Mr. Sluder:

Do not be too sure.

Mr. Knighl:

The peculiar part of it is that in the matter of education we have no plans. In another year twice as many people in this age group will be knocking at the doors of our educational institutions as are doing so today, and we have no imaginative program to take care of them. Why do we persist in this country with what amounts to starvation of education? A larger share at least of the production of our expanding economy should be used for education instead of being put back into capital investment.

Mr. Garson:

Will the hon. member permit a question?

Mr. Knighl:

I am sorry, time will not allow me to permit a question at the moment.

Mr. Garson:

May I ask that before you take your seat-

Mr. Knighl:

No. Not only do we not encourage educational advance but we seem able only to think of economic and material improvement.

Mr. Ferguson:

Why do you not read the Soviet bulletin that they issue every week?

Mr. Knighl:

What about the needs of the mind? When I came to the House of Commons eleven years ago, to mention education in the federal parliament was like using a naughty word, almost as the word "peace" has come to be regarded in certain quarters of this country. What are these forces that are holding back the Prime Minister?

Mr. Ferguson:

The C.C.F.

Mr. Sluder:

The socialists.

Mr. Knighl:

I do not completely blame the Prime Minister and I should like to tell a story to indicate why I do not blame him as much as certain forces that must be working upon him somewhere. I attended a meeting of the council on the humanities at the Chateau Laurier a little over a year ago. Educators from across the country were present together with the occasional member of parliament. We were all interested in the creation of an arts council. At the end of the discussion the Prime Minister made an excellent, delightful and interesting speech. When we came away from the meeting one of the delegates put his hand on my shoulder and said, "Well, boy, apparently that is in the bag." I said it would look like it. I said

I had never heard something expressed which was as close to a commitment and yet was not a commitment.

That was the general feeling of the meeting and it was the greatest surprise to me and the others who attended the conference to find that in the next speech from the throne there was no mention at all of that particular subject. I ask why?

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.

Mr. Knight:

I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and those of the house. I was interrupted and I think I can finish in two minutes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

The hon. member is, in effect, asking me to inquire of the house whether they wish to give unanimous consent. I would point out that under ordinary circumstances I would be glad to do so, but in a debate with a fixed termination I think the hon. member should consider carefully before he asks me to make such a request. The hon. member for Rosthern.

Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to extend the usual congratulations, in fact, even more so in this case, to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and also to express appreciation to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for having our colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley), move the address. It is particularly pleasing when she did such a splendid job.

I do not intend to follow altogether the speech just made by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) but at the outset, in case I do not get around to it, I think I should deal with what has been said about the marketing conference that was held in Saskatoon last fall because it has been referred to by previous speakers including the hon. member for Saskatoon. I attended the conference and I do not think the record should be left in the indefinite state with respect to it that is now the case because there has been a suggestion that the government has flouted the wishes of the farmers as expressed at the conference in the policy that the government has adopted. As I do not think that is the right inference I believe the record should be put straight.

As already stated, I attended the conference and I also have a copy of the resolutions passed at the conference. It was called by the interprovincial farm union council and was attended by representatives of the various provincial governments, the pools, and

67509-13*

The Address

Mr. Tucker even of labour organizations. One of the reasons for calling the conference was to advise the government as to what western Canada, particularly the farmers of western Canada, wanted done respecting the problem which then faced them due to a shortage of cash having arisen through the farmers not being able to market their grain because of the congestion of the elevator facilities. The first resolution passed by the conference was moved by Mr. McIntosh, who is a member of the provincial government of Saskatchewan, I believe, and seconded by Mr. Hansen, who is the head of the farmers' union of Saskatchewan, It reads as follows:

That this conference express its confidence in the Canadian wheat board as a sound method of marketing Canadian grain.

As I recall, that resolution was passed unanimously. That was the thesis upon which this whole conference proceeded.

As one might expect, the next matter that came up for discussion was advances to farmers. I should like to read to the house the resolution passed by this conference on this matter. There was a great deal of discussion on the motion introduced; it was amended, and finally a motion was drawn up which it was thought would pass through that conference. Here is the motion as amended and passed:

Be it resolved that the organizations participating in this conference urge the government of Canada to make immediate provision for advances to farmers on grain in store on the farm, and further that these advances should be up to one-half the value of the normal delivery expected and should be repayable on the basis of one-half of the value Of each delivery made by the farmer.

I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to two or three significant words in this resolution which was not drawn haphazardly but was drawn in order to meet the wishes of the people attending that conference. It was drawn after a great deal of discussion and after various motions had been made and withdrawn because it was clear that they would not be supported by the conference. I would ask you to bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, the fact that at this time a great number of requests were being made that advances should be made through the wheat board to the farmers. That suggestion was naturally brought before this conference. It was one of the things definitely advocated by some attending. I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that that suggestion was not endorsed. You can see that there is nothing in any way said otherwise than that advances should be provided for. If this conference had intended to endorse the idea of advances against farm-stored grain being made by the wheat board, it would have said so because it was invited to say so. It was quite clear,

The Address-Mr. Tucker however, that that resolution would not pass that conference. The reason why it would not pass the conference, Mr. Speaker, was that the basic idea of the people represented there was that nothing should be done to interfere with the present and future success of the wheat board as our marketing agency. Many people at the conference pointed out that if the wheat board was invited to enter this field its position might be in danger; and it was accepted as fundamental that nothing should be done to endanger the position of the wheat board as our marketing agency.

Mr. Ellis:

You will never sell that idea out west.

Mr. Tucker:

I may not be able to sell it out west but I am telling about what happened at that conference. It is not my purpose to try to sell anything. It is my purpose to tell the truth, Mr. Speaker.

Something has been said to the effect that it was quite clear that this money was not supposed to be a loan but that it was supposed to be an advance. May I ask why it would have been said that this money should be repayable on the basis of one half the value of each delivery made by the farmer? If this money was not a loan, why should it have been resolved that it should be repayable in a certain way?

Oh, oh.

Mr. Tucker:

My C.C.F. friends may groan all they want to, but there is only one meaning to that resolution, namely that it was to be an advance and was to be repayable. That was the resolution passed by this conference. As one who was there, it is my duty to put the facts before this house. If the able men who attended this conference had intended to pass a resolution asking the government to make through the wheat board advances that should not be repayable, does anybody think that they would not have drafted a resolution that would have said so in so many words? Of course, Mr. Speaker, they were trying to give advice on the basis of what, first of all, would preserve the wheat board as a marketing agency and, subject to that consideration, would meet the immediate needs of the farmer for cash. There was a difference of opinion as to how it should be done. Some advocated that it should be done through the wheat board's advancing money through the elevator agents. Others at that conference pointed out that this procedure would get the wheat board involved and might do a tremendous amount of harm to the wheat board. The final decision was to draft the resolution in this form and to leave the matter to the government to decide, after hearing representations from the various farm organizations and others there

represented as to what was the best way to do this. But again I say everything was based on the idea that nothing should be done to interfere with the wheat board.

If what was made plain to this house yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had been made plain to that conference, and it was suggested from time to time that the wheat board's position would perhaps be endangered if they were asked to do this, I have no doubt what that conference would have done. If it had been made plain to this conference that the wheat board was absolutely positive that they should not be asked to do it and would not undertake to do it, I have no doubt what that conference would have decided, because it was and is the belief in western Canada that the present wheat board has been doing a good job, that it has done a good job and that nothing must be done to endanger its continued existence.

Yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce told us this, and I am reading from page 127 of Hansard:

I can tell the house that, if the government instructed the wheat board to lend money on farm-stored grain and assume the responsibility for the lending of that money and its subsequent collection, the four members of the wheat board would be out of office within a matter of days.

I put this to every member of this house: If that proposition had been put to that conference-and bearing in mind they would not endorse it when it was merely the thought of some that the wheat board should not be asked to handle this matter-if they had definitely known that that was the opinion of the wheat board, I put it to the members that that conference would have made even plainer their decision that they did not want to ask for something to be done that was against the considered advice of the wheat board and something which, in their opinion, they could not effectively administer.

Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):

I should like to ask the hon. member a question.