March 13, 1957

LIB

Robert Henry Winters (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Hon. Roberl H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):

Mr. Speaker, I did not catch the last sentence before the supplementary question.

Topic:   BRIDGES
Subtopic:   SEA ISLAND, B.C.-FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION
Permalink
LIB

Tom Goode

Liberal

Mr. Goode:

The question revolved around a toll-free bridge over Moray channel on Sea island, British Columbia.

Topic:   BRIDGES
Subtopic:   SEA ISLAND, B.C.-FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION
Permalink
LIB

Robert Henry Winters (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. Winters:

Mr. Speaker, the position of the federal government was made clear. We have said that if that planned bridge is to be built as a toll-free bridge the $400,000 which was already earmarked for a bridge project in that general area would be made available.

Topic:   BRIDGES
Subtopic:   SEA ISLAND, B.C.-FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION
Permalink

INCOME TAX

T-4 SLIPS-INQUIRY AS TO DEADLINE DATE AND PENALTY


On the orders of the day:


CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. By what date are employers required to furnish T-4 slips to their employees, and what penalty is there in the case of any employer who does not meet the deadline?

Topic:   INCOME TAX
Subtopic:   T-4 SLIPS-INQUIRY AS TO DEADLINE DATE AND PENALTY
Permalink
LIB

James Joseph McCann (Minister of National Revenue)

Liberal

Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):

Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice.

Topic:   INCOME TAX
Subtopic:   T-4 SLIPS-INQUIRY AS TO DEADLINE DATE AND PENALTY
Permalink

PRAIRIE GRAIN PRODUCERS INTERIM FINANCING

AMENDMENTS TO ACT EXTENDING APPLICATION, FIXING INTEREST AND INCREASING MAXIMUM

LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved

that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:

That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, 1956, to enable the governor in council to extend the application of the act to authorize and govern guaranteed loans that may be made by banks in the period September 1, 1957 to June 1, 1958; to provide that the rate of interest charged by the banks on a loan shall not exceed a rate prescribed by the governor in council; and to increase the maximum amount of a loan from fifteen hundred dollars to three thousand dollars.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.

Topic:   PRAIRIE GRAIN PRODUCERS INTERIM FINANCING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ACT EXTENDING APPLICATION, FIXING INTEREST AND INCREASING MAXIMUM
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

Mr. Chairman, in this resolution the government seeks authority to introduce a bill to extend the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act for another year.

This will be the second extension of the act. The act originally applied to loans to producers in the fall and spring months of 1955 and 1956. The first extension, which was authorized by the act itself and was brought into effect by order in council, enabled guaranteed loans to be made between October 1, 1956 and June 1, 1957. The government now seeks authority for guaranteed loans to be made available between September 1, 1957 and June 1, 1958.

Limited use has been made of the facilities available under the act. During the crop year 1955-56 producers borrowed a little less than $8 million. Practically all of these advances have already been repaid. Up-to-date records on the current year are not yet available from the banks, but as of January 31, 1957 the volume was less than $4 million, a reflection of the considerable improvement in delivery opportunities during the current crop year. Although only limited use was made of the facilities, they were undoubtedly of considerable value to those producers who needed to make use of them and the government has been strongly urged to extend the act for another year.

Suggestions have been made from time to time, both in this house and elsewhere, for a different system of making advances available to producers. I have heard suggestions that the wheat board should go into the lending business, but I am glad to see that my 82715-137

Grain

own opposition to such a step is now widely shared. Several speakers, C.C.F. and Social Credit, during the debate on the wheat board bill, dissociated themselves from this idea.

Recently, as some hon. members know, other plans have been discussed by agricultural organizations, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The various interests concerned, however, failed to reach agreement on any alternative plan to the one now in effect and have recommended that the present act be extended with certain modifications, such as a larger maximum loan and the advancement of the opening date for loans from October 1 to September 1. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in recommending to this house that the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act be extended for another year.

The bill will propose three amendments: first, that the maximum amount of loan to an individual producer be raised from $1,500 to $3,000; second, that the rate of interest, which is 5 per cent at present, be left to the determination of the governor in council; and third, that the period for the making of loans be extended by one month by moving the opening date forward from October 1 to September 1.

The increase in the maximum individual loan will, I am sure, commend itself to the house. As to the rate of interest, the government does not think that it would be advisable under present monetary conditions to attempt to fix the rate so far in advance of September 1, 1957 which is the time when the loans will become available. I can assure the house that it will be a favourable rate to the borrower, made possible, like the 5 per cent rate now in effect, by the substantial guarantee to the banks provided under the act. The opening date was moved forward one month at the specific request of the western farm organizations, made just a few days ago.

May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I have seldom brought before the house a bill which is unanimously recommended by every farm organization, but I think I can say this about the bill referred to in this motion. The three wheat pools, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the United Farmers and a great number of local organizations have asked that this bill be passed and have asked in the exact terms in which the bill has been drafted. I therefore think that hon. members will find it very simple indeed to accept this motion of the government without extended and involved debate.

Grain

Topic:   PRAIRIE GRAIN PRODUCERS INTERIM FINANCING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ACT EXTENDING APPLICATION, FIXING INTEREST AND INCREASING MAXIMUM
Permalink
PC

Douglas Scott Harkness

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Harkness:

Mr. Chairman, the minister has just said that this bill had been unanimously recommended by all farm organizations. That is certainly not my information. The basis on which the minister makes that statement and the question of what actually did occur are matters on which my colleague the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has some particular information and I shall leave it to him to deal with that phase of the matter when he comes to speak on this measure.

Last year, Mr. Chairman, when this legislation was before the house the members of this party opposed it upon three general grounds. The first, and most important, was that the bill would not do what it was supposed to do or what it was necessary to do in the way of putting sufficient cash into the farmers' hands to enable them to meet their harvesting expenses and to carry them through the winter, let alone provide them with sufficient cash to put in next year's crop. In other words, we contended then, and we still contend, that what was required was a system of cash advances. We contended that this loan system was completely inadequate to do the job which it was supposed to do.

The second ground on which we opposed the bill was that the interest rate was too high. I shall come back to both of these matters later. The third ground upon which our opposition was based was that the amount of the loan was not sufficient. Last year, as the minister has said, the maximum loan provided was $1500. We pointed out that this was only sufficient, in the case of a man who had 300 acres in crop and had to hire a combine, to pay for the cost of a combine and would leave him with nothing over with which to pay all other expenses. This sum was quite inadequate to meet the needs of the average farmer in western Canada. The measure before us provides for doubling the maximum loan which can be secured, increasing it from $1500 to $3000. In other words, this legislation is designed to meet the third criticism made of the legislation last year.

Undoubtedly, this is a considerable improvement. There is no doubt that the increase to $3000 will mean that many more farmers can meet their desperate cash shortage situation, than was the case before. From that point of view, naturally the bill will be welcomed by the farmers who are in a position of having to borrow under this act. I am glad that the government has seen fit to introduce this improvement, so far as this type of legislation is concerned. But, as I said, it still does not meet the needs of the situation.

So far as the interest provision is concerned the resolution reads:

-to provide that the rate of interest charged by the banks on a loan shall not exceed a rate prescribed by the governor in council-

What that means, in effect, Mr. Chairman, I would say is that interest rates are going to be increased. This move is going to be very badly received by the farmers of western Canada. These are guaranteed loans, and as such there is very little risk involved in them so far as the banks are concerned. Last year we maintained that the rate of interest which was provided in the act, at that time 5 per cent, was not justified in view of the risk situation. The farmers themselves took a very dim view of this 5 per cent interest rate. They maintained that the rate should not be higher than that which was being paid by the wheat board which I believe the minister said last year was 3 per cent. As a matter of fact, the general position taken by farmers was that they should not be required to pay interest on these loans at all. They looked upon the payment of interest on the loan as the payment of interest on their last year's wages. I would say this was the cause of a great deal of the unpopularity of last year's measure.

We all know, of course, that interest rates have risen in the last year. There is, therefore, just no question but that this provision to have the rate of interest set from time to time by the governor in council means an increased rate of interest. Before we finish with this resolution stage, I should like the minister to tell us what rate of interest it is contemplated will be charged when this measure comes into effect. Then, we might have something a little more definite upon which to base our remarks.

As I said, our chief criticism of this legislation last year was that it did not provide cash advances on farm stored grain, for which the farmers had asked and for which they are still asking. This request was contained in the last brief which was presented here by the farm union. So far as I am aware the farmers generally, and farm organizations generally, are still anxious to have cash advances rather than this loan system. The minister indicated that a demand had been made for cash advances last year and for what I think he called, other systems of meeting the cash shortage difficulty of western farmers, and he was glad they had not accepted any of these schemes. Indeed, he felt a lot of farm organizations had changed their minds on the matter. I have seen no proof whatever of that fact, that farm organizations have changed their minds in regard to it.

The various difficulties which the minister set out in the way of making cash advances, and the various arguments which he and other members of the Liberal party used last year against cash advances, had no real validity in my opinion. The minister argued that putting into effect a system of cash advances would turn the wheat board into a lending agency. This is not the case at all, and would not have been the effect. A system of cash advances administered through the wheat board would be anything but a system of loans, and certainly would not convert the wheat board into a banking or lending institution. As I pointed out in the debate last year, it would be merely a matter of the wheat board extending its present operations.

All grain has to be sold through the wheat board, except for a very limited amount which a farmer may sell to a neighbouring farmer or feeder. Grain can be sold to the wheat board by a farmer only through his permit book. In other words, the wheat board has complete control over the deliveries which a farmer makes. If cash advances to the farmer were entered in his permit book and then the actual grain deliveries by the farmer were set-off against that, it would be a very simple operation and would not involve the setting up of any new bureaucracy in order to handle the matter. As I say, it would be a simple extension of the wheat board operation. At the present time they make an initial payment to the farmer when he actually delivers his grain to the elevator.

In his statement the minister indicated that there had been a limited use made of this legislation. The number of farmers who took loans under it was not very great. We pointed out last year that this would be the situation, and gave the reasons for it. One of the chief reasons, of course, is the great difficulty many farmers have in securing these loans. Some of the farmers who were in the most desperate situation so far as cash was concerned were the very farmers who could not secure loans under this legislation. I am not surprised that the number who have taken advantage of the legislation is not greater. Most of these farmers, rather than take these loans and pay the interest rate, resorted to every other expedient open to them. We pointed out last year, and I think it was the fact, that the introduction of this particular legislation was not designed to appeal to the farmer and was not designed to get a great deal of business, you might say. The very terms of it more or less ensured that there would not be too many farmers who would come in under the scheme.

Grain

Now, the general situation as I see it, Mr. Chairman, is that the government refuses to accept responsibility for allowing the present surplus situation, so far as wheat and grains are concerned, to develop. The government has had no policy or plan to cure the situation which makes it necessary for the farmer to have cash advances, loans, and so forth in order that he can get enough cash to get along with. The only solution which the government has yet put forward, as far as this whole surplus grain problem is concerned, is to wait for a crop failure, and the ministers have at various times said that we had dry periods in the past and we shall have dry periods in the future, and this situation will cure itself. Well, Mr. Chairman, what is needed is a long-term solution of a definite and positive kind rather than sitting back with hands folded waiting for a drought period to come along and the situation be cured in that way. That is the type of cure that nobody wants no matter what is his own particular surplus of grain on his own farm, and it is certainly one which the world as a whole and Canada as a whole do not want.

There is no question, of course, that this legislation and, indeed, cash advances on farm-stored grain, if that were put into effect, are merely palliatives that do not go to the root of this grain surplus proposition and, of course, do not pretend to go to the root of it.

The world surplus of wheat is likely to be with us for a considerable length of time, and what is needed is a policy on the part of this government, a policy as far as Canada is concerned, of looking after that situation as far as Canadian farmers are concerned. This world wheat surplus has been mounting for several years past. It has been due to factors other than the fact that the weather has been reasonably good over most of the wheatgrowing areas of the world. In addition to that, it has been due to factors such as better methods of cultivation, more irrigation, greater use of fertilizer. These have all served to increase the yield and they are things that are permanently going to keep the yield greater than it was in the years, we will say, before the last war. The figures of production in the principal wheat-exporting countries of the world bear this out very strongly. I would mention just a few of them. In the 10-year period from 1930-1939, the four major exporters, Canada, the United States, Australia and Argentina, produced 1,488 million bushels of wheat. The same four countries in the 10 years from 1945 to 1954, inclusive, produced nearly 2 billion bushels, to be exact, 1,973 million bushels. In other .vords, the production during that period was

Grain

up 485 million bushels. This is on an annual basis; this is not the total for the 10 years; it is the average annual production. At the same time, with this great annual increase in production, 485 million bushels a year more than in those 10 years, 1945 to 1954 and 1930 to 1939, the exports were up only a relatively small amount, and domestic consumption, particularly in the United States, was not up at all. In spite of the fact that the United States population had increased greatly between those two periods, the consumption of wheat in the United States was actually down 5 million bushels a year during this latter period, and as far as the four countries as a whole are concerned, the domestic consumption was up only 65 million bushels, leaving the need for export of 420 million bushels more than had prevailed in the previous 10-year period.

Topic:   PRAIRIE GRAIN PRODUCERS INTERIM FINANCING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ACT EXTENDING APPLICATION, FIXING INTEREST AND INCREASING MAXIMUM
Permalink
LIB

William Alfred Robinson (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The Chairman:

Order. I have been listening to the hon. member for some minutes now and I feel I should draw his attention to standing order 59, subsection 2, which reads:

Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.

I think I have been lenient in allowing him to lay the groundwork for his remarks on this resolution, but I feel that he should now begin to speak on the resolution itself which is an amendment to the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, and that we should not embark on an extended debate on marketing problems. This is a resolution with a view to amending a particular bill and I think we must keep our remarks relevant to this particular resolution.

Topic:   PRAIRIE GRAIN PRODUCERS INTERIM FINANCING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ACT EXTENDING APPLICATION, FIXING INTEREST AND INCREASING MAXIMUM
Permalink
PC

Douglas Scott Harkness

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Harkness:

Mr. Chairman, may I point out that all of my remarks up to the last two or three minutes are directly on the provisions of this resolution, and what I have been doing during the past few minutes is saying something about the basic reasons why this legislation is before the house at all. The only reason why we have this resolution is that a great surplus of wheat has been built up; farmers have not been able to sell it and therefore it was essential, in order to keep them going at all, to keep them eating and putting them in a position where they could put in a crop again next year, to bring in some measure to put cash into their hands. That situation exists also, of course, because the government, through the wheat board, has complete monopoly really on the sale of grain. In other words, the farmer has no other market. The only place he can market his grain is through the wheat board. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that I am in order

in dealing with the basic cause for the legislation which we are discussing.

Topic:   PRAIRIE GRAIN PRODUCERS INTERIM FINANCING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ACT EXTENDING APPLICATION, FIXING INTEREST AND INCREASING MAXIMUM
Permalink
LIB

William Alfred Robinson (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The Chairman:

Order. I think the hon.

member will agree that I gave him considerable latitude. I was drawing to his attention the fact that that latitude had been granted and I think at the present time he should now direct his remarks to the resolution itself, as he started to do at the outset of his remarks.

Topic:   PRAIRIE GRAIN PRODUCERS INTERIM FINANCING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ACT EXTENDING APPLICATION, FIXING INTEREST AND INCREASING MAXIMUM
Permalink
PC

Douglas Scott Harkness

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Harkness:

Well, I will not pursue

this matter any farther. I will not make use of any more figures. I say that the farmers themselves have realized the situation much better than the government has and they themselves have cut down the wheat acreage. According to the figures given to the agricultural committee yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture, they have cut the acreage from 29 million acres at one time in wheat to 21 million acres at the present time, a reduction of 8 million acres.

It seems to me that the only logical, proper, general policy for this government to follow is one which will result in a reduction in wheat acreage. There is no use trying to resort to palliatives of the kind that we have before us in the present legislation. We have to go to the root of the matter and we will never be over the difficulties we have been experiencing during the last three or four years unless some definite policy is adopted and put into effect. I submit now, as I did when this was under consideration last year, that that policy should involve, as part of it at any rate, the taking out of land from wheat production and putting it into grass and encouraging livestock production instead of so much wheat, and in that way ourselves cutting down this surplus of wheat which we have, whilst at the same time, of course, building up the fertility of the soil and thus making it possible during a future period, which will undoubtedly come, when there is a demand in the world generally for a larger amount of grain, for our soil to produce that.

I think, Mr. Chairman, I have said all that I wish to say at this stage of the legislation in regard to the objections to it. I think I have made it clear that the objections which we took last year are still valid except in so far as the increase in the amount from $1,500 to $3,000 is concerned. As a matter of fact, from the interest rate point of view, the objections are greater now than they were last year, or apparently will be greater.

Topic:   PRAIRIE GRAIN PRODUCERS INTERIM FINANCING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ACT EXTENDING APPLICATION, FIXING INTEREST AND INCREASING MAXIMUM
Permalink
CCF

Hugh Alexander Bryson

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Bryson:

Mr. Chairman, after a long intermission the Minister of Trade and Commerce has seen fit to introduce the second act of a production which could quite appropriately be referred to as a farce in

two parts the theme of which is the granting of bank loans to agricultural producers. Unfortunately at the moment it appears that he is not going to receive the co-operation of the hon. member for Rosthern. I am sure that if he could have gained the hon. member's co-operation this year's performance would have been as interesting as last year's.

When the minister made his statement a few moments ago he pointed out that those of us on this side of the house and in particular those of us who belong to the C.C.F. party should go along with his legislation without debating it at any length for the simple reason that it had been approved by the officials of the organized farmers of western Canada.

In reply to that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I am not in parliament necessarily to represent the officials of western farm organizations. I am here to make a case to the best of my ability for the people and in this instance for the farmers I represent in the constituency of Humboldt-Mel-fort and I am going to attempt to put forward those things which I believe they would want me to bring up in parliament.

For the minister to suggest that the amendments that are before this committee at the moment have been placed there at the express wish of the officials representing the farm organizations in western Canada is in short a deliberate attempt not only to mislead this house but to mislead the agricultural producers of western Canada.

I would like to read into the record a resolution which was passed on March 1 of this year by ten agricultural organizations at a meeting held in the city of Saskatoon which was attended by representatives of the three prairie wheat pools, the three farm unions, the three federations of agriculture and the united grain growers. The resolution reads as follows:

Resolved that while we do not agree that the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act is the most satisfactory method for making money available on grain that cannot be delivered however in view of the late date in having a more satisfactory plan for cash advances adopted at this session of parliament this committee recommends to the federal government the inclusion of the following amendments:-

-two of which have been incorporated by the minister in the amendments we are dealing with at the present time. We in this group, Mr. Chairman, feel as strongly opposed to the passage of this amendment as we felt with regard to the passage of Bill No. 82 last year. We believed that our arguments advanced in opposition to that bill last year were justified, and certainly the figures the

Grain

minister has placed on the record this afternoon appear to justify the validity of those arguments.

We were disappointed that after almost a year's experience during which the government had time to see the shortcomings of the act and to appreciate that it had little or no value they considered it appropriate only to bring in two rather innocuous amendments to the original bill. We believe they should have brought in the principle the farmers of western Canada have been advocating over the years and are still advocating, namely cash advances through the wheat board with no interest being charged, rather than these insipid amendments which add nothing of value to the original bill.

I might point out that these amendments do two things. First of all they seem to prove that the government still fails to fully recognize the tremendous problems that agriculture faces in western Canada. It is almost incomprehensible to me that the government does not understand that there is a tremendous problem in western Canada, and so the second question which is posed by virtue of the introduction of this amendment is that the government is quite prepared as far as this particular bill is concerned to sacrifice western agriculture and consider it as having little or no effect as far as the economic prosperity of Canada is concerned.

I fail to see how the increase from $1,500 to $3,000 in the maximum amount a farmer can borrow under this act is going to help the people to whom the minister referred last year on many occasions, namely the average farmers in the country. On one occasion he said, "We are not concerned about the large farmers". It will be impossible for the average farmer to get any more money this year than he did last year under these amendments. I am unable to go along with the suggestion of the previous speaker in that regard.

As far as the suggestion that the date be set ahead to September 1st is concerned, I again fail to see how this is going to have any effect whatever in assisting the average farmer who needs some assistance. I can well understand how it would apply to a farmer who has two or three sections of land and many thousands of bushels of grain on hand who on September 1-when 80 or even 90 per cent of farmers are just commencing to harvest-could go into a bank and make a loan against last year's wheat that he holds in the bin. But that is not the man the minister is interested in helping. He says he is interested in helping the average farmer.

I might point out that we in Saskatchewan are criticized for having the largest farms in

Grain

the country. A survey which was recently taken there indicates that the average farmer in the province of Saskatchewan has 300 or 325 acres of land so his grain production is limited, and certainly over the years he will eventually get rid of all his grain. Cash advances would assist these farmers in that they would be able to get their hands on a large amount of money in the fall of the year in order to pay current operating expenses, taxes and so forth rather than operating on the 300-unit quota which places them in a very embarrassing position.

Thus we are opposed to this legislation. Not long ago the minister suggested that any land a farmer took out of wheat production and placed in grass would be calculated on his permit book for delivery purposes. That is not going to change this situation, though it seems to me that the packing industry will be very happy about it. We are subsidizing the millers now, so the packers will get their hands into the farmer's other pocket. There is no room for the hands of both packers and millers in one pocket, because the millers now have their hands in right up to the elbows. So the packers have to go into the other pocket.

There is one other matter with which we should be very concerned. Last year when we passed the Bill No. 82 the minister envisaged-and I am going to read from Bill No. 82-that it would be of temporary application. The bill was described as "an act to provide for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver all their grain." The important word there, Mr. Chairman, is the word "temporary". Surely the introduction of this amendment now proves conclusively that the minister envisages that the cash shortage which farmers are suffering today will be a chronic condition, not a temporary one. That is an admission on the part of the minister.

Last year the minister told the house that farmers would market a normal crop. Well, we know that by February 20 last farmers in Canada had marketed 176 million bushels. Yet the 10-year average is 236 million bushels, and still one-third of the points in the west are on a 2-bushel quota.

Topic:   PRAIRIE GRAIN PRODUCERS INTERIM FINANCING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ACT EXTENDING APPLICATION, FIXING INTEREST AND INCREASING MAXIMUM
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is stating statistics which are not correct. Would he mind repeating them? I understood him to say that a good many points in the west are on a unit bushel quota.

Topic:   PRAIRIE GRAIN PRODUCERS INTERIM FINANCING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ACT EXTENDING APPLICATION, FIXING INTEREST AND INCREASING MAXIMUM
Permalink
CCF

Hugh Alexander Bryson

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Bryson:

No; two bushels. I am quoting from the latest statistics.

Topic:   PRAIRIE GRAIN PRODUCERS INTERIM FINANCING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ACT EXTENDING APPLICATION, FIXING INTEREST AND INCREASING MAXIMUM
Permalink

March 13, 1957