Mr. Tucker:

I am discussing the principle of the bill. It goes such a short distance that I am just pointing it out for the edification of my hon. friends. Let me read again what the Prime Minister held out and express the hope that he will yet reconsider and make this bill into something more in line with the needs of western Canada and more in line with the hopes he held out when those neighbours of both his and mine voted for him. Here is what he said, as reported at page 2189 of Hansard of March 14, 1957:

. . . the only salvation for the western farmer, with his markets lost and his wheat therefore unmarketable, is that there should be cash advances.

Is this such a cash advance measure when you can get up to $3,000 which is taken back from you within a year and can market only up to six bushels per specified acre? Is this the solution which the Prime Minister had in mind?

Is it to be said that after what happened to them in their attempt at Washington to

get some reconsideration of the surplus disposal policy of the United States that they the government really expect any great amelioration of the marketing problem? The situation is still there, just the same and worse.

Then the Prime Minister has said there should be cash advances; now this is really a temporary advance, repayable within a year. Is this going to really help our farmers in the way in which they were led to believe they would be helped? The Prime Minister said:

We believe that every encouragement should be given to the farmer to provide their own storage and that with the provision of such storage, additional writeoffs should be permitted when determining the amount of his income tax.

I hope that the government will carry out that promise.

It was suggested from time to time that that should be done right in the Wheat Board Act so there would be no doubt about it but, in any event, this is something which should be done at this session of parliament and without delay, because the situation in western Canada is very difficult as the Prime Minister very well knows. I would like the government to give consideration to this question and the Minister of Trade and Commerce can answer it if he wishes to do so: does he seriously suggest that this proposal he has just made carries out the promises of the Prime Minister who said: "We believe that under proper circumstances there should be provision for cash advances on farm-stored grain similar to the system in effect in the United States."

Mr. Churchill:

Every promise made by the Prime Minister will be carried out.

Mr. Tucker:

Well, when? We were assured by the present government that they were going to speedily carry out some of these promises. Is this how fast they are going to proceed? We keep getting stories; we keep hearing suggestions that it is not going to be done this session as it should be in order to show that the government is really endeavouring to carry out its promises. I suggest to the Prime Minister, and he knows the people in western Canada as well as I do-

He knows them better.

Mr. Tucker:

Well if he knows them better he will act at this stage and I suggest to him that if he wishes to hold the goodwill he has at the present time in western Canada by carrying out his promises he is going to have to go a good deal further in carrying them out than has been proposed in this bill.

Grain

Mr. Muir (Lisgar):

Mr. Chairman, before I became a member of parliament my constituents used to ask me "Why is it, when we have so many representatives from the west in the Liberal party and on the government side of the house, that the farmers are unable to receive more in the way of assistance?" After listening to the hon. member for Rosthern this afternoon I can assure you I will be able to go back and tell them why.

Now in speaking on this resolution on advance payments on farm-stored grain I would like to take the opportunity of expressing the appreciation of the farmers I represent that this measure should be introduced at this early stage of the session.

I noticed that the last speaker, in telling the Prime Minister that he should be getting on with these things, failed to mention that a lot of this legislation could have been passed had it not been for the amount of verbiage to which we have had to listen from the opposite side of the house.

I would also like to mention at this time that the farmers are pleased that the advances on grain are on all grain and not on wheat alone for that would penalize those farmers who attempted to reduce their wheat acreage. I would point out, as the hon. member for Melville well knows, that this has been the practice of many of the farmers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan during the last couple of years. The result is of course that we have had a considerable volume of coarse grains as well as wheat being stored on the prairie farms.

Now one of the most serious problems facing agriculture and the prairie economy generally has been the lack of cash in the hands of farmers at the completion of harvesting and this has meant unpaid taxes, fuel and other bills, and has created a serious credit situation, not only for the farmer himself but for the merchants and dealers in the small villages and towns who have been providing goods and services on credit to the farmer. The inability of the farmer to dispose of any substantial amount of his production of grains at harvest time has created the situation. This has been steadily worsening especially during the past two years and has now become very critical.

The legislation the government is bringing in is both bold and imaginative; it was refused by the former government but it will do much to prevent any further deterioration in the farmers' cash position. In spite of what the hon. member for Melville said, the former government failed to recognize the seriousness of the farmers' cash position. Their half-hearted efforts to deal with the problem have forced the farmer to further

increase his indebtedness by borrowing from the banks and this has only aggravated the situation. This policy of the former government largely contributed to the fact that many farm people decided to quit the business and seek employment elsewhere before their credit condition got into a state from which they would be unable to extricate themselves.

Farm organizations, prairie business men who supply the goods and services to enable the farmer to operate his holdings and the farmers themselves have been waiting patiently for this legislation to be adopted by this house because they accepted the assurances of the Prime Minister that this would be done. They realize that this legislation is only to take care of their critical situation, whether it arises this year as it has, or in future years, and that it is not a solution to their overall problems. Farmers are counting on the farm legislation and the longterm program of national development as indicated in the speech from the throne to bring more stability to this basic industry and eventually make unnecessary this legislation which we are discussing today.

The farmers realize that national development, in co-operation with the provinces, in such things as the South Saskatchewan dam, the Beech wood project in New Brunswick and the Red river valley water development program, now under study by the Manitoba government, would contribute much to the economic well-being, not only of the people of the areas directly concerned but of the whole nation.

Furthermore the fact that the government by bringing in this legislation has shown that it intends to live up to these commitments will reassure the people of this nation that it intends to carry out its long-term policy of national development and through it build a better and more healthy Canada.

Payment of cash advances on farm-stored grain is actually not something new. The wheat board has been paying advances on grain delivered by the farmer to the board since its inception, the final payment being made as the grain is sold. This particular legislation becomes necessary since the board, the sole purchasing agency, is unable to take delivery of the farmers' grain because of the congested commercial storage space. Now, what was the answer of the former government to the same situation? You will remember they brought out their grain loan program wherein they would guarantee to the banks 10 per cent of the loan made to the farmer.

Hon. members may remember that a program was brought out under which farmers were able to borrow $3,000 if they possessed

the required security. Unfortunately this measure never worked out in practice as it was intended because if a farmer had the $3,000 security which was required of him he was able to borrow without the guarantee: if he did not, then he could not borrow in any circumstances. The result was that very few farmers in the west took advantage of that particular legislation.

The hon. member for Rosthern mentioned that when the farmer got through he would not have too much money left anyway. What this legislation does is pay for a portion of the farmer's grain before he delivers it. Naturally he would not expect to be paid for it again when he delivered it to the elevator. The government set up this program under which the wheat board will pay the farmer an advance on his grain; when he delivers the grain the balance of the payment will be made to him after certain deductions have been made in respect of the money already advanced. This will ensure that a certain amount of money is available to him throughout the year.

I think this scheme will enable the farmers to finance their operations more easily, and at the same time it will protect the wheat board in its operations. I think the western farmer is going to be very pleased with this legislation and this government should be commended on bringing it in at this time. It is to be hoped that this legislation will not be held up by lengthy debate.

The seriousness of the credit situation throughout the whole prairie economy places on this house the responsibility of passing this bill at the earliest possible moment in order that the wheat board can get the cash out to the farmers at once.

Mr. Zapliiny:

Mr. Chairman, the hon.

member for Assiniboia made a comprehensive statement on behalf of our party earlier this afternoon and it is therefore my intention to be as brief as possible in order to accommodate supporters of the government or other hon. members who may wish to comment on this proposed legislation.

However, I feel it is my duty to express a certain amount of satisfaction on behalf of the grain producers I represent, and grain producers generally, now that we have reached, to some extent, the main objective for which hon. members of this group have fought so persistently. I am glad to welcome this legislation as far as it goes. I think we shall have to describe this in the usual manner by saying it is a step in the right direction.

Grain

We were, of course, very interested and not a little amused by the statement made by the hon. member for Melville, remembering some of the things he had to say when he was sitting on the other side of the house. While he was speaking my good friend from Selkirk mentioned to me a gentleman in his district who believed in self-imposed punishment and who, whenever he had done anything wrong, used to fill his boots with peas and walk all the way to Winnipeg. It seems to me that that record is beaten today, because we have witnessed the spectacle of the hon. member for Melville walking all the way from Melville with peas in his boots. Apparently he was in good shape when he got here, because I note that he did a perfect verbal Irish jig.

I also wish to commend the hon. member for Rosthern for having apparently changed his mind substantially on this question. I cannot help but recall that last year, the year before, and in the years before that, whenever we placed this proposal before the house- and I wish to remind hon. members that it was always the C.C.F. party which took the lead in this matter-when we offered this cake on a platter, the hon. member for Rosthern would not even touch the icing; but today he ate half way through the platter before he sat down. He was not satisfied with this legislation; if I read his remarks correctly, he wanted the government to go the whole way.

I am quite prepared to go further than the government has gone. But it is interesting to note that members of the Liberal party who not long ago were not prepared to take even the first step in this matter are now demanding the whole cake.

This proposal would be of material assistance to prairie farmers in enabling them to convert their grain into immediate cash. To that extent we welcome it and commend the government for it and I, personally, take a certain amount of satisfaction in recalling that it was a minister from the province of Manitoba who introduced the first real legislation on this subject. We are known as "the keystone province" in this country and we hope this is going to be the key to bigger and better things in the future. But I believe we must not leave this question without taking into account the limitations inherent in this legislation and in the situation in which we find ourselves. I believe the government should seriously consider at this time taking a further step and, I believe, a practical step, namely, to provide government storage for grain.

Grain

Mr. Speaker:

The house will now revert to the business which was interrupted.

Mr. Zaplitny:

Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I had just drawn attention to the fact that the measure we are now discussing is of a limited nature and that, in my humble opinion, further steps would be required to cover the whole question of the disposal of grain. It seems to me that the government should take into immediate consideration certain further steps to put the available grain into a sales position, as efficiently and as quickly as possible, and to make provision for the disposal of it at fair prices to the producers. I would advocate three steps by which I think that this could accomplished.

First of all, I would advocate that the government finance, either directly or through the wheat board, the construction of additional

storage space in this country on a huge and imaginative scale. I would advocate that the government finance the construction of additional storage, either at terminals or off-terminal sites at strategic positions, sufficiently large to store about 300 million bushels of grain. This grain would then be in position for immediate shipment in the event that the efforts of the Department of Trade and Commerce or our trade commissioners meet with the optimistic success which we hope they will. One of these days we may find that we will get a sudden flood of orders for grain from various parts of the world, and they may come at a time when the grain stored on farms cannot be readily delivered to the shipping points.

As a matter of fact, even under conditions of surplus and congestion, this has already occurred. There were times when the wheat board made calls for certain types of grain during the winter or early spring months when the roads were not passable and the country elevators were not able to supply the grain required, in spite of the fact that there were hundreds of millions of bushels of this grain stored on farms. In addition to this I feel that looking at it from the long-range point of view there is no better national asset that we could have than approximately 300 million bushels of grain stored in properly constructed storage, which grain could be kept for an indefinite period.

Mr. Churchill:

Does the hon. member mean over and above the storage capacity now?

Mr. Zaplitny:

That is right. We have in the past assumed we were on the gold standard. I think that assumption has pretty well evaporated, but since this country is chiefly an agricultural country I feel we would be better off to be on a grain standard than the gold standard because we would have as an asset a useful and usable product which, with all due respect, in comparison with gold would give a much greater degree of stability and give the world a far better sense of stability than the digging of gold in one country and burying it in another.

As a second step, I would advocate that the government take some immediate steps to give this house a little more encouragement than has been the case so far with regard to the establishment of an international food bank. I would not for a moment assume that this government or this parliament could, by itself, set up an international food bank. However, we can do our share. We must start on a national basis with the role which we would play in the general set-up of an international food bank.

The provision of proper facilities, as I have mentioned, for the storage of grain would be one step towards that objective and would have this other advantage that once the grain is delivered to such storage, once it is in the hands of the wheat board and the farmer has been paid for the grain, the wheat board knows where the grain is and that it can be kept in good condition. These are advantages over this idea of cash advances which we are now using as a temporary or, at least, as an emergency measure.

On the question of the international food bank, the hon. member for Assiniboia has already discussed the matter. There were some exchanges during his remarks about who was responsible for the lack of action on the part of Canada in taking her part in the establishment of such a food bank. Apparently there were accusations and denials going back and forth between former ministers and present ministers. I feel that so far as this government is concerned, they are firmly on record as to what they intend to do. According to a press report in the Montreal Gazette of May 20, the Prime Minister is reported as having said at Red Deer, Alberta-he is not quoted verbatim, but these are the words he used:

Earlier at Red Deer he advocated formation of an international food bank under NATO to ease the threat to wheat markets from "vast" world wheat surpluses.

Then the article continues to give greater detail as to what the present Prime Minister advocated. In spite of what may have been the case up until now, and without trying to place the blame for the lack of action as between the former minister and the present minister, the present Prime Minister is on record, speaking in a province which is very interested in this question of grain, as being in favour of setting up an international food bank.

As a third step, I would advocate-I will only touch on this because it is my intention to go into this matter in much greater detail in the general debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne-that the government show some real action in the removal of trade barriers. I must admit that so far, on this particular point, I have been disappointed.

I am one of those who believe that Canada's destiny in the future lies in the direction of freer trade. We had hoped that we would be moving in that direction rather rapidly, in fact I have been hoping for that for a considerable number of years. There was a time when the Liberal party of this country was the low-tariff party, while the Conservatives had earned a reputation as being the high-tariff party. When the change

Grain

of government took place in 1935, at which time I cast my first vote, I thought perhaps we would see some real action towards the removal of trade barriers. It took 22 years for the disillusionment to become rather complete.

We have a new administration now, and in spite of their past-I say that not in any sense of bitterness but because I think perhaps the members of the new government are big enough men to be able to forget some of the past of the party-perhaps they will now show an example to the world by taking some real action toward the removal of trade barriers. They were given an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that only recently when the government of the United Kingdom made quite a sensational, and in my opinion excellent proposition to this country to establish a free trade area as between the United Kingdom and Canada over a period of years. I hoped that not only would the government have taken them up immediately on that proposition, but have made some plans to widen that proposition to include all the commonwealth countries.

Here again I find that on the record the present Prime Minister seems to have something of that sort in mind. But according to the Ottawa Citizen of May 15, the Prime Minister is reported to have said at Portage La Prairie, Manitoba, the following:

He also called for a commonwealth economic conference to restore Canada's markets, loans to Japan to buy wheat here and action to maintain European markets in the face of the proposed European common market system.

May I just say that with regard to the last part of that statement that in the last few days news has come out to the effect that Great Britain is now prepared to include agricultural products in the European common market system, something which they had been deliberately withholding in the hope, I believe, of coming to some terms with Canada for a free-trade area. But apparently because of the singular lack of action and, as a matter of fact, the almost complete lack of interest that was shown by the Minister of Finance at the Mont Tremblant conference, subsequently the British government, I think quite rightly, has perhaps come to the conclusion that Canada is not the least bit interested in the establishment of a free-trade area and removal of trade barriers between those two countries and is now looking elsewhere where countries are more favourably disposed.

If that happened I warn this government that it would be a serious blow to the agricultural industry of this country and not only to the agricultural industry. I can assure him

Grain

that so far as all of western Canada is concerned and so far as the maritimes are concerned, this government and his party would lose a terrific amount of prestige and support if it were found that the new Conservative government is no different with regard to trade barriers from the old Conservative governments that we have had. I issue that as a friendly warning and add to that warning that it is going to take on the part of the Prime Minister a great deal more than the stentorian voice and the rolling phrase to cover up this lack of action.

The people of the prairies and the people of the maritimes are interested in seeing an east-west trade arrangement between the United Kingdom and Canada. I am not going to go further into that matter at this moment because I realize that other members perhaps want to participate in this debate. However, it is my intention to go into more detail later.

Mr. Jorgenson:

Mr. Chairman, unlike the other members who have spoken on this particular bill, I want to confine my remarks to the bill itself, and they are going to be very short and to the point. I was greatly interested in the remarks made by the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Melville, when he said that the Liberals had they been given time, would have enacted this legislation. I was interested in some of the statements he made as to what Mr. Howe had said to the effect that this legislation was not necessary, that the farmers were quite satisfied with the interim financing bill as it was, that all farm organizations had approved it.

I come from a farm and I am directly concerned with the interim financing bill and the legislation that is now before us. My mind goes back to a night not too long ago when the hon. member for Rosthern was attempting to defend the interim financing bill on a television program. I think most hon. members will recall what happened that night when his image was blasted off the television screen by a shotgun. Perhaps the former minister of agriculture feels that he is justified in saying that the leaders of the farm organizations and the people he represented were satisfied with that bill, but I think this proves rather conclusively that the farmers were not satisfied.

My mind also goes back to a time shortly after that when the then minister of justice, Mr. Garson, attended a meeting in Mine-dosa and received the same treatment from the farmers. Then the last but certainly not the least occasion was when the former minister of trade and commerce attended a meeting in Morris. Here again was ample evidence of what the farmers felt about this bill. In spite of the advice the former minister

of agriculture has received regarding this bill, I think the actions of the farmers themselves speak a great deal louder.

The hon. member for Rosthern set himself up as a champion of the farmers. This is a rather belated effort. He had 22 years to be the champion of the farmer and he failed to do so. Now, all of a sudden, he expects this government to go out and accomplish miracles. He expects us to implement a policy that would require a tremendous administrative organization and to do that in the space of a few months. I know the farmers fairly well and I know that they are reasonable enough not to expect the government to come up with an administrative program of that kind, certainly not in the short space of time that they have had. I know that they are quite satisfied to have the bill as it is to help them over an extremely difficult situation. Nobody in this house or outside of it expects that this bill is going to be the answer to the farm problem, it is merely a piece of legislation designed to help the farmers over an extremely difficult period.

The need for cash in the hands of the farmers at this time need not be retold by me. I have had communications from municipalities that are in desperate need of help because of the lack of cash. Everyone, including fuel dealers and storekeepers, is feeling the pinch. I have heard member after member rise in this house and suggest that something be done to remedy unemployment. In my opinion, this is one of the ways in which you can help the unemployment situation.

We know that when the farmers have not the ready cash they are unable to buy the things that are necessary to carry on their farming operations. According to the records of machine companies, sales have gone down in the past year and you can understand how this factor reflects back in the employment field. You have serious negative factors compounding each other in the wrong direction and unless something is done to place money in the hands of the farmer so he can carry on, meet his obligations and continue farming and to keep the industries working in this country, then the situation is not going to improve. 1 suggest that the passing of this bill is going to do a great deal to help the farmer and to help this country in general.

(Translation):

Mr. Mallais:

Mr. Chairman, from what we have heard this afternoon, it does seem that the farmers of the western provinces do not

share equally with the rest of the Canadian people, in the prosperity which Canada has enjoyed in recent years.

It is also becoming more and more obvious that, since the wave of promises which has swept across our country, from coast to coast, since June 10 last, other districts in Canada are showing a degree of economic pessimism which seems quite justified as we go along.

(Text):

When the minister this afternoon introduced the legislation he gave several reasons for introducing it at this time. He mentioned the loss of markets and the increased costs. Another reason that we heard in this house previously was this.

Well to say that this is a problem inherited from the previous legislation is, in my opinion, a very weak defence. If one wants to bring in a piece of legislation, I say that is a weak way to do it, to try and bring it in, blaming somebody else for the difficulties. It reminds me of a story I was told, that as long as we live in a community, in fact as long as we live, we will find day by day there will always be problems, just the same as there are in every family. What we have inherited from our forefathers we like to conserve and to improve so we can pass it on to those who come after us.

These problems which the government is facing with respect to the western provinces are problems created because of the fact the farmers were required to produce more and were certainly getting encouragement to do so, most likely being led to believe that there would be markets for their increased production. The ministers should not blame the previous government, and I specifically refer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, saying that they had inherited these problems from the former administration because these problems were caused by the increased production of the farmers out west.

Now as I want to be brief I will refer to just one aspect of this legislation which particularly strikes me, that is the free of interest aspect of these loans. I understand very clearly that in the western provinces this is a local matter but, Mr. Chairman, how many Canadians would approve of a crown corporation engaged in producing consumer goods being encouraged to go along and be given help in the form of subsidies in order to increase the volume of production of private industry?

I would like to refer to the central provinces, particularly to where I come from on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river. We also have farmers there and most of those farmers right now are trying to get

Grain

away from the farm because there is a feeling coming from the west that they cannot get a reasonable sale price for the commodities they produce. Now those same farmers in my region who are obliged to call for help are now being asked to pay a further premium on that grain by having to pay taxes which will cover this free interest rate, for they are going to have to pay for it.

It may be that in the proposed legislation about which we have heard today from the Minister of Agriculture the farmers of this country will be taken care of, but may I suggest that he rectify, at least in part, the discrimination against farmers in my district. We should have some additional legislation to increase the subsidies for grain moved into distant provinces.

I would like to refer for a moment to a remark made by the speaker immediately preceding myself. He said that this help to the farmer out west would also go a long way towards reducing unemployment. Some of the farmers in the province of Quebec, and I believe also in some parts of Ontario, live by the production of pulpwood. In our district these farmers who have been engaged in the production of pulpwood for years will this year be unable to get any suitable employment in the cutting of wood. As everybody knows, unemployment insurance does not yet apply to labour on the farm.

It is my hope and expectation that the Minister of Labour-although he did not pay too much attention at question time to the questions of unemployment-will get in touch with the Minister of Agriculture who will explain to him that in the province of Quebec, and more especially along the north shore of the St. Lawrence, the farm labour force is discriminated against by this legislation now before us. This is easy to understand because, as the legislation now stands, nobody wants to work on the farm because there is no unemployment insurance benefit provided. When the farmer wants to obtain labour he finds it very difficult to do so because the sons of farmers prefer to leave the farm and work in industry where such benefits are provided.

In closing my remarks I say I will certainly support the bill, and I am sure you will not be surprised at this. I am glad to hear the gentlemen opposite clap because at least my remarks are receiving some attention and I hope that some of the smiles of approbation I see on the faces of the ministers will also be there later on when I make requests respecting other projects in my riding.

Grain

Mr. Hansell:

Mr. Chairman, I do not know that I have too much to say in respect to the present legislation, although I do not believe I can let this occasion go by without making some remarks. In the first place I do want to congratulate the government on this measure. The legislation has been brought in partly because of promises during election time and partly because I am sure the present Prime Minister, as a western representative, recognizes something of the particular and pressing needs of the Canadian wheat farmer. We are pleased that these measures are being introduced for another reason and that is that we have advocated cash advances for some considerable time now. We are happy it is now being realized that some suggestions we have made in the past are able to be used to the advantage of the western farmer.

Although we are pleased that this measure has been brought in, as the member for Acadia has already said it does not for one moment mean that it will be an entire solution to the problems of the western farmer for, after all, the real solution is for him to be able to sell his wheat at a price which will keep him in business, give him a fair share of the national income and a good standard of living. That means you have to go back and attempt to appraise the situation in the same way as a doctor would attempt to diagnose and appraise a disease of the body. Something has caused the surplus of wheat which we have now. There must be a root cause which has resulted in a surplus of which we have not been able to dispose, and I say we have to discover what this root cause is in order to find a solution to the problems of the western farmers.

We talk of surpluses. I think we will all agree that the term "surplus" is a relative term. When we talk of a surplus we should really ask ourselves: surplus to what? If we say it is surplus to what the Canadian wheat board has been able to dispose of in the normal course of trade and through the normal channels of trade, then, of course, we have a surplus. But if one thinks of surplus in terms of world need I declare that we do not have a surplus because we recognize, as the hon. member for Acadia has mentioned, that a number of the nations of the world are living on starvation level.

I hold in my hand a document which, I am inclined to believe, was referred to the other day, although I am not certain whether this was the document or not. If it is, it is worth referring to again. It was put out by the Department of National Health and Welfare, and was issued in April 1957 under the

previous administration. It contains an article entitled "We Live in an Unequal World". The writer talks of the surpluses which apparently exist in the world, yet, at the same time, the article shows that the world is in need of those so-called surpluses. Of course, I am not going to read the entire article, but I do want to point out one or two very striking things contained in it.

The article starts out by saying that two and a half billion people live in the 80 nations of this earth but that only 8 per cent of the earth's surface is under cultivation; one-third of mankind consumes three-quarters of the worlds' food, and in spite of all the efforts of international organizations, available food supplies are barely as great today as they were before the war. In spite of increased production, food supplies are just keeping pace with the growth in population. I may interject here that this article has been prepared from a United Nations report. It contains a few diagrams, and one diagram shows three skinny men standing beside two rather fat men, and it shows that three people out of five in the world are hungry. This is what the article says in this respect:

If all people were to have enough of the right kind of food, according to a United Nations committee of scientists, the production of cereals would have to be increased by 50 per cent.

Sometimes when we have surpluses of agricultural products we begin to talk in terms of a reduction in the quantity produced, and in terms of taking land out of production. That may be all right in certain circumstances. It would be proper to take land out of production if it were for the purpose of revitalizing the soil or for the rotation of crops in order, on a long-term basis, to get the very best out of the land. We are all aware that in the United States they have what is known as a soil bank, and I do not know why something of that kind cannot be instituted in Canada eventually. Whether the government is giving consideration to that or not, I do not know. All I am saying is that if this United Nations committee of scientists is correct in saying that production of cereals would have to be increased by 50 per cent in order that the world might be properly fed, I cannot see how we actually have a surplus of food stuffs or grains in Canada. It is true we have a surplus relative to what we have been able to dispose of through the regular channels of trade, but not a surplus in respect to the needs of the world, which only means this: if people need the food we must go behind the scenes and attempt to diagnose why we are unable to deliver it to them.

In the case of meat products, according to this article the supply of meat would have to be increased by 90 per cent. I come from a cattle country, as well as a wheat growing country. My constituency takes in part of the foothills country of southern Alberta in which some of the finest beef cattle in the world are raised. Imagine my ranchers hearing that, and knowing that in order to feed the world properly meat supplies would have to be increased by 90 per cent.

The production of milk and dairy products would have to be increased by 125 per cent; production of vegetable oils would have to be increased by 125 per cent, and the production of fruit and vegetables by 300 per cent.

Thus, Mr. Chairman, when we talk of surpluses we question whether or not we do actually have surpluses in the light of world needs. I say we do not have such surpluses. It is all very well for ministers of the crown and individuals to run around and become a bit hysterical about our failure to dispose of our surplus, but I would say this-and I claim that our social credit policy should be worthy of some study-that unless we get behind the scenes and diagnose this situation properly and find out exactly what is basically wrong we will never be able to solve our problems. Our social credit position is that unless basic financial and trade policies are changed we will never be able to solve the problem of so-called surpluses.

I hold in my hand here the preliminary report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. What does the Gordon commission report say in respect to wheat? Here is what I personally take to be a somewhat alarming statement. The report says:

The surplus of wheat in Canada at present does not seem to have arisen out of the procedures used to market the crop.

I would take issue with the report there, but the matter is not too important for my argument. It goes on to say:

It has resulted primarily from weather conditions.

It is all very well to make that appraisal, but I am going to ask this simple question: what kind of weather conditions do we want, anyway? Surely we want weather conditions which are most conducive to the production of those vital foods which come from the land. I have never yet seen a farmer go out into his field after he has planted his crop- let us assume the weather has been dry-and say: "my hope is that it doesn't rain; if it rains it is going to be catastrophic". Of course he does not do that.

We want the proper weather conditions that will enable the land to produce the best

Grain

kind of crops and an abundance of them; surely we do. Again I would pose a question. What is land for if it is not to produce? These questions are simple ones and naturally they should be easy to answer. To my way of thinking land awaits the energy from the sun and rain from the clouds so it will produce an abundance of food. It should be that the more we are able to produce the better, but somehow or other because we have had good weather conditions it presents a problem to us. The problem is not one of overproduction. The problem, of course, is one of underconsumption. Therefore I say that what the government must do is once again look behind the scenes and see what is actually wrong and attempt to correct the basic fault.

When the present government first came into office everybody expected it was going to do something. Well, the members of the government did do something, they did a lot of talking for one thing and talk is sometimes of value. The Prime Minister went down to Dartmouth and of course he lashed out at the United States for what is sometimes known as its give-away program. I was a little amazed at this because, after all, the present Prime Minister had been sitting in this chamber for a number of sessions and while he may have been mildly critical of the United States give-away program I did not hear him raise his voice too vigorously or in very strong protest against it. Of course, he was now the Prime Minister and he had to do something and it meant making a big noise in Dartmouth and receiving lots of publicity by railling at the United States for its give-away program.

I believe it was last session I said in this house that I found it rather difficult to criticize the United States for this program. I do not know that it was altogether a give-away program either. As I see it, under this program the United States approached the nations and said, "Our Commodities Credit Corporations have amassed vast abundances of surplus agricultural products. Now, what nations of the world want to take them? If you want to take them, do so and we will talk about payment for it later." In speaking of it in this way I am only using layman's language. What they did in effect was to beat us to the punch, that is all. The previous government was in office at that time and I am not sure they raised too much hullabaloo about it.

I have found and continue to find it difficult to criticize the United States too harshly for its policy because it has accomplished something useful. In the first place it helped to feed some of the hungry nations of the world and in the second place it reasonably satisfied the farmers of the United States.

Grain

Another simple question I would ask is this. Can you criticize any nation that attempts to feed the hungry people of the world? I do not think so. I would also ask if you can criticize a government that attempts to look after its own people first? I do not think you can criticize that, either. It occurs to me that in cases like this the United States is simply beating us to the punch which is putting it in what may be considered rather vulgar language.

For example, it was drawn to our attention by press reports the other day that the United States is sending a trade commission to Japan in an effort to facilitate and increase trade with that country, and dispose of some United States agricultural products. Is the United States going to beat us to the punch there, too? The present government has had preliminary trade conferences and I am not prepared to say what has actually happened as a result of them. We cannot expect too much at the beginning and these were simply preliminary conferences. Nevertheless I would point out that we can go all around the world and call all the trade conferences we want but I contend that unless our basic fiscal and trade policies are changed we will continue to face the problems we have today in respect to the sale of our production.

There is one other matter with which I wish to deal, Mr. Chairman, and then I will not take any more of the committee's time. We would have no need for cash advances on farm-stored grain if we had been able to dispose of our surplus production and if the farm population of Canada was receiving its fair share of the national income. This means we must enter the economic field and the realm of fiscal and monetary policy.

For instance, take the matter of the price squeeze. You cannot begin to seek a solution for this problem without becoming involved in the subject of monetary and financial policy; it simply cannot be done. The price squeeze is affecting the low income of the farmers of this country. The hon. member who preceded me spoke of the farmers who are going to the cities to find work in industry. This is so because matters have reached a stage where they are unable to derive adequate income from their farm operations. I think this is particularly true in Ontario and Quebec.

I wish to deal in greater detail with the question of the price squeeze. I have in my hand some figures presented to the cabinet of the previous government on March 9, 1957 by the Western Wheat Pools dealing with western farm costs and farm prices

from 1947 to 1956. They show the price of wheat as compared to the price farmers must pay for the things they buy. I do not intend to read all of this table but the last paragraph is significant and I wish to place it on the record:

Briefly, the above table shows that in 1956 the value per bushel of wheat marketed in Saskatchewan-

This would be true anywhere in the west. [DOT]-was almost 21 per cent below that of 1947. During the same period the western wheat grower's costs had risen by almost 46 per cent.

Surely there is something wrong with our monetary policy when we observe this sort of thing happening in respect to the price structure throughout Canada. The brief presented by the Western Wheat Pools from which I quoted also dealt with farm products apart from wheat. The cabinet received this brief and they had their officials and figure men there who could vouch for the accuracy or point out the inaccuracy of the figures contained in the tables.

In the same brief there is a table respecting over-all farm products as follows:

Saskatchewan farm costs today are 45.9 per cent higher than they were ten years ago while farm prices are 7.1 per cent lower than they were in 1947.

That will give the committee a picture of the reason why the farmer is complaining. He is coming off at the short end of the deal. I am going to close my remarks and once again I close with an urgent appeal. I appeal, not only to the Minister of Trade and Commerce who we recognize has a problem on his hands, and I think we sympathize with him; not only to the Minister of Agriculture who is doing his best to help to solve some of these problems, but also to the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to attempt to get behind the scenes so far as the trouble is concerned, appraise the disease and find out where are the roots of the disease. If you cure the body politic at the roots then the bloodstream and the patient will eventually revive and become healthy.

The Chairman:

It seems to me that some members are discussing matters that are not related to the resolution. I would like to remind hon. members that speeches in committee of the whole should be strictly relevant to the resolution. May I ask hon. members to assist me in enforcing the rule of relevancy.

(Translation):

Mr. Gour:

Mr. Chairman, the resolution

now being considered by the committee constitutes, in my opinion, a very dangerous precedent. However, I shall support the measure.

(Text):

I will speak in English in order that my English speaking colleagues, including the Minister of Agriculture, my good friend, may understand what I said in French: This

legislation sets a dangerous precedent but at the same time I will, as I have always done, endorse it because it is a form of help for the west at the moment. I will also endorse other bills that will provide help for other districts in our country.