board. The amount of money involved would have been tied up pending a settlement by the court, and that would have affected the final payment in the spring of 1960 for the earlier crop year. We had to consider this situation, that 50,000 producers, members of the United Grain Growers organization, would have to bear the entire cost and might therefore be embarrassed financially. A decision was reached to draw from the special fund, largely on these grounds: That the disaster which occurred only in one elevator and to one elevator company was unprecedented and unlikely to occur in the future; that it was something against which adequate insurance provision could not be made. In addition, we thought it was unwise to tie up the final payment by paying money into court until a settlement was reached. Then, too, we thought that spreading this unprecedented loss over a very large field by drawing upon the special fund might be the best way out of the difficulty.
Whether the decision was right or wrong, time alone will tell. I do not doubt but that it could be criticized on some ground. Perhaps other people would have made a different decision. We ended up by reaching what appeared to us to be a reasonable settlement and came to the assistance of 50,000 wheat producers who own their own elevator system, and placed no penalty on any producer in the country, because the special fund was of
2244	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act such a size at that time that it was possible to draw upon it in that amount without interfering with the other uses to which the fund is put from time to time. I suggest that is the background of that particular incident, and our hope is that no such disaster will aifect any of the elevator companies in the future or any of the producer organizations.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has the minister any information as to the approximate amount in this special fund at this time?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, in the annual report
it is given as $821,426.


Hazen Robert Argue: What page is that?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is in exhibit No. 1.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate the answer the minister has given. I cannot express an opinion tonight on the legal questions involved. I have no idea, myself, as to the grounds upon which the United Grain Growers would press any claim for damages against the Canadian wheat board. However, I do think that the government should be most careful in using this fund for this kind of purpose. I do not see, myself, how this situation could have any real bearing on the final payment because the amount involved, a million dollars or so, just could not tie up the whole of the final payment which would be a much larger sum of money than that.
I can see how it might tie up $2.4 million, but even then I think the wheat board could borrow the money within about 60 minutes if that were necessary, because the wheat board is handling huge sums of money and has assets probably hundreds of times greater than the $2.4 million involved.
I have a natural inclination to think of the individual grain producer. It is for this reason I have been putting forward these remarks tonight and stating the position of the grain growers as a whole as opposed to action which provided assistance for 50,000 grain growers out of almost 250,000. If the individual farmer who has to take his grain to the wheat board suffers a disaster on his farm, he foots the bill. The individual farmer has no recourse to anyone of whom I am aware. However, it is interesting to note that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in an appendix to its brief this year, set forth a policy asking for emergency loan legislation for individual farmers suffering a disaster.
I will read the first paragraph of this submission:
Occasionally farming areas are struck by sudden natural catastrophes such as severe drought, large scale floods, storms of hurricane force, severe infestations of insects, plant diseases of epidemic proportions, severe frosts at certain periods for plant and tree growth and other natural hazards.


This is a new aspect of farm policy requesting extraordinary action in time of disaster to the individual farmer. Perhaps this scheme would be a difficult thing for the wheat board to administer. It would perhaps be difficult to make any of these moneys available to an individual farmer who suffers a disaster, but I put it to the minister that if a farmer loses one year's crop, this is a much greater disaster from his point of view than the disaster affecting an individual even though he be a shareholder in the United Grain Growers. Perhaps this could be made something of a revolving fund out of which moneys could be made available to help individual producers who face individual disasters.
The minister has given us an explanation of the long discussions that took place in making these moneys available. I shall not accuse him tonight of having made a wrong decision but I believe that in his own mind he certainly thought this was a borderline case. However, if errors are to be made I would prefer to see errors of judgment made on the side of helping the individual producer and not helping to bail out a grain company from a disaster, even though that grain company may be owned by producers. If it is United Grain Growers today it could be some other company tomorrow, and this fund could be used in a way which parliament never intended when the legislation passed through this house.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Paul Raymond Martineau: We shall now revert to clause 2, which was suspended a few minutes ago.
On clause 2-Group life insurance and group medical-surgical insurance plan.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have now got some notes from the law officer of the crown to the effect that it is not easy to suggest a modification of the wording as it is now. If we say "its share" that begs the question of what share is precisely meant. The same objection arises in connection with the expression "employers' share." The only way to give certainty to the matter is to spell out precisely what share might be contributed, and this cannot be done until the plan has been worked out.
With the caution we have received from the hon. member for Ottawa West, perhaps we could pass this and watch it very closely when the board puts forward its scheme for the approval of the governor in council.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next sitting.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, could we consider having third reading now. Since the bill has come forward without amendment it could be considered at this stage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister is quite right and I have no objection.


Gordon Minto Churchill: third reading of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave of the house. Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-38, an act to provide for the reporting of financial and other statistics relating to the affairs of corporations and labour unions carrying on activities in Canada.-The Minister of Justice.
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be fair for the Minister of Justice or anybody else, to start the study of this bill at this late hour. May I call it ten o'clock?
Business of the House


Mr. Fulton:: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, with the concurrence of the hon. gentleman I might call it ten o'clock.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, let the minister call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not much point in putting the motion, is it agreed to call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: I take it that tomorrow we will go on with the estimates as announced by the minister on Friday?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Good heavens, then I am not moving the adjournment of the debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is understood that the Minister of Justice did not move the adjournment of the debate, so that the bill will keep its place. The business for tomorrow, in view of the general interest in the house to complete the final supplementaries, will be the supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
*144

﻿2247
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 28, 1962