1939-02-27

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS-CHANGE OF PERSONNEL

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Kennedy be substituted for that of Mr. Elliott (Kindersley) on the standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Mr. O. A. KENNEDY (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In the Edmonton Bulletin of February 23, 1939, appears the following editorial:
Three provinces block the way.
A national unemployment insurance scheme will be set up at the present session of parliament if the governments of Alberta, Quebec and New Brunswick will agree to a constitutional amendment giving parliament power to establish such a system.
This was stated in definite terms by Hon. Norman Rogers on Tuesday. Parliament was

Questions
only prevented making an all but unanimous declaration of approval of such a scheme by the member for Edmonton East, who talked against the clock until closing time. If his idea was to avoid having to take a stand on the issue, he succeeded for the day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
hon. member reading?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I understand the hon.
member is rising to a question of privilege.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no
question of privilege there.


Orvis A. Kennedy: This statement is absolutely untrue. I did not talk until closing time, and I did not try to avoid taking a stand on the issue. I definitely stated my stand while speaking. I wish for the benefit of the Edmonton Bulletin to give the true facts of the case.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: I think the hon. member has stated his question of privilege.


Orvis A. Kennedy: I should like to show
that it was not I who talked the debate out on that day. I think I should have the right-


Walter Edward Foster: I think all hon. members understand the hon. member's question of privilege.


Orvis A. Kennedy: I am pointing out that none of the members from the three provinces who are accused by this editorial of blocking the way was able to speak until 9.45 on that evening. I think in fairness those members should have been allowed to speak.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: I think the hon. member should resume his seat. He has stated his question of privilege.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: I desire to ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) whether it is possible for him to take any action with respect to the relief of ex-service men among the transient unemployed for whom food and shelter cannot any longer be provided in Ottawa, and who cannot establish domicile elsewhere.


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: If the persons on behalf of whom the hon. member is making
representation are pensioners, they are entitled to unemployment assistance. If they are unfit and unemployable, they are entitled to war veteran's allowance. If they are fit and for the moment unemployed, they have the same privileges as any other citizen. I may add that I think my hon. friend knows that just as well as I do.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. GREEN:: 1.	Have any applications been received for loans under part II of the National Housing Act, 1938?
2.	If so, which of such applications were made by limited-dividend housing corporations, and which by other local housing authorities, and what was the amount applied for in each ease?
3.	What applications have been approved?
4.	If any applications have been rejected, upon what grounds were the respective applications rejected?


Mr. DUNNING:: No formal applications for loans have been received under part II of the National Housing Act, 1938. Representatives of various municipalities and several groups of private persons interested in the formation of limited-dividend housing corporations have been in touch with the Department of Finance and have received information, advice and technical assistance in connection with the organization of local housing authorities and the preparation of detailed plans for low-rental housing projects.
In most provinces action still has to be taken by the provincial government to enable the municipalities of the province concerned to grant partial tax exemption to low rental housing projects and otherwise comply with the terms of the act.


LOANS UNDER HOUSING AND HOME IMPROVEMENT ACTS-ISLAND OF MONTREAL
Mr. MALLETTE:: How many loans, and for what total, have been made so far to the different municipalities on the island of Montreal under:	(a) the
Dominion Housing Act; (b) the Home Improvement Act; (c) the National Housing Act?


Charles Avery Dunning: (a) and (c).Up to January 31, 1939, the number and amount of dominion and national housing act loans made in municipalities on Montreal island are as follows:
Questions

National Housing Act
Dominion Housing Act	Part I
Municipality	Loans	Family Housing Units	Amount	Loans	Family Housing Units	AmountBaie d'Urfe	, 2	2	$ 9,150	$ ....Cote St. Luc	31	134,050	6	6	24,000Dorval	4	17,700	1	1	3,300Hampstead	.. 49	97	499,286	12	40	170,030Lachine	.. 11	11	43,950	9	9	27,680Montreal	.. 211	505	2,087,752	48	211	693,840Montreal East	.. 1	1	4,000	43,666Montreal West	.. 3	19	66,700	6	ii	Mount Royal	.. 118	183	1,011,241	31	37	220,900Outremont	.. 52	149	720,240	5	72	236,720Pointe aux Trembles	1	1	3,000Pointe Claire	.. i(3	n	59,3i6	5	5	19,960Ste. Genevieve	1	1	8,000St. Laurent	.. 7	8	37,666	3	3	9,000Paraguay	1	1	9,000Senneville	.. 2	2	14,250	1	1	8,000Strathmore	1	1	3,800Valois	.. 6	6	22,440	Verdun	.. 3	4	17,700	4	4	14,880Ville St. Pierre	.. 1	1	3,850	6	6	23,500Westmount.,	.. 10	10	113,725	1	1	15,000Total	. .. 510	1,050	$4,862,350	142	411	$1,534,510
(b) Up to January 31, 1939, the number and amount of home improvement loans made in municipalities on Montreal island are as follows, by municipality:
Municipality	Number	AmountCartierville	21	$ 7.665 00Lachine	95	52,999 02LaSalle	19	7,242 00Mount Royal	23	13,295 16Montreal	2,866	1,547,186 45Outremont	56	41,760 67Pointe Aux Trembles..	4	1,458 54Pointe Claire	54	27,561 38Ste. Anne de Bellevue..	9	4,650 00Ste. Genevieve	2	1,600 00St. Laurent	26	14,505 00Verdun	185	68.395 12Ville St. Pierre	15	5,425 00Westmount	104	60,981 42Total	3,479	$1,854,724 76


ST. GEORGES DE BEAUCE, QUE., POST OFFICE SITE
Mr. HEON:: 1.	Did the dominion government purchase a piece of land for the building of a post office at St. Georges, Beauce county, within the last four years?
2.	If so, from whom was such land purchased?
3.	At what price?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes, in September, 1938.
2.	Mathias Dutil.
3.	$3,250.


SHORTENING MADE FROM VEGETABLE OILS AND ANIMAL FATS
Mr. HYNDMAN:: How much shortening was made from vegetable oils imported into Canada from other

countries in each of the years 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1937?


Mr. EULER:: Statistics of the production of vegetable shortening do not make distinction between the quantity produced from imported refined oils and that made from oils refined in Canada. The total production of shortening from vegetable oils in Canada follows:
Pounds
1934		 81,215,669
1935		 99,991,293
1936		 108,383,811
1937-In the slaughtering and
meat packing industry.. ..	72,926,866
Production in the miscellaneous food industries group for 1937 is not available.


Mr. PERLEY:: How much shortening was made from vegetable oils produced in Canada, in each of the years 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1937?


William Daum Euler: Statistics of the production of vegetable shortening do not make distinction between the quantity produced from oils refined in Canada and that produced from imported refined oils. The total production of shortening from vegetable oils follows:
Pounds
1934		 81,215,669
1935		 99,991,293
1936		 108,383,811
1937-In the slaughtering and
meat packing industry.. ..	72,926,866
Production in the miscellaneous food industries group for 1937 is not available.

Questions


Ernest Edward Perley: How much shortening was made in Canada from animal fats, in each of the years 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1937?


William Daum Euler: Production of shortening
made from animal fats:
Pounds
1934		 7,159,809
1935		 6,702,357
1936		 7,345,455
1937		 9,297,422


Ernest Edward Perley: How much shortening was made in Canada from vegetable oil and animal fats in each of the years 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1937?


William Daum Euler: Total production of shortening (vegetable and animal):
Pounds
1934		 88,375,478
1935		 106,693,650
1936		 115,729,266
1937-In the slaughtering and
meat packing industry.. ..	82,224,288
Production in the miscellaneous food industries group for 1937 is not available.


Mr. TUSTIN:: How much shortening was produced by all industries in Canada from vegetable oils in each of the years 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938?


William Daum Euler: Quantity of shortening produced by all industries in Canada from vegetable oils in each of the years 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937 and
1938:
Lb.
1934		 81,215,669
1935		 99,991,293
1936		 108,383,811
1937, in the slaughtering and meat
packing industry	 72,926,866
Production in the miscellaneous food industries group for 1937 not available.
1938	Not available


FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT-ONTARIO
Mr. MARSH:: 1.	How many farmers in Ontario effected a settlement under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act during 1938?
2.	How many were there in the county of Wentworth?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	2,289.
2.	68.


COAL IMPORTS
Mr. MARSH:: What was the total tonnage of foreign coal imported into Canada year by year, 1929 to 1938 inclusive, and from what countries?


William Daum Euler: Tonnage of Coal Imported into Canada for Consumption by Countries (Fiscal Years ended March 31, 1929-1938)
Country
Fiscal Years
1929	1930	1931	1932	1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938tons	tons	tons	tons	tons	tons	tons	tons	tons	tonsUnited Kingdom	699,882	907,905	1,063,627	1,005,936	1,814,162	1,934,242	1,939,266	1,835,384	1,468,831	1,194,317British South Africa	328	Newfoundland	37	51	23	2	30 17,557	286 37,836 1,120 34,741 365,437	Belgium	1	650	67,220	8,953China	6	French East Indies	1,122 11,480	4,592 60,762	700	39,630 204,416	50,193Germany	52,189	144	72,103 300	Japan	112	417 78Morocco	Netherlands	1,102	16,231	Poland and Danzig	1	Russia (U.S.S.R.)	15,920	114,724	284,271	153,050Sweden	25 11,429,255	United States	17,060,916	17,475,066 22	i5,949,553	12,045,350	9,178,127	9,720,999 2	10,797,772 40	10,263,187 3	12,927,906Alaska	
Total Imports		17,778,186	18,497,880	17,310,076	13,117,290	11,045,180	11,655,393	12,827,068		13,353,762	14,629.899
										
1328	COMMONS
Questions

Questions


OLD AGE PENSIONS
John Allmond Marsh: How many persons in Canada were receiving old age pensions on January 1, of each of the years 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938, and what was the total amount paid each of the said years?


Charles Avery Dunning: Number of persons receiving old age pensions: January 1, 1935, 98,111; 1936, 107,279; 1937, 123,441; 1938, 174,889.
Dominion government contributions during calendar years: 1935, $16,140,226.84; 1936, $17,967,378.78; 1937, $28,726,691.24; 1938, $28,081,618.09.


GOLD EXPORTS
John Allmond Marsh: What was the total amount and values of all gold coin and bullion which left Canada during the calendar years 1930, 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1938, and the amounts to each country?


William Daum Euler: Calendar Years
Domestic exports-		1930	1935	1936	1937	1938
Gold bullion non-monetary- 							
United Kingdom	96,992	126,845	7i,oy^	$	3,395,500	4,476,000	2,511,436	1,933,454United States	2,649,419	1,912,392	2,958,450	" $	92,594,734	67,012,985	103,212,704	67,611,818Cuba	b b N ^ N .	1,773 47,477Total	2,746,411	2,039,237	3,030,042	1,935,227$	95,990.234	67,012,985	105,724,140	67,659,295Gold coin-	United States	. ..$	750	....	....	....	....Total	750	....	. . . .
Exports of foreign produce- Gold coin non-monetary-
United Kingdom	
United States	
France	t
Netherlands	$
Switzerland	$
Total	$
Not separately recorded prior to April 1, 1938
21,963,796
2,564,823
2,863.830
4,199,681
597,906
32,190,036
Gold bullion non-monetary-
United Kingdom	Oz.
United States Total.. .


Oz. $ Oz. $
[Stage Direction]
Gold coin (includes non-monetary prior to April 1, 1938)-
United Kingdom	$
United States	|
Netherlands	|
Newfoundland	*
Switzerland	$
Total	$
18,003,660 '500 18,004,i60
7,136,666
2,464,701
9,601,367
	372	
	12,999	....
...	372	
	12,999	
4,288,332
457,875
4,746,207
9,082,262
926,350
1,299,137
722,750
12,030,499
13,361,835
10,676,580
2,837,787
1,536,775
28,412,977

Mr. MARSH:: 1.	Has the Postmaster General received any submission or plan from the trans-Canada airways relating to the conveyance of air mail between Hamilton and Malton airports, or between Hamilton and Toronto island airports?
2.	Is the Postmaster General considering any plan regarding this, and, if not, will he do so?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	No.	.
2.	Schedules on trans-Canada air mail service are being so adjusted as to give the maximum benefits not only to points immediately en route, but also to important postal centres off the route.


CAMPBELLTON, NJ, DEEP WATER WHARF
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Is the federal government carrying on a relief work program in the vicinity of the Deep Water wharf at Campbellton, Restigouche county, New Brunswick, and wholly paid by the federal government?
2.	If so, under what department at Ottawa is the expenditure being made, and who is responsible for the administration of said expenditure ?
3.	What are the names of the various foremen or supervisors, and what is the remuneration to each?
4.	Is this work being carried on under the patronage system or is the town council and poor commissioner consulted with a view of giving as many needy men employment as possible?
Questions


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	(a) Additional fill is being placed in the rear of the extension to the deep water wharf by day labour rather than by contract, in order to assist in the unemployment situation at Campbellton; (b) Yes.
2.	(a) Department of Public Works; (b) District engineer.
3.	Two foremen (Thomas N. Dickie and Harry Comeau) at $5 a day each.
4.	In the execution of the work, as far as practicable and consistent with reasonable efficiency and economy, first consideration is given to the employment of those who, if available and competent, are most in need in the locality in which the works are to be
performed, without any discrimination whatsoever, preference being shown to unemployed ex-service men and unemployed married and single men with dependents.


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	What municipalities in the province of Nova Scotia took advantage of the National Housing Act, 1938, and its predecessor, Dominion Housing Act?
2.	How many applications for loans under each of the said acts were granted in each of the said municipalities, and what was the amount of each loan in each incorporated town or village of each county?


Charles Avery Dunning: To January 31, 1939
Dominion Housing Act Loans Units Amount	National Housing Act Loans Units Amount	Loans	Total Units	AmountAmherst	$ 	1	1	$ 2,482	i	i $	2,482Annapolis Royal.. .	. i	i	3,500	i	i	3,500Antigonish	i	1	3,500	i	i	3,500Armdale	. 3	3	9,900	l	1	5,600	4	4	15,500Bedford	1	4.000	1	1	4,000Birch Cove	. 3	3	10,194	3	3	10,194Bras d'Or	i	i	5,000	1	1	5,000Bridgewater	l	1	6,500	1	1	6,500Chester Basin. .. .	. i	i	2,100	1	1	2.100Dartmouth	. 48	48	170,751	i	1	3,200	49	49	173.951Glace Bay	2	2	7,000	2	2	7,000Greenfield	l	1	2,500	1	1	2,500Halifax	. 228	231	1,042.153	30	34	126,730	258	265	1,168,883Halifax County.. .	. 3	3	10,514	1	1	4,000	4	4	14,514Kentville	. 18	18	74.450	18	18	74.450Liverpool	. 7	7	31,275	7	7	31.275Lockport	i	1	2,600	1	1	2,600Lunenburg	. i	1	3,600	1	1	3 600Middleton	i	i	2,500	1	1	2.500Milford	l	1	3,000	1	1	3,000Rockingham	. i	i	6,000	1	1	6,000Sydney	. 21	21	97,300	8	8	34,300	29	29	131,600Truro 	. 22	22	113,790	5	11	26.040	27	33	139.830Windsor	1	1	3,200	1	1	3,200Wolfville	. 5	5	24,700	5	5	14.700 30,271Yarmouth	. 9	9	30,271	9	9	372	375	$1,634,498	57	67	$238,152	429	442 $1,872,650


ROYAL VISIT TO CANADA-PARTICIPATION OP RETURNED. SOLDIERS AND SCHOOL CHILDREN
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What arrangements have been made for the participation of returned soldiers and school children throughout Canada at the various receptions during the coming visit of His Majesty?
2.	Has federal power, during the visit, been delegated to the provinces over the heads of the chief municipalities in the dominion?
3.	If so, what precedent is there for such procedure?
4.	Has the attention of the government been called to the refusal to the board of education of Toronto of leave to include visit to 22,000 school children at the University of Toronto stadium, after the visit to Hart House?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	In a statement issued by the Prime Minister of Canada on January 5, 1939, setting out principles to guide Canadian authorities who may be in charge of arrangements for the visit to Canada of Their Majesties, the following appears:
" Wherever possible, special provision should be made to afford children, young persons, and veterans of the great war opportunities of seeing the king and queen."
2.	His Majesty having graciously intimated his desire, if possible, to visit the capitals of the provinces, communications have been had with the provincial authorities, who are cooperating with the heads of the municipalities.

Questions
3.	In connection with the silver jubilee of His Majesty King George V in 1935, communications in respect to celebrations in various cities, towns and other municipalities were had through the provincial authorities.
4.	No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-STATIONARY SEARCHLIGHTS
Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	Has any manufacture been undertaken in connection with the contract now under consideration with respect to stationary searchlights for the Department of National Defence?
2.	If so, by what firm has such manufacturing been undertaken?
3.	Has such manufacture complied with the specifications furnished by the Department of National Defence?
4.	Has any claim been presented to the Department of National Defence or the government with respect to such manufacture, and, if so, what is the amount involved?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


RAILWAY MILEAGE IN CANADA
Mr. LECLERC:: 1.	What is the total railway mileage in Canada?
2.	What is the total railway mileage in each of the provinces?
3.	How many miles of railway have been discontinued in each province since 1930?


William Daum Euler: Difference
		Mileage	in Mileage
Mileage	discontinued	Dec. 31Province	Dec. 31, 1937	since 1930 (x)	1930-1937
286-05	Nova Scotia	
1,397-21	20-16	- 20-41New Brunswick	
1,871-21	62-99	- 62-90Quebec	162-50	- 77-60Ontario	
10,692-38	359-74	-245-32Manitoba	
4,859-54	85-76	+ 439-85Saskatchewan	
8,775-82	1-53	+ 610-27Alberta	
5,750-93	47-38	+ 170-16British Columbia.. ..	
3,882-84	229-94	-138-6657-72	Total	
42,387-46	970-00	+675-39Canadian railways in	the United	States	[DOT]09	+ 5-00Total	
42,726-84	970-09	+680-39
f1) Includes lines taken up, ceased operating, and main track reclassified as sidings and industrial track, but does not include corrections and decreases from realignment.


TABLE OF PRECEDENCE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	In view of the statute of Westminster, is there now any table of precedence in Canada adopted by law, statute, usage or custom?
2.	If so, what is the said table, when was it authorized, and by whom ?
3.	Is the revised table of precedence for Canada, December 3, 1923, as amended, now in force, and with what additions or amendments?
4.	Is the said table binding in all Canada, including the provinces, and on the lieutenant-governors thereof?
5.	Is the frequent use of viceroy or viceregal party by lieutenant-governors authorized or sanctioned by any law, statute, usage or custom in Canada, and by what authority?
6.	Has the attention of the government been called to the table of precedence issued in Ontario, December 20, 1938, from the office of the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, Legislative Buildings, Queen's park, Toronto?
7.	If so, what authority has the said table of precedence?
8.	Has such a table been authorized by the sovereign or by the government of Canada?
9.	If so, will it apply on formal occasions during the visit to Canada by His Majesty the King.
10.	Was such table published in the Canada Gazette, as required, and on what date?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The table of precedence at present in use for dominion functions in Canada is the revised table of precedence for Canada 1923 (as amended).
2.	The revised table of precedence for Canada 1923 was approved by His Majesty the King and sent to his excellency the governor general by dispatch of the secretary of state for the colonies of the 3rd December 1923.
3.	Yes. Since 1923 the table has been amended by providing a place for former prime ministers of Canada who have held the office of prime minister for at least one year, and by providing that the Prime Minister of Canada shall be placed immediately after the Governor General.

Questions as Orders for Returns
4.	The revised table of precedence for Canada 1923 (as amended) governs functions of an official character arranged by the dominion government.
5.	There is no statutory reference in so far as the government is aware.
6.	No information.
7.	Answered by 6.
8.	Answered by 6.
9.	It will not be applied at functions of an official character arranged by the dominion government.
10.	Answered by 6.


MAJOR J. E. HAHN
Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	Was Major J. E. Hahn, president, John Inglis Company, Toronto, carried as a passenger in planes of the Royal Canadian Air Force during 1936, 1937 and 1938?
2.	If so, was permission granted by the Department of National Defence for such flights?
3.	What were the number of flights in each year, and between what points?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1. No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	How many contracts have been awarded for the manufacture of shell or ammunition boxes?
2.	To what firms or individuals have such contracts been awarded?
3.	What is the sum involved in respect of each contract, giving the unit basis from which said sum is derived?
4.	Were such contracts awarded on: (a) competitive bids; (b) selected bids?
5.	What deliveries, if any, have been made in respect to said contracts?



BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS FORBIDDEN USE OF MAILS

John Allmond Marsh: How many books and publications are at the present time on the list of those not permitted to pass through the mails?



MORTGAGE AND BOND STATISTICS

Mr. MARSH:: 1.	What was the amount, by provinces, of default in municipal bonds each year for the years 1930, 1935, and 1938?
2.	What was the total corporation bonded debt of Canada, by provinces, for the years 1930, 1935, and 1938?
3.	What was the amount of default in farm mortgages, by provinces, for the years 1930, 1935 and 1938?
[Mr. Mackenzie King.}


Charles Avery Dunning: Some of this information will not be in the possession of the government, but we will supply what information we can in the return.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND NATIONAL PARK

Mr. WALSH:: 1.	How much land has been acquired by the provincial government or the dominion government, or both, for the new national park in the province of Prince Edward Island?
2.	What is the total amount paid up to date for this land?
3.	What is the approximate amount yet to be paid for land to be included in this park?
4.	How much money has the government spent to date on this project, exclusive of land?
5.	What is the estimated total cost of this project?
6.	What amount has the government spent to date on the golf course to be located in this park?
7.	What is the estimated cost of this golf course?


Mr. CRERAR:: Some of this information is not in the hands of the government, but what information is available can be brought down in the return.



GOVERNMENT SCHOLARSHIPS

Mr. HAYHURST:: 1.	Are any scholarships of any kind granted by the Canadian government at the present time?
2.	If so, what scholarships were granted last year?



SPRUCE TREES, CALGARY BARRACKS

Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Have any spruce trees been purchased for the decoration of the grounds surrounding the military barracks in the city of Calgary?
2.	If so, from whom were said trees purchased ?
3.	What is the residence of the vendor?
4.	Were tenders asked for in connection with the said purchase?
5.	If so, what are the names of those who tendered, together with prices submitted?
6.	Are there any spruce trees available in the province of Alberta?



YOUTH TRAINING PLAN, QUEBEC

Mr. WALSH:: 1.	How many received training under the youth training (Rogers-Bilodeau) plan in the province of Quebec, for the training period just previous to October 1, 1938?
2.	How many of the above were Frenchspeaking, and how many English-speaking?
3.	How many are enrolled for the training period October 1 to March 31?
4.	How many, of those referred to in question 3, are French-speaking, and how many Englishspeaking?

Questions as Orders for Returns
5.	Is the instruction in these youth training plans given in both French and English?
6.	How many, of those referred to in question 1, found employment as the result of that training ?
7.	What was the cost of each training period referred to in questions 1 and 3?
8.	How many days actual training are given under this youth training plan?



ALIEN LABOUR ACT

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Who is in charge of the enforcement of the Alien Labour Act, and is it now in force?
2.	Will the government table any departmental reports about its effect or use?
3.	Have any complaints been received about lack of enforcement, and the effect of nonenforcement on unemployment in Canada?
4.	How many aliens have been admitted into
Canada under the said act:	(a) from the
United States; (b) from the United Kingdom; (c) from the continent of Europe, to take positions in Canada, during each of the years 1937, 1938 and 1939?
Canada's foreign legations


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many foreign legations does Canada maintain, and where are they located?
2.	What has been the annual maintenance and capital cost of each since their opening to date?
3.	What does the staff of each consist of, and what are the salaries and other allowances?
4.	Has Canada also commercial, immigration or other Canadian offices at each of these places?
MONTREAL CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY & EQUIPMENT COMPANY-MACHINERY FOR SHELL MANUFACTURE


Mr. MacNEIL:: 1. Has the government entered into any agreement to supply or loan dominion government equipment or machinery to the Montreal Construction Supply and Equipment Company, Limited, Montreal, for the manufacture of shells?
2.	If so, what was the type of machinery or equipment involved, the estimated value and the place or places from which it was to be procured ?
3.	Has any such machinery or equipment been removed from government plants to the premises of the Montreal Construction and Supply Equipment Company, Limited?
4.	Has any report been received by the Department of National Defence as to the cost of such removal, installation and overhaul and what is the amount involved?
5.	Has any claim been made against the dominion government in this regard?
6.	If so, what action has been taken with regard to such claim?



DOMINION GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. MacINNIS:: 1. What was the total number of persons in the employ of the dominion government as at March 31, 1937:	(a) permanent; (b) temporary ?
2.	How many of such (1) permanent and (2) temporary employees are receiving: (a) less than $500 per year; (b) $500 but less than $1,000; (c) $1,000 but less than $1,500; (d) $1,500 but less than $2,000; (e) $2,000 but less than $3,000; (f) $3,000 but less than $4,000; (g) $4,000 but less than $5,000; (h) $5,000 but less than $6,000; (i) $6,000 but less than $7,000; (j) $7,000 but less than $9,000; (k) $9,000 but less than $12,000; (1) $12,000 but less than $15,000; (m) $15,000 and over?
3.	How many of these persons are employed for only part of the year?
4.	What was the total number of persons in the military, naval and air force branches of the Department of National Defence as at March 31, 1937?
5.	How many of such employees are receiving:
(a) less than $500 per year; (b) $500 but less than $1,000; (c) $1,000 but less than $1,500; (d) $1,500 but less than $2,000; (e) $2,000 but less than $3,000; (f) $3,000 but less than $4,000; (g) $4,000 but less than $5,000; (h) $5,000 but less than $6,000; (i) $6,000 but less than $7,000; (j) $7,000 but less than $9,000; (k) $9,000 but less than $12,000;	(1) $12,000 but less than
$15,000; (m) $15,000 and over?
6.	How many of these persons are employed for only part of the year?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not had a chance to examine this question since it has been substituted for the one previously withdrawn, but I will do the best I can with it.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. BROOKS (for Mr. Walsh):: For a copy of the lease or contract entered into between the government of Canada in 1936 and the Three Rivers Grain and Elevator Company; and also a copy of any amendment to this lease or contract, or any additional lease granted to this company by the federal government subsequent to the signing of the first lease.



J. ARTHUR GARIEPY

Mr. PERLEY (for Mr. Heon):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, dated during the past three years, exchanged between the dominion government and any other person relative to J. Arthur Gariepy, pilot of Bienville, Levis county, province of Quebec, and pilotage in the Quebec-Montreal district.



ST. GEORGES DE BEAUCE, QUE., POST OFFICE

George Halsey Perley: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions and other documents exchanged, during the last four years, between the dominion government and any other person in connection with the construction of a post office at St. Georges, Beauce county, province of Quebec.



NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn) (for Mr. Kennedy):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports and other documents in the possession of the
Motions for Papers

Department of Labour or any other department of the dominion government, which passed between the chairman of the national employment commission or any member of said commission and the government of the province of Alberta.



REPORTS OF CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER IN GREAL BRITAIN

Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the honourable the Minister of Agriculture or his department or any officer thereof and Air. Allen, Canadian agricultural commissioner in Great Britain, respecting Canadian agricultural products entering Great Britain, together with a copy of all reports made by the above named commissioner since his appointment.


Mr. GARDINER:: Before this motion is carried I should state that there will be some correspondence between this official and the department relating to individual plants, such as packing plants, which I do not think it would be wise to make public. Apart from correspondence of that type, however, I believe all the correspondence can be brought down.



NEW GLASGOW, N.S., WHARF

Alfred Johnson Brooks: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, plans, engineers' reports, contracts, expenditures, payrolls and other documents in connection with repairs made to the New Glasgow wharf, Pictou county, Nova Scotia, during the years 1937 and 1938, together with a statement showing the estimated cost to complete such repairs.
bailey's BROOK, N.S., CHANNEL


Alfred Johnson Brooks: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, contracts, invoices, pay sheets, engineers' and inspectors' reports, specifications and other documents with respect to the dredging of Bailey's brook channel, Pictou county, Nova Scotia, during the years 1937 and 1938.



MONTREAL CONSTRUCTION, SUPPLY AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY

['In view of the statement\nmade by the minister, I think it advisable to withdraw the resolution.\nMotion withdrawn.\nAt 11.05 the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.\nTuesday, February 28, 1939']
Charles Grant MacNeil: For a copy of all orders in council, correspondence, telegrams, reports, contracts and other documents, relating to the contract awarded to the Montreal Construction Supply and Equipment Company, Limited, Montreal, for the manufacture of shells.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Before this motion is carried I should like to inform the house that the contract itself was tabled in this house on January 13. There is, of course, no objection whatever to producing the other documents asked for by my hon. friend.

WHEAT POLICY	.



Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, this parliament should immediately take such steps as are necessary to insure the farmers of Canada a fixed price of ninety-five cents per bushel for number one northern wheat at their local elevator.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity at this session of parliament of introducing the resolution which appears on the order paper in my name. I am aware that the government intends to bring down legislation with regard to farm insurance, but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not intend to dwell on that point, because I think we are all in agreement that some form of farm insurance should be inaugurated in this country; in fact I think such legislation is long overdue. This resolution, however, deals with an entirely different matter, that of a set price for the producers, and I think it is most opportune that we should consider this question now.
I have before me an extract from the Ottawa Citizen of February 20, 1939. This purports to be an interview with the Minister of Agriculture :
Under the new legislation the government will hope to confine its grain marketings assistance to farmers who find themselves hard pressed economically through no fault of their own and only through emergency conditions.
"The new legislation" Mr. Gardiner said in an interview', "will provide machinery by which the government may come to the assistance of an average farmer who farms with an average degree of efficiency and through no fault of his owrn but due to emergency conditions over which he has no control finds himself in danger of losing his farm."
Emergency conditions might mean drought, grasshoppers or the condition of international wheat markets. The aid will be in the form of acreage bonus which will apply to coarse grains as well as wheat. The general resources of the farmer will be taken into consideration, it was learned.
The acreage bonus w-ill be dependent on the extent of cron failure a farmer suffers. For example, a farmer who has a crop of ten bushels to the acre would not receive as much acreage bonus as one whose crop only returned five bushels an acre.
My resolution does not refer to farm insurance. We all realize that that is necessary, but it is an entirely different question and should be treated by itself. I am dealing with the farm problem from a different angle, namely that of the basic price, or the cost of production for the farmers of Canada.
All hon. members will readily see that party politics have no place in a resolution of this type, which deals with a national prob-

Wheat Policy-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
lem; nor shall I attempt to found my argument on behalf of the Canadian farmer, especially the western farmer, on any false premise, but I shall give facts and figures from which no logical argument may arise.
An erroneous impression has been spread in eastern Canada as regards farming in the west. Occasionally one may see in the papers a statement to the effect that some farmer has had a crop of fifty bushels to the acre, and some easterner may visualize fabulous fortunes being made by western wheat growers. It is true that a small portion of a large field, possibly ten acres, may have yielded fifty bushels per acre, but as a general rule the average is much less.
The Dominion Bureau of Statistics gives the average yield per acre for the last five years in the dominion as follows:
Year	Yield per acre
1938	
13-5	bushels1937	
7-5	"1936	
8-6	"1935	
11-7	"1934	
11-5	"1933	
10-8	"
These figures indicate an average yield of about 11 bushels per acre during the period.
It is reported in a book published by the Alberta government, entitled, A Report on the Rehabilitation of Dry Areas of Alberta and Crop Insurance, 1935 and 1936, prepared by the Hon. W. M. Chant, that the average yield in that province is about ten bushels to the acre. According to the statement issued as of January 26, 1939, by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the average for the last ten year period was 13-84 bushels per acre, and the production in the three western provinces was as follows: .
Average
Province	yield	per acreManitoba	
13-84	bushelsAlberta	
14-65	"Saskatchewan	
8-46	"
Or, for the three western provinces the average yield has been 12-3 bushels per acre. . There are many reasons for such a low yield per acre. When I visited the province of Saskatchewan during the month of June last I saw the most wonderful crops that one could imagine. They should have yielded an average of twenty or thirty bushels, and probably would have, had not grasshoppers and cutworms destroyed the entire crop, leaving those farmers destitute. Had it not been for the direct relief they received, some would have suffered severe hardship. Such losses are common, not only in Saskatchewan, but in Manitoba and Alberta as well. Thousands of dollars are spent every year in attempting to control these pests.
If this were the only obstacle that prevented a crop, the situation would not be so
desperate. During the summer and fall of 1938 there was more hail in the province of Alberta than there had been in any other year subsequent to 1928. Of all the forces of destruction I think there is none so devastating as a hail storm. I saw crops in the district in which I live that were almost ready to cut-in fact, one round with the binder had been made. The next day the hail came and completely destroyed it. In places where the grain had stood three or four feet high, not a solitary straw could be seen, nothing but black dirt. Along the sides of the road, hail lay six or seven inches deep -the entire year's work gone in a few minutes; and, worse still, no feed for the stock, nor was there any money for the family to buy the necessities of life.
Large numbers of acres every year in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are dried out. One must not forget that all financial costs had already been expended on this land and not one cent could be returned.
As reported in Hansard, page 138, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said that-
The average price of wheat in Canada for 1936 crop was $1.22 per bushel, No. 1 northern, Fort William.
Further down on the same page, the minister is reported as having said:
Wheat sold in 1937 in Canada at an average price of about $1.31, No. 1 northern.
Such statements give an entirely wrong picture of the true state of affairs. First of all it must be remembered that little No. 1 northern is raised. The proof of this statement I will give a little later in my address. But just here let me give the statement of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics issued on May 13, 1938, relating to the average prices for the year 1936.
They quote the average price at 0-94. Compare this to $122 as stated by the minister. The 1937 average price was SI as compared to the minister's quotation of $1.31. The average price for 1938 as published by the bureau was 0-59. It should here be borne in mind that this does not include cost of freight.
We are fortunate at this time in being able to record the actual cost to the western farmer of raising a bushel of wheat. There were two provinces carrying on this work, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. While both provinces worked independently, it is remarkable to note how nearly the same their results are. The men in Alberta who conducted the experiment had two thoughts in mind: first, what it actually would cost the farmer to raise a bushel of wheat, and second, whether it was
1336	COMMONS
Wheat Policy-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
cheaper to farm by tractor or by horse. This work was carried on by the Whitla experimental station in Alberta.
I have here two tables showing the cost of producing wheat, per acre, by horse equipment and by power equipment. No freight is included in either table. This is the cost for the preparation of the land and does not include hauling to the elevator, or freight cost. Without bothering the house with details I should like to have it placed on Hansard.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I should like to ask the hon. member what he is reading from.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have not been quoting from anything.


James J. Donnelly: You have been reading something. I do not know what it is, but I should like to know.


Charles Edward Johnston: I just
stated that I have two tables which for the benefit of hon. members I should like to place on Hansard. They are statements in regard to the cost per acre of producing wheat. One deals with horse-power equipment, and the other with power equipment. Both contain information prepared at the experimental station at Whitla, Alberta.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member has no right to place a table on Hansard, unless he includes it in his speech. Only the Minister of Finance can do that, on the presentation of the budget, by special leave and with the unanimous consent of the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member cannot read it like that.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then I shall place it on Hansard by saying that this is a table which deals with the cost of raising wheat, through using horse-power equipment. The table gives minute details, and that is why I did not wish to take the time to read it. I thought it might be interesting to some of the eastern members who know very little about conditions in the west. I thought they might like to find out what it actually costs a farmer to raise a bushel of wheat. But it will suffice to say that it comes under two headings, wheat after summer fallow, and wheat after wheat. In the years in question with horse equipment the total cost was S9.85 per acre, for first crop wheat and $9.50 per acre for second crop wheat.
It will be noted that tractor farming is the cheaper method. It has often been claimed by hon. members that the farmers of western Canada should not use power machinery, as it is too costly a method, but should be con-

tent with the use of horse equipment. Why should we expect our farmers to use the more antiquated and costly methods of farming when the same results can be achieved with more modern, scientific power machinery, and a great saving of labour and time can be effected?


James J. Donnelly: I rise to a point of order. I want to know what the hon. member is reading from-whether he is reading his speech, or what he is doing.


Charles Edward Johnston: No, I am not reading anything.


James J. Donnelly: You are reading your
speech, or some article.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not reading anything. If the hon. member would listen he would get some information.


James J. Donnelly: You are reading your speech, or some paper. Is it your speech?


Charles Edward Johnston: I will answer any question the hon. member has to ask after I have finished.


Walter Edward Foster: There is a rule of the house that no hon. member may read his speech, or read a prepared statement. He must make his speech He must deliver it to the house.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Speaking to the point of order, I submit the hon. member is referring once in a while to some notes he has prepared. That has been the practice followed by most hon. members of the house. Notes have been prepared, and they have referred to them.


Walter Edward Foster: I have rendered my decision. If the hon. member is only consulting his notes, he is in order. If he is reading his speech, verbatim, from a written statement prepared in advance, he is out of order.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am just consulting notes.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Copious notes.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is and should be the aim of all industries, whether agriculture or otherwise, to operate in the cheapest and most efficient manner possiole in order that they may have the greatest financial return for the time and labour expended. No seed or hauling is included in either of these two tables, so we should in both cases add $1.25 per acre for seed wheat and five cents per bushel or 50 cents per acre for hauling the grain to the elevator. In the

Wheat Policy-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
table using horse-power the cost per acre for the first crop of wheat after fallow is $9.80, plus $1.25 for seed and 50 cents for hauling, making $11.55, and at ten bushels per acre, the cost per bushel is $1.15i. For the second crop of wheat the cost is given at $9.50 per acre. By adding $1.25 for seed and 50 cents for hauling this makes $11.25 per acre, and at ten bushels per acre, the cost of raising one bushel is $1.12i.


James J. Donnelly: I contend the hon.
member is reading his speech. I have sat in the house for most of this session and so far I have not spoken at all, but I have had to listen to dozens and dozens of speeches which have been read and I think it is time this practice was stopped.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Mr. Speaker, on the
point of order, I should like to know why the hon. member picks on this member to raise an objection.


James J. Donnelly: It is not this hon.
member alone; it has been done by hon. members all over the house. It is all right when an hon. member first comes into the house to use notes when speaking; we have no objection to his reading his speech then, but I think it should be stopped when it goes on day after day, week after week and month after month.


Walter Edward Foster: Is there any other hon.
member who wishes to speak to the point of order?


René-Antoine Pelletier: I submit that the hon. member is dealing with a technical matter involving the use of a number of statistical tables, something which could not possibly be memorized. As I stated a moment ago, he is referring closely to his notes in order to give accurate information to the house.


Walter Edward Foster: Standing order number 41 deals with those things which should not be done by an hon. member and, paragraph (o) of that order reads:
(o) read from a written, previously prepared speech.
If the hon. member is reading from a previously prepared speech, he is not in order and he should discontinue reading; if he is not, then he is in order.


Charles Edward Johnston: The other table using power machinery is a little cheaper. The first crop of wheat after fallow is $9.74, plus $1.25 for seed and 50 cents for
hauling which makes $11.49, making the cost per bushel $1-149. For the second crop of wheat the table shows $8.99, which with the $1.25 for seed and 50 cents for hauling makes a total of $10.74 per acre, or $1-074 per bushel as the cost of production. It should be particularly noted that in neither case was there any profit allowed to the farmer. Surely if there is any industry which is entitled to a fair commission on its investment, it is western farming. It has been the consensus of opinion in this house that all the wheat raised in the west is No. 1 northern, and so it has been assumed that the farmers get the full pegged price of 80 cents, but such is certainly not the case.
On January 26, 1939, I received a book from the bureau of statistics entitled Monthly Review of the Wheat Situation, published by authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler). On page 34 the following statement appears:
The 1938 wheat crop in the praire provinces is averaging about a grade higher than in 1937, with No. 2 northern the more common grade this year, compared with No. 3 northern a year ago. The best grading from the 1938 crop has occurred in northern Alberta with No. 1 northern predominating. Winnipeg inspections are concentrating in No. 2 northern and are somewhat better than 1937. The effects of rust damage in Saskatchewan in 1938 are shown in Moose Jaw inspections, which are ranging between No. 2 and No. 3 northern, whereas the small volume of inspections in 1937 was predominantly No. 1 northern. Northern Saskatchewan inspections are about the same as last year, varying between No. 2 and No. 3 northern, while central and northern Alberta inspections are going more into No. 2 northern this year, with No. 3 northern the predominating grade in 1937.
Is there an hon. member in this house who dares say that when it costs over $1.10 to raise a bushel of wheat, that 80 cents a bushel is a fair pegged price? No, not 80 cents; for 20 cents must come off the freight, so the farmer gets only 60 cents per bushel for No. 1 northern, but as wheat is mostly graded No. 2 or No. 3 northern, all he actually gets is about 54 cents, less than half of what it costs him to produce the wheat.
A further analysis has been made of this problem in the province of Saskatchewan, to which I have made reference. This appeared in the Western Producer of June 25, 1939, [DOT] and is based on the university farm revenue study. It deals with eleven types of soil as well as with different localities throughout the province, and they have arrived at a definite conclusion in regard to the cost of
1338	COMMONS
Wheat Policy-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
raising a bushel of wheat. I shall not take up this report in detail. Suffice it to say that the average cost of producing wheat is as follows:
Average	cost	of	production	perbushel on half-section farms.. .. $0.92 Average	cost	of	production	perbushel on section farms	78Average	cost	of	production	perbushel on half-section and section farms	85
Average cost of production per
bushel on farm	85
Average freight cost per bushel to
Fort William	18
Total average cost per bushel to produce and ship to market	$1.03
There can now be no doubt in the mind of anyone as to what it costs to raise a bushel of wheat. That fact is proven by the investigation made in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta which shows that the wheat growers have been attempting the impossible in trying to produce below cost. Alberta is the best customer of eastern Canada. Ever since the early settlement of the west began there has been a desire to make that portion of the dominion a better market for eastern manufactured goods. So year by year it became a better market. Whenever a crop failure occurred, a decided shortage of sales for eastern manufactured goods took place. In the industrial cities of Ontario and Quebec the factories closed down and men and women of all ages walked the streets in search of employment. A further indication of the contribution which the province of Alberta has made and is making to Canada, and particularly to the central provinces, will be found in the volume of retail merchandising sales within the province. The volume, for the years 1930 to 1934 inclusive, is estimated by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows:
1930		 $176,537,100
1931		 135,095,000
1932		 115,354,000
1933		 108,431,000
1934		 120,423,000
As the years quoted are those of depression, it is obvious that the volume would be considerably higher in the preceding years when the prices of wheat were higher.
It has been estimated that at least seventy-five per cent of the retail merchandising sales consist of goods manufactured in other provinces, principally in Ontario and Quebec. Alberta is indeed a good customer of the eastern manufacturer. Not only does Alberta, along with Manitoba and Saskatchewan, provide a larger market for the manufacturer in other parts of Canada, but annually a large 
volume of business is done in the prairie provinces by the banks, trust and loan companies and life and fire insurance companies, which for the most part have their principal places of business in other provinces.
Again, one has only to consider the elaborate plants and business organizations located in other provinces for the handling of the annual wheat crop produced in the prairie provinces. The principal grain exchange is located in Winnipeg, but there is also an exchange in Vancouver. Numerous large terminal elevators have been erected at Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Fort William, Port Arthur, Toronto and Montreal, while wheat cargoes constitute a large volume of the tonnage carried annually over the great lakes. So also do the great transcontinental railways carry thousands of bushels of wheat from the west. I have in my hand a table compiled from the preliminary returns of the census of the prairie provinces of 1926 and of preceding censuses which shows definitely that Alberta is the best customer for eastern manufactured tractors, combines, motor trucks and automobiles. In 1921 motor trucks were included with automobiles. This statement is true not only of Alberta, but also equally true of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It includes motor trucks and automobiles on farms, with tractors and combines, and covers the period from 1921 to 1936. It shows that in the year 1921 the number of tractors sold in Canada was, 47,455, of which 38.485 were sold in the prairie provinces; in 1931, the number sold in all of Canada was 105,360, of which 81,659 were sold to the prairie provinces. As to combines, the total number sold in Canada in 1931 was 8,917, of which 8,897 were sold in the prairie provinces. Of motor trucks, 48,401 were sold in Canada in 1931, of which 21,517 were sold in the prairie provinces.
The automobile industry of eastern Canada made a substantial share of its sales in the three western provinces; for in 1921, out of 157,022 sold in Canada, 133,049, or more than half of the total sales, went to the west. Does not this prove that eastern business is dependent upon the success of the western farmer? Why not treat these agriculturists fairly and thus increase the prosperity of all Canadians?
The next table shows the sales of tractors only in the prairie provinces for the years 1920 to 1936. It shows that 95,113 tractors were sold by eastern firms to the prairie provinces in the period from 1920 to 1936.
What would happen to these eastern manufacturers if the farmers of the west went bankrupt? Is this market worth retaining? It is evident from this table that the sales of tractors has fallen off very considerably

Wheat Policy-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
since 1928. Why has this been so? It must be apparent to all that the reason is a lack of purchasing power in the prairie provinces. The farmer has been going behind year after year through no fault of his own, for he has been raising greater quantities of grain; but because he has been producing at a financial loss. A tabulation of the sales of any other item of farm machinery would show approximately the same results.
From these facts there can be no question that the west not only is an excellent customer of the east but keeps eastern people employed in the industries and is directly responsible for the prosperity that Ontario and Quebec enjoy.
It is urgently essential that a closer cooperation and thorough understanding prevail between these two sections of the dominion to ensure the best results for the country as a whole. I feel that it is most necessary at this time, in order to enable hon. members to have this complete understanding, to make an informative statement respecting the financial status of western farmers.
I have outlined some of the conditions of the west which seriously need the attention of every hon. member of the house, not from a partisan point of view, but from the realization that such conditions must cease if we are ever to have a unified Canada working in the interests of the whole dominion. Industrial and agricultural conditions in western Canada are such that no delay should be permitted. The last five years have been years of decided under-crop production, three years of which have been almost total crop failures, and as a result the financial condition of the farmers is such that it is impossible for them to carry on without some assurance of at least the cost of production.
In the early years of the history of the province the tenure of the land was largely that of ownership. In 1901, out of 9,479 farms, approximately 9,076 were held by owners, while only 211 were held by tenants and 192 by part-owners and part-tenanfs. This situation of ownership has changed greatly since then, as is shown by the table, VI, which is taken from The Case for Alberta, published by the Alberta government in 1938. There is not much use in placing the table on Hansard for the information of hon. members, because apparently some of them are not interested in conditions in the west.
The census of 1931 shows that out of 100,35S farms in the province, 67,562 were held by owners, while 16,208 were held by tenants and 16,588 were held by part-owners and part-tenants. It will be observed that since 1931 there has been a decline in the number of farms held by owners, and a substantial increase in the number of farms held by part-owners and part-tenants.
Thus, it is quite evident that the farmers of the west are speedily becoming land tenants rather than land owners.
In 1931, there were 728,625 farms in Canada valued at $4,053,282,300. Of these farms, 242,850 were reported mortgaged to the amount of 8671,776,850. and the average mortgage was $2,776. In Manitoba the average mortgage was 83,165; in Saskatchewan, S3,141; in Alberta, 83.072; in British Columbia, $2,436. In 1936, the average indebtedness per farm in Manitoba was $2,630; in Saskatchewan, 83,023; in Alberta, $2,804. These figures are given by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, May 13, 1938 Again I say probably it will not be worth while putting this table on Hansard, because perhaps some members might not be interested in knowing just what a great contribution the western part of Canada makes yearly to the eastern part of Canada, nor do they realize how urgent it is that we develop a united Canada instead of having, under the present system, a disorganized Canada.
It is evident that the farmers in the west will never be able to pay off their indebtedness unless they have assured them at least the cost of production for the wheat that they raise. We of western Canada have no desire for special privileges, yet we feel that we should have the same consideration that other industries enjoy in the dominion.
Following the wheat conference which was called by the Bracken government of Manitoba, the Western Producer, in its issue of December 29, 1938, published an article having to do with an address by Professor Hope of the university of Saskatchewan, entitled The Burden of Debt, from which I quote:
Professor Hope, Saskatchewan University, threw a glare on the debt situation in Saskatchewan which must have nearly blinded those in the creditor class. The total shrinkage in cash sales from the farm between 1926 and 1938, he said, was $2,700,000,000; for the three years 1931-33 it was over one billion dollars. The farm debt of Saskatchewan alone is $546,000,000, and with wheat at eighty cents a bushel Fort William, more than one-half of the debtor farmers will have to say "No" to the debt collectors. Professor Hope gave production costs for certain areas in Saskatchewan, showing that eighty cents a bushel at Fort William does not begin adequately to meet the situation in Saskatchewan, and presumably in the other two provinces as well. He said: "On the basis of the facts presented if all the -farmers of western Canada were entirely free of debt, or if they did not pay their debts, it would seem that the present farm prices for grain would probably barely maintain a reasonable level of living. It certainly would not maintain a reasonable level of living and enable them to build up their buildings, machinery, homes and personal effects up to the level prior to 1931.
1340	COMMONS
Wheat Policy-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
"Conservatively, it would probably require with average yields a farm price for wheat of average grade of about ninety cents, with coarse grains in proportion, to maintain a reasonable level of living and service the present debt on western farms. It would require somewhat more than this to restore the farming community to the condition of 1931."
The wheat conference that was recently held in Manitoba produced some interesting statistics in that regard, showing the financial position of the west, and that the west cannot carry on unless a farm insurance scheme is provided and, in addition, the farmers receive at least the cost of production.
Some of the leading public men in this country have definitely taken the stand that the price of farm products should not be protected. The present leader of the Conservative party, the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), stated in an address to the people of Edmonton on October 19 last, as reported in the Calgary Albertan of October 20, 1938:
Doctor Manion restated his belief in a moderate protective tariff. Both industry and workmen needed protection against cheap imports. Farmers, except wheat farmers of the west, deserved protection. Wheat farmers could not be protected.


Mr. MANION:: I meant they could not
be protected by tariffs, that is all.


Charles Edward Johnston: I accept
the qualification. But I would ask the hon. gentleman to state to this house just how any industry can carry on if it does not get the cost of production. Surely it is evident from the above remarks that should the Conservative party ever form a government in this country, their policy would be that of discrimination against the western agricultural industry, especially against the wheat farmer.


Robert James Manion: That is not so at all.


Charles Edward Johnston: The present government must have the same attitude as the Conservatives, inasmuch as they have done absolutely nothing to assure the fanners the cost of production. A pegged price of eighty cents, netting the farmers 57 cents for No. 2 northern, is about half the cost of raising a bushel of wheat.
The Commonwealth of Australia has gone a great deal further than Canada has in taking care of farmers' problems. I have here a bill introduced by the minister of commerce, Right Hon. Sir Earle Page, which assures the growers a price of five shillings and twopence, or about $1.17} per bushel at Williamstown, Victoria. I will not take time to read the bill, but it can be found in the 1937-38

statutes of the commonwealth house of representatives, under date November 24, 1938. In introducing the bill, the minister stated definitely that the attitude of the commonwealth was to give the farmer a set price at the local elevators of about $1.12. That is worth doing. But what is our government doing? So far it has done nothing.
New Zealand has taken similar action with respect to primary products. While the act to which I refer deals exclusively with dairy products, it is definitely stated that the intention of the government of New Zealand was to assure to producers of dairy products the actual cost of production and make it possible for them to have a decent standard of living.
The Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of New Zealand are not the only countries which have been able to do something definite for their farmers. Let me read from a letter dated January 31, 1939, which I received from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics:
You will note that I am showing no domestic price for the United Kingdom in the present crop year 1938-39. This average price will not be definitely ascertained until after the end of the crop year, but it should be in the neighbourhood of 44 shillings per quarter.
That is about $1.17} per bushel. That is what Great Britain has done. With this letter I received from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics a statement showing some of the prices paid to the grower in other countries which are said to be not so democratic as ours. The prices quoted are in dollars and cents per bushel.
Average domestic price United	Ger-
Kingdom France many Italy
c	c	c	c1922-23	159	110	1431923-24	135	104	1201924-25	173	156	1851925-26	158	145	161	2081926-27	157	186	177	2081927-28	137	173	162	1911928-29	127	167	142	1871929-30	120	147	165	1871930-31	81	184	168	1561931-32	61	172	152	1491932-33	95	124	135	1511933-34	126	212	191	1891934-35	114	165	222	2201935-36	121	159	225	2491936-37	132	191	224	1951937-38	133	163	223	200August-November 1938-39	146	218	212
This shows that other governments are at least progressing in what they are doing for their farmers. Surely it is not too much to

Wheat Policy-Mr. Fair
ask for the greatest industry in all Canada, the one which gives more employment than any other, that we should have a definite set price of at least ninety-five cents a bushel at local elevators. When we see that this Liberal government is assuring the manufacturers of machine guns-implements of destruction-their production price plus ten per cent profit, we wonder why they hesitate to do this much for the western farmer, who supports the east more than, probably, the worker in any other industry. It would not be necessary to increase taxation; a set price could be financed from the credit of the dominion issued debt free. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) could make good, even at this late day, his forgotten promise in 1935, to "issue currency and credit in terms of public need"; for if ever there was an urgent public need it is that of guaranteeing the farmers of Canada a fixed price of ninety-five cents a bushel, thus at least assuring them the cost of production.
I know that it is the government's intention to bring down legislation as far as farm insurance is concerned. I believe that the whole house is in agreement with such a policy, but that is an entirely different proposition from assuring the farmer a set price for the things he raises, and should be treated as such. For if you are to limit your assistance to farm insurance, where the people will be on a relief standard, they will not be put in a position to patronize eastern industry or pay their debts. I think we all agree that there should be farm insurance, but let it also be understood in this house that it is necessary, for the unity of Canada and for the sake of all industries, parts and parties, that there should be a definite price of ninety-five cents a bushel for No. 1 northern wheat at the local elevators.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, the business of farming, if we can call it such, is in a very precarious condition at the present time. It is not news to this house when I say that farming is the backbone of the country to-day, as it has been for a great number of years. In order to support this statement it is necessary only to go back and look up some figures of production of wheat alone. We find that from 1912 to 1938 inclusive the staggering quantity of 8,495,571,700 bushels of wheat was produced, valued at $7,852,066,800. This amount, which represents just one variety of grain, must have had a very beneficial effect upon the building up of the country, because it was distributed directly or indirectly among all classes in all parts of the dominion.
Farming as a business is entirely different from all other industries. Perhaps this accounts for the present condition of the farming population. The farmers, a very numerous body, have to buy from a comparative few who get together and fix prices to suit themselves, the prices usually being whatever the traffic will bear. When the farmer comes to sell his products he is compelled once more to deal with the few, and finds himself confronted with prices set by those who purchase his goods and who are associated with financial institutions through whose help they work their will.
Farmers as a class do everything possible to pay their debts. I must admit that to-day the farm debt situation is not very sound, but I think it will be agreed that farmers have been going through a very tough time. Until some of these adverse conditions are regulated and eased it will be impossible for the farmers to pay all their debts. I personally know of farmers who have gone to the extent of depriving themselves and their families of several of the necessities of life. Statistics show that in the vast majority of cases farmers are living on a far lower standard than numbers of our people who are on relief in the towns and cities. I am not saying this with the slightest idea of dragging down the standard of living of those on relief, because I know that in most cases these people are not on relief of their own choice; they have been put there by circumstances over which they have no control. But I do believe that the standard of living of the farmer should be raised, and probably this can best be done by increasing the price of the farmers' produce and bringing down the cost of the things they have to buy. To the farmer it does not matter greatly whether the price of grain is high or low, so long as the price of the things he has to buy is in proportion.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) has given a very extensive survey of costs of production in Saskatchewan and Alberta. I do not think the figures can be successfully challenged. The Department of Agriculture in a bulletin issued in 1932 gave the average cost of growing wheat as ninety-five cents a bushel. That is basis No. 1 northern at the local elevator. As has been pointed out by a previous speaker, that is much more than the actual amount the farmer gets at the local elevator, nearly twenty cents a bushel being deducted for freight and handling; and where the grade is lower than No. 1 northern, as is very often the
Wheat Policy-Mr. Fair-

case on account of frost, hail, drought, rust and other causes, he is compelled to take a further reduction.
I quote from an address recently given by Major Strange, director of the research department of the Searle Grain Company of Winnipeg:
I have averaged up the price of all wheat produced for sixty-two years and I find it comes out to $1.14 for No. 2 northern at "Winnipeg. I suggest that this is a very good average price.
No farmer would find the slightest fault with this price. The trouble is however that in some years great fluctuations have occurred. For instance it went as high as nearly $3 a bushel in 1918 and as low as 38cents a bushel in December, 1932.
There is another item which I believe has been lost sight of, whether intentionally or not, by most of those who have given figures on cost of production; I refer to interest. Knowing from experience that the interest on a farmer's debt runs to about twenty-five cents on every bushel of wheat he grows, this should be taken into consideration when considering the cost of growing wheat. A number of economists have figured out the cost of interest, their estimates running in some cases as high as thirty cents a bushel, but I believe from information we can secure that twenty-five cents for every bushel grown is a reasonable figure. The debt situation is one which must not be lost sight of, and as just one way of relieving this I suggest a reduction in the interest on Canadian Farm Loan Board loans. A reduction of two per cent could be effected without doing any one any material damage, and would help to a great extent the borrowers from that board.
In Winnipeg from December 12 to December 15 last there was a conference on markets, and Professor Hope of the university of Saskatchewan had this to say:
A few years ago a member of the Department of Farm Management of the University of Saskatchewan made a careful analysis of 195 farm loans in the prairie area. These loans were placed from 1910 to 1927, but most of them from 1920 to 1925. By 1933, 41 were paid off, 36 were foreclosed and 84 were still current. The average debt against current loans was $9.87 per acre compared with an original loan of $11.79 per, acre, after an average duration of twelve years. The interest rate was 8 per cent. Based on the twelve years of payment history of current loans from 1922 to 1933, these farmers were able to pay about 3 per cent annually on the appraised value of the farm real estate. As the total farm capital includes live stock and machinery as well as real estate, it appears reasonable to infer that on the average they could not earn more than 3 per cent on their total capital investment payments in good years.

The best lands had a better payment history than the figures quoted and the poorer lands much worse. The results of this study indicated that either the poorer lands were appraised by the loaning company at too high a figure, or else the amount loaned was too great.
A study of the loaning operations of one of the largest loaning agencies in Saskatchewan is now being undertaken. Preliminary results of this investigation also indicate that on the average the farmer borrowers have earned about 3 per cent annually on the appraised value of the real estate alone, which is not all the farm capital.
In his conclusions Professor Hope said:
On the basis of the facts presented, if all the farmers of western Canada were entirely free of debt, or if they did not pay their debts, it would seem that the present farm prices for grain, would probably barely maintain a reasonable level of living. They certainly would not maintain a reasonable level of living and enable them to build up their buildings, machinery, homes and personal effects to the level prior to 1931.
Conservatively it would probably require with average yields a farm price for wheat of average grade of about 90 cents, with coarse grains in proportion, to maintain a reasonable level of living and service the present debt on western farms. It would require somewhat more than this to restore the farming community to the condition of 1931.
In the light of the present world wheat situation a further drastic debt reduction policy is a partial solution of the western farm problem.
It has been suggested that farmers should learn how to live on a lower standard in order to meet the present debt situation. But any policy that compels such a solution does not solve the problem if we hope to maintain our present social system.
If we consider the basis on which farmers do their business, and compare it with the basis on which government operations are carried on, I think it is clear that the farmer is carrying on his operations in a better way and more economically than governments and some other lines of business. It is suggested that farmers cut down the cost of production to meet the requirements of the market, but it is impossible to put this suggestion into practice, because once land is broken it is not desirable to let it go into disuse. If it is not worked, it will grow weeds, and we all know the damage caused by crops of weeds. If prices and demand are not satisfactory to the manufacturer, he can close his factory and save a lot of the overhead. Speaking of overhead, it was also stated at the Winnipeg conference that fixed charges run anywhere from fifty to seventy per cent of the cost of production of wheat. In January, 1935, the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture submitted a document prepared by Gardiner C. Means, of Columbia university, from which the following is taken.

Wheat Policy-Mr. Fair
This shows the difference between industry and fanning in the matter of cutting down production when prices fall below cost:
Commodity
Agricultural implements
Motor vehicles	
Cement	
Iron and steel	
Automobile tires	
Textiles	
Food products	
Leather	
Petroleum	
Agricultural
commodities	
Perman-	Permanent drop	ent dropin	in proprices	ductionPer cent	Per cent6	8016	8018	6520	8333	7045	3049	1450	2056	2063	6
This shows that the greater the degree of control of production of the various commodities the greater the resistance to a decline in prices. In the free market system and under complete competition decreased demand is translated into decreased prices. In the system of control decreased demand is translated into decreased production. So we see the two extremes; the agricultural implement industry, with great control, drops production eighty per cent and encounters a reduction of six per cent in prices, while the farmers encounter a drop of sixty-three per cent in prices for farm products when their production is decreased only six per cent.
Taking 1929 as the basis, statistics gathered by the League of Nations show the following comparative declines in production and prices as of 1932: In the United States the decline in production was 46-2 per cent and the decline in price 29 per cent. In Canada the decline in production was 41-9 per cent and the decline in price 27 per cent. In Germany the decline in production was 46-7 per cent and the decline in price 28 per cent. In the United Kingdom the decline in production was 16-5 per cent and the decline in price 7 per cent. In the same period agricultural production maintained an increase of 3 per cent and agricultural prices declined as much as 58 per cent in Canada, 57 per cent in the United States and 49 per cent in the Argentine, while in European countries where governments intervened to shelter their farmers the decline was less, averaging about 35 per cent in Germany, 37 per cent in Italy and 28 per cent in Great Britain.
The opinion has been, and I believe still is, held by some hon. members that the price of wheat in western Canada is of interest to the west only. I would point out that the prosperity of all Canada depends a great deal on the price of our wheat in the west. This 71492-85
fact is recognized by Major H. G. Strange, of the Searle Grain Company, who in a recent broadcast said:
This is a most serious matter that every one of us in the west and many in eastern Canada should consider.
The entire economic structure of western Canada; the railways with all their branches; primary and high schools; our roads, both country, market and gravel; our municipalities; our vast elevator system for handling grain; our hamlets, villages, towns and cities; our governments; our universities, have all been built up and populated with over two million people in the expectation that the west would be able to keep in production the amount of acreage it now has in wheat, about twenty-four million acres, which on an average would produce around four hundred million bushels a year, and which would make it necessary to export to some ninety-two different countries between 250 and 300 million bushels a year. As production declines from these levels, so unquestionably will the population of the west decline; so unquestionably will the cost of everything the farmers buy and the cost of selling all their produce increase. So, therefore, will tens of thousands of workers be thrown out of employment, including a number of the farmers themselves. So will the standard of living of everyone on the land, in towns and cities, decline. It is a sad and distressing picture for the future, unless the situation can be remedied. These words, I believe, present the picture as far as other parts of Canada are concerned, because, though merchants and others do not wish to admit the fact, their prosperity depends entirely on the prosperity of the farmers.
Several estimates have been made as to the amount necessary to bring reasonably up to date the equipment of farmers, including tractors, farm machinery, horses, harness, outbuildings as well as their homes and furniture, clothing, and so on; but I believe an estimate of $500,000,000 is reasonable. You will readily understand, Mr. Speaker, that a great many people in Canada would benefit if that amount of money were put into circulation. It would mean that the railroad workers, the manufacturers and labour in general would be benefited. I believe it would also cut down the number of unemployed and reduce the number on relief, thereby removing the necessity for some of the taxes we are paying at the present time.
The effect of low prices for grain is reflected also in the following table, showing the estimated purchases of farm machinery by Cana-

Wheat Policy-Mr. Fair

dian farmers during the years	1920 to 1937	break.	The income	tax figures	regardinginclusive:	farmers	are as follows:	1920	$82,183,000	Fiscal	No. of	Average	Percentage1921	54,405,000	year	farmers	tax	of total1922	28,096,000	1919-20.	. .. 9,475	$ 52 56	3-771923	39,909,000	1924-25.	. .. 3,067	53 23	[DOT]641924	29.096.000	1930-31.	. .. 2,626	57 96	[DOT]451925	31,719,000	1931-32.	... 653	55 71	[DOT]101926	52,211,000	1932-33.	... 249	110 92	*151927	70.521,000	1933-34.	... 262	85 24	[DOT]071928	89.306.000	1934-35.	. .. 416	57 89	[DOT]091929	70,316,000	1935-36.	... 694	67 16	[DOT]141930	51,558,000	1936-37.	... 921	82 95	[DOT]211931	16.282.000	1932	8,213,000	This	statement is	amply justified by the	1933	8,196,000	following table, which shows	the index1935	17,087,000	numbers of farm implement prices, taking	1936	25,857,000	the basis of 100 for	1926. These	prices of1937	35,161,000	farm machinery are	based on those of the	You will notice that from a	high of some	Regina	territory:	
$82,000,000 in 1920 we went down to about $8,000,000 in 1932 and 1933. That is in connection with only one industry, and it will be readily realized that the low prices of grain have had a tremendous effect on other industries all across Canada. In the report of the special committee on farm implement prices the following appears at page 1215:
The International Harvester Company during the period of 1935 to 1936, inclusive, marketed 77-60 of its total Canadian sales volume in western Canada and 22-40 in eastern Canada. In the same period the purchases for the Massey Harris Company showed 66-69 marketed in western Canada and 33-31 in eastern Canada. In addition, Deere and Company confines its operations wholly -to western Canada and this is largely true of the remainder of the companies manufacturing in the United States and marketing their products in Canada.
In view of the fact that only slightly over 40 per cent of the total number of farmers in Canada are located in the four western provinces, the importance of the problem to this section of the country in comparison with the east can be readily recognized. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics shows that in
Index Numbers of Farm Implement Prices (1926=100)
Regina
Year	territory
1923
1925
1927
1929
1931
1933
1935
1937
61 -1
110-1
101-	3 100-0
100-3
99-1
97-9
93-5
96-6
102-	8
Hon. members will see from the table that farm machinery prices have stayed up very close to the 1926 level, although the prices of other commodities have gone down very considerably.
The following table gives index numbers in respect of the wholesale prices of Cana-
1928 the west purchased from the east, at point-of-origin price, goods to the amount of $387,000,000, while in 1933 purchases were reduced to $80,000,000. This reduction can be
dian farm products, the commodities farmers have to sell, and the prices of articles farmers have to buy:
Index numbers of
traced directly to the ruinously low prices received for grain. During the years 1926 to 1929 cash sales of farm products averaged $530,640,000, while during the period 1931 to 1933 they dropped to $164,429,000, or an average drop per year of S366,201,000.
Further evidence of the farmer's lack of purchasing power is reflected in the income tax paid by farmers. If farmers were the only ones left to pay income tax I am afraid the Minister of Finance would have to look elsewhere for his revenue, because the farmers' belts will not stand much more tightening; in fact, in many cases they are ready to
Year	Wholesale prices of Canadian farmer products	Things farmers buy (Searle Grain Co.)1929.	
100-8	103-21930.	
82-3	98-71931.	
56-3	87-91932.	
48-4	82-81933.	
51-0	79-01934	
59-0	79-0193.5	
63-5	79-61936.	
69-4	80-31937	(estimated).. 84-2	86-6I have one more table put out by the Searle Grain Company, last September, which gives	
QMr. Fair.]

Wheat Policy-Mr. Fair
the following information for 1938 as compared with 1913-14, taking the basis as 100:
16 items	of groceries	
11636 items	of clothing	
13228 items	household equipment	
14853 items	farm equipment	
13812 items	farm machinery	
1622 items of taxes (municipal and school)	
169
The table shows an average of 137 for the total of 147 items.
With respect to products farmers have to sell, wheat, according to open market prices is placed at 67; the board price is placed at 91, and the price of steers at 83.
In their bulletin of May 18, 1938, the same company has given further detailed information, but I shall not read all of it. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that the farmer on the average half-section of land has to pay out annually, for living expenses and the necessities to produce a crop, the amount of $908.42. Against this I will place on record the average amount of income that has been received by western farmers between 1926 and 1937 inclusive:
Year
1926.
1927.
1928.
1929.
Amount
received

I would ask hon. members to take particular note of the change in farm income about the year 1929, when we had that wonderful man-made crash, and again in 1930, when we started to reap the benefits of it. The table continues:
Year
1930.
1931.
1932.
1933.
1934.
1935.
1936.
1937.
Amount received $ 919 571 562 565 748 781 823 901
The amounts I have given are gross income. Out of this gross income the farmer has to pay all his living expenses, including taxes, wages, interest, food, clothing, and so on, and, in Alberta, an added amount of approximately $135 to satisfy tariff requirements, as shown in a report prepared by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers).
May I now place on record figures which will give some idea of the value of the increased crop of 1938. This information is taken from the December issue of the Monthly Review, which deals with the wheat situation.
The first estimate of the gross value of the principal field crops grown in Canada in 1938 is $527,419,000, which is $30,968,000, or six per cent below the estimated value of the 1937 production, and $84,881,400 below that of
1936. The values of the 1936 harvest were the highest since 1930. Very low yields in 1937 and sharply reduced prices in 1938 have resulted in successive reductions in value in the past two years.
While the 1938 wheat production is nearly double that of 1937, the average farm price is only 57 cents as compared with $1.02 last year. Thus the value of the crop is only about $12,000,000 greater. Increases in the production of oats, barley and rye in 1938 failed to offset declines in prices, and the combined values of these crops is $35,694,000 less than in 1937. Farm prices for oats in 1938 have averaged 25 cents per bushel as compared with 43 cents in 1937; for barley, 28 cents as compared with 51 cents and for rye 28 cents as compared with 72 cents per bushel last year. Flax seed production in 1938 was more than double that of 1937, which offset the decline of 36 cents in the average farm price, and increased the total value by nearly $500,000.
I have in my hand a table which shows the cost of No. 1 northern wheat at my shipping point over a number of years, going back to 1915. The same table shows the cost of a binder at that point, and the number of bushels required to purchase a binder. To read the table would require some considerable time, as it covers a period from 1915 to 1938, and if hon. members would permit I should like to have it placed on Hansard.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member may place it on Hansard with the unanimous consent of the house, but not otherwise.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Robert Fair: Thank you. The table is as
follows:		Price of	
	Cost of	Wheat	
Year	8-foot	No. 1	Bushelsbinder	Northern	required1915	$175	$ .94	1861916	177	1.86	951917	204	2.02	1011918	260	2.05	1271919	270	1.98	1361920	298	1.80	1661921	339	1.10	3081922	287	.91	3151923	298	.88	3391924	323	1.50	2151925	298	1.32	2261926	298	1.27	2351927	298	1.27	2351928	298	1.05	2841929	298	1.05	2841930	293	.45	6511931	293	.41	7151932	288	.35	8231933	274	.49	5601934	274	.62	4421935	272	.65	4181936	290	.75	3861937	314	.81	3881938	332	.40	830
Wheat Policy-Mr. Fair

The table shows that the high average yearly price for No. 1 northern during that period was $2.05 per bushel in 1918, and in 1932 a low price of 35 cents. The high price of a binder in that time was $339 in the year 1921, and the low price was $175 in 1915. In 1916, ninetydive bushels of wheat were required to buy a binder, whereas 830 bushels were required in 1938. During the period 1924 to 1929, the average price of a binder was $302; the average price of No. 1 northern wheat was $1.24, and the average number of bushels required to buy a binder was 246. In the period between 1930 and 1935, the average cost of a binder was $282, the average price of No. 1 northern was 49i cents, and the average number of bushels required to buy a binder was 601. I think that is enough to show some of the things we are up against. I believe it also shows how difficult it is to regulate prices or acreage or production. This year we may have a crop of twenty or twenty-five bushels to the acre, and next year nothing at all. I believe we have now advanced sufficient argument to convince the house that the farmer is not and has not for some time been receiving his costs of production. Because it is desirable that the farmer should be kept in business, something must be done to guarantee him at least his costs of production, along with a reasonable profit.
The next question is: How shall we deal with this problem? Several suggestions have been made with which I shall not take the time to deal, but I would like to give one or two instances. A sit-down strike was advocated by a meeting of Cooperative Commonwealth Federation farmers at Yegreville. This meeting was addressed by the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Rowe) and Mr. Irvine, a former member of this house. I do not think a sit-down strike will help the situation in any way. What we must do is create more purchasing power and place it in the hands of those who grow our wheat as well as those who are in business across the country.
Another suggestion is that the four great wheat exporting countries of the world should get together. These four countries export eighty-six per cent of the world's total volume of exports, sixteen other countries exporting the remaining fourteen per cent. I think this country should take the lead in getting together with the other exporting countries and doing something about this problem. A suggestion has been made to cut down acreage. That may be all right, and then again it may not be all right. If everyone in the world

was getting enough to eat I believe we should have to produce still more, but as many have not the wherewithal to buy, something must be done.
The least this government can do is to guarantee the farmer his costs of production, and ninety-five cents a bushel for No. 1 northern at the local elevator seems to me to be a reasonable basis on which to work. Up to the end of the 1937 crop year the farmers of Canada had been subsidized to the extent of $12,719,901. As this method of subsidizing seems to be sound for other lines of industry, there is no reason why it should not be sound in the case of the farming industry when such disastrous conditions prevail. A direct subsidy has been paid to or provided for the manufacturers of farm implements by way of tariff protection, and we have paid thousands of dollars annually to the steamship companies. Large amounts of cash and millions of acres of land have been turned over to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Large amounts have also been expended on roads . to give access to mining areas, and tax removals in different forms have been provided for mining companies.
In the past the farmer has paid a large share of the taxes that have been collected to pay these subsidies, and apparently he has a lot of paying to do yet, judging from the increase in our national debt. It is only fair to point out that a large amount of the taxes the farmer pays is paid indirectly, because the whole structure rests squarely on the shoulders of the primary producer. For a number of years the United States has bonused its farmers to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars, as has France, Australia and the Argentine. At the present time farmers in Germany are being paid $2.25 a bushel for wheat; in Italy they are receiving $2.15 a bushel, and in France, $1.50 to $1.60 a bushel. The quality of the wheat in all cases is far below that of Canadian wheat. I believe the farmers of Canada should receive just as good treatment as the farmers of other countries. We are compelled to compete with them on the world market, and it is impossible to do that because we are forced to buy on a protected market, whereas those from whom we purchase are running their prices higher than we are able to bear.
The other products of the farm should also be considered in this scheme. I have before me a table showing the average price of oats, barley and flax for the past thirty years, and

Wheat Policy-Mr. Coldwell
rye for the past twenty-one years, all on a Fort William basis. The figures are as follows:
High Low Average 1938
Oats	
$1.00	.24	.48	.24Barley	
1.61	.28	.66	.28Flax	
4.66	.90-4 1.99	1.14Rye	
1.84	.27	.82-5	.28
The minister has announced a scheme, but I do not think it will help the farmer who is trying to get along. To some extent it is a relief scheme, or perhaps it could be called an insurance plan. I have not been able to give it a name, but when the plan is definitely before us perhaps I may be able to give it its proper name and discuss it at greater length.
The various matters I have brought up at this time have been dealt with in just a cursory way, but I hope to be able to go into them further as time goes on. Hon. members will readily realize that should the price of wheat continue to stay below the cost of production, the result will be more unemployment and more men on relief. Industry and trade all across the country will be slowed up. As to the method of financing, if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has not yet been converted or enlightened, there are several hon. members in this house who can tell him how to go about that in a way that will do more for Canada than our present poor system of financing. The wheat growers of the west are not the only ones that should be benefited. The farmers in all parts of Canada should receive a correspondingly fair price for their agricultural products.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the problem raised by this motion, although there is a resolution standing on the order paper in my name somewhat similar to the one now under discussion. However, that resolution may never be reached.
At the outset may I say I am not convinced that ninety-five cents a bushel at the local elevator is the price that should be set. That is something that will have to be inquired into very carefully, and I shall have more to say about it a little later.
The resolution which has been presented this afternoon deals with one of the basic conditions of the rehabilitation of western Canada. I should like to say again what I have said before, that the problem of the rehabilitation of agriculture is not directly a western problem. It is a problem which involves the whole Dominion of Canada. Upon the ultimate success of our rehabilitation schemes will depend the economic welfare of the country in which we live.
I do not propose to discuss this afternoon the various newspaper stories which have emanated from this city since the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made his statement a short time ago. I am going to wait until the bills are presented to the house in order that we may have a clear understanding of what it is intended to do in regard to this particular matter. But there are some points which I think should be placed before this house, because I am convinced that many hon. members are not aware of the general condition of the western farmer and the economic situation with which he is faced. Some think that perhaps the provinces should assume more of the burden of their own rehabilitation, but the Saskatchewan brief presented to the Rowell commission clearly indicates that even the normal expenditures of Saskatchewan cannot be met on the basis of taxation now in effect in that province.
In the proceedings of the conference on markets for western farm products, held at Winnipeg in December under the leadership of Premier Bracken of Manitoba, there are to be found data a study of which one can recommend to members on all sides of this house, particularly those from other than western constituencies. For example, a paper was presented at the conference by Professor Hope, and in the discussion which followed it was quite noticeable that Professor Hope's general statements were not in any respect seriously challenged. I propose, therefore, to place before the house some of the conclusions at which Professor Hope arrived.
He showed first the disastrous decline in the value of farm products in recent years. At page 150 of the report of the conference he says:
The Dominion Bureau of Statistics estimated that for the period 1926 to 1929 the average annual cash sales of farm products in the three prairie provinces amounted to about $530,640,000. For the three years 1931 to 1933 the annual average amounted to $164,439,000, a reduction of $366,201,000 per year. For these three years alone, 1931 to 1933, the total reduction in cash income amounts to over one billion dollars compared with a similar period of three years before the depression and drought period. Cumulating each annual deficit below the average 1926 to 1929 figure of $530,000,000, the total shrinkage in cash sales up to 1938 amounts to approximately $2,700,000,000. The debt structure of western farmers prior to 1929 was based on the assumption that this total deficit would be in the form of income in the years following 1929. The unfortunate turn of events since 1929, has resulted in some debt reductions, worn out equipment, depleted homes and clothing and in some cases impaired health of the farm population. And the story is not finished.
Thus Professor Hope paints a word picture of western agriculture. He goes on to say
Wheat Policy-Mr. Coldwell

that these conditions resulted in the intolerable burden which made dominion aid essential. He says:
The Saskatchewan brief before the Rowell commission on interprovincial relations, after exhaustive analysis estimated the total farm debt of Saskatchewan at December, 1937, to be approximately $482,000,000. In 1938 practically no interest was paid on this debt, only half the taxes were collected, direct relief and seed and fodder have been given on a big scale following the widespread drought of 1937. It is estimated that the total debt increased about $64,000,000 during the past year and now stands at $546,000,000 or about $18 per acre of crop land, or about $25 per acre of seeded crop.
Then Professor Hope, at the conference, proceeded to show that this debt situation, originating not only in crop failures and in depression but in low prices, was only a part of the picture. He goes on to say, on the same page:
But the total farm debt is only a part of the story. Ten years in which a combination of prices and yields have reduced two-thirds of the farming population to a subsistence level, and a steadily mounting debt, have left their mark on the physical equipment of the country. The Saskatchewan brief estimated that it would require at least $200,000,000 to bring the farm buildings, machinery, household furnishings and clothes of the farmers of Saskatchewan up to the moderate standards of 1931. Since this figure was calculated another year of partial depletion has been experienced. Under the circumstances the $200,000,000 which amounts to $1,450 per farm is conservative. Over the drought area itself, comprising two-thirds of the province it would be close to $2,000 per farm.
Then he tells other parts of Canada that on a Fort William price of eighty cents for No. 1 northern these obligations cannot be met and western agriculture cannot prosper. He says:
There is a feeling prevalent among some people who are not entirely conversant with the west, that because of the numerous cancellations of indebtedness, such as taxes, relief and arrears of interest, the debt situation is solved and it only needs average yields with present prices to clear up the whole situation. Such is far from the facts. It is true many concessions by creditors have been made. But in Saskatchewan at least, due to a continuance of unfavourable climatic conditions for the past two years and low prices this year, a situation has been reached where considerably more than half the farmers with average yields and present prices for wheat (80 cents basis Fort William) cannot hope to liquidate their debts and restore the conditions of their farms and homes to the predepression level.
I shall not go over all of the ground that Professor Hope covered in relation to the costs of production. This no doubt will be thoroughly discussed when the bills to be presented by the government are brought down, and the question of costs of production can wait until then. But I should like to

point out that allowing living costs, not on as high a scale as the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) suggested a few moments ago, but at from $700 to $850 per year for the average farm family, with average yields, Professor Hope says:
Conservatively, it would probably require with average yields a farm price for wheat of average grade-
Not No. 1 northern, mark you, but average
grade:
-of about ninety cents, with coarse grains in proportion, to maintain a reasonable level of living and service the present debt on western farms. It would require somewhat more than this to restore the farming community to the condition of 1931.
And this ninety-cent farm price estimated by Professor Hope for the average grade is for wheat from average land. The minister pointed out that there are lands that can produce a bushel of wheat for considerably less than ninety cents, but Professor Hope states that, taking the lowest cost of production he quotes for a bushel of wheat in the Regina and Rosetown areas, not one per cent of Saskatchewan farmers have the requisite machinery and the proper type of land to produce wheat at that relatively low cost.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: May I ask my hon.
friend how he computes that ninety cents?


Major James William Coldwell: not only the problems of unemployment and industry, but also the problems of the dairy farmer and the fruit grower both in the east and along the Pacific coast. We all know that when there was money in western Canada our people were able to buy eastern products, and the entire country benefited. I should like to emphasize once more that while other branches of industry, like mining, have in the last few years to some extent compensated our general national economy for the loss in the returns from western Canada, yet the day will surely come again when we shall be made to realize from bitter experience that agriculture, and not mining or something dependent perhaps on war industries, is the great basic industry of Canada. So this is a national problem of wide implications.
I was glad to hear the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), who preceded me, make the point that wheat is not the only farm product to be considered. The time is rapidly approaching, in my opinion has already come, when this country will have to adopt minimum prices for various other farm products. At the moment we are discussing grain, so I say that with coarse grains almost worthless in many areas in western Canada, the time has come when we must consider the whole problem of grain and the advisability of adopting fixed minimum prices for coarse grains as well as for wheat. I have on my desk at the moment a telegram which I received yesterday from the directors of the Rosetown cooperative association. The Rose-town district is almost exclusively wheat growing. They urged that if an acreage bonus is to replace a fixed minimum price for wheat, the bonus should apply on all cereal crops, regardless of the size of the farm. But the point I am making is that we must realize that other grains must receive some protection in the price level as well as wheat.
To my mind the price level should be considered entirely apart from the problem of drought and of sub-marginal lands. These latter problems ought to be dealt with by crop insurance and suitable forms of rehabilitation. In the general discussion which is going on in the country at the present time these problems are being confused, but they are distinct and separate. Perhaps the government's bills will help to clarify that situation. I hope that we shall not get them confused here or in the bills which are to be presented, because to my mind they are distinct problems requiring separate treatment. The time has come when the problem of submarginal land will have to be tackled by the authorities, the problem of crop insurance

carefully considered, and the matter of the fixed price considered apart from either of these problems. I do not know to what extent the federal department has inquired into the crop insurance system that has been adopted in the United States, but I understand that Premier Bracken of Manitoba has again given a good lead by sending down a group of legislators to Washington to look into the "ever normal granary" experiments of the United States Secretary of Agriculture.
A low fixed price and an acreage bonus will in my opinion be unsatisfactory. It would tend to keep sub-marginal land in cultivation, and not make for careful cultivation or the maintenance of a high quality product. Hence I say these problems should be considered separately. If, as I said a little earlier, more and more the success of our agriculture is to depend on' quality rather than quantity of the product that we place in the world's markets, in any scheme recognition should be given to the production of a high quality product. Also the adoption of any set minimum price involves orderly marketing. In my view orderly marketing cannot be undertaken in a market half speculative and half controlled. In other words, we must have either one thing or the other, the open market or orderly marketing through a government board. We have tried the speculative market for years and found it unsatisfactory; to-day other countries in the world are setting prices and marketing through government boards, and I believe the time has come when a board or boards representative of producer interests should have the responsibility of marketing all our farm produce.
If there are still those who think the marketing of our products at low prices will win back the lost markets, I do not believe that opinion can be upheld to-day. A flow of cheap ' wheat will not wash down hostile tariff walls and remove the embargoes of the European dictators. We must face the grim reality, regrettable though it be, that self-sufficiencies and nationalisms across the sea have entirely altered the picture as far as marketing our wheat is concerned. Hence it seems to me that instead of looking overseas for a solution, waiting for trade to improve and all that, the problem is right here on our own door step and requires not only our best efforts but the very best brains we can find in the country to do the thing that has to be done. I believe we are more and more being forced to the conclusion that this involves planning of our agricultural production, and

Wheat Policy-Mr. McKenzie (Lambton)
the adoption of minimum prices, crop insurance and a comprehensive national marketing scheme.
I noticed that the hon. member for Battle River spoke of a Cooperative Commonwealth Federation meeting urging a sit-down strike. Of course strange resolutions are often presented at local meetings and carried, but that certainly does not mean that the organization with which I am connected believes in that method of dealing with this problem. In fact we have long been on record. Our Regina manifesto of 1933, and the platform subsequently published, in regard to farming calls for:
(f)	The setting-up of marketing boards for primary products under growers' control.
(g)	A guaranteed minimum price, based upon the average cost of production over an average period of years, to reduce the disparity between the prices of agricultural and industrial products, and to provide the farmer with an adequate standard of living.
In an explanation regarding that issue published by our national office we find these words:
The proposals submitted in this plank are clear, practical and urgently needed. A guaranteed and adequate minimum price must be adopted by the government for farm products. This, together with the abolition of monopolies which exploit the farmer, the adjustment and reduction of accumulated debts, suitable schemes of crop insurance and the development of cooperative organizations and marketing boards enabling the organized farmer to mind his own business, are fundamental requirements of a rehabilitated agricultural industry. Moreover, the problem is national in its scope and effect and must, therefore, find its solution on national and not on provincial lines.
So this afternoon I have endeavoured to place before the house our point of view. I have also placed before the house a few excerpts from a document which I wish every hon. member would read, the proceedings of the conference on markets for western farm products which was arranged by the government of Manitoba and held in Winnipeg from December 13 to December 15, 1938.
It seems to me that if this parliament is going to grapple with this problem, the members of this house must have the picture clearly in their minds. I know there are still some people who think the west, like a poor relation, is dependent upon the east. That is not true. After all, western Canada has, in bygone years, produced vast quantities of new wealth, upon which the great buildings and great industries of eastern Canada were largely founded. So, Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in supporting the resolution, although I have reservations with regard to the suggested price, which I do not think may be high enough.
71492-86	'
Mr. H. A. MeKENZIE (Lambton-Kent): I did not intend to speak on this resolution, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be very brief in my remarks. When I came into the house this afternoon and read this resolution, I thought it was not too bad, that it would take in all Canada; but when I saw that it referred to No. 1 northern, I knew at once it had to do only with the three western provinces. Canada is an agricultural country, and to my mind the problems of the farmers are the most important problems before the people to-day, because at least forty per cent of the people live in rural districts and derive their livelihood from some branch or another of agriculture. I believe that a prosperous agriculture means a prosperous Canada, and further I believe that we shall never be economically sound in this dominion until the producers of primary products receive much better remuneration than they do today.
I have every sympathy for the western farmer; I should like to see him get ninety-five cents or a dollar or even more a bushel for his wheat, but the setting of a minimum price for wheat has proven rather dangerous this year. I assume that step was taken under the wheat board act which, if I remember correctly, was passed in July, 1935, enabling the government to set a minimum price for wheat in the western provinces. Since that time I believe the government have taken some action each year in regard to the price of wheat.
I wonder how the government arrived at the minimum price of 80 cents a bushel for No. 1 northern wheat, basis Fort William, this year. On looking up the market quotations I find that on August 4, when the minimum price was fixed at 80 cents, the Winnipeg market closed at 86$ cents for cash wheat and 76$ cents for October futures. For several weeks futures prices on world markets had been fluctuating moderately, based approximately on the August 4 level, sometimes rising a few cents above it. For example, at Winnipeg on June 1, October futures sold at 76$ cents, and on August 4, at 76$ cents. In the meantime they had fluctuated between a low of 73J cents and a high of 891 cents. On the same dates October futures in Liverpool had been at 82 cents and 83$ cents, and in the interval ranged between 82 cents and 91 cents. September futures in Chicago, on the same dates, sold at 69$ cents and 68$ cents, ranging between 67$ cents and 83$ cents. So probably the government should not be blamed too much for setting the figure at 80 cents, but how did it work out? Well,

1352	COMMONS
Wheat Policy-Mr. McKenzie (Lambton)
as we all know, it has worked out rather badly and is expected to cost the taxpayers of Canada approximately $48,000,000.
But, Mr. Speaker, that $48,000,000 went to the people who had good crops; for last year the wheat crop of the west has been estimated at from 250,000,000 to 300,000,000 bushels, and, as I have said, the benefit of that legislation went to the people who had the crops. It seems to work on the basis of the old parable concerning the talents: To the man who had ten talents were given ten more; to the man who had five talents were given five more, but from the man who had one talent was taken away even that which he had. So the basis was this: To him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. That certainly did not help the men on relief at that time; they are still on relief. The man who did not have a crop did not share in that $48,000,000, which went to reimburse western farmers for their bountiful crop. That seems hardly fair to the remainder of the farmers of Canada.
Ontario farmers produce approximately 20,000,000 bushels of wheat a year, and last year they had to sell their wheat at approximately fifty cents a bushel. But they did not get fifty cents, because they had to give up part of that price in order to reimburse the western farmer who had a good crop and who had received more for his wheat than the Ontario farmer was paid.
The western farmers say, " Oh, but have we not paid tribute to Ontario industrialists for many years?" Well, the Ontario farmer has paid the very same tribute, and it must be remembered that the farmers of Ontario outnumber the farmers of any single province of the west. According to the bureau of statistics there are 170,660 farmers in Ontario, 115,000 farmers in Saskatchewan and 85,000 farmers in Alberta. The Ontario farmers live under the same tariff regulations and restrictions that affect the western farmers, and the only possible difference between them is in connection with the freight haul.
I must say that I oppose this resolution asking for a set price of ninety-five cents per bushel. I believe that the wheat board act should be amended or should be removed from the statute books altogether, and that any such legislation should deal with the whole of Canada. Ontario farmers are not at all prosperous. Perhaps we have not as great a wheat problem; but farmers engaged in dairying, poultry raising and other branches of agriculture are not receiving the cost of production for the produce they have to sell.

Again I say I have every sympathy for the western farmers, but this minimum price certainly works out very badly. I am sorry to have to take this stand; but I am not thinking so much about the western farmer, the eastern farmer, the industrialist or any other individual. I am at least trying to think of the people of Canada as a whole and what is in their best interests. This resolution, if adopted, would not give the same advantages to all the farmers of this country, so I must oppose it.


Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain):: I
had not thought of speaking on this motion, Mr. Speaker, but I believe it is my duty to express my opposition to it. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, this parliament should immediately take such steps as are necessary to ensure the farmers of Canada a fixed price of ninety-five cents per bushel for number one northern wheat at their local elevator.
In the first place I think the motion is useless, in view of the recent declaration by the Minister 'of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that there would be no more fixed prices for wheat. In the second place, if we are to help the western farmers I think there are other tillers of the soil who are in as great difficulty as the farmers of the west. I have particular reference to the dairy farmers of eastern Canada. If the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), who moved this resolution, is sincerely interested in agriculture, as I believe he is, I think he should have suggested a plan under which all the farmers of Canada would obtain some advantage.
I suggest that the dairy farmers of Canada are entitled to particular help at the present time. During the past few years the federal government has guaranteed a certain price for western wheat. There were good reasons for making such regulations. Western farmers have to face a situation which is anything but satisfactory. They are exposed to soil drifting in the early spring. On some occasions they have to seed their land over again, if they can afford to buy the seed for the second operation. In June and July they are exposed to excessively hot winds which burn the growing wheat grass. They are exposed to hail storms which destroy whatever crop they may happen to have. They are exposed to the dangers of frost and rust which every year do substantial damage in some wheat fields. Finally, when the crop is harvested they cannot always sell it. Indeed, the west is far from being an ideal location for farming.
I am familiar with conditions in the west. I have hundreds of acres of land in Saskatchewan

Wheat Policy-Mr. Brunelle
which, since 1929, have brought me no income. I feel, however, that is my difficulty, and not one which the ratepayers of the whole country should be asked to carry. If I lose money in the west, and if my properties do not pay I do not believe I am justified in asking compensation from anybody else. I should like other farmers in the west to take the same attitude as I take.
There are farmers in Ontario and Quebec, and some in my constituency particularly, who at one time or another have had to sell their butter and cheese at prices which have allowed them no profit whatever. There are legions of farmers in those two provinces who can scarcely make ends meet, simply because they do not obtain reasonable prices for their products. Dairy farmers need assistance, and need it badly. The commodities they must buy are sold at high prices. Farm machinery, despite recent reductions, is being sold at exorbitant prices. In fact, all the necessities of life on the farm must be purchased at prices which necessitate a much higher income. Yet, in spite of their difficulties, the eastern farmers have never had any bonus or special compensation for their losses. They have never been guaranteed any set price. I have submitted on other occasions, and I again say, that particularly the eastern dairy farmers should have assistance. Is it not as expedient to guarantee the eastern farmers a certain price as it is to give that guarantee to others?
I would ask the hon. member for Bow River to pay a visit to some of the eastern farmers. I do not suggest that he should see the farmers who are living in the vicinity of the big cities; let him visit those who live in the remote sections of Ontario and Quebec. If he were to do so, he would find out that the plight of our farmers in the east is not such as will enable them to help others very much longer.	[DOT]
I know the government is unable to pay the deficit of every producer; I know it is impossible to assure success to all, but I repeat that if we are to help one class of farmers we should help the whole class-not a class within a class.


John Horne Blackmore: Is the hon. member
aware that the suggested guaranteed price is for all the farmers of Canada? If he will read the resolution he will find that out.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: That may be. Of
course the resolution refers to "No. 1 northern." I believe in the same treatment of all and special privileges to none.
I have faith in the Minister of Agriculture, and I am sure he will find a way to help the farming industry of the whole of Canada. I have confidence in him because I am sure he 71492-86|
is, if not the greatest, one of the greatest min* isters of agriculture we have ever had. To avoid any possibility of contradiction, I should say he is the ablest of the ministers of agriculture the country has had.


Ernest Lapointe: This is
a good speech.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I am opposed to the
motion asking for a guarantee of ninety-five cents per bushel for No. 1 northern wheat. I am opposed to any guarantee of prices which would not include every Canadian farmer who, like a great many of our eastern farmers, is in need at the present time. If this motion comes to a vote I shall vote against it, despite the fact that if it were passed it might prove beneficial and profitable to me, on account of my holdings in the west. I am convinced, however, that it is unfair, and I shall live up to my convictions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the principle of the resolution now before the house. What I shall have to say will be both brief and general in nature, because the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has already outlined a wheat policy, the details of which are not yet before the house. I believe it would be unwise in a debate on the resolution to enter into a discussion of those details, and for that reason I shall confine myself to the principle of a guaranteed price for agricultural products.
I should like to say, however, that on the 16th of this month I listened with keen interest to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture in which, very vaguely and indefinitely, he outlined a wheat policy. Very few of us know any of its details, unless we have been following closely the western papers. From day to day I have been deeply interested in noticing articles by Chester Bloom, in which a number of proposals are set out. For instance, I notice Thursday's paper contained the statement, "Production cost of wheat may be set at sixty-three cents", and Saturday's has the following in red ink:
Bigger bonus on smaller yields. Three separate bills to cover Ottawa's new grain marketing policy for dominion.
I do not know whether or not it is becoming a habit with the government, but members of parliament have either to go to banquets or to read the press of two or three hundred miles away to find out what impending legislation is going to be. We shall, however, be glad to see it when it does comes down, and to learn something about the details at that time.
1354	COMMONS
Wheat Policy-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
First of all, may I say a word or two respecting the observations of the two hon. members who have preceded me. Naturally they have expressed the point of view of men representing eastern agriculturists. I have a great deal of sympathy with their point of view. I have spent a good many weekends in the rural districts of Ontario and have seen conditions such as have been outlined by the previous speaker. This last weekend I found I had even more admiration for the Ontario farmer. I went out to a country point, got snow-bound and had to stay there overnight. If the Ontario farmer is able to travel over roads similar to the one I came over this morning, he deserves all my admiration.
I should like to say to the hon. gentlemen that we are not asking that the eastern farmer should do something for the western farmer. What we are trying to do is to point out that the same people who are exploiting the western farmer are also exploiting the eastern farmer, and that the same economy which makes it almost impossible for the western farmer to maintain a decent standard of living is having exactly the same effect upon the eastern farmer. When we ask for a fixed guaranteed price for our agriculturists, we are not asking that for western Canada alone, we are asking it for all farmers generally. Their problems are similar even though their products may be different.
The statement was made by one of the previous speakers that the fixed price for wheat was going to cost in the neighbourhood of $48,000,000. That may be debatable; but leaving it at that, I should like to point out that according to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) we are operating to-day under a fiscal system which takes $86,000,000 from the western farmer in terms of the goods he has to buy, and gives him back only $30,000,000, which leaves a deficit of $56,000,000. As has been pointed out again and again, the wheat producer is perhaps the only agriculturist who gets practically no benefit from the system of protective tariffs which we have in Canada. The hon. member who preceded me said that apart from the long freight haul, the problem of the eastern and the western farmer was the same. That is not so. While the eastern farmer buys his goods in a protected market, he is able to sell in a protected market most of the commodities he produces. The western farmer, particularly the wheat producer, sells almost exclusively on a world competitive market, while he buys in a protected market which raises the cost of the commodities he has to purchase.

I do not want to raise the issue of the east versus the west. I think the plight of the farmers across Canada is serious. When I hear a man like the premier of Ontario saying at a banquet in Toronto last fall that the east is like an old milch cow which the west had been milking for years, all I can say is that if the western farmers have been milking that cow for some years, they have been feeding it for all the years. They have been feeding it in terms of tariff protection, high prices for machinery and the necessities of life, high freight rates, increased cost of implements of production and increased interest rates on the money they have been compelled to borrow.
It is not my intention at this time to deal with this subject at any length, but I should like to touch on one or two phases of the principle of this resolution. First, I should like to deal with the justification for fixing a guaranteed price. I should like to draw to the attention of the house the fact that the farmers are operating with increasing costs and decreasing incomes. Over a period of years, while the prices they have received for their products have been dropping, the cost of producing those commodities has not dropped in proportion. I should like to refer to the proceedings of the conference on markets for western farm products, called to sit in Winnipeg by Premier Bracken. I refer to page 17, which contains a statement by Major Strange, a wheat economist, who is, I believe, connected with the Searle Grain Company. I quote a short paragraph as follows:
However, the cost of production for farmers of western Canada to-day is about 37 per cent more than it was before the war. The greater part of that is owing to the tariffs of Canada, and the other smaller portion of it is due to the higher hourly rates of wages of labour. But the greater portion is from the tariffs.
I direct the attention of the house to that statement.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are supporting the treaty?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
Mr. MARTIN:: Is the hon. member
opposed to a tariff on automobiles?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am opposed to a tariff that makes it necessary for a man to pay more for what he has to buy unless the government is prepared to give him some compensation for the extra price he is now compelled to pay. I object to the farmer having to buy in a protected market and sell in an unprotected market. If he is to be asked to sell in an unprotected market, he should be allowed to buy in an unprotected market. But the fact is that he is compelled to buy in a protected market, to protect certain eastern interests. I have no objection to setting up an economy that tends to protect industry in eastern Canada; but I say that, in compensation for the benefits received, eastern industry ought to be prepared to see that those

Wheat Policy-Mr. Blackmore
whose costs are thereby increased will receive a square deal by means of compensating adjustments.
I want to point out in conclusion that since we cannot-and I believe it is evident that we cannot-under our existing fiscal system reduce, at least .to any appreciable extent, the cost of agricultural production, we are bound to do for the farmer what we are doing for other industries, namely, guarantee him a cost of production which will be commensurate with a decent standard of living. I have in my hand the bulletin issued by the Searle Grain Company on Thursday, February 16. The author is discussing the very objections to this plan which have been mentioned by some hon. members opposite. He says this:
A dispatch from Ottawa was published also on February 13th to the effect that there seemed to be in Eastern Canada a realization that public finances of the dominion could not stand an annual drain of the present wheat price guarantee of eighty cents, and that the present policy would lead to serious increase in wheat acreage.
The Bracken conference of course must have taken objections of this kind into consideration. We, however, for our own part would like to suggest that these do not appear to be very valid. It has been often shown that eighty cents for No. 1 northern Fort William is still well below the cost of production of wheat by the great bulk of the farmers, and as such, certainly is no inducement for producers to increase their wheat acreage.
May I make just one other citation in support of what I have said? Referring again to Professor Hope-who, I think, with Professor Britnell, is one of the best agricultural economists in western Canada, and one of whose work the people of Saskatchewan are proud-I find the professor has this to say:
On the basis of the facts presented, if all the farmers of western Canada were entirely free of debt, or if they did not pay their debts, it would seem that the present farm prices for grain would probably barely maintain a reasonable level of living. It certainly would not maintain a reasonable level of living and enable them to build up their buildings, machinery, homes and personal effects up to the level prior to 1931.
Conservatively it would probably require with average yields a farm price for wheat of average grade of about ninety cents, with coarse grains in proportion to maintain a reasonable level of living and service the present debt on western farms. It would require somewhat more than this to restore the farming community to the condition of 1931.
So I submit to this house that, while the problem of all farmers demands the attention of this parliament-and like my desk-mate, I agree that we ought to study seriously
the possibility of fixed guaranteed prices for all agricultural producers-the wheat producers of Canada, whether west or east, have a special claim upon our attention because, while their costs of production are held more or less stable by virtue of the economy under which we live, they have continued for the past seven or eight years to sell their products on the Markets of the world at a figure that has not given them a decent standard of living for themselves or enabled them to meet their obligations, and consequently has worked a hardship upon the business people with whom they are associated.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: In rising to support 'the resolution in favour of ninety-five cent wheat for the farmers of Canada, it is my particular task to show where the money is to come from. I believe that the words of the hon. members who spoke first and second on the resolution show that there is developing rapidly in Canada an agricultural problem of major importance. This government has already signified that it realizes, first, that the problem exists; and, second, that it is a major problem. What is disturbing people all over the dominion is the question what we are to do to get the money to pay these fixed prices on wheat, meat, wool and every other kind of commodity as similar claims come along. And these other claims will certainly come along. For us to suggest that the western farmers should get a just price for wheat, and to imply that eastern farmers are not to get similar consideration, would be an absurdity unworthy of the members of this house. I hasten to say that there is no such implication in what I have to say.
I am in favour of giving a just price for every primary product. At the same time I believe that this little group which I have the honour to lead is the only group up to the present time which has suggested a practicable scheme whereby the money for this purpose can be raised, without taxation.


Mr. MacNICOL:: This is going to be good.


John Horne Blackmore: I know there is in the minds of many hon. members, notwithstanding the earnest efforts we have put forth during the three years we have been here, a certain scepticism concerning our whole set of suggestions. I do not blame hon.
135S
Wheat Policy-Mr. Blackmore

members for this, but I hasten to tell them that they are profoundly mistaken, and the day will come when they will realize it, and their children and grandchildren will be stricken with amazement that their parents could not see this. That time is coming as sure as we are here in this house. We may recall, for example, that only seventy-five years ago it was impossible, I am told, to sell a furnace to the average citizen of Boston; for he said, "What, go to bed and leave a fire burning in my basement?" Absurd as that sounds to us, just as absurd will seem the attitude which a good many people are taking towards monetary reform.
I point out that the first resolution which this group moved was one which rather mystified a good many people. It called upon the dominion government to proceed at once to create purchasing power, and to use that purchasing power in ameliorating economic conditions in Canada. The government, or members of the Liberal party, have been trying ever since to get us to give details. We have the details. I have offered on several occasions, if hon. members would come to my office, to go into as great detail as they desire. But we are in this awkward position: Let hon. members imagine that nothing was known about operations for peritonitis; that we did not know any means of cleansing a wound or disinfecting a knife or stopping the flow of blood or putting the patient to sleep or any one of the scores of techniques necessary for a successful operation for peritonitis. Then suppose we suggested that the only way to cure someone was to operate on him, and when we were asked what we would do, we said, "Take a knife and cut him open." Imagine what people would have thought of that one hundred and fifty years ago, and all the discussion that would be aroused! It would seem so astounding that most people would oppose it at once. We are in just the same difficult position. But this year we intend to be much more specific in regard to the possible working out of a monetary reform system.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I think the hon. member is wandering from the subject. What we are dealing with is the following proposed resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, this parliament should immediately take such steps as are necessary to insure the farmers of Canada a fixed price of ninety-five cents per bushel for No. 1 northern wheat at their local elevator.
The hon. member should confine himself to the resolution.


John Horne Blackmore: I have said that the particular aspect of the subject which I wish

to discuss is where the money is to come from to pay this fixed price. Is that not in order?


Walter Edward Foster: I think it is too far from
the subject.


John Horne Blackmore: I trust my next remarks will be nearer the subject, Mr. Speaker. If it is the desire of the house that I should give a lot of statistics I can give them, just like other hon. members. I can show that farmers in western Canada are in an absolutely impossible position, if that is of more value than showing how they can be got out of that position. But surely it is of far greater value to hon. members that I tell them how the farmers of Canada can be got out of that position. Would that be in order?


Walter Edward Foster: There will be many other opportunities for the hon. member to discuss the subject of monetary reform, but I think he should not do so on this motion.


John Horne Blackmore: Then it is not in order for me to discuss how we can get the money to pay this fixed price?


Walter Edward Foster: I do not think so.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend is in order in discussing monetary reform on this motion, because he says the money will have to be found somewhere, he could discuss it on every matter that comes before the house. I believe he should deal with that subject in a discussion by itself, and confine himself now to the question of a fixed price for wheat.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, it never once entered my mind that answering the everlasting Und incessant question that is raised in connection with any proposal whatsoever, where is the money coming from? would not be relevant to this question. I would suppose that in the minds of hon. members, as it certainly is in the mind of every person in Canada with whom I have talked about this subject, the all important question is, "Where are you going to get the money? The idea is fine, it is good, it is right, they ought to have it," they say, "but where are you going to get the money? If you can tell us where you are going to get it, surely they should get $1.50 a bushel." That is the attitude they take. For us to come here and advocate a fixed price of $1.25 a bushel for wheat, which is what we ought to advocate, and to advocate a just price for meat, wool, honey, butter, milk, cream, eggs, hides, everything that the farmer produces; for us to urge

Wheat Policy-Mr. Blackmore
that that just price be given but not to tell the people how the money is to be raised, is for us to advocate an absurdity.


Walter Edward Foster: After my decision I do not think the hon. member should proceed to give an elaborate statement of how to get the money. The question before the house is the motion which I have just read, and I think the hon. member should not wander so far from it.


Ernest Lapointe: There are many works and reforms that I should like to have in my constituency, but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) says that there is no money for them. I suggest that we both ask for those things, and then one day try to convince the Minister of Finance that there is money somewhere so that we can get what we want. But this, I believe, is not the time.


John Horne Blackmore: This is the first time it ever dawned upon me that it would not be in order to discuss this question in connection with such a subject. Ever since I was old enough to understand English the very first question that came up whenever I wanted anything was how I was going to pay for it; for, if you cannot pay for a thing, you cannot have it. So, in deciding whether or not we should give the farmers of Canada a just price for their products, the whole question depends upon whether or not we can get the money without taxation and without borrowing. Of course if you, Mr. Speaker, feel that to be out of order-


Walter Edward Foster: I think it is.


John Horne Blackmore: Very well.


Mr. HANSELL:: In rising to that point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Walter Edward Foster: I have given my decision and have said that the hon. member should confine his remarks strictly to the resolution now before the house. Otherwise we could discuss' all sorts of things.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, Mr. Speaker,
if I had only known this five minutes ago I would have had plenty of material here to go on with, because I have a whole drawerful of material similar to that which was brought forward by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) and the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair). There is no doubt in the world that the time is coming when we simply must give the primary producers prices which will enable them to recover the cost of production plus a sufficient profit to enable them to live. From Winnipeg west there is not a single agricultural product, so far as I know, which the farmers can produce
consistently and make pay. I think I can defy anyone successfully to challenge that statement. The only hope we see, then, is this:	Under our present system can the
country change its ways and bring about a better situation so that the condition of the farmers may be improved. If it cannot, then I say it is a foregone conclusion that the industry of agriculture is doomed to failure and ruin.
If I am not to be allowed to talk about how to get out of the difficulty, I can talk about the difficulty itself. I wish I had some of the material that I have in my room in volumes, so that my words might be of greater worth, because of themselves words are of no value. I must say that one thing which has depressed me almost beyond endurance has been to sit in this house and listen to men talking, talking, talking, about what ought to be done but which cannot be done under the present system. What is the use of talking? I do not wish to be critical, but I am going to say a word or two about the two old parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives. I have not tne slightest fault to find with them, except that there is not an idea in either party that will come anywhere near solving the problems with which we are faced. I challenge any man in this house to name a single solitary principle in the program of either party which will solve this problem: first of all, how to get more money in this country. If we go into debt we are simply mortgaging the future, and our children, the citizens of to-morrow, will be faced not only with the problem with which we are faced-


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I have to remind the hon. member once more that the resolution states:
That, in the opinion of this house, this parliament should immediately take such steps as are necessary to insure the farmers of Canada a fixed price of ninety-five cents per bushel for number one northern wheat at their local elevator.
I do not think it is the proper place or time, in connection with a resolution of this kind, to discusss our monetary system or how the money can be obtained.


John Horne Blackmore: Very well. I am
wondering what could be talked about.


Walter Edward Foster: I must ask the hon.
member to deal with the subject matter of the resolution before the house, as to whether or not it is advisable to adopt the resolution.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, manifestly it
is advisable. Without at least ninety-five cents a bushel we are going to have the whole
1360	COMMONS
Wheat Policy-Mr. Lapointe (Matapedia)
agricultural population on relief in due time, and it is only a matter of time. You simply cannot produce wheat costing you ninety-six cents a bushel and sell it for ninety-five cents, and keep going. If we had known we were going to be held down in this way, Mr. Speaker, we would have divided up the material that was placed on Hansard by the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Battle River. If hon. members will read carefully the remarks of those two hon. gentlemen they will see that it is absolutely inevitable that we should pay at least ninety-five cents a bushel, or more. Otherwise we shall have not only the whole agricultural population but also at least three provinces on relief.
There is one tendency which I have noticed in this house, and which I regret. A great number of people are indisposed to listen to a contention such as this. They say, "Well, the western people are always coming down here asking for something." That is a monstrous untruth.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: That is what we are
here for, to ask for something.


John Horne Blackmore: All we are asking
for is a set of conditions under which we can live. Take the Searle index, which was referred to this afternoon. Hon. members will remember that it definitely proved that for the 147 commodities the farmers buy, the index price is 136-5, speaking from memory, compared with the figure of 100 for those same 147 commodities before the war, and the farmers are getting less for their products than they were getting before the war. Even at that time they were barely able to carry on. That alone is enough; that proves it.
I shall not occupy any more of the time of the house. But I will say this-and I do not want it construed as a threat-that if there is going to be an effort to shut us off every time we undertake to talk social credit, we will create situations in which it will be in order, and they will be plentiful.
Mr. ARTHUR J. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane): (Translation): Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak briefly on the motion of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), my first words will be to state my unhesitating opposition to it. The hon. member asks the government to take immediately such steps as are necessary to ensure the farmers of Canada a fixed price of 95 cents for number one northern wheat at their elevator. Why stop there? Why not one dollar instead of 95 cents?
Such a policy, Mr. Speaker, would indeed be favouring the west at the expense of the east. It is high time that the people of western

Canada leam to turn somewhere else than towards the government when they find themselves in difficulties. Hearing certain hon. members speak, one would think that the depression struck only the west. Let them go east and look around; they will find that there also distress is present. They will find our workers unemployed; they will find our farmers threatened with the loss of their farms which they have hewed out of the virgin forest by the sweat of their brow. It is my opinion that the western provinces have been amply assisted by federal governments. If the latter are to continue in this course, they will have to make up their mind, as my friend the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle) said this afternoon, to subsidize the farmers of the east.
They will assuredly have to come to the aid of the butter and cheese producers who are faced with ruin because of the surplus quantities of these products now on the market. They will have to help the potato growers who a few years ago had to sell their product at 8 or 9 cents a bushel. They will have to help the farmers who, as in the autumn of 1936, saw their crops destroyed by early frosts. Doubtless, Mr. Speaker, each province has its problems and its troubles; but it is wrong to take advantage of the present difficult times to raise one province or one section of the country against another.
Hearing some of my hon. colleagues from the west, one would think that it is western Canada that has built up the eastern provinces and has ensured their livelihood. It seems to me that eastern Canada has contributed a large share in the construction of the western railroads, when certain sections of the east, in Quebec province, for instance, were sacrificed. I think each section of the country furnished its share. Let us seek to understand our problems better; we shall then find it easier to solve them.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order:	I would like to ask if the hon.
member is reading his speech?


Walter Edward Foster: To my mind he is not.


Ernest George Hansell: He is looking down,
anyway.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: It is French; you cannot judge.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane):: (Translation) To hear some of my western friends, one would think that the west has built up the eastern provinces and supported them. It seems to me, though, that eastern Canada has largely contributed to the con-

Wheat Policy-Mr. Perley
struction of the western railways, while certain areas of eastern Quebec, for example, were being neglected. To my mind, each section of the country has made its contribution. Let us endeavour to attain a better understanding of our problems; we shall then be able to solve them more easily.


Ernest Edward Perley: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) desires to close the debate.
I should like to have heard a statement from him earlier in the debate on this important question. I do not think any more important question will come before the house this session than that which we have been discussing this afternoon. In view of the statement made a few days ago by the minister, it would have been a splendid thing if we had had a statement from him earlier to-day.
World marketing conditions at the present time are more or less demoralized; the situation in which the producer finds himself is extremely uncertain. This afternoon the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) referred to the report of the conference called by Premier Bracken, which was held in Winnipeg. I followed the proceedings of that conference rather closely, and I have summarized briefly what I think took place, and some of the decisions reached.
They reviewed agriculture, past, present and future. They found that the price trend on many primary products was definitely down. So far as wheat was concerned, the price was only half to-day what it was a year ago. In fact a larger crop this year has resulted in about $30,000,000 less to the producer. Certain questions were considered, and I shall give briefly the answers:
Question 1: Is there a shrinkage in world's
demand?
Answer: Yes.
Question 2: Is the annual production maintained in Canada?
Answer: Yes.	.
Question 3: Is the low price likely to continue?
Answer: Yes.
Question 4: Is the carry-over likely to
increase?
Answer: Quite probable.
The general view of the conference was that the present picture represents world conditions of an extraordinary character.
The present problem to be solved, it was decided, was the control of production, and the question was asked: Can we reduce the cost of production and control the cost of production at the same time?
While there was no definite recommendation made at the conference, we know a committee was set up to carry on further investigation. It was considered, however, that the two main factors in relieving the difficulty would be to find export markets or regain lost markets, and to lower the cost of production. In addition, it was apparent that the prairie provinces have the major responsibility, but it was also apparent that they have no desire to shirk their responsibility.
All this goes to prove that we are in a critical position with respect to marketing.
I have had a little experience in different ways with respect to wheat growing and wheat marketing. As a grain dealer I have operated a private elevator, and I think I can speak with a little authority. I have had some experience on committees of this house dealing with the wheat problem, particularly when Mr. McFarland was here in 1934 reviewing his stabilization operations, when a committee of nine of us reviewed the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and at a later time when Mr. Murray's operations as head of the wheat board were reviewed.
I watched the operations of the board in its handling of the 1938 crop, and at this point I want to say that before the system of having a wheat board and marketing through that board, with a fixed minimum price, is condemned-and I assume there is truth in the statement we have read in the press and those we have heard in the house from the Minister of Agriculture to the effect that the wheat board is to be set aside so far as the handling of wheat is concerned-we should have a thorough investigation into the operations of the board in handling the 1938 crop.
I shall not take time to-night to deal with their operations in detail, but I think it is evident that the policy they pursued had a depressing effect and has resulted in a considerable portion of the loss which the Minister of Agriculture forecast we might have to take. I say that this loss is a direct result of their policy, and a matter which should be investigated thoroughly.
All sorts of evidence can be produced by authorities in the United States and Canada who are closely associated with the grain business. Before proceeding further, I wish to lay before hon. members three or four outstanding facts. This afternoon hon. members to my left had much to say about the condition in which the farmers of the west find themselves. I am going to try to give another picture to-night. I do not think we should parade our difficulties as they seem to want to do from time to time. The farmer
Wheat Policy-Mr. Perley

of western Canada realizes that he has made a contribution to this confederation, and all he wants is fair consideration.
The development of prairie wheat farming was sponsored by the whole of Canada. Wheat farming in western Canada was an important industry long before our mining industry, our textile industry, our paper industry or many of our other industries became real, national assets. But this great national wheat industry is now being threatened by subversion and, therefore, it has become the obligation of the whole of this dominion. The west was encouraged to produce during the war, and production was increased considerably.
There is another fact I should like to call to the attention of hon. members. During the last twenty-eight years the western provinces have produced, according to the bureau of statistics, 9,500,000,000 bushels of wheat. The average yearly production over that period is 340,000,000 bushels, and the average export, around 250,000,000 bushels. The average price for No. 1 northern at Fort William was $1.27, while the average price for all grades was in the neighbourhood of ninety cents. These are figures I think we should keep in mind. In the last twenty-eight years new wealth to the extent of $10,450,000,000 has been produced. What does that mean to industry in eastern Canada? What does it mean in the way of purchasing power, in the way of payments for labour and in many other ways?
In the last three years the production of coarse grains, that is, oats, barley, rye and flax, was valued at $231,000,000, even though these crops were sold at low prices. This afternoon reference was made to the fact that oats had sold at as low as eleven cents a bushel this year. I would direct attention also to the fact that we paid freight averaging about fourteen cents a bushel on that wheat. This amounted to an average of $27,500,000 a year. In the twenty-eight year period, we had paid over one billion dollars in freight, apart from lake freights. I want hon. members to note that this is on wheat alone. I shall not review the amount of money invested in the purchase of machinery, as reference has been made to this already. It is, however, interesting to note that the west purchased $20,000,000 worth of machinery annually. The freight on that machinery during that period amounted to about $250,000,000. All this must have meant something to industry and to the general business of this dominion. I am giving this side of the picture in order to impress upon hon. members the importance of this great industry in western Canada.
I do not propose to go in detail into the plans I suggested. I have a resolution on the [Mr. Periey.l
order paper, but I do not know whether it will be reached. I should like to have had an opportunity of discussing it, but possibly I may be able to say something when the bill comes down. I hope the minister will inform the house to-night when he expects to bring down his bill. The reports which have gone out from this house have more or less excited the whole of Canada, and certainly the west is interested in having this information. Apparently this matter is important enough to have brought provincial authorities and members of the wheat pool here to Ottawa. I understand that these gentlemen are in this city at this time, and I do hope we shall have something definite in a few days.
I believe the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) was in order to-night. When an hon. member proposes to the house a plan or scheme which will need money to carry it out, it is only fair that he should be given an opportunity to show how the money can be obtained. With the scheme I have in mind I believe that over a long term of years the wheat industry could stand on its own feet. That is where our farmers want to be. They do not want to be coming to Ottawa, to eastern Canada, all the time with their hands out. We should have a proper board with proper authority. There should be producer representation on that board, and it should have the courage to act. I believe the advisory board should have been reinstated, with farmer representatives. With such a board I believe the wheat industry could carry on by itself. Later on, I may have an opportunity of outlining what I think can be done. I have definite ideas as to how we can control production and marketing.
From what I have seen announced in the press as to the scheme proposed by the minister, I want to warn him that crop insurance is a different matter from marketing. The two must not be confused. There is another point to consider. I do not think the wheat board can be scuttled for the next year. There certainly will be a large carryover, and any other board or pool which might be set up and financed by the government to carry out a fixed minimum price policy will be in competition with the present board in connection with the surplus which it will have to carry over. That is an important point to keep in mind.
I suggest to the minister that he deal adequately with this question. We want something of a permanent nature. We do not want a board in to-day and out to-morrow. We did not have a board in 1936 when wheat was selling at $1.22, and in 1937 when it was selling at $1.31. They could have paid

Wheat Policy-Mr. Gardiner
the price suggested to-day quite handily and had a nice reserve set up. That would have been the proper thing to do in order to keep this on a business basis. Unless this is done, the minister is going to find himself in a worse position, and the problem will be harder to deal with later on. I think the wheat board must continue. With world marketing conditions as they are to-day, I do not think we dare scuttle the board. I hope the bill will come down in good time so that we may have an opportunity to discuss it in detail. Possibly we can put forward some suggestions which will help the minister in making this whole matter worth while.


James Garfield Gardiner: The resolution before the house moved by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) reads:
That in the opinion of this house, this parliament should immediately take such steps as are necessary to insure the farmers of Canada a fixed price of ninety-five cents per bushel for number one northern wheat at their local elevator.
Someone has said the fact that this applies only to No. 1 northern wheat confines the effect of the resolution to western Canada, and probably that is correct because it is only in western Canada that we grow No. 1 northern wheat. I therefore wish to take a few moments to discuss with hon. members the suggestion that a fixed price of ninety-five cents be established for wheat at the local elevators, I assume, in western Canada.
A ninety-five cent price at the local elevator would be about the same as $1.15 at Fort William; that is, it would be approximately thirty-five cents higher than the price which was set for this year. In other words, if there had been a price of $1.15 set for the year 1938-39, and the price of wheat had been what it has been, the Dominion of Canada would have found it necessary to put up by way of bonus about $150,000,000. Only to state that amount to the house indicates, I think, that it would be very difficult for any government, no matter what it might call itself, to fix a price of $1.15 for wheat, have the experience tripled which we have had during this last season, and have the system based upon that experience continue for one year longer in the Dominion of Canada.
I tried to state to the house about ten days ago the effect of the set price which we did have in its relationship to the earnings of farmers in western Canada, and I think it was apparent to everyone that even with the eighty cent set price we had created such inequalities in western Canada that very few would advocate a continuance of the pegged
price or set price or fixed price even at the level we had last year. If we were going to assume that the price of wheat would be as low as or lower than that amount for any year in which this ninety-five price was going to be active, it is apparent that no government could retain in existence a price based upon it.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. A few moments ago I was ruled out of order for discussing where the money could come from. The hon. minister now is discussing where the money cannot come from. Is that not out of order?


Walter Edward Foster: I am sorry, but the hon. minister is not wandering away so far as the hon. member did.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), speaking a few moments ago, said something to the effect that if we had had a board in operation with a set price for 1936 and 1937 we might have created a reserve-I think that was the term he used-to take care of some of the losses in succeeding years. But, unfortunately, under the legislation which we have at the present time, it would not have been possible to do that; for it provides that after the initial price has been paid, any additional earnings, if there are any, are to be paid out in participation to the individuals who delivered the wheat, and therefore, under the present legislation, no reserve could have been set up.


Ernest Edward Perley: I know that perfectly well, but I was suggesting that a system of that kind could be set up for the future and the act amended to provide for it.


James Garfield Gardiner: But under the legislation we have had in these last two years it could not have been done.


Ernest Edward Perley: I agree.


James Garfield Gardiner: Someone has said within the last half hour that the farmers of western Canada are reasonable. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no more reasonable group in Canada associated with any of our industries than the farmers of western Canada.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: What about eastern
Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are just as reasonable in eastern Canada.


Arza Clair Casselman: More reasonable.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not say more
reasonable, but they are just as reasonable. As a matter of fact, the great bulk of the farmers in western Canada are the sons and
Wheat Policy-Mr. Gardiner

daughters of the farmers of eastern Canada. I want to read to the house to-night a letter I have received from a- farmer; I do not know him at all, but he is a constituent of one of the members of this house from the western part of Canada, and he says that he sent a copy of this letter or a similar letter to the member. This farmer lives at Gladstone, Manitoba. His letter is dated February 17, 1939, and it expresses so well what I think is the opinion of a great many farmers in western Canada that I think it should go on Hansard. It reads:
Hon. J. G. Gardiner,
Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,
As I have just heard on the radio this morning that your department is considering a wheat acreage bonus, I thought I would write and give my views, which are the views of a diversified farmer who has never received any government assistance.
I am not in favour of a pegged price for wheat as it encourages everyone to grow wheat at the expense of oats and barley; also if wheat was at its own level in price, much more of it would be used for feed, also more of it would be held off the market on the farm, thus keeping down the visible supply.
In my own case if prices are low I always hold grain over in portable granaries and when better prices come clear everything pretty well out, and it has worked with me every time.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would say, without knowing this gentleman at all, that he is probably one of those reasonable men who came from eastern Canada and had considerable experience in farming there before going to the west. His letter continues:
As to an acreage bonus I would suggest it only be on summer fallow. Otherwise there will be a tendency to put land in crop which will never grow a crop owing to weeds, etcetera; also it should not be confined to wheat; otherwise more land will be put in wheat at the expense of oats and barley. Flax being a good price need not have an acreage bonus. I will enclose a copy of this letter to the member for Neepawa.
I remain,
Yours truly,
Alex. Hart.
He apparently was doing some thinking after he had written the letter, because he adds this postcript:
The bonused acreage should be limited.
To my mind that is a man who would be the average farmer in western Canada, a man who is probably thinking of his own business, writing as a result of thinking about it, and not expecting other people in Canada to do unreasonable things in relation to his business.

It has been suggested that the farmer in western Canada needs ninety-five cents a bushel on the average at his own farm in order to maintain him on his farm. I am not going to say anything to-night which would in any way tend to remove that idea from the mind of anyone in this house. I do not think it is necessary to do so. I have here the average price obtained by farmers of western Canada for their wheat, not at Fort William, but at their farms over the last thirty years.
Away back in 1908 that average price was seventy-nine cents; in 1909, eighty-two cents; in 1910, seventy-eight cents; in 1911, sixty-one cents; in 1912, fifty-nine cents; in 1913, sixty-five cents. Those were the years preceding the war, and the average price of the farm during those six years was seventy-one cents.
Then we have the years during the war, 1914 to 1920, in which the price was affected by the war.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that for No. 1 northern?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is for the average of his wheat, no matter what the grade. The average price received at the farm in 1914 was $1.24; in 1915, 90 cents; in 1916, $1.29; in 1917, $1.92; in 1918, $2; in 1919, $2.34; in 1920, $1.58. The average price during those seven years was $1.61. These are the average prices for the three western provinces.
If we take the next three years, in which prices were comparatively low, the average price received by the farmer at the farm in 1921 was seventy-eight cents; in 1922, eighty-three cents; in 1923, sixty-five cents; or an average, for those three years, of seventy-five cents a bushel at the farm, or at the farmer's local point.
Again, 1924-1929 was a period of comparatively high prices: 1924, $1.21; 1925, $1.23; 1926, $1.07; 1927, ninety-eight cents; 1928, seventy-eight cents; 1929, $1.03; the average price for those six years being $1.05.
Then, taking the last seven years, which were very difficult years, the returns were: 1930, forty-seven cents; 1931, thirty-seven cents; 1932, thirty-four cents; 1933, forty-seven cents; 1934, sixty cents; 1935, sixty cents; 1936, eighty-eight cents; or an average during the seven years of fifty-three cents.
Over the whole thirty-one years the average is 94-7 cents a bushel or almost exactly the price which is stated in this resolution as that which the government of Canada ought to pay as an initial price to the farmers of western

Wheat Policy-Mr. Gardiner
Canada. For the twenty-four years apart from the war years the average price was seventy-five cents a bushel.
The farmers of western Canada being reasonable people, and a great many of them having had a long experience in the west-I imagine that the gentleman whose letter I read, if he has reached the age of fifty, has probably been over forty years in the particular area in which he resides-will agree with me when I say this, that through the conduct of their business over that long period of time they have obtained an average of about ninety-five cents a bushel for their wheat. These particular individuals do not expect the government of Canada or anyone else to secure for them an average of ninety-five cents by paying it out of the treasury of Canada. By conducting their own affairs they have secured for their wheat an average, over the thirty year period, of ninety-five cents a bushel. If the arguments advanced by hon. members of the social credit group are sound, and ninety-five cents is an amount which would make it possible for a farmer to operate over a long term of years, those who have conducted their affairs in a way to make that possible have been able to get by, as this gentleman says he has, without any government assistance whatsoever.
I am quite sure there are some hon. members who would say, "Well, then, why assist anyone?" Again, I would say that the reason for giving assistance is the fact that not all the farmers of western Canada have had an opportunity of farming in the west over that period of time; the contrary is true of a substantial percentage. Many of them came there without anything at all. Many of them are sons and daughters of those fine farmers of whom my hon. friend spoke, from the eastern part of Canada, who went to the west at a time when conditions in the east were rather difficult, started on farms in the western part of Canada, have done the best they could, and came into this difficult period we are now passing through, when the going is hard largely because world factors and climatic factors have been unfavourable. They are without sufficient resources to see them through their difficulties and into another period when perhaps they will have similar experiences to those of my old Manitoba friend who has had a much longer time and experience wherein to establish himself. In my opinion the government owes it as a duty to people who have run into these difficulties to set up some system under which they can carry on during the difficult period they are now passing through, and get back into a period where they can put themselves on a
Msounder basis financially than they would be *fable to do if we allowed them to be crowded pjfjoff their land and out of their homes and 'into our towns and villages to add to the lists of those who are receiving relief at the present time. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that what we think should be done in connection with a matter of this kind is to take all the facts into consideration and deal with the situation as we find it.
I do not wish to deal at any considerable length to-night with this matter because, when I made the announcement ten days ago of the intended policy of the government in relation to this question, I was aware of the fact that just two days previously there had been held in Saskatoon a meeting of a committee which had been appointed as a result of the conference which has been referred to many times during this debate. That conference was called by the premier of Manitoba. He invited to it people from different parts of Canada and the United States and had discussions upon questions having to do with the marketing of farm products. We were not in any way associated with the calling of the conference. We sent to it all of our officials who were invited to give of their experience, in order that farmers in western Canada and others in business throughout Canada might benefit from that experience. But we had no active part in that conference, nor did we have anything official from the conference, so far as I am aware, until the fourteenth day of the present month, when we received an intimation from the conference in Saskatoon that they were asking for a set price upon wheat for the year 1939-40 somewhat on the same basis as the price had been set for last year.
We had been giving study to this question throughout last summer, and I had carried on negotiations with a great many people before the conference was called in Winnipeg, and following the time that the conference was held in that city. As a result of these conferences and negotiations we had evolved a policy in connection with the matter of handling wheat and assisting the farmers of the area where the greater part of our spring wheat is grown; and having come to the conclusion that it was not advisable to continue a set-up such as we had last year, which resulted in the conditions I outlined to this house ten days ago, we thought it wise to make that known to the people of Canada, and more particularly to those who were discussing the matter in the western part of Canada. And when we made it known, or about that time, we received from that delegation which was meeting in Saskatoon
Wheat Policy-Mr. Gardiner

an intimation that they desired to meet the government on February 28 to discuss the representations which they had to make in relation to the wheat policy of this government. So we decided to go no further with the matter until after to-morrow, when we expect to meet the delegation which has come to Ottawa representing the Bracken conference which was held in Winnipeg, and the meeting which was held on February 14 in Saskatoon. We shall hear their representations to-morrow, and after we have heard them we shall be in a position to discuss further with hon. members policies which we hope to present to the house.
In conclusion, I should like to say that as a result of the findings of the conference which were published in the city of Saskatoon and were forwarded on that particular day to the government, and as a result of the announcement which I made ten days ago, I have been in receipt of considerable correspondence from different parts of western Canada dealing with this particular question. Even before that conference was held, I had considerable correspondence from western Canada. And to indicate to hon. members from all parts of Canada that western farmers are reasonable, let me say that since the results of paying the bonus during last year have been known to the farmers of western Canada, I cannot at the moment recall receiving from any individual a letter advocating a continuance of the policy we followed last year. There have been people who have suggested changes. There have been many who have said we should continue the wheat board. But in no instance that I can recall at the moment-if there were any they were very few-has anyone said, "Continue the wheat board; pay the initial prices you paid last year, and do nothing more with regard to wheat than you did last year."
As I say, people have suggested that changes be made. They have not all agreed on what the changes ought to be. We have studied carefully all the suggestions made by those who have written in, many coming from organizations from one end of western Canada to the other. We have studied carefully the opinions that have come from the eastern part of Canada as well as from the extreme west. We have studied editorial comment in newspapers throughout Canada. We have studied the policies followed in Australia, Argentina, the United States and other wheat producing countries throughout the world. We have tried from this study to evolve a system of handling wheat from western Canada, and more particularly of dealing with the farmer who produces the wheat, which

would be more suitable to the farmers of Canada than could result from simply transplanting to this country any system which may have been adopted in some other country.
In common with every hon. member, I hope that when the legislation comes down it will create better conditions in Canada-I do not say western Canada, but better conditions in Canada than anything we have had, and that in creating better conditions it will not cause as heavy a charge upon the treasury of Canada as some of the systems under which we have been operating. I suggest, if it meets with the approval of the mover, now that we have had a discussion upon his motion which has lasted all afternoon and part of the evening, that it might serve the purpose if he withdrew his resolution. The discussion could be resumed on the legislation when it is brought down. I suggest also that the discussion could be carried on in connection with the third resolution that is on the order paper, still further on the resolution of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and still further in connection with the resolution of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). So there will be four further opportunities of discussing the matter, without taking a vote on this resolution now. Therefore, if the hon. member has no objection, I suggest that a withdrawal of this resolution now would serve his purpose.


Charles Edward Johnston: We will withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.
Resolution withdrawn.


LIVE STOCK
Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, a special committee of its members should be appointed forthwith to inquire into the conditions pertaining to the Canadian live stock industry in all its phases, and with special reference to the production, sale and distribution of all live stock and live stock products, both in Canada and abroad.
He said: In moving this resolution I am conscious of the fact that I am discussing a subject which is of the greatest importance to the Canadian people. It was said this afternoon that the motion preceding this was of the utmost importance. I believe that to be true, and I believe that the question of live stock is of just as great importance. The two subjects are allied in any system of

Live Stock-Mr. Leader
permanent agriculture. It has often been said that agriculture is the basic industry of Canada. That statement is absolutely true. I think a fair estimate would be that half the people of Canada are employed directly in agriculture, while other thousands are engaged in the transportation, distribution and marketing of agricultural products. And the rest of the population are directly concerned, because it is agriculture that furnishes the food supply for the nation.
The resolution is drafted in broad terms. My idea in so drafting was, that this subject could be discussed from every angle, that we should not be called to order if it was within my power to avoid it. It will be observed that I ask that this special committee be appointed forthwith. That, of course, is now impossible. Some six or seven weeks of the session have passed, and it is not likely that if a committee were now appointed it would be able to proceed as I desired when I sent in my resolution.
The next point in the resolution is that the industry be inquired into in all its phases. The last phrase, which I think takes in almost everything, is "both in Canada and abroad." I hope that other hon. members will join in this debate and present their point of view concerning associated lines of agriculture. For myself I have specialized in the breeding of pure bred stock, so I shall confine my remarks mostly to that phase of the resolution.
I am quite aware of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is working energetically to evolve some marketing plan or plans that will help the agricultural producers of this country. But it seems to me that we can offer some suggestions that may be helpful to the minister and the officials in his department.
Canadian agriculture is disorganized. The industry lacks direction. Instead of cooperation among the farmers they are engaged in cutthroat competition. That, I think, has been true through all the years that we can remember. As a class we are individualists. While we say we believe in cooperation, I am sorry to have to confess that our farmers have not supported cooperative movements as they should. There is no regulation of production; there is first a scarcity and then a surplus. Witness our past operations in regard to wheat marketing.
To-day that great branch of agriculture to which we refer as the dairy industry is in difficulties. They have a surplus which is bearing down the price of their products. I believe the figures in connection with this industry show that they produced $260,000,000
worth of products last year. I am not going into that phase of the matter to-night, but I get letters from many dairy farmers, complaining bitterly that they have to sell butter fat at a lower price than they should have to sell it at, even when the grass is green and it costs them nothing to feed their cows. It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture might well say, we must get rid of this surplus of, say 5,000,000 pounds-which after all is really only a week's supply for the people of Canada. I would suggest that if it cannot be sold, it might be handed out for relief purposes, because I believe there are thousands of people on relief in this country, as well as thousands who are not getting relief, who could eat this 5,000,000 pounds of butter and this would provide for them a more wholesome diet.
Then we have the fluctuations in price. I am going to direct the attention of the house to the situation which developed last summer when, within the space of three or four days, the price of hogs dropped 3i cents a pound. This is what agriculturists in every branch of the industry have been up against, and these fluctuations were really what prompted me to ask for this investigation. There is a real demand for an investigation of this kind. There is dissatisfaction everywhere. All hon. members need to do is go to their desks, turn up their files and read the letters the agriculturists are sending to them every day. During the dying days of last session I made the suggestion that a parliamentary investigation be held into the industry of agriculture. About a week or ten days later I received the following letter;
We noted with satisfaction your comments in the House of Commons in regard to a thorough investigation of the live stock situation in Canada. Our board of directors-
That is, the United Farmers.
-discussed this at our meeting yesterday and we are particularly anxious that any investigations undertaken should be conducted by a special committee of the house or other body competent to handle such an investigation. I may say that those of you in the house who are working for such an investigation can be sure of backing from farm organizations engaged in the live stock business and from a great many others as well which are linked together in the Canadian chamber of agriculture.
That is signed by H. H. Haanam, who, I believe, was secretary at that time. Then we find that last year the Manitoba legislature, being concerned as to the state of agriculture, appointed a special committee to investigate the industry. My information is that they did not get very far, because they found this was a matter which really belonged to the parliament of Canada. I believe the minister
Live Stock-Mr. Leader

of agriculture for Manitoba asked that the ministers of agriculture of the three prairie provinces get together in connection with this matter, and I understand this meeting was held in Regina and attended by our federal minister. I am not at liberty to convey the results of that meeting, nor have I the exact information, but this just goes to show that there is deep concern and more or less confusion in regard to the marketing of agricultural products in Canada.
As I pointed out in my opening remarks I intend to deal almost exclusively with the question of live stock. More live stock in Canada would create more labour; there is no doubt about that. In my own experience we employ more men in the winter than in the summer, for the reason that to a large extent' we centre our operations on live stock. I can also state from experience that live stock will compel farmers to sow clover -and crops of that kind, and I know this is perhaps the greatest guarantee against soil drifting, which is quite prevalent in the west. I remember that my land drifted before I got into the Jive stock business, sowing clover and other grass crops, and putting manure on the land. I solved the problem of soil drifting to my entire satisfaction, and I say this method will solve the difficulty. We know also that it will preserve the fertility of the land.
I am amazed when I read of the production per acre in the old land and other European countries, where they have been cultivating the same land for a thousand years or more. They grow perhaps twice as much per acre as we do in western Canada, because they have a permanent system of agriculture, which means they have developed their five stock industry. If we went into live stock to a greater extent, it would, in a measure, solve the problem of our wheat surplus, because more acres would be put into grass and other forage crops, thus taking that acreage out of the production of wheat.
Live stock production is a matter of paramount importance. Someone may ask if Canada is a cattle country. Well, we can produce in Canada cattle as good as can be produced anywhere in the world, and we have demonstrated that over and over again. I remember last year talking to a member of parliament who said our trouble was that we did not have the proper beef here in Canada, and I think he doubted if we could produce it. I just want to remind him of the reception given our cattle when they were placed on the British market in the fresh beef state this year, they outsold even the home product. Yes, we can produce the right kind of cattle in Canada. We have some handicaps, but we

also have some great advantages. I think one of our greatest assets is our climate, which helps produce feeder stock which, when removed to other feeding grounds such as the United States or the old country, make rapid gains. Many times I have read the statement by old country feeders that Canadian cattle were the healthiest and best doers in the world.
Someone may ask if we have markets available. I would say that we have three important markets to which Canadian live stock raisers have access and in which they enjoy advantages shared by live stock raisers in only one or two other countries. First I will deal with the domestic market, which after all, I believe to be of first importance. In reading the Ottawa papers I notice that on the market here one can buy hindquarters of beef for eight cents a pound. I wonder what kind of beef that is. We are selling our best beef in Winnipeg for as much as eight cents a pound live weight; yet those carcasses can be purchased on the market here for eight cents a pound, dressed. I wonder if one could really call it beef. Perhaps a better name for it would be cat meat, which is the term used in referring to dairy cattle. I am not blaming the farmers; I am not blaming the people who buy this meat.
I am just pointing out that consumers will not make an exclusive diet of that sort of food, but will buy just as little as they can get away with. I would take those dairy cows and inferior beef animals and make canner meat of them. I have not the figures before me, but I believe we import thousands of pounds of canned meat annually from South America. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture could find some way of canning those old dairy cows and selling them in place of the meat we import from the Argentine.
I should like to say something about the British market. There we have a preferred position in regard to both live cattle and beef. We are also in a preferred position in regard to live cattle going into the United States. But I am sorry we are not in a more preferred position in regard to sending dressed beef to the United States, that six cents a pound duty is almost prohibitive. I shall . refer to markets later on in my speech.
May I now deal with the proper type that Canadian farmers should be producing. We have three main beef breeds in Canada, and I am going to take the old reliable shorthorns first. I believe they may be classed as the universal breed, because they have gone into nearly every corner of the civilized world. The Scottish shorthorns, which are the pure beef type, are a model of beef. No one who

Live Stock-Mr. Leader
loves beef cattle can find any fault with a model of Scottish shorthorn. Developed in Great Britain and imported to America they made rapid strides. But I believe the Argentine furnishes us with the greatest example in regard to what a good breed of cattle can do. I am sorry I never have had the opportunity, as I know some hon. members have, to view the carcasses as they are hung up in the Smithfield market, and those people declare that the carcasses do not vary an inch in length. They are as uniform as beef carcasses can possibly be.
But there is another breed of shorthorn cattle. This breed also was developed in England, and I believe they are good cattle. But they are not a good beef type. I am sorry to know that many farmers in Canada are trying to get the proper type of beef animal from a dual purpose shorthorn cow. If it is crossed with a good beef bull, there is no doubt it is possible to get a fair animal, but one cannot get the right type of beef which can be expected to compete with the type produced in some other countries.
I wonder how many members in the house to-night have visited the royal winter fair. I assume many have. But I would ask those who have not to take time off next year, so as to visit that exhibition. I would ask them to watch the judging of the shorthorn cattle, and the dual purpose shorthorns, and study the difference between the two breeds. In that way they will get the idea I am trying to convey. It is impossible to get the proper type of beef animal from dairy shorthorns.
The second breed I would mention are the Herefords. or the white-faces. A man who understands the beef business knows that the Hereford is supreme on the ranges of this country. They have made a valuable contribution on this North American continent. I believe it is a well known fact that our best beef comes from the western ranges. I read that the baby beeves which were killed and fetched the top prices in Great Britain-more, indeed, than the Scottish beasts-were baby beeves of the Hereford breed.
I must now turn to my own special breed of cattle, the Aberdeen-Angus. I will not say they are any better than any other breed, but I prefer them, and that is why I am breeding them. Modesty will not permit me to extol the virtues of this particular breed, and for that reason I shall offer to the house some comments from authorities on live stock. I shall quote a sentence from Alvin Sanders, who used to be editor of the Breeders' Gazette, a publication printed in Chicago, and at one time the greatest live stock journal on the North American continent. I noticed this
observation in the Iowa Journal two or three years ago, and I have been saving it, never expecting to use it other than for my own information. The quotation is as follows:
Generally speaking I would say that of all the beef breeds the Aberdeen-Angus is the most highly specialized. It seems most perfectly adapted to the production of superlative block results under high pressure fattening rations.
May I now quote another first class authority, the Hon. Duncan Marshall. This observation, too, was reported in the Iowa Journal and reproduced in the pages of the Farmers' Advocate, an Ontario publication. The Hon. Duncan Marshall, it may be noted, is a past president of the shorthorn association, and when visiting the Smithfield show he said:
When I got to the good steers it was a rare treat. The cross cattle were very fine, and this means the Aberdeen-Angus cross. This was particularly true of the good steers, as with the exception of a few blue ones practically all the high class steers in the show yard had black skins. The results of fat stock shows in various parts of the world must have made it apparent to everyone that cross-bred commercial cattle are continually coming to the front. This is particularly true where the cross has been the blending of Aberdeen-Angus and shorthorn character.
May I quote this further article from our own Commercial Intelligence Journal of February 20, 1937. This will be of interest to hon. members, and of interest to people throughout the country-if they should have an opportunity to read my remarks. The Commercial Intelligence Journal makes this statement.
Buyers have expressed pleasure at the steady improvement in the type and class of cattle shipped from Canada, and particularly in 1936 there has been a much more satisfactory proportion of young cattle, including a large number of well-bred cross-Angus types, which are particularly favoured in Scotland.
In connection with prices, it must be pointed out that the choicest beef cattle received from Canada-young cross-Angus types weighing from 1,000 to 1,150 pounds-have fetched as much as 45s. per live cwt., and that the average for a complete shipment is very much reduced by prices realized for rough, inferior cattle.
I could continue, but that will be sufficient for my purpose. Hon. members may be wondering what connection all this may have with the production of a proper beef type of Canadian cattle, the type which we may hope to export to Great Britain. It is a fact that most of the female stock in Canada, most of the cows, are of shorthorn foundation. That is true in regard to Ireland also. Ireland is using the very finest types of purely beef bred shorthorns, Herefords and Aberdeen-Angus on the shorthorn cows to produce the desired product for Great Britain. That is the point I wish to make.
Live Stock-Mr. Leader

So far, however, as Canadian cattle are concerned, speaking generally their quality is not high. I would not wish to leave the impression that we have not very many fine
herds of all breeds of cattle. But the average cow from which most of these store cattle are being produced is not high. There is no gainsaying that statement, and as proof of it may I point out that I have examined the figures for the last number of years covering shipments made to our stock-yards, and I have found that only one-third of the cattle going into Canadian stock-yards are of the two top grades, namely choice and good, and two-thirds are in the lower brackets, namely medium and common. This statement should convince anyone that the quality of our cattle needs grading up. We must find some way of improving our beef cattle, and there is no easier, quicker or more efficient way of doing so than through the use of better sires.
I am going to say something about the bull policies now in force in Canada. I contend that our policies have been rather slipshod and haphazard. There has been no settled policy, either federal or provincial. Sometimes one province was in and sometimes the other was out. At other times there has been overlapping. Canada has no really stable live stock policy. I was going to give the details of the federal bull policy in Canada, but I see my time is slipping by. Suffice it to say that our policies are certainly not to be commended. I believe the desire is to do the best that can be done, but we must evolve some other method of improving our stock.
I should like to give figures relative to bulls on loan by the federal government, according to the information secured last year from the department. These figures are not divided into dual purpose and beef type animals, so I do not know the percentages. There were 1,342 shorthorn bulls on loan, or seventy-three per cent of the total. There were 357 Here-fords, or nineteen per cent. There were 148 Aberdeen-Angus, or eight per cent. I also obtained the figures with regard to the prairie farm rehabilitation association. They have purchased fifteen shorthorns, three Herefords and two Aberdeen-Angus.
In comparison with what Canada has done in this regard, I should like to refer to the efforts made by Ireland. We must remember that Ireland is our chief competitor. Last year I took it upon myself to send to the old country to get all the information possible in regard to the policies adopted in Great Britain and Ireland. There is certainly a wealth of material available. I shall not give it in

detail, but I have a few notes in regard to the cattle industry in Ireland.
The cattle industry of Ireland is of a twofold character. The cattle are bred for both dairy and beef purposes. The annual value of the dairy industry is approximately $40,000,000, while the value of the beef trade is approximately $100,000,000. Ireland exports approximately 750,000 live cattle to Great Britain annually. The breeding cows are ninety per cent dual purpose shorthorns, and the endeavour is to mate these to high-class beef type bulls, mostly of the shorthorn, Hereford and Aberdeen-Angus breeds. As the Irish farmer cannot afford to neglect the dairy end of his business and must replenish his dairy herd from time to time, a good percentage of dairy shorthorn bulls are used. At the same time they realize that if their store and beef cattle are to find favour in the British market, they must show a measure of superior beef type. The Irish have always taken a keen interest in .their cattle industry, as they realize the importance that industry plays in their national economy.
Down through the years state assistance has been given, mostly in the form of subsidizing the sire. While the various schemes resulted in general improvement, the efforts were voluntary and there were always some who were careless in their breeding operations. This inferior stock found its way to market and hurt the reputation of the Irish cattle. In 1924 a more determined effort was made to improve the qualities of their store cattle. The minister of agriculture introduced a bill which called for the licensing of all bulls in the country, and the act came into force the following year. It is to be noted that this policy of improvement coincided with the lifting of the embargo against Canadian cattle entering Great Britain. They felt sure that we would take advantage of our opportunities, and they were determined to improve the quality of their own stock.
I have dealt with the class of bulls on loan by the dominion government, and I should now like to give the comparative figures for Ireland. I am going to do this by quoting the figures obtained from bull sales which have been held in Ireland. I hold in my hand tables giving the results over a ten year period of the bull sales in Dublin and Belfast, the largest markets in the north and south of Ireland. It would save considerable time if I could have these tables placed on Hansard. First, I would summarize the figures by stating that in the Dublin sales there was a total of 1,540 beef shorthorns sold, the average price received being $178. There were 2,659 Aberdeen-Angus sold, the average price being

Live Stock-Mr. Leader
$205. There were 1,929 Herefords sold, the average price being $212.50. In the Belfast sales, there were 2,012 beef shorthorns sold at an average price of $154.50. There were 985 Aberdeen-Angus sold, at an average price of $163. There were no Hereford sold.


Frederick George Sanderson: The statements may be placed on Hansard only with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Harry Leader: are practically ignorant of the fact that we have a bull scheme in operation. Such schemes are well advertised in Ireland. I have a statement here which I shall not take time to read, but there is no doubt that the quality of the Irish cattle which have been shipped during the last ten years has improved wonderfully, So much for cattle improvement.
I should now like to go back to the markets I mentioned a moment ago. I made the statement that Ireland exported annually to Great Britain approximately 750,000 head of store cattle, and I believe that last year it was in the neighbourhood of 850,000 head. Canada exported on the average in the last five years a little over 27,000 head. This means, Mr. Speaker, that for every one store beast that we sold to the old country, Ireland sold twenty-eight.
I want to say a word about the irregularity of our cattle shipments to the old country, which I believe is one of the main reasons why we have not been able to gain more headway in that market. We have not been able to assure the buyers in Great Britain of a continuity of supply. I made the statement in the house on a former occasion that we should be prepared, if necessary, to bonus our cattle going to Great Britain to provide a certain minimum consignment every month, thus assuring that market of a continuity of supply. I have before me figures of our cattle shipments covering a ten year period, and they go from none in 1929 to 27,307 head in 1938; in one year it was 53,852 head and the next year 6,704 head, which indicates how irregular our shipments to the old country have been. The same applies to our shipment of cattle to the United States. In 1929 we shipped 160.103 head; in 1930, 19,483 head; in 1931, 9,000 head; in 1935, 102,000; in 1937, 208,000; in 1938, 98,408.
We have heard something about filling our quota of cattle going into the United States, and I have figures here for the last three years since we negotiated our first treaty with the United States. In 1936 Canada sent 134,610 head of cattle to the United States, or 86-4 per cent of the quota, while Mexico shipped 21,189, or 13-6 per cent of the quota; in 1937 Canada shipped 131,193 head, or 84-2 per cent of the quota, and Mexico 24,606 head, or 15-8 per cent of the quota; in 1938 we shipped 75,529 head, or 60-3 per cent of the quota, and Mexico shipped 49,741, or 39-7 per cent of the quota. Neither country was able to fill the entire quota last year; but if we had been in a position to take advantage of the United States market, if we had had a sufficient number of cattle, we would perhaps have had about the same

percentage of quota as we had in the two previous years, which averaged eighty-five per cent. I do not intend to follow that any further this evening because it would take too much time.
I want to say something about the possibilities of placing fresh killed beef in the old country. I have a table here showing a total of 11,184,928 long hundredweights of beef imported into Great Britain in 1938. That represents 2,236,985 head of cattle, and of this vast trade Canada's share was 5,200 hundredweight, or 1,300 head-1,300 head in a total of 2,236,985 head! As to the possibilities of placing our fresh killed beef on the British market, first I want to give full credit to the Minister of Agriculture and his department for the experiment they have carried on in the past year, although in my opinion it was not necessary because the feasibility of placing our fresh killed beef on the British market had been demonstrated on three previous occasions. Nevertheless I am here to pay this tribute, that the department has proved beyond any doubt the feasibility of this undertaking, which, after all, is perhaps a very good thing.
We have had various reports in regard to our fresh killed beef placed on the British market and how it was received. One man said it was sensational. '


Frederick George Sanderson: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him that he has spoken for forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Frederick George Sanderson: With the
unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Harry Leader: Mr. Shaw, director of marketing service of the Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, speaking at the conference in Winnipeg, said:
Among the difficulties being encountered are an extremely limited supply of beef of the proper kind.
Does it not mean something to the farmers of this country that we cannot find twenty-five good cattle a week to ship to the old land? It should mean something and it does. I want to suggest to the minister to-night that he place a buyer at the boys' and girls' shows held annually in all parts of Canada and pay a fair price for these cattle in competition with the different abattoirs. I know that the buyers from the abattoirs are good patrons of these sales and that they pay a fair price, but I am going to ask the department to place a buyer there in competition,

Live Stock-Mr. Leader
which may help sell these cattle and will encourage our young boys and girls to raise more beef. There is no doubt they will find the proper type of beef cattle at these shows.
Mr. Shaw goes on to enumerate other difficulties encountered:
Insufficient depth to railway refrigerator cars to allow for hanging full sides, this necessitating the removal of the chuck on the majority of the carcases; lack of necessary facilities at the docks for the safe and economical handling of fresh commodities; insufficient depth in ship's refrigerator chamber to allow hanging of full sides.
All these are serious handicaps. Last year I stated that I believed these cattle should be killed at the seaboard and then loaded directly into our ships and transported, and that there should be no rail haul for dressed beef. If we develop a system in this country whereby we are going to kill these cattle at Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton and elsewhere, it is going to mean railway transportation and the providing of refrigeration facilities, and the producers of this country will have to pay for that equipment. There is no doubt that it will come out of the price to the producers.
Mr. Shaw mentions that dock and shipping facilities are lacking. But we must have these facilities in any event. If we are going to spend money in providing proper equipment, all well and good, but I would hesitate to develop this industry on the basis of having the cattle killed in the interior.and shipped to the seaboard.
I want to quote what the minister said last year when this matter was under discussion. He told us that the beef slaughtered at Birkenhead sold for prices which compared favourably with the prices paid for the best Scottish beef; also that the beef which was killed in Montreal sold at a little lower price; and that which was killed in Saskatoon brought a lower price still. The minister also told us that our Canadian railways did not have proper cars to transport the beef. Again he said that we are carrying on the experiment under the most difficult conditions one can possibly prescribe, and if we can succeed under those conditions we could succeed much better if we had better facilities. There is no doubt that the experiment has succeeded; but I still maintain that if we are going to develop this great industry, our cattle must be killed at the seaboard, placed directly in refrigerator ships, and put on the market in the best possible condition. I wish just to quote-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I would ask the hon. member to be as brief as possible, because he has exceeded his time.


Harry Leader: I am sorry.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Harry Leader: I am about to close. I am really cutting it out in chunks. I wanted to
quote the president of the Western Live Stock Union of Canada. In addressing a conference at Winnipeg he made this statement:
Beef has to hang between 9, 10 and 12 days to make it perfect for consumption purposes. Practically the time it takes from the time it leaves our ports to arrive in the British market is the time to make it prime fresh beef.
Last year I quoted Doctor Hind, who, I believe, is one of the greatest authorities in Canada on this subject. She has made a world tour, and has investigated this matter with great care. She makes the definite statement that these cattle should be killed at the seaboard, as they do in the Argentine, if we are to meet with the measure of success which we deserve. And so I maintain that our natural advantages should not be lost by the adoption of false methods. The benefits of this industry should go primarily to the producer rather than to the transportation companies and the private packing plants.
I would recommend to the minister that he develop cooperative producers' packing plants. These, I believe, should be followed up by cooperative retail butcher shops for the sale of our cattle in Great Britain.
I would recommend that the federal government discontinue their bull loaning policy. Let them get out of the business altogether and enable the provinces to develop a policy of their own. This is too big a country to develop and provide for these matters from Ottawa; it should be a provincial responsibility, and I believe the provinces would undertake it if they were encouraged to do so. I suggest to the provinces that they carry out policies similar to the ones now in vogue in Ireland. This would leave the federal government with plenty to do. In my opinion they should assist the provinces on a fifty-fifty basis, giving them sufficient financial aid and allowing them supervision of the bull schemes. According to the figures for 1937, the federal government bull policy cost S71,920.52, which is a beginning of the financial assistance they might give to the provinces. The federal government would still guard the health of our cattle.
Another thing I think the federal authorities might do is to discourage the increasing practice of shipping direct to packing plants; they should encourage shipments to the stockyards. Our primary duty however, is to search for new outlets for our live stock products and develop an efficient marketing service.
Live Stock-Mr. Hay hurst


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I am
sorry, but the hon. member has now exceeded his time by ten or twelve minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Harry Leader: All I am going to say, Mr. Speaker, is that anything that the government, the Minister of Agriculture or his department can do will have my hearty cooperation.


Mr. WILLIAM HAYHURST (Vegreville):: We have listened with a great deal of interest to what has been said by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader).
This resolution is very broad in its scope. It suggests that a special committee of hon. members be appointed "to inquire into the conditions pertaining to the Canadian live stock industry in all its phases, and with special reference to the production, sale and distribution of all live stock and live stock products, both in Canada and abroad." The hon. member has covered the subject very well. As he is a breeder of Aberdeen-Angus cattle and I am a breeder of shorthorns, we have something in common. We feel that the farming community of Canada is a basic community. As the hon. member said, agriculture is a basic industry; with that we all agree.
This afternoon we listened to many speeches, all of them dealing with agriculture. Some speeches advocated the fixing of a just price for products such as wheat, oats, barley and rye. For myself, I would just as soon see a just price for live stock, irrespective of whether they are from dairy herds or live stock as sold to the packing plants.
It was my privilege this last summer to go to England and France and see something of the live stock industry in those two great countries, as well as to get some information about the marketing methods practised there. I myself was born on a farm in England, and I know something of the shorthorn cattle industry from the ground upward, particularly its great development in the north of England and the south of Scotland. As the hon. member for Portage la Prairie has said, the cross between shorthorns and Aberdeen-Angus gives the best beef on the Smith-field market.
It is along the line of quality that I would address my remarks this evening, although I intend to speak briefly. I do not know that much was said this afternoon about quality- not as much as should have been said. Hon. members were saying that the price of wheat should be ninety-five cents for No. 1 northern; but most western farmers do not raise No. 1

northern, and the fact is that the great spread in prices, rather than the actual figure for No. 1 northern wheat, is what cripples the farmers in western Canada. The same principle is true of our cattle industry. Many of our finest cattle are sold to the packing plants without much real grading, that is, such as would give the farmer the benefit of the grade. As has been suggested with regard to wheat, so with cattle, we do not always get the benefit of the grade.
As regards the sale of quality cattle, it is vitally important that the government see to it that farmers who raise good cattle get a proper price. The same applies also to the hog industry. Farmers who raise good hogs should reap the benefit of their skill. We know we have a quota from Great Britain for hogs, and that quota is not filled. Year in and year out many thousands more hogs could be shipped to the British market. When I was in England I noticed that on many of the street-cars and buses was the sign, "Eat Danish bacon-it's best." On other buses one would see, "Bacon is best when it's Danish." Wherever you went you would see those signs. We did not see many Canadian signs, although I noticed on the back of the Commercial Intelligence Journal some window-dressing,-"Buy Canadian eggs." Such things are good in their way. But I found that in England they know very little about some of the very best products which Canada raises. [DOT]
I remember that last year the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) suggested that cheese had not been properly advertised in Great Britain before he investigated the matter, and that upon investigation and a proper advertising campaign being put on, a great improvement in the cheese business developed. There is no doubt that it pays to advertise. I suppose that many hon. members receive these communications from different advertising companies stating that if we advertised more, even in Canada, we could sell tremendous quantities of cheese, butter and other products. There is no doubt that if much of the foolishness over the radio were changed into advertising, to tell the people that we have millions of pounds of good butter ready for distribution and sale to Canadian citizens, much more butter would be used. So we are missing even our own market. The dairy producers find a glut of butter on the market and are anxious that it be removed so that they can get a reasonable or just price for their butter.
As other hon. members have said, agriculture is the basic industry of Canada. But

Live Stock-Mr. Coldwell
the foundation of agriculture is the soil. The Minister of Agriculture has a great rehabilitation program for western Canada, and I do not doubt that it is needed in eastern Canada also. We should not be provincial in these matters; we are just as vitally interested in the work of French-Canadian farmers in Quebec or the farmers in the maritime provinces or in Ontario as we are in the western farmers; all farmers should benefit. If the soil is depleted, productive capacity will be curtailed. So the problem of rehabilitation is fundamental.
I have a clipping from the London Daily Telegraph and Morning Post's financial and industrial review of February 13, 1939, in which Viscount Lymington is quoted as saying that one of the greatest wastes in Australia and in Canada is the development of desert areas caused by the destruction of the sod on large sections of land. If the cattle industry were restored to its proper prominence in Canada and proper rotations introduced on cultivated land, this waste would be stopped. Our capital depends upon soil fertility more than on any other factor. If the fertility of the soil is destroyed, our cheap food of to-day will be dear to-morrow. At present we hear about a surplus of foodstuffs, but many economists believe that we are heading for a time when there will not be any too much for the world's needs. Today farmers are in trouble for lack of markets, and in the virgin areas little attention has been paid to conserving the fertility of the land. We have had a great number of "soil miners."


Mr. MICHAUD:: Gold diggers.


William Hayhurst: They are gold diggers
on the surface. They are using up the best of the soil and our capital is being lost. Whatever the base of our money, it is ultimately based on the productive capacity, the real value 'of our great dominion. Yet we are actually making deserts, and that is the greatest waste in Canada to-day. So, when talking about live stock production or any agricultural production, we must remember that it depends upon soil fertility, and not waste that fertility, which is our country's capital. Another great waste is the wasted organic matter. One need not go far in western Canada in the fall, after the threshing season is over, to see a lurid glow on the horizon from the burning straw piles. Much of that vegetable matter should be returned to the soil. We have many agricultural experts in the Department of Agriculture who could probably give ideas of more value than my rambling 71492-87
remarks. But what we want is results; we want the experts to see that this waste is stopped.
The hon. member for Portage la Prairie spoke of marketing. I was going to read a statement about marketing by Viscount Lymington. He said:
The profit and costs taken by the distributor mean that so much less food is consumed than should be consumed, that prices are forced down still more owing to what is wrongly called "the world surplus of production."
The idea briefly is that the extent of the spread in prices between what the farmer gets and what the consumer has to pay actually lessens consumption. We know that if one orders a beefsteak in the dining car on the train, one has to pay as much for it as the farmer gets for two bushels of wheat. Consequently this great spread in prices is probably the greatest waste we have in the distribution process in Canada to-day. The removal of that waste should improve our agricultural well-being, raise the standard of living in Canada and benefit our farming industry.
Whatever type of animal we are raising, the first thing to be stressed is quality. Then we must have a comprehensive marketing plan both in Canada and abroad. Both eastern and western Canada will benefit by such a marketing scheme. I do not know whether the hon. member for Portage la Prairie meant that we should give the provinces more control of our cattle and hog raising industries, but we should see that the very best products possible are produced. Then, with our advertising campaign, we should be able to compete with the products of Ireland or Denmark on the British market, and instead of the British people thinking that the best bacon is Danish they will know that the best bacon is Canadian.


Major James William Coldwell: This resolution of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) has the support of this group. We believe that a committee such as suggested by this resolution would serve a useful purpose. The resolution is broad and general; it relates to "the Canadian live stock industry in all its phases, and with special reference to the production"-that I think was well covered by the mover-and the "sale and distribution of all live stock and live stock products."
Throughout the country there is a great deal of dissatisfaction regarding the sale and distribution of live stock and live stock products. The spread between what the producer receives and what the consumer pays cannot be understood by either the producer or the consumer. To-day we have two packing firms

Live Stock-Mr. Coldwell

which together control some eighty-five per cent of the entire packing business of Canada. I know they deny that and say it is an overstatement; that if we took into account all the animals slaughtered in local abattoirs and slaughterhouses, that percentage would be greatly reduced; in fact they say it would be cut about in half. But I just draw this to the attention of the house, that after all the price is set, not by the animals slaughtered in local slaughterhouses, but by the animals marketed on the big markets where the packers, because of lack of competition, are practically able to set the price. The price spreads committee . made the statement that two companies controlled eighty-five per cent of that business. So it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this house would be well advised to set up a committee to deal with the matter suggested by the mover of the resolution and to carry on from where the price spreads committee left off in that regard.
We have heard from the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hayhurst) something about the marketing of our products in Great Britain. When I was at my old home there several years ago, we had visiting us a gentleman who had been in Canada for thirty years, whom I had known here and who had gone back to live in Scotland. When we had Danish bacon for breakfast I suggested that Canadian bacon was good, but this gentleman remarked that Canadian bacon did not compare with the Danish' product. The next day I bought some Canadian bacon and took it home to my mother, and I remember that we found it to be quite inferior to the bacon they were accustomed to use. There must be some reason for that. I believe in latter years that condition has been improved owing to the fact that, as I am told, our packing firms are following the example of Denmark and shipping the sides to Great Britain, curing them there to a certain extent.
I think this resolution is worthy of the support of all hon. members, and I hope that when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) speaks, he will agree to the setting up of such a committee. I have risen on behalf of this particular group simply to say that we shall be glad to give the proposal all our support.


Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to say anything on this resolution, but because of its importance I think I must trespass on the goodwill of the house for a few moments to support the proposal of my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader). I am only sorry that it was not brought in during an earlier session of parliament, because it opens up a broad

field. My hon. friend took something over his allotted time to discuss the subject, but I believe he only touched the fringe of it. There is so much to be said and so much to be considered in connection with this matter that I do not believe any committee could make a thorough review of all the aspects and phases of the live stock industry, including production and marketing, unless it worked practically every day.
I think we all agree that the live stock industry is not in a flourishing condition at the present time. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hayhurst) said live stock was the backbone of agriculture. So it is. If we are to maintain the fertility of our farms it is important that we keep a certain number of live stock. This is a most important branch of agriculture; I believe it stands fourth in the matter of returns to the farmers. In the nine years from 1930 to 1938 the value of farm animals produced in Canada was $1,046,000,000. If one adds to that the value of the wool produced, amounting to $18,000,000, and of the poultry and eggs produced, amounting to $482,000,000, one has a grand total of $1,547,000,000, only about $10,000,000 less than the value of our wheat production, about which so much is said in this house. So live stock is a very important industry in Canada, and anything that can be done to strengthen its position and put it on a more profitable basis should and, I believe, will have the support of all members of this house.
My hon. friend who introduced the resolution dealt principally with cattle, but that is only one phase of the live stock industry. We have cattle, horses, sheep, swine and poultry, all of which contribute largely to the revenues of our farmers, and each of which is important in itself. We have some 728,000 farmers in this country, and I believe over half of them derive a considerable proportion of their income from live stock. That means we have over 350,000 units producing live stock in Canada. Because we have all these small units it necessarily follows that they must be serviced. The live stock which they produce must be collected, killed, processed and distributed. During the last quarter century the character of these services has greatly changed. As time goes on, a much larger proportion of our live stock is being slaughtered in abattoirs, which involves increased costs in connection with freight, processing and distribution. For some reason or another these services seem to be continually widening the spread between producer and consumer prices, and I believe, if this committee functions, something should be

Live Stock-Mr. Senn
done in the way of making a particular study of this question, because it seems to me that the spread has become rather too wide, so that it is interfering not only with the price the consumer has to pay but also with the return to the farmer.
After all, Mr. Speaker, we export a very small proportion of our live stock production. In 1937 we exported some seventeen per cent of our cattle, twenty-five per cent of our hogs, less than one per cent of our sheep, and 1-9 per cent of our poultry and poultry products. In all, we exported some eleven or twelve per cent of our live stock products, but the unfortunate thing is that it is the export price which largely determines what the farmer will receive for his cattle and other live stock. It seems to me that question should be considered carefully, because this does not appear to be a fair or sound basis upon which to set live stock prices in Canada.
The matter has been mentioned already, but I should like to say something in regard to the way in which our bacon is marketed in Great Britain. Unfortunately it does not command a comparable price with bacon from other countries. I have before me the weekly market report of February 23, giving the comparative prices of bacon in Great Britain, and unfortunately Canada is lowest of all. The price for a long hundredweight of Canadian bacon ranges from eighty-five to ninety-two shillings, while Danish bacon ranges from ninety-one to 100 shillings and English bacon from ninety to 100 shillings. The bacon more nearly in line with Canadian bacon is Baltic bacon, the price of which ranges from eighty-four to ninety-two shillings per hundredweight. Something should be done about this situation. It is most unfortunate that we in Canada, producing so many hogs of extra good quality, should be forced to take the prices we are taking to-day in the market of Great Britain, our chief market for our exportable surplus.
Something has -been said about the price spreads commission. I can remember that before that commission Mr. Stanley McLean, head of Canada Packers, told us that the price which we receive for Canadian bacon in England is the chief determining factor in the price the farmer receives for his hogs. I believe if we were to send over a better quality of bacon, and bacon of more uniform quality, we would help the farmer materially in the price he receives for his hogs.
A good deal has been said about production. I fully agree with the hon. member who introduced the resolution when he says that our beef cattle are not as good as they should be. Of course we have many good
herds, but if an hon. member were to go to the Toronto stock-yards he would find nondescript cattle there for sale. The prices received for these poorer grades of cattle have a tendency to reduce the price of cattle throughout the dominion, because the same thing is true not only at the Toronto stockyards but at Winnipeg and other points.
Something was said by one hon. member about canning our old dairy cows. That might be one solution of the problem, but I believe we could very well afford to establish a fund to take off the markets altogether those old dairy cows and the cheaper trash appearing on the markets. I believe if we did that we would go a long way toward improving the prices the farmer receives for his cattle.
I said at the beginning I did not intend to speak at length, but may I say this one further word: Too often the farmer's products do not flow on to the market in the right proportions. There are certain periods of the year when hogs, particularly, flow to the markets very rapidly. At other times in the year the packers cannot get enough to supply their requirements. Something should be done to control this situation, and I do not believe it will ever be done unless the Department of Agriculture undertakes it. Farmers cannot very well get together in the matter and regulate the flow of their hogs to the market. I have heard it said that there are times, particularly in the spring and fall, when the hogs are coming out so rapidly the abattoirs are unable to handle them, and they are left in pens for three or four days. As a result they fail in flesh; there is considerable shrinkage ; they have to be fed and, naturally, when the abattoir has an over-supply it is not inclined to pay the price it might otherwise pay if some sort of regimentation were carried out, and the farmers could be induced to bring their hogs along more evenly throughout the year.
Something wras said about the law of supply and demand governing our prices. It seems to me there must be some correlation of that law of supply and demand, if it is to govern. In my view that, too, is the duty of our Department of Agriculture. I say that because unless something is done by way of setting up a marketing board, or of setting up some method of cooperative marketing, we are not going to solve the farmers' price problem, which after all is the most serious one with which he is faced.
I have said before, and I now repeat, that if the farmer is given a reasonable price for his product we need not worry about his producing the goods. He will produce them
Live Stock-Mr. Evans

in quantity and quality. As long as he does not get a reasonable price he will be discouraged. The effect at the present time is that he is not producing as he should produce, and is not taking the care he should take.
I believe the resolution is worthy of the support of the house. I repeat that I am sorry it was not brought in at a former session, because if the matter is to be thoroughly investigated by a committee, undoubtedly such investigation could not be completed before the end of the session when it would be too late for the government to take action on any suggestions the committee might make.


Mr. C. R. EVANS (Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say. only a few words with respect to the live stock policy in the debate on the resolution presented to the house by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader). May I say at the outset that he deserves a great deal of credit for presenting in an able manner the difficulties live stock breeders are having in marketing their product, and the trouble they are having in controlling the breeding of good beef cattle. I agree with him to this extent, that we should breed good beef cattle-not to quantity, but to quality. In Saskatchewan in the past two or three years our herds have been reduced. May I say to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that at the present time in Saskatchewan we have a situation which offers to his department and to the department in Regina an opportunity to supervise the replacement of herds, and particularly the breeding stock, in southern Saskatchewan, so that we may breed a quality of cattle which will meet the demands of the beef market.
In the short time I shall take I should like to direct my remarks more particularly to the live stock industry in Saskatchewan. That portion of the province I have the honour to represent is particularly adapted to the raising and producing of good live stock, including cattle, horses, sheep and hogs.
For the past number of years the ranchers in southwestern Saskatchewan have endeavoured to develop their herds to meet the market demands for first quality beef. In that part of the province I believe we have some of the best herds of white-faced cattle to be found anywhere on the north American continent. I have in mind one particular herd owned by a large rancher. This ranch straddles the border of Saskatchewan and Alberta and consists of about 10,000 or 12,000 head of cattle, and I would say for the last
[Mr. Senn.1
fifteen or twenty years they have been using the best males money could buy, in whitefaced cattle. To-day the herd is possibly as good as any pure bred herd on the north American continent, although they are not registered.
Two years ago from the town of Maple Creek we marketed something like 16,000 head of cattle. About 2,000 of these were marketed under the emergency policy of the federal Department of Agriculture, but the balance were either beef or store cattle which were shipped to eastern Canada. I was particularly interested in one shipment that went to the maritime provinces. The gentleman who bought these cattle came out west in the latter part of 1937 when the store cattle had been nearly all shipped out, and there was nothing left but spade heifers. Many of the feeders in eastern Canada, particularly in that portion of the maritime provinces from which he came, did not know anything about this class of cattle. I went out with him to a rancher who had, in a feeding lot, about 200 head of this particular kind of cattle, and he chose a carload of twenty-eight head, which was shipped to Truro, Nova Scotia. I asked him to keep in touch with me and let me know the success of the shipment. Later on I received word that these cattle had fed out satisfactorily and had been shipped overseas.
When the herds in Saskatchewan were reduced in 1937, there were 508,000 head of all classes of cattle shipped out, and under the federal marketing policy, about 74,000 head. There were a lot of immature and what is commonly known as scrub cattle taken out of the province. Naturally this left the best type of cattle in the hands of the farmers and ranchers. Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act the federal government has been setting up community pastures in the drought areas, and in 1937 many of these small ranchers and farmers will keep their best cattle in these pastures. As the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) has said, under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act there were purchased twenty pure bred bulls last year to be put in these community pastures for the production of a better class of live stock.
The federal bull loaning policy is in operation in Saskatchewan, and the hon. member for Portage la Prairie has already given the number of pure bred sires that have been put out during the years this policy has been in operation. From 1933 to 1938 there have been put out under the federal bull loaning policy in Saskatchewan, 371 shorthorns, 116

Live Stock-Mr. Evans
Herefords, forty Aberdeen-Angus, three red poll and one Holstein. It is interesting to note that under the emergency policy of 1937, the greatest number of scrub and inferior cattle came from those areas where dairying was being carried on. The better class of cattle came from the ranching areas in the southwest which breed particularly white-faced cattle. As the hon. member for Portage la Prairie has stated, this is the best class of beef cattle, together with shorthorns and black-poll Angus.
Then we have in operation in Saskatchewan what is known as the pure bred sire areas act, which came into force in 1927. This act becomes operative on the application by a municipality that the area within that municipality become what is known as a pure bred sire area. The act covers bulls, stallions, boars and rams, and stipulates that the animals used in the particular municipality shall be pure breds and come up to a certain standard. In the case of the hog and sheep families, good sires may be used which are not pure breds. There are sixty-nine municipalities in the province operating under this act, and very good results have been obtained in the ten years it has been in operation. However, there have been set-backs because of the drought.
We also have in that province a.company which will loan a certain amount of money to a farmer with which to buy a good type of female for the production of beef. This company is known as the Dominion Agricultural Credit Association, and it operates in the three prairie provinces. They have inspectors who go out to choose the females for breeding purposes, and also to inspect the farm and ranch where the females are to be kept to see that there is proper water, shelter and feed. Credit is extended to the farmer or rancher for a period of three years, and payments are made from the production of the animal.
We hear a great deal about the exporting of beef, and I should like to refer briefly to this matter. We had some experience in this regard in the southwestern part of the province in 1933 and 1934, and the results were not very satisfactory. I notice from the statistics of the Department of Agriculture that in 1933 we exported to Great Britain a little over 50,000 head of cattle. The exports in 1934 numbered 53,000 head. My experience is that this is not the best way to export our beef. For example, I know of two cars containing fifty-six head which were shipped in 1934. These cattle were of the same breed as those raised by the hon. member for Portage
la Prairie. They were a splendid type of animal weighing about 1,280 pounds. They were billed through from my home town to Montreal, from which point they were to be shipped to Birkenhead, England. When they were inspected at Winnipeg, one steer was taken out because it showed signs of lump-jaw. This animal was sold on October 14 and brought $27.50. The other fifty-five head went through to Birkenhead where they were sold, but the rancher received only $17.50 a head, compared with the $27.50 he received in Winnipeg for the steer showing lump-jaw.
I agree with the hon. member for Haldi-mand (Mr. Senn) and the hon. member for Portage la Prairie when they say that it would be much better to have our steers slaughtered at the sea port and shipped as fresh killed beef. In that way we could distribute our shipments over the year to much better advantage than we can when shipping the live steers. The low prices that the rancher and beef breeder received for their cattle in 1934 resulted in our shipping to the old country in 1935 only 6,704 head of cattle.
I should now like to say a few words on the horse industry. In the portion of the province from which I come, many horses of various types and classes are raised on the ranches. We have a good type of heavy draft horse, but apparently the western horse does not meet the demands of the eastern market to the extent we should like. I think there might be some way of having supervision of the marketing of our western horses.
We also have in southwestern Saskatchewan an association known as the Hunter and Saddle Association, of which we have a breeding station at Shaunavon and another at Maple Creek. The association is given assistance by the federal Department of Agriculture, which supplies a thoroughbred stallion to each breeding station. This service has been in operation for about ten years with satisfactory results. Last year at the Hunter and Saddle show at Shaunavon and Maple Creek some splendid animals were shown, and some of them changed hands to eastern buyers at satisfactory prices. I would commend to the minister that assistance be continued in this type of breeding in Saskatchewan, and I should also like to see some assistance given in a horse marketing policy in the province of Saskatchewan.
I am quite prepared, Mr. Speaker, to support the resolution of my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie, asking for a committee to investigate the marketing and production of live stock.
Live Stock-Miss Macphail

Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a couple of minutes to say that I support the resolution, largely because of what I think a study by a committee of this house would lead to. I believe, if a group of members studied the live stock problem in all its phases, both domestic and foreign, it would inevitably come to the conclusion that we had to have commodity marketing and a more comprehensive marketing scheme, and the sooner we come to that conclusion the better, not only for the live stock industry but for all farmers. Further, a study would bring to light such facts as would tend at least to lead to the organization of producers. As a matter of fact, they could not take advantage of a marketing scheme until they were organized as commodity groups, though at the rate the government is moving towards marketing they will have plenty of time to organize. But undoubtedly a study would lead to further light on the subject, and the farmers are themselves coming to the conclusion that commodity organization and a comprehensive marketing scheme are necessary.
Then I think a committee would also lead to the conclusion, as the price spreads inquiry did, that we need cooperative or publicly owned processing plants.
A comprehensive study would also bring us to the conclusion that we cannot allow domestic prices to be set by very small surpluses, and in that regard I think we shall have to take a leaf out of the manufacturer's book. He has always sold his surplus abroad at lower prices than he got in the home market. Even though the transportation charges might be very high, his surplus was sold in foreign countries for very much less than at home. I think we are coming close to the time of a two-price agriculture, and anything that will hasten the day of better prices for domestic consumption will be welcomed by our farmers.
Such a study I think would also convince Ontario people and the east generally that the thing that would be most disastrous to eastern farmers would be for western farmers to go into mixed farming in a big way, that when they go into cattle production in a big way it is a sad day for Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes. It would affect Ontario very much, and such a study by the committee might get the idea over to Ontario farmers, including one very prominent one who happens to be premier at the moment. It is time we understand that any change from wheat to general farming in western Canada is going

to involve eastern Canada in an entirely new set of problems added to those they already have. So, while it does look like a pretty large order a special committee could get started at all events, and it may be that if this is not the last session of this parliament, and there are now some signs that this is true, if the committee does not get finished this year, it could continue its labours next year. At any rate the sooner we start, the sooner we get through, and the sooner we may get results.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, a year ago the hon.
member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) suggested that a committee be appointed to study the marketing of live stock and the live stock question generally. At that time I suggested to him that a study was being made of the situation existing in relation to live stock production and live stock marketing, and that we hoped during this session of the house to bring down certain legislation. This year the hon. member placed his resolution on the order paper early in the session, and I intimated to him at that time that we had certain legislation under preparation and almost ready for introduction, but suggested to him that it would still be well to have this matter discussed in order that the views of different members might be placed before the government before the legislation was introduced.
I would have no objection, and the government, I am sure, would have none, to a committee of the house being appointed to study this matter, if it is thought advisable to do so; but I should like to suggest that a few days be allowed to pass until that legislation is introduced, and then if it does not meet the situation as members desire to have it met, we can still go on with an investigation by a committee of this house.
There have been some questions raised tonight as to which I should probably say a word or two before eleven o'clock. One of them has to do with the trial shipments rve have made this year to the Smithfield market in Great Britain. As has been stated by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie and others, the type of beef which is being sent over is what is known as baby beef; that is, beef which dresses around 450 pounds. We have been sending over twenty-five head a week.
A year ago it was suggested that this beef be killed at the seaboard, and some of our friends from the eastern provinces, the maritimes particularly, suggested that we might select that beef in the maritime provinces. At that time I think I was able to indicate

Live Stock-Mr. Gardiner
that marketings in the maritime provinces were so small that it would be impossible for us to select the type of beef we required in any of the marketings that are made in the maritime provinces. As a matter of fact, during the summer we had considerable difficulty in selecting, even on the Toronto market, the twenty-five head of the type required by the Smithfield market, and there were, I think, three weeks, in succession, in the middle of the summer-I am speaking from memory- during which we were unable to find, on the Toronto market, the twenty-five head of what are known as baby beef. We had therefore to send over twenty-five head of heavies. Those heavies did not bring us so good a price as the Scottish beef, and they did not compete with the Scottish beef.
The lighter type of animal, fed to market at the younger age, is in great demand on the British market now, as it has been for some years. This is because of the fact that in Britain, as in this country, many of the younger members of the family, when they reach the age of eighteen to twenty, leave home and are not to be found in the home circle. A larger and larger percentage of the homes in British cities, as in Canadian cities, are today occupied by two or three people. Two or three people do not want big cuts of beef. In the old days the habit was to cook large roasts and to have them as cold meat at succeeding meals, but that is not the practice today. With electric heating and cooking and all that kind of thing, the smaller roast is required by a considerable percentage of those who are eating meat in the old country. For that reason they prefer the smaller type of animal, well finished. It is that demand which made it possible to sell twenty-five head of what are known as baby beef on the British market week by week throughout the past year, and to get the very best results and the very best satisfaction from the selling.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the minister, is the government making some allowance to the packers for the parts which they do not ship to the old country? They do not ship the whole carcase. What allowance is being made for the parts they do not ship?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are what are known as short sides which are shipped to the old country, partly because the demand is much greater for that section of the cut, and partly for the reason given by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, that the facilities to ship full sides, both in the railway
cars on this side and by boat to the old country, are not such as allow for shipping of the full side of beef. The prices that are actually allowed to the packer I am not able to give at the moment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In view of the fact that only part of the beef is shipped over, does the government bonus the packer for the part that is kept at home?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not because of that fact. It would be absolutely impossible for a profit to be made on twenty-five head of any kind of beef shipped weekly to the old country. The only thing which has been proven by these shipments is the fact that they can be shipped; that they can be landed in Great Britain in good shape and that they can be sold at the top of the market. If we can increase that shipment and sale to, say a thousand head a week, probably there would be. no difficulty whatsoever about making a profit on it, but with only twenty-five head that is not possible.
I should like just to read to the house a statement which came over from the old country from Modern Meat Marketing, a journal of the United Kingdom, in regard to these shipments. This is under date January, 1939:
Easily the best beef of any description yet seen at Smithfield within the memory of the oldest trader at Smithfield was a consignment of 44 short and six long sides of Canadian fresh beef on the stand of Messrs. W. Burehnall, Ltd., during the Christmas market, writes "Buyer." Although I was early on the scene, I was unable to secure a side and was not surprised to learn that the short sides fetched Os. to 6s. 4d. per stone-8d. per stone more than the best Scotch beef then on offer-and that the long sides made 5s. 8d. per stone. The finish was excellent, with not an ounce of waste, and it was a great pity that our fat stock show judges were not present in force to inspect what was undoubtedly a triumph of good breeding and wise feeding.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask one further
question?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to wind up at eleven o'clock.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is in reference to the Scottish beef. Was that the short side or the full side?


James Garfield Gardiner: I assume that most of the Scottish beef that would be there would be the full side, but the cuts referred to are comparable. There is another statement from
13S2
Live Stock-Mr. Gardiner

Lieutenant-Colonel T. Dunlop Young, who makes inspections at the market, which is just as important.
The other remark I wish to make with regard to it is this, that we have under way at present a policy which had its beginnings, as has been stated by some hon. members from the west, in our pastures in the west. We are attempting to raise or breed a type of beef on these western pastures which could be properly finished, if necessary in Ontario stables and even in maritime stables, and shipped to the old country market. The killing facilities at the coast are not just what are required at the present time in order to give the best service, but I am sure that those can be provided if we have the stock in the east sufficiently close to the abattoirs when they are finished to make shipment from there rather than to have it made from Toronto. But these shipments that have been made have been all from Toronto, and they have worked out to good advantage.
Just one word with regard to shipments of bacon. I have here a graph which, if all hon. members of the house could see it, would enable them perhaps to realize fully the chief reason why it is there is such a variation in price in pork and particularly in bacon in this country. If the Danish people did the same thing which this graph indicates; that is, if they allowed the marketings to start at this particular level and run down to this lower level in the middle, and then run up to this level in the fall of the year, they would get exactly the same price results we are getting in Canada. If I had the time I could read to the house the marketings of the different months of the year which are illustrated by the graph.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Why not put them on Hansard?


James Garfield Gardiner: They could be placed on Hansard.


Walter Edward Foster: With the permission of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are two columns of figures, the one giving marketings in thousands and the other giving prices, for 1938, and also for 1937. It will be seen that the prices remained almost at a level during 1937, when the marketings were pretty well leveled out, but in 1938, when the marketings were not at all leveled out, the prices varied greatly,

from $8.28 in January to $11.83 in July, and back to $8.56 in December.
	Hog gradings	Price live hogs
1938-	000 head	Winnipeg $ cwt.January..	.. .. 292	8.28February.	.... 284	8.59March. . .	.... 341	9.67April.. . .	.... 262	9.69May.. ..	.. .. 298	10.25June. . . .	.... 187	10.69July.. ..	.. .. 175	11.83August. . ,	. . .. 221	9.63September.	.... 233	9.21October..	.. . . 299	7.80November.	.. .. 364	7.80December.	.. .. 285	8.561937-	January..	.. .. 321	7.71February.	.. .. 346	7.74March. ..	.... 397	8.10April.. ..	.... 337	8.41May.. . .	.. .. 320	8.05June.. ..	.. .. 340	8.60July.. ..	.. .. 241	9.37August. ..	.... 254	9.97September.	.... 237	9.32October. ..	.. .. 315	7.98November.	.. .. 451	7.78December.	.. .. 367	8.03These facts among others	must be takeninto account	when considering	why it is that
our prices run up and down. I have a great deal of sympathy for the suggestion made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Mac-phail), but even a marketing set-up based on commodity production would not bring the results that are obtained in Denmark unless we market our products in the same way as they do in Denmark. Their pork and bacon production in that country is absolutely under control of a cooperative. The cooperative owns all the hogs; they allow people to feed them only if they feed them properly; they dictate what they are to be fed, and how much; they determine when they are going to market them, and when they are ready to go to market they kill them in abattoirs which are under their control, load them in boats which are their own, put them in compartments properly fitted up for the shipment of bacon, send them to Great Britain, and keep control of them until they are actually placed on the market. Anyone who knows conditions in Denmark and compares them with conditions in this country knows that it will be a long time before any country as widely spread as the Dominion of Canada, with all the varying conditions we have here, can emulate what is being done in Denmark. Nevertheless we can do a great deal to assist.
Last summer I had the privilege of visiting the home of Andrew Anderson, who is farming at Innisfail, Alberta. If anyone wants to see a real basis for the solution of our hog problem in Canada he should visit that farm. I think Mr. Anderson is a Dane: he is

The Late J. W. Rutherford
either a Dane or a Norwegian; he has been farming there for a considerable time. I dropped in at his place last summer. He was then busy equipping a pig house in which he hoped to have pigs born in every month of the year. He had a heating plant in it, and had it fitted up so that he could have his pigs coming in every month. I said to him, "Does it pay to do that kind of thing?" "Well," he said, "it would not pay me to do anything else," and he said, "probably it would not pay me as much as it does pay me if everybody else in Canada did what I was trained to do before I came to this country, namely, have hogs to sell every month of the year. Having hogs to sell each month, I can make good money feeding at the price at which we can obtain feed in this western country." I think that is the basis for a solution. We can investigate the question from now until doomsday; but if we just place the emphasis on the fact that someone in the packing plant is trying to get an advantage over us, and we do not play our own part in trying to see that the hogs are produced in the proper way and at the right time, we shall never accomplish for agriculture in this country what it is possible for us to accomplish.
I suggest that, if the hon. member who introduced the resolution has no objection, it might now be withdrawn. It has, I think, served a very good purpose. Legislation will be brought down; and if that legislation does not meet fully with the approval of hon. members we can give consideration in a very few days' time to the suggestions contained in the resolution.


Walter Edward Foster: By consent of the house,
the hon. member may have leave to withdraw his motion.


Harry Leader: In view of the statement
made by the minister, I think it advisable to withdraw the resolution.
Motion withdrawn.
At 11.05 the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 28, 1939