1941-03-26

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

Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: What is the total amount paid in subscriptions in Canada since the beginning of the
present war to date, in connection with noninterest bearing bonds, showing each province
separately?. Mr. ILSLEY:	To March 15,1941 No. of	
Province	applications	AmountBritish Columbia..	... 351	$3,523,995 15Alberta	... 600	85.647 32Saskatchewan. . . .	. .. 418	86,063 93Manitoba	.... 2,614	125,023 63Ontario	... 2,991	956,489 00Quebec	... 156	1,188,176 49Nova Scotia	. .. 28	6,739 00New Brunswick...	... 62	75,325 15Prince Edward Island ....	Yukon	... 1	5,000 00Total	... 7,221	$6,052,459 67


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY-EFFECT ON PORT OF MONTREAL
Mr. JEAN:: 1.	Before signing the treaty respecting the St. Lawrence waterways as announced by the Right Honourable the Prime Minister on the 19th instant, did the government consult experts as to how the port of Montreal would be affected by the completion of the project?
2.	If so, what are the names of such experts?
3.	What were the conclusions of each of them?

Questions


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The possible effect of the St. Lawrence development on the port of Montreal has been studied by various engineering boards during the past two decades. The joint board of engineers investigated the project in 1924-1926, and the effect of the project proposed at the present time has been examined by the Canadian temporary great lakes St. Lawrence basin committee, the engineers on which were Mr. G. A. Lindsay, Department of Transport; Dr. Olivier Lefebvre, vice-chairman, Quebec Streams Commission; and Dr. T. H. Hogg, chairman and chief engineer of the HydroElectric Power Commission of Ontario.
3.	The conclusions of the above are that the provisions of the Canada-United States agreement together with the engineering design of the structures and arrangements for regulation and control are of such a character as to prevent any adverse effect on the port of Montreal.


*BEAUHARN OIS POWER DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
1.	Is there an agreement between the dominion government and the government of the province of Quebec providing for the return to the province of the electrical energy developed from the Beauharnois canal?
2.	If so, upon what conditions?
Mr. CARDIN:: I understand the agreement and the correspondence, tabled on Friday, already contain the answer to this question.


*ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY-NAVIGATION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
In connection with the St. Lawrence waterways agreement, is there any restriction with reference to vessels from the great lakes continuing their voyages from Montreal to the ocean?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The reply just given by my colleague to the question concerning the Beauharnois power development, would apply to this question.


TUBERCULOSIS IN WENTWORTH, ONT., CATTLE
Mr. CORMAN:: 1.	How many cattle were tested in the county of Wentworth for tuberculosis?
2.	How many were found to be suffering from the above disease?
3.. What amount of compensation was paid farmers having these diseased cattle?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	19,806.
2.	1,251.
3.	$37,358.


SYDNEY, N.S., AIRPORT
Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	What was the cost of the site for the airport located at Sydney, Nova Scotia?
2.	From whom was the site purchased?
3.	Was the land where this airport is located originally crown land?
4.	If so, to whom was it sold or transferred? Mr. POWER:
Provincial crown lands, 670 acres...$ 670 00
Militia rifle range, 312 acres (transferred)	 1	00
Dominion Coal Co., half interest
192-5 acres	 721	88
Mary and Sarah Wallace, i interest
192-5 acres	 481	25
Note.-One-sixth interest in this tract has been expropriated but no owner can be found and therefore no money has been paid for it.
John Gillis, guardian of the person of Peter Gillis, unsound mind, \ interest 38-4 acres	 72 00
Peter Gillis, Michael Gillis, John Gillis, Katy Ann Gillis, heirs of M.
Gillis, J interest 38-4 acres	 216 00
Daniel McMillan right of way 6-08 acres	 60 00
Total	$2,222 13
use OF IRISH PORTS AND BASES AS A PROTECTION TO EMPIRE SHIPPING


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has Canada a foreign minister or envoy to the Eire republic in Dublin?
2.	If so, who is the acting head, what is his staff, what duties do they perform and what are their respective salaries and other allowances ?
3.	Has the government made any representations to Eire as to the loss of Canadian shipping off Eire ports by enemy action, resulting from the refusal of Eire of the use of her ports for defence purposes?
4.	Is Eire considered by this government a dominion or a separate republic?
5.	What trade commissioners or other Canadian officials are in Eire, where are they located, at what cost, and is there duplication of services ?
6.	Has Canada made representations to Eire or to the government of Britain requesting the use of Irish ports and bases as a protection to Canadian and empire shipping against enemy submarines and air bombers?
7.	Have empire ships been sunk, and Canadian and British seamen drowned as a result of the lack of protection by the use of Irish ports?
8.	What has the government done in the matter, or what action will be taken?
[Mr. Jean.3

Questions


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I feel I ought to say a word or two about the questions which the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has asked, and in that connection point out to him and to hon. members of the house that in considering both the placing of questions on the order paper and the replies to be made thereto, it is desirable that we should all have in mind the effect which the questions when asked and when answered may have upon the situation with which the entire British empire is faced at the present time. It is important that we keep in mind particularly the position of the United Kingdom and the government as well as that of our own country in dealing with matters which affect not one part of the empire only, but all parts. If any useful purpose can be served by asking and answering questions, if we can achieve a purpose which will assist the war effort of the British commonwealth, then I think questions might well be asked and should be answered. But if a question is of a character to provoke discussion and is in no way calculated to aid in meeting an existing situation and one which may be very embarrassing, with all due respect I submit that any such question should neither be asked nor answered.
There are one or two questions asked by my hon. friend which I can answer. He asks: "Has Canada a foreign minister or envoy to the Eire republic in Dublin?" I would reply that Canada has no foreign minister in Dublin. There is the office of high commissioner which unhappily, due to the death of the late Mr. John Hall Kelly, is vacant at the present time. At present the acting high commissioner is Mr. E. J. Garland, a former member of this House of Commons. My hon. friend following his first question asks: "If so, who is the acting head, what is his staff, what duties do they perform and what are their respective salaries and other allowances?" I have already given him the name of the acting head. The staff is a small one. It consists of one stenographer, Miss E. O'Malley, grade 3, who receives a salary of $1,560 and an allowance of $250 per annum, and Mr. Chambers, messenger, who receives $465.
I shall have to bring the next question to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). My hon. friend asks: "What trade commissioners or other Canadian officials are in Eire, where are they located, at what cost, and is there duplication of services?" Perhaps this question may be allowed to stand on the order paper to be answered later by my colleague. The hon. member's next question is: "Has the government made any representations to Eire as to the loss of Canadian shipping off Eire ports
by enemy action, resulting from the refusal of Eire of the use of her ports for defence purposes?" To begin with, this question is out of order because it carries with it an implication. It is asked not so much for the purpose of getting information as for the purpose of purporting to give information, which may and probably is wholly incorrect.
The next question asked is: "Has Canada made representations to Eire or to the government of Britain requesting the use of Irish ports and bases as a protection to Canadian and empire shipping against enemy submarines and air bombers?" And next: "Have empire ships been sunk, and Canadian and British seamen drowned as a result of the lack of protection by the use of Irish ports?" What I said a moment ago about a previous question would apply also to these. Then my hon. friend asks: "What has the government done in the matter, or what action will be taken?"
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that to give any replies to these questions, either in the affirmative or in the negative, would serve only to provoke discussion which might prove unfortunate to the relations between Canada and Ireland or create complications as between the United Kingdom and Ireland. I would not wish it to be assumed that the matters which are referred to have not been the subject of careful consideration by representatives of Ireland and our own government. On the other hand, I have no desire to answer questions which might quite unnecessarily occasion further questions or occasion embarrassment in other parts of the empire, with respect to a controversial matter. I think the whole matter is perhaps best left in that position. I am sure that my hon. friend, who is the most loyal of men, will appreciate that it is only because of reasons of great loyalty to the crown that I take the position I do.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I followed the Prime Minister quite closely, but I do not recall that he answered question No. 4, in which the opinion of the government was requested as to whether Eire is considered to be a dominion or a separate republic.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suppose that is a case of paying your money and taking your choice. I imagine that the United Kingdom would have something to say in regard to that matter as well as ourselves. I do not think we need to go into that particular subject, which is an academic one, at this time.


Mr. CHURCH:: The British government have answered these questions. I wanted them answered and to know what will be done. There has been great loss of life and shipping
Questions

because of our inability to use these Irish ports, bays and inlets, and the government should make known its stand on the matter. I asked the question on July 10 of last year, as to what our policy was, when the Right Hon. Prime Minister's estimates were under discussion. A statute of Eire, the Irish National and Citizenship Act, declares the United Kingdom to be a foreign power, and the act states that in the event of any war of the United Kingdom, Eire will remain neutral. I do not want this question to stand. We have no foreign policy. The enemy will not let things stand and stop sinking ships. They will continue to destroy our fleet. These ports belong to the empire, not to Eire. I think the house is entitled to know something about the matter, and the country is asking what is being done. Two or three people in my constituency have asked me to take up the matter and have suffered as a result.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Like my hon. friend, I do not wish to have the question stand; I desire to have it dropped.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Question answered with
the exception of No. 5 which stands.
prices to soldiers of meals in dining cars


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the government look into the matter of the price of meals charged soldiers on railway dining cars in Canada while travelling to their homes on furlough?
2.	Will the government also look into the system of restaurant prices adopted by the Union Pacific Railway and other railway systems _ in the United States, and study the application of such a system for Canada's soldiers?


Mr. RALSTON:: The matter referred to
is already under examination.


WAR MATERIALS-CHICOUTIMI, QUEBEC, WORKSHOPS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
Is it the intention of the Department of Transport to finance the putting into operation of the workshops for the manufacture of war materials at Chicoutimi?
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This question is directed
to the Department of Transport. If any assistance is given for the establishment of munition plants, it would be given under the jurisdiction of the Department of Munitions and Supply. The question refers to the putting into operation of workshops for the manufacture of war materials, but it does not indicate what workshops are referred to. It is somewhat vague. At all events I suggest that this is really a matter of policy which will be announced in due course.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HOBLITZELL:: 1.	What encouragement is being offered to Canadians who desire to explore for further natural gas and petroleum development in eastern Canada?
2.	Has the oil controller taken any steps to ascertain the difference between the cost of crude oil imported into Canada and the cost of the same crude oil in the country from which it was imported, and how does this cost compare with a similar grade of crude oil if it were produced in any of the provinces of eastern and western Canada?
3.	Has the oil controller issued a complete list of the rules and regulations concerning the petroleum industry which is available to any person in the Dominion of Canada? If they have not issued such rules and regulations, what reason can ibe given for such a policy?
4.	Has -the oil controller or any other official of the government the right to interfere with any one person or persons acquiring acreage on which to explore for oil, or to formulate or to put into effect any regulation which would prevent the development of a native supply of crude oil in Canada?


ARMY CANTEENS
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	Do men operating army canteens in Canadian military camps receive pay and allowances over and above regular army pay?
2.	If so, what are the rates of pay or allowances for this work?
3.	What operating costs, if any, are charged against the revenue derived from these canteens?
4.	What are the regulations governing the distribution of profits accruing from the operation of army canteens?


James Layton Ralston: Return tabled.



PRICES PAID BY FARMER FOR FEEDS

Mr. LACOMBE:: During the years 1939, 1940 and 1941, what prices were paid by the farmer for the following feeding stuffs, (a) red middlings; (b) white middlings; (c) barley meal; (d) crushed oats?



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS-NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS

Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	What newspapers and periodicals published in Canada have been banned under the defence of Canada regulations since the commencement of the war, and what is, (a) the name of the paper; (b) the date when banned?
2.	What newspapers and periodicals published in the United States have ben denied entry into Canada under the same regulations and for the same period?
3.	What newspapers and periodicals published in Great Britain and/or the British dominions have been prohibited from entering Canada under the same regulations and for the same period?

Motions for Papers
4.- What newspapers and periodicals published in other countries (friendly nations) have been prohibited from entering Canada under the same regulations and for the same period?



MILITARY DISTRICT NO. 11-SUPPLY OP MEAT

Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	Was cow meat supplied in place of steer meat to military district No. 11 during 1940?
2.	If so, who was the contractor?
3.	For how many weeks was this meat delivered to military camps in British Columbia?
4.	Was quality of meat supplied up to department specifications?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not see why this should stand as an order for return.


James Layton Ralston: I have been looking into this matter and I find that it involves regulations, the interpretation of regulations and possibly some correspondence. My hon. friend will see that a question which follows, with regard to meat contractors, relates to the same matter, but has to do with the Department of Munitions and Supply. That department purchases this commodity while the Department of National Defence inspects it. I telephoned the Department of Munitions and Supply this morning and they told me they were engaged in getting this information. I really thought the questions were connected.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is
an important matter. When may we expect the return to be brought down?


James Layton Ralston: I will have it brought
down almost immediately.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY


Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	Did Munitions and Supply department make a claim on any meat contractors during 1940 for supplying cow beef when other grades were specified?
2.	If so, what amount of money was rebated during 1940 and during 1941?
3.	Who were the contractors?
4.	What military districts made claims?


LANGUAGE QUALIFICATIONS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN QUEBEC PROVINCE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
1.	How many employees have been appointed in the province of Quebec since September 1, 1939, to the Departments of National Defence, Transport, and Pensions and National Health?
2.	How many of these employees (a) are bilingual; (b) how many speak English only?
3.	Were these employees appointed by the civil service commission under the authority of the Civil Service Act or the War Measures Act?

Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	How much money has the government received to date in the way of gifts towards the care of evacuated British children?
2.	How much of this money has been spent respectively on, (a) hospitalization; (b) dental work; (c) clothing?
3.	Do provincial governments make any contribution towards the above services? If so, how much?
4.	Do any national voluntary organizations supply clothing for evacuated children? If so, what organization or organizations?
5.	Do any of these organizations receive a government grant for this purpose? If so, which and for what amount?
6.	Have any national organizations undertaken responsibility for certain evacuated children? If so, give the name of such organization or organizations?
7.	Do these organizations receive grants from the government for their work?
8.	As these children are in voluntary homes, what expense does the government incur in regard to them?
9.	Did the federal government pay part of the cost of transportation of the government-assisted children to Canada? If so, state the total amount?
10.	Were any of these children placed in their foster homes by provincial welfare agencies without cost to the federal government? If not, what portion of the cost did the federal government bear?


Mr. CRERAR:: I doubt if we can. get
specific answers to all the inquiries covered in this question. Donations have come in, some of them direct to the Department of Mines and Resources and some to the Department of Finance. I suggest that the question be made an order for return, subject to the limitation I have stated.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Thomas Langton Church: For a return showing what federal revenues have been collected from the city of Toronto, during the last year of record in (a) postal receipts; (b) customs; (c) excise; (d) income tax; (e) inland revenue; (f) sales tax; (g) other federal levies. Also a statement of the expenditures made in the city of Toronto by the federal government during the last year of record.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be dropped and redrafted. I have been having some correspondence with the hon. gentleman suggesting redrafting.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to accept the suggestion of the minister. I am in hopes that a better system will be installed.


Georges Parent: Order. I have no idea of what is being said. Do I understand that the minister asked the hon. member to drop this motion?
1880	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill


Richard Burpee Hanson: To have it redrafted.


James Lorimer Ilsley: To drop it and have another one redrafted.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: In accordance with
the correspondence exchanged.
Motion dropped.


SOLDIERS HITCH-HIKING ON HIGHWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the motion:
Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between any department of the government or any official thereof, and the minister of highways of Ontario, the highway ministers in the other provinces of Canada, or any officials of their departments, since the beginning of the present war, objecting to hitch-hiking on the highways by members of his majesty's forces. Also a copy of any orders in council and any correspondence exchanged with the railways of Canada with respect to the above.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I ask that this motion be dropped because the minister of highways of Ontario wrote me in answer to my letter and said that never at any time had he asked anyone to stop soldiers or civilians from hitch-hiking.


James Layton Ralston: I have written my hon. friend, who was good enough to send me a copy of the letter from the minister of highways, and I have also written the minister of highways and asked him just what I am to take from his letter. The province of Ontario is not objecting to soldiers hitch-hiking because, having regard to the act which the province of Ontario has itself passed under the Highways Act, all persons are prohibited from soliciting rides on the highways.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But they can solicit rides elsewhere.


James Layton Ralston: But my hon. friend the member for Broadview says that the province of Ontario has never objected to soldiers hitch-hiking whether on the highways or not.


Thomas Langton Church: The action taken to prevent it was by request of the railways. It is so stated in the return that was tabled.
Motion dropped.


WAR APPROPRIATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to be called the Supplementary 1940 War Appropriation Act to provide inter alia-

1. That sums not exceeding $135,000,000 be granted to his majesty in addition to the sums granted by the War Appropriation Act, 1940, towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the
Sovernor in council during the year ending larch 31, 1941, for:
[Stage Direction]
(a)	the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
(b)	the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;
(c)	promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever; and
(d)	the carrying out of any measure deemed necessary or advisable by the governor in council in consequence of the existence of a state of war.
2. That the governor in council be empowered to reexpend, advance or loan moneys that may be received by way of refund or repayment of advances, loans or expenditures under the War Appropriation Act, 1939, the War Appropriation Act, 1940, and the Supplementary 1940 War Appropriation Act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house. Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), I desire to say that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are aware of the activities of the young communist league and are in possession of copies of the "Student Beacon'' to which he referred. The matter is being investigated. This association was declared illegal many months ago.


ARMY CANTEENS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Layton Ralston: The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) and I think the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) asked me when the report with reference to the canteen fund would be available. I said that I would make inquiries from the chairman. I have communicated with Mr. Macdonnell, chairman of the committee, and also with the secretary of the committee, and I am advised that the

Military Training
committee communicated with General McNaughton, general officer commanding the Canadian corps, and with the senior officers of the navy and air force in England, with a view to ascertaining what the British authorities are doing in this regard. That information is not yet at hand, but they assured me that as soon as the information is received the committee will take up the matters referred to, and I would anticipate that a report will be made with reasonable promptness. I might add that to-day, in response to a request by the hon. member for Yorkton, I have tabled the canteen regulations.


MILITARY TRAINING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow the suggestion made by the Minister of National War Services yesterday and inquire what answer he has received from the Noorduyn company relative to key men in the aircraft industry and the four-months' training scheme.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of National War Services):: Mr. Speaker, last evening the hon. member for Peel called attention to some questions and answers which were asked and given the night before in the house. As reported at page 1826 of Hansard the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) made a statement with regard to Noorduyn Aviation Limited, Montreal, and stated that the associate deputy minister, General LaFleche, had communicated with the company and was expecting a reply. I have received from General LaFleche a copy of the notes taken of the telephone conversation which took place between him and Noorduyn Aviation, Limited, as follows:
Mr. Noorduyn informed me over the telephone early this afternoon that as yet the calling out of his employees for compulsory military training has not adversely affected the production of aircraft by his company.
Mr. Noorduyn added that whether or not his industry will be hampered in the future would depend upon the successful working out of the procedure whereby any war industry or other employer may submit at any time, for consideration by the board, a plan for the advancement or postponement of the military training of any group of his employees.


DECENNIAL CENSUS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I
desire this afternoon to make a statement to the house in connection with the decennial census which is due to be taken in June of this year.
In the minds of many persons it has been assumed that the national registration of last summer could take the place of the census.
I wish to make it very clear that the information asked for under the national registration was very different from that required under the census.
The census as it has been developed in this country is far more than a mere counting of heads. I have before me the schedules which will be used. They are eight in number. The one schedule for the national registration of last year contained 16 questions. The census schedule dealing with population statistics contains 39 questions.
There is a general farm schedule comprising 167 main questions and a very great number of subquestions.
There is a special schedule for the fruit and vegetable growers of this country containing 64 questions.
There is a schedule in connection with abandoned or idle farms containing 24 questions.
There is a schedule dealing with those who may be undertaking the production of fruits, vegetables and animals on a small acreage, or to a small value. This schedule has 54 questions.
There is a schedule containing nine questions covering merchandising and service establishments; and to assist in the complete enumeration of those who may be blind, deaf or mute, there is a special schedule containing some seven questions.
For reasons which will be obvious it is proposed in connection with the housing situation to have what is known as a test census. Some twenty-nine main questions will be asked of the owner or occupant of every tenth dwelling.
This brief statement as to the schedules to be used will give hon. members a slight idea of the scope of the information which it is desired to obtain.
It will not be possible to tabulate all the details which it is expected to obtain on these various schedules in a few weeks or even a few months. This means that, if the census were to be postponed for a year, or two years,

Decennial Census
or for that indefinite period "until after the war," particulars regarding housing, the data on abandoned or idle farms, that in connection with the general farm schedule, and other information which would be of infinite value in connection with the problems of demobilization and reestablishment of our soldiers, would not be available when it was required.
The census has been taken in the whole of Canada every tenth year since 1871; and in 1916, 1926 and 1936 there has been a federal census taken in the western provinces. Incidentally, I might point out, 1916 was a war year.
It is necessary that the information obtained be accurately compared with that obtained on previous occasions. If the period elapsing were to be eleven, eleven and a half, or twelve years, or longer, instead of ten years, this accurate comparison would not be possible.
The bureau of statistics has built up an enviable reputation for the information which it is able to provide for businesses of all types. It would be unfortunate if the value of that information were in any way impaired because of the inability of the bureau to make the necessary comparisons which must be made if the true picture of our economic life in Canada is to be obtained.
It is, of course, well known that the decennial census is obligatory under the British North America Act. The number of representatives which each province is entitled to have in this house, and the subsidy which the federal government pays to the western provinces, are based on the information obtained at this census. While this of course does not present insuperable difficulties, the amendment of the constitution at any time is a matter that should be most carefully considered.
Postponement of the census would require an amendment of the British North America Act not only by both houses of this parliament but also by the British parliament.
It is interesting to note that one of the first acts of the United States in relation to their defence preparations was to declare the census bureau a war department so that it could not be interfered with. All census employees there are exempt from any military service unless or until released from census duties. However we propose to overcome this by the selection of personnel.
The majority of the communications which I have received or the newspaper editorials and articles which have been published opposing the census this year, have been based largely on one or other of the arguments, that it is simply a matter of head counting or that the expense can be saved. I have already dealt with this first objection and 
shown that the intended census is far from a mere tabulation of our population. It is a much needed statistical basis for a full consideration of all economic and social problems.
The idea of saving money by postponement of the census is attractive, but it is not well founded. If the money which would be spent would in any degree lessen the effectiveness of our war effort, you can be assured that neither I nor any one of my colleagues would contemplate proceeding with the census for one moment, and of course the same is true of every member of this house. We definitely believe, however, that the value of the census to the economic life of this country far outweighs the immediate saving "of the money which would be spent on a census this year. I say immediate saving because this money will have to be spent, if not this year, then next year or the year after or at a still more distant time. If long delayed the census would lose much of its real value. I might add that already approximately $100,000 have been spent in preparatory work for the census. The total cost will be spread over approximately four years although the greatest expenditure of course will take place this coming year.
The large number of enumerators who will be required will be taken entirely from among those people who would not be available or suited for war work. We propose to use ex-service men and capable women where practicable.' There will be no necessity for any men to be drafted or withheld from industry because of the census. The enumerators will be selected on broad, general principles, from people of all classes who are able and available, and partisanship in this selection will be avoided. Instructions to the census commissioners will be definite in these respects.
We have had suggestions from different quarters that the census might be taken by workers on a voluntary basis. We appreciate to the full the spirit which has prompted these offers. The nature of the census, however, requires a regimentation of staff which would be very difficult if the workers were on a voluntary basis. It is necessary that the commissioners be in a position to direct their enumerators to do certain things at certain times, and, with all respect to a voluntary organization, I think' the house will agree with me that many difficulties would result if voluntary workers were employed. One group which made an offer of assistance for little or no fee was the Canadian Teachers' Federation. There is perhaps no group in this country who are better able to carry out the census work or complete the intricate forms

Decennial Census
18S3
necessary, but the census must be taken in June and it will take several weeks to instruct the enumerators before that time.
Secrecy is an essential part of the census. Oaths of secrecy must be taken by all enumerators and, for this as well as other reasons, it is essential that the commissioners be able to select enumerators having regard to their suitability. This might be extremely difficult if the work were handled through a voluntary organization.
In considering the problems to which the war is giving rise, it is most desirable that complete up-to-date information as to our economic situation be available not only for ourselves but for our allies. One illustration of this is the desirability of having complete knowledge of the situation in regard to western agriculture at the earliest possible moment so that we may deal with agricultural problems, such as wheat, with all available facts before us.
Full consideration has been given to the fact that many of our enlisted men are away from home. Arrangements have been made that all abroad as well as in Canada will be enumerated, and the information included for their ordinary place of residence.
The reasons for the census this year may be briefly stated as follows:
Failure to take the census would impair the working of the principle of representation by population. It is, therefore, a constitutional necessity.
It is a financial necessity for the purpose of determining provincial subsidies.
It is a practical necessity because of the need of comprehensive factual information on innumerable subjects by provincial governments as well as the federal.
The census is the basis of all our statistics dealing with the problems of population.
With our large immigrant population a census is the only means of determining the rate of assimilation and is therefore essential for determining immigration policy. This, incidentally, may be very much to the front after the war.
The information obtained as to occupation, employment and earnings of our citizens is essential to competent administration of social welfare legislation. This information will be particularly necessary in regard to the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The census is essential to educational administration in the provinces because the information obtained is required for the determination of present and future school problems.
The decennial census is the factual basis of the agricultural policy of the ten departments of agriculture of this country. Annual sample investigations have been made but
these are unsatisfactory unless a comparison is possible with complete statistics for a decennial period.
The census of trading and service establishments has been found most valuable in the legislative work of parliament in recent years and it cannot be given up without serious loss to the country.
The usefulness of the census extends over a ten-year period. It affords much needed information to foreign countries as well as to our own people concerning developments and opportunities of investment, trade and the like.
Unless the decennial census is taken there will be many special statistical investigations required and these in all would be very much more expensive than a single census.
The census has become an integral part of our government operations. It is just as important as hundreds of functions of other departments which are being carried on from day to day unquestioned. The fact that the census occurs only once in ten years should not obscure this fact, and opposition to the taking of the census should not be based on this premise without complete evaluation of the essential factors which require a census.
The government has decided that for these and other reasons the decennial census should be taken this year. Arrangements are being made accordingly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I rise not for the purpose of opening any debate on this matter, which would be entirely out of order, but to ask a question the object of which is to clarify the position. The minister has stated that the census will be completed, $100,000 having been already spent. I understand that the commissioners in each constituency have been appointed. The minister has stated that the services of returned men and of qualified women will be used wherever available. I should like to ask him, what is the basis upon which the enumerators will be appointed? May I call his attention to a statement which he made to the house on February 21 in which he said:
I may say that if the census is proceeded with, enumerators will be selected from all parties, returned men in all eases where available, and women where practicable.
I should like to have that position made quite clear at this time if possible.


James Angus MacKinnon: That is the intention.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is as clear as mud. Will the minister make a statement clarifying the whole position as to the appointment of enumerators?
C.NJt.-Auditors


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Will the minister tell the house whether the census commissioners were selected on a non-partisan basis?


James Angus MacKinnon: Will the hon. gentleman repeat the question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I asked, were the census commissioners selected on a nonpartisan basis.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister has made a statement. If hon. members wish to have further information with respect to the matter they should place questions on the order paper. This is not the time to debate the subject. The question which the leader of the opposition has asked is proper in the circumstances, but I think the minister was equally wise in not attempting to go into an explanation at length at this time. The explanation, when given, will be satisfactory to hon. members, I am sure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the orders of the day I should like to ask the minister how he is going to arrange with the census commissioner for my constituency, who is secretary of the Liberal association, for the appointment of enumerators in that constituency.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was not attempting to debate the matter of the census. I was asking the minister a question on the orders of the day. I wanted to know whether or not the census commissioners had been appointed on a non-partisan basis.


James Angus MacKinnon: In answer to the hon. gentleman's question, I personally have no knowledge of that. The permanent officials in charge of the census have proceeded in the same way as they have been doing every ten years since there has been a census-from 1871.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 13, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
Richard Burpee Hanson: If these were ordinary circumstances I would have no objection to going ahead with the second reading of the bill, but may I point out that a week ago to-day I asked for the tabling of the report of the Canadian National Railways. That report will contain the auditors' report for the last year. We were promised it the next day.
[Mr. R. B. Hanson.3
Then we were told by my hon. friend (Mr. Cardin) that it was being delayed by the printer. It has not been brought down, and I suggest that we ought not to proceed to give authority for the appointment of auditors for another year-I realize that this is more or less a pro forma bill-until we have seen the report for the last year. For that reason I object to proceeding with this order. I think the reason is a valid one, and I hope it will commend itself to the minister.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: When the leader of the opposition the other day drew my attention to the fact that the report had not been tabled I told him that I expected to have it tabled the next day. I was informed the next day that the printing had1 been delayed and that the report would not be out of the printing office for a few days. The officers of the department have informed me to-day that the two reports will be out of the hands of the printers by to-morrow. There is a separate report by the auditors, and another report is also made by the board of directors. Both reports, I am informed by the officers, will be out to-morrow. As this is a mere formality, if my hon. friend has no serious objection to the appointment of the auditors, I would ask him to allow the bill to get its second reading. However, if he presses his objection I do not mind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think we should have the report. There is a principle involved even if this is a pro forma bill. I am surprised that the report has not been brought down before this. There may be something in the report upon the basis of which we would not want to reappoint these auditors, although, speaking for myself, I have the greatest confidence in this firm. I know certain of their branches and know the good work they have been doing, and I would not oppose for a moment their reappointment, although there was a suggestion in years gone by that this work ought to be passed around. That, however, is not a practical question at the moment and there are good reasons against it, because this is a continuous audit and if a new firm took it over there would be difficulty. I would ask the minister, however, to be good enough to let the order stand until the report is down and we have had a chance to look at it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is all right.


Thomas Langton Church: What are the instructions issued to the auditors under the ten statutes set out in the bill-


Georges Parent: Order. The motion stands.
Motion stands.

Supply-State of Agriculture


AGRICULTURE-AMENDMENT OF MR. SENN ON MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ilsley for committee of supply.
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: It is just three weeks ago to-day since this motion was before the house on a former occasion. At six o'clock that afternoon I was attempting to discuss the plight of the agricultural industry throughout Canada. I had stated among other things that the revenue of the average farm was insufficient to meet overhead expenses and maintain a reasonable standard of living for the farmer and his family. In proof of that statement I referred to figures in the Sirois report which showed clearly that for many years the share of the national income which the farmer has been obtaining ranged from eight to eleven per cent. A supplementary report to the Sirois report, recently brought down, shows that for the years 1936 to 1940 the farmers' share of the national income had not increased but had, in fact, been a little less than in 1936, the final year of the former period.
I had also stated at that time that because of certain action on the part of the administration, and on the other hand because of certain lack of action by the administration, there was a feeling of resentment in the mind of the farming community of Canada against the present government. As an indication of that I instanced a meeting held in the city of London at which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) attended and spoke. The minister said at that time that I had left for home too soon. I am afraid that practically everyone who attended that meeting went home too soon to get any satisfaction either from the minister or from those who were present. I am afraid the minister has not properly gauged public opinion throughout Ontario, for this meeting was representative of the farmers of western Ontario. Those farmers went there that day with open minds, I believe; they hoped and expected that the minister would lay down some policy which would be of benefit to the agricultural industry in that section, and, in fact, in all Canada; but I know from those to whom I have talked that they were not satisfied; in fact, I have heard of no one yet who went away at all satisfied.
As proof of this I point out that shortly afterwards organized agriculture came to Ottawa to present their views and to ask certain things from the Prime Minister himself. The Minister of Agriculture will remember, as a great many in this house do who
attended that meeting, that the minister of agriculture of Ontario voiced dissatisfaction with the statements which were made at that time, and the Ontario government have gone further and taken certain steps by way of bonusing cheese and bacon to help overcome the difficulties under which agriculture in Ontario has been labouring. That action was endorsed by all parties in the Ontario legislature, although they have stated both in the legislature and on the public platform that they thought this action should have been taken by the federal rather than by the provincial authority.
That the government feared that conditions arising out of the present struggle would add to the fanners' difficulties was made apparent at the beginning of the war, by its action in setting up different boards to deal with farm problems, and more particularly the problem of marketing farm products. A number of boards were set up; the first, I believe, was that known as the agricultural supplies board. From that board there emerged a number of supplementary boards to deal with farmers' problems and the problems of marketing farm products. The bacon board was set up, and shortly afterwards the dairy products board, a fruit and vegetable board, a seed supply committee and a fertilizer committee among others. I point out, as I believe has been done before, that the personnel of these boards ranges in number from three to eight each, yet there has not been a single producer or representative of any farm producer organization placed on any of these boards from that time to this. That criticism should be levelled particularly against the action of the government in setting up the bacon board and the dairy products board, because these two boards have wide powers, and they deal particularly with the marketing of farm products. The bacon board, for example, was given wide powers in the control of exports, and was also vested with the authority and the duty of regulating hog prices, having regard to the price which was received for bacon.
Up to the beginning of the war, exports of bacon were carried on through the ordinary channels of trade, but shortly after the war began, an agreement was entered into between the government of Canada and the British supplies board relating to the export of bacon to the United Kingdom at a set price of $18.01 per hundredweight at the seaboard. The first bulletin which came out led the farmers to believe that they would receive a set price for the hogs which they produced and marketed during that year. Unfortunately, however, that was not realized. There were continual fluctuations during that year, and
Supply-State of Agriculture

the farmers as a result were very much disappointed. They made their plans on the basis of a set price, and have been unable to realize since then a price which netted them a reasonable profit.
Last fall the Minister of Agriculture went to Great Britain where he entered into a new agreement with the British supplies board or the British government whereby prices on bacon shipped from Canada to the United Kingdom were reduced by the sum of $2.19 per hundredweight. That has resulted, as everyone knows, in a reduction in hog prices to the farmer. It has been hard medicine for the farmers to take. No one will suggest for a moment, farmers least of all, that Britain itself should be required to pay higher prices. Everyone realizes that the British people are doing their utmost in an all-out effort, and that over there they are making sacrifices the like of which we in this country know nothing about. It is, however, still true that the farmers of Canada have been asked to produce some 425 million pounds of bacon to be shipped to Great Britain at prices which will not repay them the cost of production, and which, indeed, mean a loss. Everyone will admit that foodstuffs are just as great a necessity for our war effort as any other line of production. But the farmers are not receiving the same treatment as other producers in this country, and that is what troubles them and the thing to which they object. I stated the other day, and I repeat, that munitions of all kinds are being purchased from the producer at prices which cover the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. Labour is also receiving prices which it realized during the years 1926 to 1929, giving to labour an entirely different basis from that which the farmer is enjoying.
I want to speak for a moment about the activities of the dairy products board. This is another board which was set up without any representation of producers or of any dairy organization in Canada. They were given authority and power to control exports of dairy products, and particularly exports of cheese. They have set up a number of regulations, which I shall not discuss at this time-regulations which I am afraid are taking the exporting of cheese out of the hands of the ordinary exporter and placing it very largely in the hands of two or three big exporting firms.
I Should like to ask a further question of the administration, a question which is being asked by farmers throughout the dominion. Were butter prices pegged on the recommendation of the dairy products board, or were they pegged because of the statistics given to the war-time prices and trade board 
by the dairy products board? What prompted the idea? I should like to know, as well, why the same basis was not employed in determining the pegged price of butter as has been employed in pegging the price of labour.
Between the years 1926 and 1929, which served as a basis for the pegging of labour prices, the average high for butter stood at 44-6 cents and the average low at 38 cents, making an average, between high and low in those years, of a price about five cents higher than the pegged price of butter to-day. The minister made a statement at London, and I believe he has since repeated it in the house, that butter prices were pegged largely to control speculation, and to ensure that speculators did not make unreasonable profits. I have no brief whatever for speculators, but I believe in times past they have performed a useful function by entering the market and taking off surpluses -which would have depressed butter prices to a point much lower than they went last summer, or than they have been in years past.
I believe it would have been a more reasonable idea-and perhaps this was in the minds of the dairy products board when the price of butter was pegged-to make some effort to prevent undue increases in the production of butter, and a corresponding reduction in the production of cheese. Since that time the government has seen fit to add additional powers to those already enjoyed by the dairy products board. I refer to the power to set minimum prices for butter. It seems to me that this is an important prerogative to give to any board, particularly when it has among its number no representative from the producers.
I should like to know whether, when the price of butter was pegged a short time ago, the war-time prices and trade board consulted the national dairy council. I should like to know whether it consulted any of the dairy associations throughout Canada, or whether it took it upon itself to make the price at the suggestion of the minister. If it was not done in that way, then how was it done? When they do set a minimum price, as they no doubt intend to do, I should like to know on what basis such action would be taken.
Will they, as I suggest they should, meet any of the dairy organizations in Canada? Will they take into their counsel representatives of the national dairy council, the eastern dairymen's association, the western dairymen's association or other like associations I could name? I suggest to the government here and now that before minimum prices are set by the board, its personnel should be increased, and that a representative of some of the producer organizations should be placed upon

Supply-Stale of Agriculture
the board, so that producers might have at least some reasonable hope that they would receive a fair deal.
I would say a further word about the agricultural supplies board, the main body.
I believe that board is, to a great extent, composed of men in the Department of Agriculture. They are men for whom I have a high regard, men who are well posted in agricultural matters. I believe, however, they have failed in one aspect more than in any other. The farmers themselves are unable to forecast the demands and needs of any particular market. This is particularly true in war-time. The average farmer on the back concessions has no way of knowing what demand there will be for the production of butter or cheese or bacon or any other farm product. The only people who can form a just estimate of the needs of the market are in the Department of Agriculture itself. I believe the government and this board have failed in not guiding the farmers in the type of production which should be carried on, particularly having regard to the needs of British and Canadian markets.
For many years past-in fact, ever since I can remember-the prevailing idea in the marketing of farm products has been that that marketing must be governed by the law of supply and demand. I am afraid to-day that is an inefficient method of fixing a price structure for agricultural products. It simply means that in all lines of farm production we have cycles of plenty and cycles of shortage. Unfortunately the farmer loses at both ends. When there is plenty, or when there is a surplus on the market, prices fall below the price of production. When there is a shortage, unfortunately the farmer usually has little to sell, because that is the very condition which creates the shortage.
Agriculture is the only industry in Canada I know of which does not enjoy some sort of price-maintenance scheme. Labour unions have their union scale of wages; they have their eight-hour day, and their hours of labour regulations. The price paid for manufactured goods bears some relationship to the cost of production plus profit. Civil servants and salaried people know at the beginning of the year what their incomes will be during that year. Retailers, wholesalers and others in distribution businesses make mark-ups from time to time. Doctors, lawyers and other professional men have schedules of fees to which they adhere more or less closely. Rates for all types of public services-freight rates, passenger rates, telephone rates, water rates, gas rates-are set by government bodies, such as the board of transport commissioners. The farmer is the only one who is at a disadvantage
because he still employs an outmoded and antiquated method of setting the price structure which from time to time he enjoys.
There are one or two further factors which enter into the determination of the price structure of farm products. One of those factors is this: The price received for the exportable surplus to a very great extent determines the domestic price of farm products. I have in my hand a circular sent out by the bureau of statistics showing the percentages of farm products which from time to time have been exported. For the information of the house I shall place on record the figures for 1939, the last year for which information is available:
Percentage
Product	exported
(per cent)
Live stock	 17-8
Field crops	 19'7
Total dairy	products	 8-4
Poultry products	 IT
Total live stock and animal products 11-2
Yet it was the 11 per cent of live stock and animal products exported which set the domestic prices paid for those products throughout Canada. It seems to me that this is clearly a case of the tail wagging the dog. Until some other method is devised to determine the farm price structure, the farmer will never enjoy the prosperity to which he is entitled.
Another factor which affects the farm price structure is the competition of imported goods of different kinds in the home market. This is particularly apparent in the case of fruits and vegetables. I shall not, however, deal with this matter in detail because it will be referred to later on.
I should like to mention one other matter which I think is important, namely, the importation of vegetable oils. For the past few years we have been importing immense quantities of vegetable oils which come into direct competition with animal fats produced in Canada. You cannot turn on the radio during the day without hearing these imported oil products such as crisco and so on, being advertised. On more than one occasion I have suggested to the present administration that a similar advertising campaign should be carried on for animal fats such as lard. The United States has undertaken such a campaign and has put out a circular, a copy of which I have in my office, advocating the use of lard instead of oleomargarine and vegetable oils of different kinds. To-day lard is selling in carload lots for as low as four and a half cents a pound when it is being bought in the carcas from the farmer at nine to nine and a half cents a pound. Whatever the price may be, the price of the whole hog is lowered because the packer must take a loss
Supply-State of Agriculture

on the lard produced from the particular animal. If I had the time I could quote the prices paid for tallow, grease and so on, but I will leave this for other hon. members who will follow.
One of the greatest difficulties faced by the farmer in connection with his price structure is the rapid and violent fluctuations which take place from time to time. Throughout the years there has been a constantly widening margin between producer and consumer prices. I do not know who can be blamed for that, but it is undoubtedly true. The farmer must plan for some time ahead if he is to produce wheat, dairy products, beef, pork, fruits, vegetables or any other product. If prices change in the meantime, he finds that when his product goes on the market he must accept a price which is much lower than he expected and at which he cannot make a profit. I believe, if farm prices could be stabilized-and I am not asking that they be stabilized at excessive figures-the farmer would be in a much better position and could make his plans ahead with confidence.
The other day the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) outlined the wheat policy of this government. I realize that this is an important matter, but I do not intend to deal with it at any length. The hon. member who will second the amendment which I propose to move in a few minutes, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), is, I believe, one of the best authorities on wheat problems in this house. From time to time the suggestions which he has made have been accepted by this and former governments. I am going to leave it to him to deal with this question of wheat.
There is, however, one thing I wish to say, and I shall try to condense it into one or two sentences. I believe the farmers of eastern Canada will resent most bitterly the proposal of the government to pay the western producers of coarse grains a bonus of $2 an acre when those grains will be fed to live stock which will compete with stock from eastern Canada where no bonus is being paid. How my Liberal friends from rural ridings in eastern Canada will be able to sit quietly by without making any protest is beyond my imagination. I have talked to several of them, and I know they appreciate the disadvantages under which the eastern producers of grain will be placed by this move on the part of the government. Already the western hog producer is feeding grain which he cannot sell at prices sufficient to pay him his cost of production. If he is to be bonused, [Mr. Senn.1
I am afraid it will result in the total demoralization and ultimate ruin of agriculture throughout the Dominion of Canada.
I do not believe that this particular programme is popular in all parts of the west. If I am correctly informed, delegations have arrived in Ottawa since the programme was announced to protest against it. I have here a report which appeared in the Regina Leader-Post of March 20, headed, "Motion against wheat programme at Abernethy." I believe Abernethy is either in the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture or very close to it.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is my second closest home town.


Mark Cecil Senn: Here is the report:
A resolution protesting against the recently announced federal wheat marketing policy was passed at a public meeting held under the auspices of the local wheat pool committee here Saturday.
With Elton Dick presiding, discussion was lengthy, those present, comprising some thirty farmers of the district who struggled through the worst blizzard of the season to attend, opposing the dominion government programme and expressing approval of the policy endorsed by the Saskatchewan legislature.
After considering a number of resolutions, the following was finally adopted as the consensus of opinion of the gathering:
"Be it resolved that we, the villagers and farmers of the Abernethy district, recommend that the worm turn now on the prairie, as it did about two months ago in London, Toronto and Ottawa, all in old Ontario, by requesting the Saskatchewan cooperative conference recommend to president Hannam that an emergency assemblage of all the agricultural confederated clans of Canada be called forthwith to march on Ottawa and present our views, not only on this latest evidence on how much our present federal government really does love the wheat growers of the west, but also the still hangover problem of bacon and butter and allied questions. some of which call for immediate elucidation and possible remedial action."
I am going to leave it as it stands. I think it demonstrates most clearly that the announced wheat policy is not popular throughout the west, and it certainly is unpopular here.
Another difficulty which faces Canadian agriculture is the shortage of farm labour. Farmers have never been able to compete with industry in the labour market. The hours of labour on the farm must of necessity be longer than in the factory. With the present levels of farm prices the farmer cannot possibly pay wages equal to those enjoyed by workers in the city. This condition is aggravated by the necessities of war. Referring again to the Sirois report, and taking the year 1940 as a basis, I find that the estimated cash expenditure of the average farm is $453 for the year. Included in those cash expendi-

Supply

State oj Agriculture
tures are wages, municipal taxes, threshing bills, blacksmith bills, bills for repairs and a number of other items. It will be seen that the farmer cannot pay much for labour.
All during the past year there has been a constant exodus of farm labour and sons of farmers to the cities where employment can be obtained at wages far above anything the farmer can pay. Only the day before yesterday I heard a radio broadcast comment upon the large number of farm sales being advertised in our weekly press. This is an indication of what is taking place on the farms of Ontario where owners are finding it impossible to carry on because of a lack of farm help. In my opinion such a condition of affairs must ultimately result in a shortage of production on the farms and in a lack of proper cultivation. After all, it is the production and marketing of primary products which to a very large extent determines the buying power of any nation. Of the four great primary industries in Canada, agriculture, mining, fishing and lumbering, agriculture is the only one which produces without depleting our resources. Each year vast quantities of agricultural products are produced from the soil; and if proper methods of fertilization, crop rotation and cultivation are practised, the soil will not be depleted. Considerable cost is incurred in seeding, harvesting, processing and marketing our farm products, and unless and until they can be marketed at prices which will pay the cost of production and provide a reasonable profit, neither agriculture nor any other industry in the country can obtain its maximum prosperity nor can Canada exert its maximum war effort. Recently Mr. David Lloyd George made in the House of Commons in England a speech in which he said:
We must see that the farmer gets a reasonable return. It is no use thinking you can compel him to cultivate his ground to the utmost; you must make it worth his while. You must bring him along as a willing helper.
There are four arms of war services-the army, the navy and the air force, and _ the fourth is equally important, namely, agriculture. Foodstuffs are necessary. The very life and security of the empire depends upon it. If it fails, the other three cannot succeed. '
There is no more loyal person in Canada than the farmer. His surroundings and environment promote love of country and lead him to cherish the soil from which he sprang and from which he wrests his living by the sweat of his brow. No people are more anxious to do their full share in our war effort, and our farmers feel most keenly their inability to subscribe to war charities and to purchase government securities at this critical time. I cannot urge upon the government too strongly the imperative duty
that confronts our government to take measures to provide conditions in agriculture which will enable this important element in our national life to do their share in the great effort in which we are engaged.
I therefore beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley):
That all the words after "that" in the motion be struck out, and that the following be substituted therefor:
it be resolved that the government should take immediate steps to create a parity of prices as between agricultural and other products in order to improve the condition of Canadian agriculture and in order that it may receive a just and fair return, and thus be enabled to make that contribution to Canada's war effort which is so desirable, and which our agricultural population so greatly desire to make.


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to associate myself with the mover of this amendment, the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn), who, I think, has covered very well the whole field of agriculture and more particularly that branch which affects eastern Canada-the dairy industry, butter and cheese; live stock, bacon and hog prices. He also dealt with the agricultural boards that have been set up by the government, and showed the results of their actions.
I think it is apparent to all of us, after
listening to the hon. member and after what we have heard in the house and seen in the press in the last few days, that the plight of agriculture is a problem second in importance only to that of the war. I could substantiate that by quoting from the western press and showing what happened in the legislature of Saskatchewan, which on a motion to adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, as it was designated, took a whole day to discuss the problem of agriculture. I could cite other quotations from newspapers all over the country to show that the whole of Canada is agitated over this problem and realizes that it is second in importance only to that of the war.
Practically 60 per cent of the population of Canada depends upon agriculture, and 75 per cent of the farmers of western Canada are directly dependent upon wheat. During the last ten years the farmers of western Canada have had some difficulty in carrying on; but let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of the west are just as anxious and willing as any other class of people in Canada to-day to sacrifice and do their part in winning this war. In support of that statement I want to put on record a report from the director of public information which came to hand last Friday. Under the heading of "Gifts from far and near to
Supply-State of Agriculture

Canada's cause," it says that three contributions of SI,000 each have been received, and it names as one of these contributors Mr. E. C. Skinner of Indian Head, a pioneer farmer of that district and a resident of my constituency. I am pleased indeed to put that on record. He is a farmer who is anxious and willing to do his part in this war.
If we had time to review agriculture over a number of years, say the last thirty-five years, we would find that there have been periods of prosperity among agriculturists in Canada, but I regret to say that we would also find that there have been times of depression, and these depression periods have taken a heavy toll. If we look at the situation to-day, we may well become alarmed, for the problem of agriculture to-day is so acute that it is now a direct responsibility of this government-and they are not doing very much to adjust and square it away. Whatever policy is adopted by the government must be of a permanent nature, based on a long-range view.
In the period from 1930 to 1935 the Bennett government, when agriculture was in similar circumstances to those prevailing to-day, tried to do much for the farmer. It will be recalled that the Bennett government introduced many measures for the benefit of the farmers which were not supported by the Liberals who then were sitting on this side of the house. Since 1935. when there was a change of government, conditions have gradually grown worse until to-day we have a situation where the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat is only 50 per cent of what it was in 1926.


Mr. GOLDING:: What was it in 1932?


Ernest Edward Perley: The lowest in the history of the world, and it is very nearly there now.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member said that this was the worst period.


Ernest Edward Perley: The worst condition in which agriculture has found itself, and I trust that the hon. member who is interrupting will stay glued to his seat until I get through, because he will have his chance to speak later on.
Since 1939, less than two years ago, we find from the index price of materials that there has been an increase of 8 per cent on the average in the prices of commodities the farmer has to buy. I will mention a few items. The cost of machinery and equipment has increased 26 points over 1939; the cost of transportation has increased several points; building materials have gone up 29 points. Clothing, hosiery and women's 
apparel have gone up 16 points, and drugs 35 points. I could quote many similar increases if I had the time.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat referred to the increase in wages paid to labour, and the index shows that, compared with 1926, there is an advance of 91 per cent. The farmer sees no reason why an approximate balance should not be maintained between the wages obtained by factory workers and the prices he receives for his goods. If that principle were applied, on the basis of the increases received by labour, a bushel of wheat should now be worth $1.39 instead of 70 cents at Fort William; bacon should be $10.50 per 100 pounds, instead of $8.30; butter should be 49 cents a pound instead of about 37 cents. Apparently the government has lagged during all the last two or three years, instead of bringing into operation some method of reducing this disparity. Prices of the commodities the farmer has to buy have advanced, and prices of the commodities he sells have been declining. A parity of prices should be reached. I am sure that the farmers of western Canada would not care if wheat went down to 25 cents a bushel so long as the prices of the commodities which they have to buy, and which go into their costs of production, went down to an equivalent extent.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) knows the situation. The agriculturists of Canada, and particularly the people of the west, are looking to him more than to any other member of the government to correct the present state of affairs. Why does he not take the action which he knows is necessary and which he has the power to take?
I appeal to his supporters to put pressure on him in that regard. I recall, as the house will recall, some of the statements and promises he has made in this chamber and when speaking in western Canada. We remember a speech which he made in this house warning the implement companies of what would happen if they did not reduce prices of implements. What happened? We have to-day a condition whereby it takes 650 bushels of wheat to buy a binder.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame 1


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister knows that grain prices should be higher. I can here quote from a newspaper of January 30, in which it is stated that the Minister of Agriculture said that prices should be higher all along the line: he spoke to that effect when a delegation representative of the Canadian federation of agriculture met the entire cabinet

Supply-State of Agriculture
in Ottawa. I have other quotations here to show that he knows that prices should be higher all along the line.
The hon. member who spoke before me dealt, as I have said, with that branch of agriculture which is more or less diversified and is of particular interest to the east. I come now to this question of wheat. What about it?
This afternoon I am going to offer the house something new. I do not hesitate to do so, because on many occasions I have made original suggestions which, although described by some hon. members opposite as moonshine, have been put on the statute books, even by the present government, and within the last two years.
Before presenting the suggestion, however, I wish briefly to review the situation since 1939. I recall the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) in which he outlined the situation with respect to wheat. Let me say this, that no matter what we adopt as a national policy, every branch of agriculture must be considered and the whole problem dealt with from the long-range point of view. I would encourage the cooperation of every branch of agriculture.
But I wish first to protest against what has been going on in this city and outside this house during the last two or three weeks. The other day, when I asked that the house should have an opportunity on a certain day of discussing this all-important question of wheat, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) replied that the ministers were too busy, and that they had had to be in their seats while the discussion was going on upon the resolution preceding the bill which is before us to-day. Well, we know the more important ministers have not been in their seats. I refer particularly to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We know they have been meeting groups from western Canada. They have conferred with western Liberals, representatives of the western governments, representatives of municipal organizations, and others. We know that what I would call a hole-and-corner business has been going on. That is evident from the reports in the press. To show the house what a dictatorship this is, may I quote from the Ottawa Journal, which, in its issue of March 26, has this to say:
Start Wheat Policy.
Regina, March 25.-Machinery for preliminary operation of the federal wheat policy aimed at reducing acreage seeded to wheat this year was set in motion to-day immediately upon return of J. J. McGurran, secretary of the Saskatchewan association of rural municipalities, from Ottawa.
Why is this announcement made out there? The machinery is all set up, and we as a parliament have to swallow it, to agree to it when the minister has already started it in the west. The announcement could have been made here long ago. This problem did not arise overnight; it has been with us for months, and the announcement should have been made in this house; for we, as members representing western constituencies, know the situation as well as many of these men who have been in these hole-and-corner meetings.
The situation caused by the accumulation of wheat, this surplus of which we hear so much, is pretty well known, and it is not necessary for me to comment on it. I would, however, say this, that at the present time the farmer is not in a position immediately to adjust his system of operation to the extent of 35 per cent reduction in the seeded acreage. I contend that this is too drastic a step to ask them to take in one year. If the process had been spread over a number of years, it might have been effective and the farmers would the more readily have fallen into line.
Since last fall many and various suggestions have been made to the government by various organizations-provincial governments, municipalities, pools, and others. I am in accord with quite a number of the suggestions and recommendations which have been made, for the simple reason that I, two or three years ago, proposed most of them. I am in accord, first of all, with the quota system or permit system as recommended by the western pools and the provincial governments. Why? I have here a statement taken from Hansard, 1934, pages 375-6, which reports the suggestion I then made of a permit system in order to curtail the production of wheat. I said at that time that my plan was (a) to determine the requirements by adding to the export quota the domestic requirements, and (b) to determine the acreage seed required to produce wheat in one year; and, dividing (a) by (b), to arrive at the number of bushels to be delivered under the permit. We were in difficulties in 1935. as hon. members will remember; and when I tried to sell the idea to my leader, he thought that it might be a little drastic, and that the farmers were not prepared to submit to any enforced restriction of production. However, had that scheme been brought into force at that time, our situation to-day would have been much better.
An increase in the price to 85 cents per bushel has been suggested by the government of Saskatchewan. I certainly will support that. I have always said that the price should be around 90 cents; that 70 cents was not sufficient. Had the government set it at 85 cents and carried out the processing tax of 50
Supply-State of Agriculture

cents a bushel, they would have arrived at a price of more than 90 cents a bushel, and the result would have been much more satisfactory than what they propose to do.
It has been suggested that storage on the farm should be continued. I suggested that two years ago. Financing the farmers to build bins on their farms to earn the storage is something that should be carried to the limit, because they would have the grain where it should be stored. I shall have something to say again with respect to the processing tax. It is my baby, so to speak, and I am going to boost it on every occasion that offers.
I wish to come for a moment or two to a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, who is smiling. I may say something that will change his smile. The other evening he outlined the policy. May I say to him, with regard to his suggestion of a system for bonusing summer-fallowing of wheat land that is not seeded, that he is suggesting something which a great many farmers, and good ones too, because there are many good farmers out there, have already undertaken on their own initiative. They have already adjusted their operations. Seeing what was happening to the market, prices of the surplus

and we know that when the surplus increases the price goes down, because that is simply a part of the law of supply and demand- many farmers have already adjusted themselves to the changed situation, and they made the adjustment long before the minister thought about it.
I might cite my own case. I am going to summer-fallow 725 acres; I have a contract in my office to have it done. Last year we sowed only 540 acres of wheat on that farm. This simply shows that many farmers have already begun to adjust themselves to conditions.
The minister speaks about farm income remaining around 8325,000,000. He provides for taking only 230,000,000 bushels this year at a net price to the farmer of 50 cents. That brings the income to $115,000,000, but he compensates by summer-fallowing to the extent of $36,000,000, and it is estimated that from coarse grain there may be another $19,000,000, making $170,000,000. This is with reference to the western farmers. He is short $155,000,000, which must be made up from some other source, but in doing this his objective is to reduce the seeded acreage by
9.000.	000 acres which, at an average of fifteen bushels, which is quite possible, would give
135.000.	000 bushels less. At 50 cents a bushel, this would be $67,000,000. He compensates $36,000,000, so that there is a difference of $31,000,000.

As a matter of fact, what the 290,000 farmers in the west are being asked to do is to live on the proceeds of 65 per cent of last year's seeded wheat acreage. That cannot be done. The minimum income on which the western farmers can live would be the revenue from the sale of wheat alone amounting to $150,000,000. They did not get by very well last year when practically all their wheat was delivered, netting them over $250,000,000. What should be done therefore, if it is desired to maintain the income of the farmers and enable them to get by, would be to take
230,000,000 bushels of wheat and make the price 85 cents, as the province of Saskatchewan and the pools have asked. A price of 85 cents would net a little more than $150,000,000.
I am not worrying very much about surplus wheat. It may be a blessing in disguise, because we know that wars have not been lost in consequence of having a great surplus of wheat or of other foodstuffs. The danger lies the other way. A little later, perhaps to-morrow, we may have occasion to review the minister's proposal in greater detail-that is, the bonusing of a part of the wheat acreage of last year for summer-fallowing. I would, however, say this in passing. The minister certainly discriminates against the small farmer, the man with a half section. The farmer with 300 acres under cultivation last year cropped 120 acres; he had coarse grains to the extent of 60 acres and he summer-fallowed 120 acres. This year he will crop 80 acres; coarse grain will account for 60 acres; and he will summer-fallow 160 acres. Taking an average of 10 bushels to the acre- and I am being kind to the minister because they will get more than that-he will have 40 acres less, which at 10 bushels to the acre would mean 400 bushels, and at 50 cents a bushel this would represent $200 to the small farmer. It would cost him at least $2 an acre to summer-fallow the 40 acres, which would be $80. He has to do most of it by horsepower. His compensation, 40 acres at 84 an acre, amounts to $160, so that his net return is less by $120. If I had time to review the figures for the farmer with 1,000 acres,
I could show that on a similar basis, reducing his return by 30 per cent, he is only out $240 when he gets his compensation. That is, taking 1,000 acres as against 300 acres, he is only out double, which is not proportionate.
The minister for many years has been getting a vote on account of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. He has been given $3,000,000 in some years, the purpose being to bring a part of the province of Saskatchewan out of the dust-bowl. Now he asks the

Supply-State oj Agriculture
fanners out there to reduce their seeded acreage by 9,000,000 acres, and at one swoop he is going to bring back into the dust-bowl
9,000,000 acres more on the 1st of July. God help the people out there if winds prevail as they have been doing for some years, with 9,000,000 acres more of blackened land turned to the sun. The money he has been spending will go for naught if he pursues the policy he is following. Two years ago, in discussing the act, he said that the whole problem was to save the small farmer, and now he is discriminating against the small farmer. I understand from reports in the press that he is going to argue that this new proposal means 86 cents for wheat. I suggest that he will have quite a time persuading some of the farmers out there that this is so, because they will proceed along their own lines more or less, although they are willing to cooperate if anything reasonable is brought forward. Many will receive the bonus who are not entitled to it. The minister did not tell us, but I suppose he will give us some idea to-morrow regarding the cost of administration.
I have read a quotation showing that he will employ the municipalities. The municipalities are pretty well loaded up now with work. I do not know what he will do. That policy should have been announced here instead of in Regina. I should like to know what it will cost to have inspectors and supervisors, and he is even asking the municipalities to do that work. He is going to set up a machine such as we have never known before. We have already had experience with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. There are 290,000 farmers to be inspected and the inspectors will have a nice job.
Let me now come to the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He gave a realistic picture of the situation. First, dealing with the surplus and deliveries of the last crop, he said that the quota system had been generally satisfactory. I was pleased to hear that.
The farm storage is working out satisfactorily ; he said the farmers were holding their grain to get the storage. I was pleased to hear that. He referred to the increased acreage following the last war. That increase came about from a patriotic point of view; an appeal was made to the farmers to increase their seeded acreage of wheat as a contribution to the war effort. He referred to the possible disappearance next year of 307 million bushels, dealing with it from the point of view of domestic seed and feed and possible export. Then he dealt
with the carryover of 550 million bushels. The	total	storage he	figured	out	at around582	million bushels.	Then	he	made thestatement	that the government's	investmentwas	now	$400,000,000	which	required between $50,000,000 and $60,000,000-nearer $60,000,000-a year to carry it.
He stated that they are going to take only 230 million in order to encourage a reduction in the seeded acreage. The 70-cent price remains; it is not enough. The storage on the farm is paid only on the balance of the 230 million which they propose to take that is not delivered. I regret this. I think the farmer should be paid storage on all he has on his farm.
There is no change in the processing tax. I regret that. That processing tax should have been increased to 50 cents, as western provincial governments wanted. Why? Because the price of the loaf of bread should not be increased at all by reason of a 50-cent processing tax, making wheat come to $1.20 or $1.25 a bushel. The price of a loaf of bread should not be more than seven cents. There is the greatest racket going on that one can imagine in the big mill-controlled bakeries throughout Canada. There should be an investigation of them by this government. Yesterday I talked with the Canada Bread Company in this city; they make forty-six loaves of bread out of a bushel of wheat. At ten cents a loaf this comes to $4.60, whereas the farmer gets fifty cents. There is something wrong. I have talked with the mills, and they have admitted to me that the price of bread was away out of line with the price of wheat. If the processing tax were fifty cents, the price of bread should not go up at all, so we should have it because it means that at least $25,000,000 would be added to the price of the 230 million bushels. There should be an investigation into this bread business.
There are two methods by which to control production; first, by the power of the government; second, by voluntary action on the part of the producer. I believe the producers themselves will adjust their operations to meet the market and price conditions; there is no need for this action on the part of the government. Never has a question of such importance had so little discussion in this house as this all-important question of the production and marketing of grain. I refer to the pool statement when the announcement was made, that they were surprised and dismayed in the west, and they go on and state why.
In the few minutes remaining at my disposal I wish to offer something constructive.
Supply-State oj Agriculture

I am going to offer now what I think is the first step in the solution of this problem, and I should like the house to listen.
The problem divides itself into two branches: first, production, and second, marketing. By the first the farmer cultivates his fields, seeds and harvests the grain, and delivers it to the elevator. By the second the elevator takes in the grain, weighs, stores, ships and sells it. The farmer works at less than cost of production; and under the second, huge profits accrue to those all along the way. There are many injustices being practised. Under the present system there has prevailed a desire on the part of the elevator companies to hold the grain back in the country in order to gain the storage payment. We now have an order in council, P.C. 1225, passed on February 29 I believe, authorizing the building of 50 million bushels additional storage capacity ' at Fort William. Elevator men say it will cost about $5,000,000 to build. At prevailing rates of storage, about $4,000,000 a year will accrue to those who are building them and the capital is written off in two years. That is an outrage, and should not be permitted. I have always claimed that storage rates on grain are too high. I have here a statement made by the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) last year, which goes into that fully. This storage space should be built on the farms; the farmer should be encouraged to add to his storage the 50 million bushels. That would earn him, if storage rates are what they should be, one cent a bushel a month on the farm, or $120 a year for one thousand bushels. Then this $6,000,000 would be earned by the farmers instead of by the interests at Fort William. I make this statement, that under present storage charges the whole elevator system in that western country will be paid for in less than five years.
Here is my proposal. We have a war on. The other day we had two ministers of this government opening the war services campaign in front of the national war memorial, urging women and children to save their nickels for the war. Yet here we have the government permitting a system under which certain interests are getting huge profits beyond all reason. I suggest that this government proceed to take over, commandeer if you like, all the elevators and storage space in western Canada from Fort William to the coast. They should operate it by a board;
I could name forty men in western Canada who could1 do it. Let the prevailing storage rates be paid, paying the capital out in five years. If I had time I could give figures showing how it would pay for itself at present storage rates in three and a half years, as well as pay for the operation of the scheme. This 
proposal comes to me from a late president of the grain exchange-I am permitted to use his name if I desire-and many others who are interested in the grain business. They see what has happened; they know the solution. This is nothing new; it came to me not only this year, but in 1935 when we tried to persuade Mr. Bennett to do the same thing.
What is going on? Under the annexes that are being built in western Canada we have a system under which a 30,000 bushel capacity annex is permitted to earn $2,400 a year. It costs to build not more than $2,000; it pays 120 per cent on the initial cost. Then we have the statement I have just referred to as to fifty million bushels capacity to be built in Fort William, costing not more than $5,000,000, with an earning capacity of $4,000,000 a year. That is an outrage.
I have here a statement that I should like to be permitted to read or place on Hansard because I think it is valuable information. What does this all mean? I said we should take over the whole system. These are the figures issued by the bureau of statistics recently and in the "Canada Year Book". We have 5,678 elevators in western Canada west of Fort William with a capacity of
191.000.	000 bushels, and ait an estimated value of $62,000,000. We have thirty-four terminals in Fort William and in the west-twenty-nine at Fort William and Port Arthur, four at the coast and one at Churchill. Those elevators have a capacity of 127,500,000 bushels, and are valued at $42,000,000. We have 3,000 annexes built, with an estimated space of around 80,000,000 bushels, and at a cost of $5,000,000. We now have provision for a further 50,000,000 bushels at Fort William at a cost of not more than $5,000,000.
In this computation I am not including the mills or eastern terminals at Halifax, Saint John or along the St. Lawrence river. We find that we now have in western Canada a total elevator capacity of 411,500,000 bushels, plus 50,000,000 bushels at Fort William, making a total of around 460,000,000 bushels in western Canada, at a capitalization of $120,000,000.
I have here a statement of earnings. If taken over, that system will earn $40,000,000 a year.
I have it all figured out-8,678 country elevators and annexes with a space of 266,000,000 bushels, at a rate of eight cents, making a total earning of $21,280,000. Then, there are thirty-four terminal elevators with a capacity of 127,500,000 bushels, earning $7,650,000; there are interior terminals with a space for
18.000.	000 bushels, at eight cents, making a figure earned of $1,460,000; and then there is

Supply-State of Agriculture
the 50,000,000 bushels added at Fort William, at eight cents, making $4,000,000, or a total earning of $40,000,000.
That is, in five years the estimated earnings would be over $220,000,000. I have here allowed for $17,460,000 for operating expenses. That makes so much a unit. The whole set-up will pay for itself in three and a half years, running expenses included. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated that we have an investment of $400,000,000, and that it is costing about $60,000,000 to carry it. In the way I have indicated the whole thing can be taken over as a war measure, and would accrue to the interests of the producers. Had I the time I could show where these elevators have paid for themselves, five, six and seven times over. I can tell the minister where elevators in western Canada have paid the capital investment back in one year by storage charges, elevator fees, and profits on grain, and where money has been made on those investments. They have paid for themselves in one year. The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) knows many of them. Some of those elevators are from thirty to forty years old.
This is a war measure. If this government does not do what I have suggested, if it permits a condition to prevail where it has a capital investment of $400,000,000 and a carrying charge of $60,000,000 which, at the present rate of borrowing, is equal to a debt of $1,800,000,000, and if it does not take over as I have suggested, and place this organization in operation, it will not have done its duty.
I have a statement before me setting out how I would operate it. I would operate it by a board of seven or eight members, to which the government would name the majority and the chairman. The producers in western Canada would name the remainder. It would be subdivided into three groups, one of which would manage the country elevators; the second, the terminal elevators, and the third, the export and financial end of the business. I would commandeer the pool organization in western Canada if necessary. They have an organization already set up which would run it, and run it well. This $60,000,000 now paid to carry the wheat would accrue as an asset of the people of Canada, and to the producers in western Canada. It is theirs. They have paid for it five or six times over, and I could bring figures to prove this.
I say that any government which has a capital investment in wheat of $400,000,000, costing $60,000,000 to carry, and which has an opportunity to take this great asset that really belongs to western Canada, and does
nothing, is remiss in its duty and will go down in history as being so. I shall not say more on that point at this time, because I shall have an opportunity to speak later on, and to place on record figures to show what could be done.
The other day the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) stated that the government was organizing every industry and all man-power for war purposes. Why not organize this industry? Why not put it under control? This matter should go to a committee of the house of from thirteen to fifteen members-and not to the committee on agriculture. I suggest that the government set up a committee of thirteen and send this matter to, that committee. Let the Minister of Agriculture and others appear before that committee. Let those people from western Canada who have been sitting around here in Ottawa for two weeks have a chance to appear before that committee and give us any information they may have. In that way we would get valuable information. I would take the same position as was taken in 1935 by the Liberal party when the present Minister of National Defence then sitting right here said, "We will not allow this measure to pass if we cannot have it before a committee, and get information." When it came back from committee the members had received valuable information. They did not think for one minute that such a condition had prevailed. The committee I propose would get valuable information and could report back to the house. If we could set up that committee we, as representatives of the people of the west, who have a responsibility in this House of Commons, would do something worth while.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) in the last part of his speech reminded me of two experiences, one of which I had almost forgotten. About a year ago the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was speaking in Vancouver. A man sitting in the gallery insisted upon heckling him. Finally the Minister of Justice said to him, "My friend, I used to be a good debater; at one time I won a medal in a debate in a university. I should like to have a debate with you, but really I have not the time to have it to-night." That ended the heckling.
The other incident of which I was reminded was the first time I had had the privilege of speaking to an audience of any considerable size, when I spoke on the question which has just been discussed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. It was at Winnipeg in 1910, when the livest issue in western Canada was that
Supply-State of Agriculture

of government ownership and control of elevators. Well, I am not going to say this afternoon that as a result of delivering that speech they did get government ownership and control of elevators in Manitoba. But those who come from that province will remember that in 1910 the government of Manitoba took over the elevators in that province.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Political friends.


James Garfield Gardiner: My colleague says that they were political friends of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.


Mr. HOMUTH:: That was not necessary, was it?


James Garfield Gardiner: They operated those elevators for a time, and they stand to-day as one of the outstanding-I was going to say business failures, but probably I should say political failures-in the history of business in Canada. So that there is nothing new in the proposal that the government should take over the elevators. There is nothing new in the suggestion that so much per bushel should be paid for storage capacity in an elevator. Governments have done it before; governments have tested the principle and have proven that it is difficult for governments to operate a system of business houses such as elevators and do it any more successfully than private individuals have been able to do it.
But I did not rise to discuss the wheat question. On three occasions I have attempted to get the agriculture estimates before this house. Hon. members on the other side of the house who have been intimating that the discussion of agricultural matters has been delayed by the government forget the fact that the only estimates that have been placed before the house, other than war estimates, are the agriculture estimates, and that these were brought down at the very beginning of the session. When I brought them into the house some weeks ago I was asked by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) to outline the government policy with regard to agricultural matters. That was about half past ten o'clock at night and for half an hour I proceeded to outline the policy of this government in relation to agriculture.
On a subsequent occasion, when an effort was made to bring these estimates back before the house, objection was raised on certain grounds. On a still later occasion an effort was made to place these estimates before the house, and three weeks ago the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) rose in his place to move a vote of want of confidence in the government by way of amendment to the motion that the Speaker do now leave the

chair. My hon. friends on the other side of the house twit the members of this government and me as Minister of Agriculture with not having given them an earlier opportunity to discuss agricultural matters. I submit that the only reason we have not been discussing matters in relation to every branch of the Department of Agriculture is that there has been an effort on the part of the official opposition to see that the agriculture estimates did not properly get before the house up to the present time.
If any objection is taken to this remark, I need only recall the threat which was made the other night by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) when it was suggested that unless we did certain things, certain votes would not be permitted to pass this house. The question whether we were to have agriculture estimates was under discussion at the time that threat 'was made. Again I suggest that ever since the house opened the government has been persistent and insistent in its effort to get before this house a discussion of agricultural matters.
To-day we have been listening to discussion of an amendment couched in terms intended to put every hon. member of this house in a difficult position when voting upon it. The amendment reads:
That all the words after "that" in the motion be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:
"it be resolved that the government should take immediate steps to create a parity of prices as between agricultural and other products in order to improve the condition of Canadian agriculture and in order that it may receive a just and fair return, and thus be enabled to make that contribution to Canada's war effort which is so desirable, and which our agricultural population so greatly desire to make."
Apart altogether from the fact that this amendment, in the form and at the time it has been submitted to the house, is a vote of want of confidence in this government, it must be clear to all hon. members that every single suggestion contained in the amendment has been in effect ever since war was declared, indeed was in effect for at least four years before. The only reason they were not in effect during the whole of the fifteen years before war was declared is that for five years of that time our friends opposite were in power. But the suggestion in the motion that an attempt be made to bring about a parity of prices as between what the farmer has to sell and what he has to buy has in fact been consistently put forward ever since this government came into office, and more consistently since war was declared. There is no reason to pass a motion of this kind at this stage.

Supply-State of Agriculture


An hon. MEMBER:: Why weren't better results obtained?


James Garfield Gardiner: An hon. member asks why we did not get better results. I shall deal with the results in a few moments, but before doing so I should like to point out that this motion is an effort to block still further free discussion of the agricultural problems of Canada. It places every hon. member who sits on this side of the house and in the corner over there in the position of having to decide between voting want of confidence in the government and freely discussing agricultural matters as brought before the house in estimates. Thus there is an obstruction of free discussion of agricultural problems at this time.
If this motion were carried every hon. member of the house knows that as a vote of want of confidence it would require the government of this country to resign, it would require the holding of an election in Canada, it would require the reorganization of the government and the resetting up of policies, not only in connection with agriculture but in connection with every present-day war activity. I venture to say that there is not an hon. member of this house who, knowing that we are facing difficulties which may be increased within the next few weeks, even within the next few days, would wish to call upon the ministry to resign and thus bring about the disorganized condition which a resignation of the government under these circumstances would create.
In other words, the placing of a motion of this kind before the house at the present time makes impossible the free discussion of the problems which confront the agricultural population of Canada. Such a thing is unthinkable. I am prepared to discuss the whole agricultural problem if my hon. friends desire to have it done. It can be done quite simply by having this motion withdrawn and allowing the estimates of the Department of Agriculture to be placed before the house. Then we could discuss consistently and persistently every problem which is confronting the farmers of Canada, and every hon. member would be free to express his opinion, apart altogether from the attitude of this government toward the affairs of Canada and the empire.
I do not intend to place hon. members in a position to be able to say that I introduced into the discussion of a want of confidence motion the new policy of the government in relation to wheat. No doubt that would be the simplest way for me as Minister of Agriculture to have the principles of the policy which has been enunciated by the 14873-120
Minister of Trade and Commerce and by myself as Minister of Agriculture adopted by this house without any opportunity being afforded to hon. members to discuss it freely, without any opportunity being given to anyone to express himself by vote except under the hampering restraint of a want of confidence motion. I am not going to do that, Mr. Speaker. It is not my intention to discuss the wheat policy to-day. I shall choose an occasion when every member of this house will be free to discuss the wheat policy on its merits and not be hampered in any vote he may wish to cast by the fact that he has to vote on a motion of want of confidence in the government of Canada.
But there are a few other matters I should like to discuss, in view of the suggestions that have been made by the mover of the amendment. He stated this afternoon that organized agriculture came to Ottawa to see the Prime Minister and members of the government. Is the hon. member, who has been following agricultural matters in Canada very closely for many years, not aware of the fact that in every single year since the federation of agriculture was set up as the chamber of agriculture, later reorganized as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the executive committee of that organization has come to Ottawa immediately after the federation held its annual meeting and passed its resolutions? I repeat, they have called on the government every year since they have been an organization. It is true that this year for the first time they saw the whole cabinet, but it was not the first time they have asked to see the whole cabinet. They have asked to see the whole cabinet every year since they have been organized, and in each of the years since they have been organized some members of the government have met delegates from that organization. On some occasions members of the government were giving attention to other business when the delegation was here and not all the members of the government were able to meet the federation or the Canadian Chamber of Agriculture. But on each occasion since this government was formed I met them as Minister of Agriculture; on most occasions some other members of the government were with me, and we considered the point of view which the organization presented to the government.
I may say to the house, if it will please the leader of the opposition, who suggested the other night that he did not know just why I went to England last fall, that it was the federation of agriculture that first suggested I should go. They passed a resolution to that effect. Not only that, but they came to

Supply-State of Agriculture

Ottawa and presented the resolution. Not only did they suggest that I should go to England but they suggested that the chairman of the bacon board should also go to England. And the hon. member for Haldimand now tells the house that there is not a man on the bacon board who represents the opinion of the farm organizations of Canada. The federation of agriculture itself, at their annual meeting prior to the one just past, suggested that the Minister of Agriculture and the chairman of the bacon board should go to Great Britain and discuss with the British government the possibilities of having Canadian bacon disposed of in the British market. We acted on their suggestion and went to Great Britain and studied this question among many others.
There were other things which the federation suggested on that occasion, many of which have since been brought into effect in Canada. There were other suggestions made which we have not seen fit to bring into effect. For example, the suggestion was made on one occasion that we should have all agriculture in Canada organized under boards and that these boards should have power to legislate and to tax the farmers across Canada. We did not adopt that suggestion but we discussed it with them and gave them our opinion with regard to it. Again when they returned a year ago they suggested the same thing, and my reply to them, which was given to the press at that time, was to this effect, that at least so long as the war lasted any boards that might be contemplated in Canada to handle the marketing or disposal of farm products to the British government would be set up and controlled by the dominion government itself. Why? For the twofold reason that it is a sound principle to establish in any country that there shall be only one kind of authority with power to tax the people, and that that authority shall be a body elected by all the people within a given area. And there is only one authority that should be allowed to legislate in connection with matters having to do with the control of certain industries, and that body again should be the administration set up as a result of the votes either of the whole people or of the people of a province or municipality. For these reasons we said that we would retain this authority within the federal government rather than pass it over to them.
There is another reason. The British government to-day has a food ministry, a food board, a cereals board, boards controlling the shipment of food products to that country. All these matters are under government control. On a number of occasions since the war started it has been suggested to the

government of Canada that we should set up a similar authority on this side to deal, in respect to the particular product, with the corresponding British authority on the other side, in order to see to it that our foodstuffs are shipped from this country to Great Britain. That is the policy, Mr. Speaker, which we have been following, and many other proposals which were put up to us by the representatives of agriculture who came to us have been either embodied in legislation or acted upon by this government either before or since the representations were made to us.
This brings me to another remark made by the hon. member for Haldimand. He said that there was no representative of agriculture on the boards set up under the agricultural supplies board. I have here a copy of Hansard of May 23, 1940, and at page 169 I find a page and a half of the names of representatives of agriculture from every province who have been placed upon boards or advisory committees, set up after advisement with farm organizations and with the provincial governments, in order to advise the agricultural supplies committee of the Department of Agriculture in matters pertaining to agricultural policy. I shall not take the time to read the names; they will all be found in Hansard of last session. The representatives of agriculture there named are still acting on the various boards and carrying on their activities in relation to agricultural problems.
I can quite understand that someone in a particular province might be able to say that he belongs to a farm organization which is not represented on these boards. But when one realizes that there are agricultural organizations from one end of Canada to the other, in connection with every form of live stock undertaking, fruit growing, grain growing, every branch of agriculture; that there are organizations in each of the nine provinces, as well as organizations representing agriculture right across Canada, it will readily be seen how impossible it is to constitute a board in connection with any one branch of agriculture which would have on it a representative of all farm organizations in this dominion. But the men who are on are men who are representative of agriculture, in their capacities as officials of either the dominion Department of Agriculture, the provincial agricultural departments, organizations associated with agriculture, or organizations formed by agriculturists from one end of Canada to the other. As a matter of fact, at each of the different meetings which have been referred to by speakers, I have been confronted writh this same question. London was not the only place in Canada where we had a meeting; we had meetings in Saskatoon,

Supply-State of Agriculture
Regina, Calgary, and Montreal. Meetings were also organized or arranged for in the maritime provinces, but it was not possible to hold them because of the fact that the house was called in session when it was. They will, however, still take place. At each meeting I was confronted with the same question and answered it indicating that while some might disagree w7e believed we had agriculture represented.
When my hon. friend asks me whether we consulted with the farm organizations when we were appointing boards, or when the price of butter was being pegged, or when agreements were made with Great Britain, I answer that he does not know the farm organizations of Canada or he would not ask that question. They do not wait to be consulted, Mr. Speaker; they advise this government and make their views known to us. They are active organizations, on the job. The head of the dairy organization about which the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) asked a question comes to Ottawa, not once a year but a number of times every year.
When I look about this chamber I do not know of any group of men in Canada who more completely represent all the agricultural interests of this dominion than do hon. members who represent agricultural constituencies. It is all very well to say that we are going to set up an organization across Canada. I agree with setting up farm organizations. Any hon. member who has the interests of agriculture at heart and who lives in the rural area of his constituency will belong to the farm organizations of that constituency, and I take no exception to that. I believe in the farmers having organizations. In spite of some of the criticisms which are made of agriculture, and statements to the effect that farmers cannot stick together, I believe that there are no organizations in Canada which work more persistently at their jobs and keep closer contact with governments, both dominion and provincial, than do the farm organizations of the dominion. One does not have to invite them to Ottawa, or coax them to come to Ottawa.
As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) rather chided us over here because of the fact that, at this time, three or four most important farm organizations are represented by delegates now in this city, who have been here discussing questions which, he said, the members of this house had not had an opportunity to discuss, questions which, he said, as did the hon. member for Haldimand, should have been announced to the house. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle referred in this connection to a dispatch reporting the return 14873-1204
from Ottawa of J. J. McGurran, secretary-treasurer of the Saskatchewan association of rural municipalities, which association, by the way, represents more farmers than any other organization in that province. The rural municipalities of Saskatchewan cover the entire municipal area; every councillor that is elected is elected by the farmers of his division, and every secretary-treasurer is the hired official of the farmers of a municipality. That organization did have its representatives here discussing the wheat policy with us, as did organizations from Alberta and Manitoba. They have gone home, and after they had gone home they said what they had to say to their people. But I want to tell the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that the only reason he did not hear about it before was, as I mentioned a few moments ago, that we had tried on two or three occasions to get before this house with discussions on agricultural matters, that we had been threatened with this and that and the other delay if we did certain things in relation to the activities of this house, and that is the only circumstance which made it impossible for the matter to be discussed before in this house.
Because of what the hon. member placed on Hansard, a reference to my having met the members who are the real representatives of the people of Canada, and for that reason only, I wish to make this statement. I have discussed the wheat policy of this government with Liberal members of the house and with leading men in every one of the other groups in the house. Each of them will agree that I have expressed myself as being willing to meet other members of their group and to discuss with them the policy which the government was placing before the people and the methods under which they desired to have it administered. I had very helpful discussions with each one of the men with whom I raised the question. Their help in this matter has been of assistance; and I am sure that, after we have agreed to agree or disagree on the matter of policy, we shall have the assistance of hon. members in every part of this house in seeing to it that the policy is carried out in the spirit which is indicated by that great American who was with us the other day in the city of Toronto, when he said, before a committee of the house in Washington, "I did all I could to defeat the present President of the United States, but now he is my president." In that same spirit, after hon. members have said all they have to say against the policy of the government, when they have done-if you like-everything they can to defeat it, once we have decided what the policy is to be, we shall have the support of all
Supply-State of Agriculture

hon. members, in view of the conditions prevailing to-day, to have that policy put into operation as effectively as possible, for the time being.
It does not make any difference what branch of agriculture we are dealing with, whether it be wheat, or live stock, or dairy products: no great national long-term policy can be decided upon under conditions such as the world is passing through to-day. The policy which is decided upon must be one which will be put into effect for the season through which we are passing, and probably it will have to be varied even before the season is over to meet situations which develop from the fact that we are at war. I suggest again that when we have discussed the policy on its merits, under conditions enabling hon. members to express themselves freely, we shall have the unanimous support of all parties in this house in trying to do the best we can with whatever policy is evolved.
Another statement which was made was to the effect that there has been no control over farm prices, that we have not attempted to maintain farm prices in Canada which would be of assistance to our farming population. It was said that we should be able to plan for the stabilization of farm prices. All I wish to say with regard to that is to refer again to what I said at the beginning of my address, namely that this government, ever since the war started, and before, has been attempting to stabilize the prices of farm products to a point where farmers can exist under the very difficult conditions which prevail.
I only wish to emphasize what has been said by the two previous speakers when they contend that agriculture is having a very difficult time. I am not going to disagree with that. I do not think that anyone in this house will disagree with it. I think we all admit and admit quite freely that agriculture has been having a very difficult time since this war started and' that it was having a very difficult time for ten years before the war started.


Mr. ROWE:: It is getting worse.


James Garfield Gardiner: Someone says, "getting worse." Probably we should examine into that statement-it would not have been necessary to do so had the suggestion not been made.
I have before me the receipts from the sale of farm products from 1926 to 1940 in the different provinces. I am not going to weary the house by reading the table which gives the figures for each province, but I should like to give the returns from agriculture in the gross, in millions of dollars, in each of the years and then let the house judge whether conditions are getting worse or better.

The year 1926 is the year we are asked to go back to. In that year the returns from agriculture amounted to $952,000,000, in round figures. In the next year they amounted to $929,000,000. The year after that the amount was $1,058,000,000 and the year following that $922,000,000. The house will note that these figures compare very favourably throughout the four years. Then in 1930 conditions throughout the world took a difficult turn, and they did take a difficult turn in Canada. Here are the figures for the years from 1930 on:
Returns from
Year	agriculture
1930		 $630,000,000
1931		 442,000,000
1932		 377,000,000
1933		 390,000,000
1934		 481,000,000
1935		 509,000,000
1936		 569,000,000
1937		 640,000,000
1938		 647,000,000
1939		 702,000,000
1940		 714,000,000
I ask my hon. friends, is it correct to say that conditions are getting worse? They did get worse beginning in 1930 and going to 1933; but from 1933 up to the present, and more particularly during the last four years, they have been getting materially better so far as the returns are concerned. There are other figures here which I shall probably use when dealing with the wheat situation later, but I only want to give these figures to-day in order to indicate that it is not correct to say that conditions have been getting gradually worse. Conditions, so far as the returns are concerned, have been getting a little better from year to year, though not sufficiently better for the farmer to realize that there is any great improvement in his position.
I want to agree again with the two hon. members who spoke previously when they say that conditions in relation to agriculture in Canada at the present time are not good. But this government has not contributed towards making conditions worse from year to year since it came into office. We have contributed towards making them better and better.
Something was said by the hon. member for Haldimand about prices, and it has been repeated from one end of Canada to the other. I corrected it in his hearing in London but perhaps he went home earlier than I thought he did. Nevertheless he repeated it to-day. I had corrected it in each one of the meetings I referred to a few moments ago, and I say to my hon. friend that if he does not know it, if he will come to my office to-morrow morning I will show him correspondence from every section of the dominion where these

Supply-State oj Agriculture
meetings were held. I will show him correspondence up to the day the meeting was held and correspondence after the meeting was over, and if he does not agree with me, after he has read the correspondence, that people did change their minds slightly after these meetings, then I will take back what I am going to say to you now, Mr. Speaker.
The statement which the hon. member made and which was corrected was to the effect that there was S2.19 a hundredweight of a difference between the price which was arranged for this year with the British government for hogs and the price which was arranged for last year. He went on to say to-day, as he has repeated time after time, that that difference in the price for bacon was carried right back to the hog itself and that there was a similar reduction in the price of hogs to farmers.


Mark Cecil Senn: I did not say that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the figures here, and the average price for hogs for 1940, which was the year in which the other agreement was in effect, was $8.57 a hundred-average price at Toronto. Now, what has the average price been per month since this agreement came into effect? The average price in November was $8.31 a hundred; in December, $8.17 a hundred; in January, $8.31 a hundred; in February, $8.45 a hundred. That is just 12 cents a hundred lower for February of this year than the average throughout last year. And then the highest price that the farmers received in any month last year for hogs was received in the month of September. The price was $9.16 a hundred, on an average, throughout September; the price was $8.45 a hundred in February of this year as against $9.00 a hundred in February of last year. In other words, there is only 55 cents as between the price of February last year and the price of February this year, and only 12 cents between the price of February this year and the average price of last year.
That brings me back to what I stated in this house when I returned from Britain. I said that if the packers in Canada did what it was possible for them to do in the interests of agriculture in this country under that agreement the farmer would not be asked to take more than fifty cents a hundred less for his live hogs this year than he took on an average throughout last year. I say that prophecy made at that time has been more than borne out by the prices which farmers have received for hogs up to date. That situation prevailed with regard to hogs. May I say also that this war is no different from other wars in its effects upon farmers. Every war ever fought in
any period of history in any place was detrimental to the farming population both in the area in which it was fought and in the area from which their food supplies were to be secured. This war has been no exception to that. And the last war was no exception in the long run. Down to the present time the position of the farmer in relation to prices and other matters as associated with the first few months of this war has been at a level which compares fairly favourably with that of the first eighteen months of the last war. In so far as bacon and hogs are concerned, it is considerably better over the long period, because at the beginning of the last war, if I remember correctly-I am speaking from memory-hogs started at somewhere close to nine cents a pound, went down to close to six cents and then came back to nine cents again in the first fifteen months. But what has happened in this war?


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Where did they go from nine cents?


James Garfield Gardiner: And I will ask my hon.
friend where are they going from nine cents this time. No one can tell. There is only one thing that is going to make them go up, and that is to keep enough of this labour of which the hon. member for Haldimand spoke, in the factories of Canada producing munitions, aeroplanes, machines of war and supplying every man that can be put in the front line with the most efficient equipment that this war demands; that is the only thing that is going to put the price up. So I say that putting men in the factories, even if it does to a certain extent take them away from other industries for the time being, is not going to injure agriculture; it is not going to injure Canada, but is going to be one of the main factors in helping to win this war.
I was pointing out that there is a reason why prices remained at a level. Why have prices been stabilized at from $8.31 to $9.16 a hundredweight in this war? The reason is that immediately this war was declared, we entered into an agreement with the British government. We did not wait until farm organizations compelled us to do it; we did not wait until delegations came to Ottawa; we went immediately to Britain. The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) was the delegate of this government to the British isles in the first few weeks of the war; and as a result of the mission he carried on then, a certain price arrangement and quantity arrangement was made with the British government. It was that arrangement which held the price of hogs and bacon up throughout that year and stabilized the price.
The hon. member for Haldimand said that last year the farmers did not know what to
Supply-State oj Agriculture

do because they did not know what the price was or was going to be. The farmers of Canada knew so well what the government had done that they increased the production of hogs in this country to a point which it had never reached before, and more hogs are coming on, the market than ever before. I know that in reply to that he would say, Why did you let it go down twelve cents a hundredweight as against the average of last year, a little less than a dollar a hundredweight or a little less as against the highest price of last year? Why did you let it go down when you were making the second agreement?
There is only one answer I can give to that. The answer is that when we made the first agreement we did not know that Denmark was going to fall, or that Norway or Holland or Belgium or France were going to fall. If we had known, we would not have made an agreement for as high a price as we did for 1940, because we would have known that under the circumstances it would be most difficult for the British government to carry out such an agreement. Britain did not know. Because neither of us knew, one of the best agreements with the best possible price was made. If one questions that, Britain could have bought her pork supplies in the United States all last year on an average of three cents a pound less live weight than she paid for them in Canada. But when Britain had signed on the dotted line, she carried out the agreement. In, spite of the fact that we cabled Britain last June, and cabled again in July, offering to send over additional supplies without suggesting an increased price, even suggesting a decreased price, Britain cabled back that she was going right through with the agreement. And she went through.
When we went back after a year, all the facts being taken into consideration, Britain again entered into an agreement with us, not as good as the one before as to price it is true, but an agreement which took a much greater quantity; and if she had not done so, I do not know what the price of hogs would be in Canada at the present time. If we had had an agreement for only 290 million pounds of bacon for Britain this year and Britain had not taken any more than that, we would not be getting five cents a pound for hogs in Canada now, and everyone who knows anything about the hog trade knows it. But because we have an agreement with Britain, because she realizes the condition of our agriculture, realizing at the same time that neither she nor ourselves can do all for agriculture that ought to be done for it, she has done the best she can, and we have accepted it as the best she can do.

I want to say for the farm population of Canada that, in spite of propaganda put out by some persons who are not farmers and spread across this country, the old gentleman who got up in London, whom the hon. member for Haldimand 'heard, expressed their viewpoint. I am not going to use his language; probably it would not be parliamentary, but the effect was: "I am going to produce all the hogs I can produce, no matter what the price, so long as Britain needs them". That has been the sentiment of the farmers throughout Canada ever since this war started : "We are going to produce hogs; we are going to make them available". In so far as this government is concerned all one has to do in order to know what our position is in relation to hogs, wheat, munitions of war and everything else needed is to read the statement that the Prime Minister put on Hansard yesterday relating to the needs confronting us at the present time in connection with financing this war. Reading that, we shall realize why it is difficult, even for govemr ments, to do the things they wish to do in order to help people over hard places.
I see it is six o'clock and I cannot finish at this time. May I say before moving the adjournment of the debate that I believe, with my friends who have spoken, that farmers are in a difficult position. Prices are not as high as they ought to be in the interests of agriculture. The best the government can do under the circumstances is to look agriculture over from month to month and to search out the branches of agriculture to which the condition I am about to set out relates.
The position taken since the beginning of the war is to the effect that before any branch of agriculture receives assistance because wTe are at war it must be shown (1) that the market which existed for the product of that branch of agriculture has been seriously curtailed by the war; (2) that those engaged in that branch of the industry cannot readily change to any other without lapse of time and unreasonable expense, and (3) that those engaged in that branch of agriculture cannot maintain themselves in agriculture without government assistance. Whenever any branch of agriculture has been found to fit in with that condition, we have attempted to do something about it.
On a later date I hope to have the opportunity of continuing the debate.
On motion of Mr. Gardiner the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

The War-The Balkans
Thursday, March 27, 1941.