Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. Mcllrailh:

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?

Mr. 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.

Mr. Mcllrailh:

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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. Mcllrailh:

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.

Mr. 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.

Let the clause stand.

Canadian Wheat Board Act

Mr. 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.

The Chairman:

Is it the desire of the committee that clause 2 stand?

Agreed.

Clause stands.

On clause 3-Duration.

(Translation):

Mr. 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):

Mr. 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):

Mr. 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):

Carried.

The Chairman:

Shall clause 3 carry? (Translation):

Mr. Boulanger:

Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister a question which, I hope, he will be able to answer.

(Text):

Mr. Churchill:

Will the hon. member

oblige me by repeating the question? I missed a word or two of it in the translation.

Mr. 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.