1941-04-30

THE WAR


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I believe the house will
be interested in having read to it a statement which was made by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill in the British House of Commons to-day. The statement was communicated to our government by the British government in advance. It relates to the question of the evacuation of the empire troops from Greece. It is as follows:
As I am most anxious to give the house, the nation and the empire information at the earliest possible moment, and also in view of the extravagant claims made by the enemy, I think it right now to give the figures, so far as they are known to us, of the evacuation of the empire forces from Greece.
Up to the time when evacuation was seen to be inevitable, we had landed about 60,000 men in Greece, including one New Zealand and one

The War-Greece
Australian division. Of these at least 45,000 have been evacuated. Considering that our air force was, through the superiority of the enemy, forced to leave the air fields from which alone it could effectively cover the retreat of the troops, and that only a small portion of it could cover the points of embarkation, this must be considered remarkable.
The conduct of the troops, and especially the rear guards, in fighting their way so many miles to the sea, merits the highest praise. This is the first instance where air bombing, prolonged day after day, has failed to break the discipline and order of the marching columns, who, besides being thus assailed from the air, were pursued by no less than three German armoured divisions, as well as the whole strength of the German mechanized forces which could be brought to bear in the actual fighting, principally on Mount Olympus around Grevena, and at Thermopylae.
About 3,000 casualties, killed and wounded, are reported to have been suffered by our troops. This was a very small part of the losses inflicted on the Germans, who, on several occasions, sometimes for two days at a time, were brought to a standstill by forces one-fifth of their number. Nor of course does it take any account of the German losses incurred in their assaults upon the Greek and Yugoslav armies.
It will, I dare say, be possible to give a fuller account in the debate next week, but I think I have said enough to show the house that, painful as are our losses, we have much to be thankful for, and the empire forces have much to be proud of.
The Foreign, Secretary, Right Hour. Anthony Eden, in answeT to a question asked to-day, also made the following statement in reference to the evacuation of the troops from Greece. It is in the nature of a communication which passed between the Greek government and the British government just prior to the evacuation. What I am about to read is the text of a translation of the document given some [DOT] days ago-I should think on or about April 21, the day on which the Greek government left Athens to go to Crete. The Foreign Secretary, after having read the document, supplemented it with the following words:
From the document the house will see that the decision to withdraw the British forces from Greece "was taken at the instance of and in full agreement with the Greek government.
This is the translation of the document:
The Greek government, uiiile expressing to the British government and to the gallant imperial troops their gratitude for the aid which they have extended to Greece in her defence against the unjust aggressor, are obliged to make the following statement:
After having conducted for more than six months a victorious struggle against strong superior enemy forces the Greek army has now reached a state of exhaustion, and moreover finds itself completely deprived of the resources indispensable for the pursuit of the war, such as munitions, motorized vehicles and aeroplanes, resources with which it was in any case inadequately supplied from the outbreak of hostilities. This state of things makes it impossible for the Greeks to continue the struggle with any chance of success, and deprives them of all hope of being able to lend some assistance to their valiant allies.
At the same time in view of the importance of the British contingents, of the aviation at their disposal, and of the extensive front heroically defended by them, the imperial forces have an absolute need for the assistance of the Greek army without which they could not prolong their own resistance for more than a few days.
In these conditions the continuation of the struggle while incapable of producing any useful effect, would have no other result than to bring about the collapse of the Greek army and bloodshed useless to the allied forces. Consequently the royal government is obliged to state that further sacrifice of the British expeditionary force would be in vain and that its withdrawal in time seems to be rendered necessary by circumstances and by interests common to the struggle.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. D. MacKENZIE (Neepawa-for Mr. Weir) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 29 (from the senate) respecting the Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company.
He said: The purposes of the bill are: To repeal chapter 73 of the statutes of 1934, which has never been brought into force; to authorize the company to make contracts for additional classes of insurance; to alter the voting power of holders of automobile policies; to clarify the wording of the present section 11 of the act of incorporation with regard to winding up.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. QUESTIONS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
farmers' creditors arrangement act-

Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	Has any request been received from the legislature or government of Manitoba or any official thereof, since August 7, 1940, for the reapplication of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act to that province?
2.	If so, what action has been taken with respect to such request?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	This matter is receiving the consideration of the government.



DEPARTMENT OF NAVAL SERVICES-PUBLICITY

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What are the details with respect to all sums spent by the Department of Naval Services, since the beginning of the present war, on publicity?
Questions

2.	What are the respective names and salaries of those in this publicity branch?
3.	(a) Had the writers any naval experience, (b) who appointed them, (c) and what navy course, if any, are they taking?
4.	What post does Lieut. Farrow hold in the navy, is he a British subject, what previous naval training or experience had he, and what articles has he written?
5.	What was the cost of the illustrated booklet or brochure recently circulated regarding the naval arm of the service?
6.	Does the royal navy utilize public funds for publicity propaganda?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: 1.	Apart from the normal information prepared by the naval information office for release to the press, the only publication of a publicity nature issued by the naval service during the present war was a pamphlet entitled "Royal Canadian Navy 1908-1940" of which 10,000 copies were issued at a cost of 82,319.50.
2.	Mr. W. Gilhooly, naval information officer, S3,600 per annum. Mr. A. J. Vincent, clerk, $1,620 per annum. Mrs. J. A. Laperrier, stenographer, S720 per annum.
3.	(a) Mr. Gilhooly had experience with the artillery in the last war. (b) Mr. W. Gilhooly -governor in council, (c) None.
4.	Lieutenant Farrow was controller of naval information from 18th March, 1940, to 23rd November, 1940, was appointed to R.C.N. barracks, Halifax, from 24th November, 1940, to 13th December, 1940, and afloat from 14th December, 1940 to date. He is a British subject. Prior to entry in the naval service he was an experienced yachtsman. In addition to press releases he wrote the above mentioned pamphlet, and is the author of several books.
5.	See answer to No. 1.
6.	No information.



ONTARIO JUDGES OF COURT OF APPEAL

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	How many judges of the Court of Appeal of Ontario are eighty years of age, or over?
2.	What are the names of such judges and what is the age of each?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: 1.	Three.
2.	Name	Age
(1)	William Edward Middleton. .81 years
(2)	Cornelius Arthur Masten....83	"(3)	William Ren wick Riddell___89	"



RESTRICTION OF WEIGHT OF CHEDDAR CHEESE MANUFACTURED IN ONTARIO AND QUEBEC

Mr. CARDIFF:: 1. Does order No. 15 made under authority given by order in council P.C. 2138, May 23,

1940,	and amended by order in council January 10, 1941, P.C. 143 prohibit the manufacture of cheddar cheese in Ontario and Quebec less in weight than seventy-five pounds for sale in Canada?
2.	How many pounds of cheddar cheese were manufactured in Canada last year of sizes below that required by the above order?
3.	Why does this order apply only to Ontario and Quebec?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes, unless authorized by the dairy products board. Order No. 15 was rescinded recently and order No. 20 passed in its stead and published in the Canada Gazette, under date of April 17, 1941. Under this new order, factories which manufactured cheddar cheese in styles less than seventy-five pounds in weight, during 1940, may continue to do so in
1941,	provided that the amount of any one month does not exceed the amount in that style manufactured in the same factory during the same calendar month of 1940.
2.	Complete information not available.
3.	Ontario and Quebec are the two provinces in which practically all of the cheddar cheese exported is produced.
DOMINION king's COUNSEL


Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	How many dominion king's counsel have been commissioned since October 23, 1935?
2.	What are their names?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	7.
2.	Names: Charles Edward McLeod; Percy Meudell Anderson; Edward Miall; William Patrick John O'Meara; Ralph O. Campney; Frederick Percy Varcoe; Arnold Danford Patrick Heeney.



SALE OF TIMBER ON DOKIS INDIAN RESERVE

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Were tenders called for the purchase of merchantable timber 10 inches in diameter, on timber berth No. 4, of Dokis Indian reserve No. 9, district of Parry Sound, Ontario?
2.	If so, what persons, firms or corporations tendered?
3.	What was the amount of each tender?
4.	What tender was accepted?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Lafreniere Brothers, North Bay, Ontario. Laidlaw, Belton Lumber Company, Sarnia, Ontario.
APRIL 30,	1941	2427 Motions for Papers	3.	Lafreniere	Laidlaw BeltonBrothers	Lumber CompanyBasswood, Yellow birch	M f.b.m.	$7.25	$7.00Red pine	U	M "	7.25	6.00White pine	u	M "	7.25	7.00Oak	u	M "	8.25	7.00Other hardwood	((	M "	5.25	5.00Spruce	u	M "	4.50	4.25Hemlock	u	M "	3.75	3.50Poplar	(t	M "	1.00Spruce and balsam pulpwood..	u	cord	1.00	Cedar poles and cedar posts ..	u	lin. ft.	.02	4. Lafreniere Brothers.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
foreign exchange control-ss. Bayard

Mr. HATFIELD:: For a copy of all correspondence between the foreign exchange control board and the Royal Bank of Canada at Saint John, New Brunswick, or any other branch of the said bank in New Brunswick, in regard to the deficiency in the foreign exchange returned on a shipment of certified seed potatoes forwarded from the port of Saint John on the ss. Bayard sometime during the month of October, 1940, and arriving in Buenos Aires on November 7, 1940. Also a copy of form B accompanying the export permit and a statement of the returns, showing the difference between the form B's and the amounts of foreign exchange received.


Mr. ILSLEY:: This opens up the question whether the files of the foreign exchange control board relating to the business of individual exporters should be produced in the house. I have given consideration to this question during the recess, and I am obliged to say that it is not in the public interest that these files should be produced. It will be understood that there is a file relating to the exports of every single exporter in Canada, and if these files were producible in the House of Commons it would divulge the private business transactions of these exporters to other exporters. This is the rule that is followed in the Department of National Revenue in relation to imports, and it is the rule which I shall have to ask the house to follow in relation to exports.


Mr. HOMUTH:: It is rather a serious
situation for the hon. member who asked the question. Might it not be possible for him to see the file personally, in confidence?


James Lorimer Ilsley: When the hon. gentleman
is here, if he will get in touch with me I will discuss the matter with him. I do not know how far I can go to meet the hon. member's request.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Perhaps
the minister has correctly stated the policy 14873-154
that should be adopted, and I can see a great deal of force in the position which he has taken. Certainly neither he nor I would want our private export business to be open to the whole public. On that general theory I do not think there can be any division of opinion. In this particular case, however, there is a little more than that. If t'he minister will be good enough to discuss the matter with the hon. member, a solution may be arrived at to cover the individual case. I am bound to say that I think the minister's position on the general principle is sound; I do not think it could be otherwise.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.



DISPOSAL OF FALHER, ALTA., IMMIGRATION HALL

Mr. COLDWELL:: For a -copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, recommendations and other documents in the possession of the department relative to the disposal of the immigration hall at Falher, Alberta.



SALE OF TIMBER ON DOKIS INDIAN RESERVE

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda or other documents, exchanged between any person, firm or corporation and the Minister of Mines and Resources, or any official of the Department of Mines and Resources, with reference to the sale of merchantable timber on timber berth No. 4 of Dokis Indian reserve No. 9, district of Parry Sound, Ontario.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the Minister of Munitions or the Minister of Labour to explain to the house and the country just what action has been taken in connection with the situation at the plant of the National Steel Car Corporation at Hamilton, what the probable

Labour Conditions*-Hamilton

result will be, and whether the plant is now in operation. In other words, I would ask one of the ministers-I do not know which of them is the appropriate minister-to give a clear statement of the situation beyond that which has appeared in the public press.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: The government was faced
with a situation wherein the management of the National Steel Car Corporation refused to comply with an interim report of a conciliation board duly appointed by the federal government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
management did?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the management. An
interim report was made to the effect that one man who had been dismissed should be reinstated, at least until the final report could be brought down. This the management declined to do. Experienced officers of the Department of Munitions and Supply looked into the situation, and it was felt that the management were taking an unreasonable attitude. This was the view of experienced production managers. The resultant situation was that we were losing the production of shells for British order, we thought unnecessarily, and the labour troubles threatened to spread to other plants, where loss of production would have been even more serious.
I instructed the management peremptorily to comply with the order of the board. This it declined to do, and after a reasonable time had expired we exercised the authority given us under the munitions and supply act, took over the management of the plant and installed a controller in the plant.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was a
special order in council required, and if so, will it be tabled?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I have sent for the
order in council, and I hope to table it this afternoon. I might point out that the controller arrived in Hamilton about midnight last night, and at seven o'clock this morning normal operations of the plant were restored.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I can usefully add anything to the answer given by my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply in reply to the question of the leader of the opposition. I might add, however, that perhaps to some extent I was responsible in recommending the action taken. The matter is a most unfortunate one, in this respect: A board was appointed, and several complaints were urged by the employees for consideration of the board. Perhaps there
[Mr. R. B. Hanson.j
was a little delay in setting up the board, but it functioned and brought in a majority report. That report dealt with two matters and two alone, namely the matter of taking a vote, or an election, as it is sometimes called, to see whether the organization which had applied for the board was representative of a majority of the employees of the company. A vote was directed.
Then there were several alleged cases of discrimination in connection with some of the employees of the company. Speaking purely from recollection I believe the alleged cases numbered six. The board dealt with only one of those cases, and made only one recommendation. It dealt with the case of one employee and suggested, as my colleague has said, that he be returned to work until the board had had an opportunity of giving the matter more thorough consideration and if necessary, in the absence of some mutual agreement, bringing in a final report.
Representations were made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply as well as by myself to the company, that it seemed trivial to tie up the operations of an important plant for a reason so inconsequential. The company refused to do it. As a result my colleague and I definitely agreed there was only one thing to do, and that was to take action to see that Mr. Churchill got the tools for which he so earnestly asked and for which he so eloquently argued. A fortunate thing is that the men returned within a very few hours. In fact I believe they returned before the controller actually arrived, on the understanding that he would arrive.
As hon. members will appreciate, it is of course a serious matter to have a war industry tied up for some inconsequential cause. I think it is fair to say this, whether that cause comes from the employer or from the employee. In other words I think this will be some token that we do intend to see to it that work is carried on in this country and these tools supplied.



TABLING OP ORDER IN COUNCIL AUTHORIZING ACTION TAKEN

Clarence Decatur Howe: I desire now to lay on the table order in council P.C. 3040, asked for by my hon. friends a few moments ago.



DECENNIAL CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the minister in charge of the census to be taken on June 2 that one of the forms contains fifty questions.

Decennial Census
These questions cannot be answered orally without records being consulted. Would the minister facilitate the work of taking the census by having this form delivered or mailed to householders say on June 1, thus giving them a day to fill it out? This would be a great convenience and would lead to better results.
I appreciate that the matter of secrecy is involved, but I do suggest that secrecy would be enhanced if the householder were permitted to fill out the form in advance and have the enumerator pass on it. It would take twenty or twenty-five minutes for some of the foreign-born population in our industrial cities to fill out the answers to the questions on this form.
Hon. J. A. MaeKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):	Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Broadview asked me personally yesterday about this matter, and I gave him the information given to me by those responsible for the taking of the census, namely that only in this way can secrecy be maintained. I shall, however, again speak to the people in charge of taking the census and submit the representations made by the hon. member.


Thomas Langton Church: Could some of the enumerators take a course in handwriting?- because some of the writing I cannot read.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I had an interview with the
commissioner in my district-a very pleasant interview, I am bound to say. But he told me there is one form on which there are 165 questions. Is this correct? I cannot believe that it is possible, or that the bureau of statistics would send out a form containing so many questions.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
expense?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not thinking about the expense; I am thinking about the difficulties of answering. Is there any truth in that statement? The person to whom I spoke did not have the form with him, and for that reason I could not verify what he said. I was astonished to hear that so many questions were being asked. I know there are some people-and I am not one of them-who have statistical minds, but it seems to me that if this is so, it is going the limit.
Mr. MaeKINNON (Edmonton West): I have not counted the questions on the forms. I have seen the forms; they are numerous, and the questions are numerous. It merely shows the comprehensive nature of the census that is being undertaken.
14873-154*


Richard Burpee Hanson: It shows a bureaucratic mind.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Have enumerators been appointed yet, and if so, how, and by whom?
Mr. MaeKINNON (Edmonton West): So far as I know, enumerators have been appointed. I can say at least that we have been urging the census commissioners to proceed as quickly as possible with the appointment of enumerators, so that the work can be got under way as soon as we are ready to proceed with it. The enumerators are being appointed by the census commissioners.


Mr. TUSTIN:: On whose recommendation is the commissioner appointed?
Mr. MaeKINNON (Edmonton West): As I have said, the commissioners have been appointed in exactly the same way as they have been appointed every ten years since confederation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
not the point of the question.


George James Tustin: On whose recommendation does the commissioner make the appointment of enumerators?
Mr. MaeKINNON (Edmonton West): The recommendations are made by the census commissioners, and the census commissioner in each constituency is appointed on the recommendation of the sitting member or the defeated government candidate.


Mr. PERLEY:: Did any special instructions go out to commissioners to confer with defeated candidates or sitting members in connection with that matter?
Mr. MaeKINNON (Edmonton West): Yes. Detailed instructions went out from the chief census commissioner to the census commissioner in each constituency asking that contact be made with the sitting member for the constituency with regard to the appointment of enumerators. In many cases my information is that this work is being done fairly and that partisan methods are not being followed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In some cases.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Will the minister table those instructions?
Mr. MaeKINNON (Edmonton West):	I
shall be glad to table the instructions which have gone out from the chief census commissioner.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Many sitting members have not been consulted, according to conversations that I have had.
Supply-State of Agriculture



AGRICULTURE-AMENDMENT TO MOTION OP MINISTER OP FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 29, [DOT]consideration of the motion of Mr. Usley for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Douglas (Weyburn).
Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I am not unmindful' of the fact that at this time our war effort demands all of our thoughts and all our efforts, but I also appreciate the fact that if we are to have a maximum war effort, all types of producers, all classes of people in this country must be fairly treated. Therefore, in taking up the time of the house on this occasion to discuss the problems of agriculture, I feel that I am not only doing my duty to my constituents but also making some contribution to our war effort.
To me it is a matter of great regret that politics should have been deliberately interjected by the sponsors of the amendment into a debate on the problems of agriculture. As we all know, the amendment is in the form of a vote of want of confidence in the government. If the amendment is carried, the government is defeated. Two hon. members who originally sponsored the amendment, the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), are both experienced members of this house. They knew full well when they introduced this amendment in its present form just what they were doing. I am not questioning their right to do this, but I want to make it quite plain that the responsibility for the form of this debate is theirs and theirs alone. If the hon. members had wanted a fair, impartial and non-political discussion of the problems of agriculture, they could have had this when we were considering the agriculture estimates. If they were not willing to wait for the agriculture estimates, they could have had the debate at this very time but without moving a vote of want of confidence in the government.
My hon. friends were quite lavish in their [DOT]criticism, but the helpful suggestions which [DOT]they offered were most meagre. Their complaint is that since 1935, when there was a change of government.-I am quoting their own words-conditions confronting agriculture have grown gradually worse, that agriculture is now in a worse condition than it has ever been before. They went on to say that as a result of this, a deep-seated resentment has been raised in the minds of our farm-

ers against the present administration. They stated that the proposed measures to assist the western farmers to change from the growing of wheat to other types of production will result in the total demoralization and the ultimate ruin of agriculture throughout Canada. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle says that he is not so much concerned about a surplus of wheat, or, to use his own words, he is not "worrying very much about surplus wheat." Then we had the final taunt, and it is a taunt, from the hon. member for Haldimand, who said near the conclusion of his speech:
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.
In view of these charges, what are we asked to do? We are asked to throw the present government out of office, to place this country in the throes of another general election. We are asked to take this action at a time when Canada and eveiy other democracy in the world is fighting a life and death struggle for their very existence. We had a war-time election in this country and the people chose this government to direct its war effort. I submit that the people of Canada have a right to demand the acceptance of their decision. I for one resent very much being placed in a position where I must ostensibly vote against agriculture in order to keep the present war-time government in office. In my opinion the problem of agriculture is much too serious to be made into a political football.
The taunt offered by the hon. member for Haldimand that it was beyond his imagination that his Liberal friends from rural ridings in eastern Canada would be able to sit quietly by without making any protest was a deliberate attempt to stir up sectional discord in this country, to pit the east against the west. An attempt of that kind is bad enough in peace time, but in war time it is certainly not the type of loyalty that we have the right to expect from members of this house. At a time when Canada should be making a maximum war effort, we should brush aside all these sectional differences.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Let us do it.


Hughes Cleaver: Unfortunately there are
still men in public life in this country who will not do it. The first illustration of this came shortly after the declaration of war. In the fall of 1939 the government of Quebec attempted to split French Canada from our war effort. These very same men, although defeated, in the following spring, attempted to elect a so-called national government. The present government was in office less than three months when another highly political

Supply-State oj Agriculture
and objectionable attempt was made to stir up sectional trouble in this country, to disrupt Canada's war effort. An attempt was made to drive the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) out of office. The reason advanced was that he was too highly cultured, and of too high a character to direct properly Canada's war effort.
I say in all charity that all these selfish political moves which have been made from time to time-I place this present political move in the same category-are distinctly harmful to Canada's war effort. Surely the emergency which we face to-day in fighting this war is serious enough that politics should be banished absolutely, as should sectional differences, until this war is won.
My next criticism of the speeches made by the mover (Mr. Senn) and the seconder (Mr. Perley) of the amendment-and I mean the real mover and seconder, not the foster parents who had it left on their doorstep-is with regard to the statement that the condition of agriculture has been getting progressively worse ever since 1935. I believe that the agricultural problem is a serious one. I am not satisfied with present conditions in agriculture, but I also believe we shall never reach a correct solution of the problem until we are willing, honestly to face the facts which brought about the problem.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What are they?


Hughes Cleaver: During the depth of the depression we all suffered losses, but a study of the annual statistics shows that agriculture suffered a much more severe loss than any other type of industry in Canada. Agriculture not only had to face the results of the depression but suffered from a disastrous trade policy. Looking at the figures, I find that the total annual income in Canada in 1929 was 84,726,900,000. This receded to $2,604,600,000 in 1933 and has since climbed back to $4,594,200,000 in 1940, thus showing in 1940 a net decrease of less than 3 per cent compared with 1929. As to agriculture, this industry showed in 1929 an income of $691,400,000. This receded in the depth of the depression to $144,500,000 and has since climbed back to $508,800,000 in 1940, thus showing in 1940 a decrease of 26-5 per cent compared with 1929. During the depth of the depression the total income of Canada receded 45 per cent, while in the same period the income of agriculture receded 79 per cent.
These figures show conclusively that while agriculture did not suffer alone, it suffered a decline of nearly twice the severity of the decline in incomes generally. As a result, the farmers used up all their surplus. Many farmers had to mortgage their farms, so that
in 1934 it became necessary to pass the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act	to'
prevent thousands of farmers from being dispossessed. That was the state of affairs we found when we took office in 1935.
My hon. friend now says that conditions have gradually grown worse for agriculture since 1935. The only way to deal with a statement of that kind is, I suggest, simply to state that it is wholly inaccurate and to give the figures to prove the assertion. I should like to read into the record the yearly net income of agriculture for the last ten yeans, as follows:
1929		 $691,400,000
1930		 399.300,000
1931		 222,600,000'
1932	 144,500,0001933	 173,700,000*
1934		 262,200,000*
1935		 290,900,000
1936		 390.400,000
1937		 422j500,000
1938		 421,800,000
1939		 505.700,000
1940		 508,800,000
My hon. friend says that agricultural conditions have grown progressively worse. I say that the figures prove that agricultural conditions have improved by S217-9 million annually since 1935, or an improvement of 73 per cent since 1935.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Then there should be
nothing to worry about.


Hughes Cleaver: I suggest to the hon.
member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) that perhaps he does not like this, and that may be why he is making his rather childish interjections.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am not paying much, attention to the hon. member.


Hughes Cleaver: The motive behind that charge with respect to agriculture I leave to public opinion.


Mr. SENN:: You can.


Hughes Cleaver: What about wheat? The hon. member for Qu'Appelle says that he is not much concerned about the surplus of wheat, and the hon. member for Haldimand says that the present policy of the government to assist the western farmer to change over from wheat to other types of production will all but ruin Canadian agriculture. What are the facts? Canada's yearly average wheat supply for the last five years has been 413,000,000 bushels. The normal annua! wheat consumption of the world is 4,000,000,000 bushels, of which Canada produces only one-tenth. The normal world carryover of wheat per annum is 542,000,000 bushels. Canada's
Supply-State of Agriculture

wheat carryover this year will be at least 570,000,000 bushels. In the light of these facts, the Sanford Evans statistical service of Canada in a recent pamphlet entitled "Canada's Immediate Wheat Problem" makes this statement:
No country in the world has ever before carried over so great a quantity as 500 million bushels. The record has been 391 millions in the United States in 1932. But for the United States that carryover represented only about sixty per cent of one year's domestic consumption whereas Canada's prospective carryover would meet domestic requirements including seed for the next four years.
If Canada planted no wheat at all this spring and none in 1942, her present surplus would enable her to maintain both her domestic and her foreign trade for two years at the full average of the last five years, would provide seed for the third year so that she might again become a producer, and yet leave her some carryover on August 1, 1943.
Our present excess is so large that if there -was not a bushel of wheat in Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg or France it would provide a full year's consumption for these six countries, including seed requirements, at the highest rate of wheat disappearance in the last five years and still leave us a carryover.
But excessive carryovers are also causes. The two important consequences are: (1) effects on price and (2) effects on costs.
The heaviest costs consist in the loss on all new crops because a price has to be accepted for them which is lower than it would have been if there had been no excess.
These facts clearly show that in bonusing our western farmers to produce more wheat, we have in part defeated the very object we set out to attain, namely, that of assisting the Canadian wheat grower, because the very surplus of wheat which we have produced has made its contribution towards driving down the world price of wheat to an all-time low. Canada to-day has an investment of over $400,000,000 in wheat. It will cost this country over $50,000,000 annually in carrying charges alone-and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle says that he is not much concerned! In the light of all these facts, I wish to commend the government for its present policy of facing up to the problem and of helping the western farmer to reduce his production of wheat by one-third.
Vice-President Wallace of the United States in a recent statement said:
Growing unneeded crops is a sheer waste of labour, of capital and of the soil.
Those words in my opinion are very, very true, especially with respect to wheat at this time.	,
In refuting the inaccurate statements which have been made by the sponsors of the amendment we are now discussing, I do not wish
-
to be misunderstood. I am not satisfied with the present condition of agriculture, nor do I think the farmers of this country are receiving a just share of the national income. But are we going to get anywhere toward a solution of the problem simply by making it a political football? I suggest that the problem should be impartially studied and that we should consider the question in an impartial way before the committee on agriculture which would bring ini recommendationcs 'that would be of more value, I submit, than any recommendations we might reach as a result of our discussion of a motion to throw this government out of office.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That would not be a bad idea.


Hughes Cleaver: In discussing the farm
problem with many farmers of my riding, I find a great diversity of opinion among them. I find that many remedies are suggested, some of which are opposed to each other. Obviously they all cannot be correct. Therefore to me it is a matter of great pleasure to find that the farmers of Canada are organizing to help themselves. I believe that there are many things which agriculture as an industry can do to assist agriculture, and which governments
cannot.
There is among farmers a growing belief that they should copy some of the practices of other types of industry and apply them to agricultural problems. They believe, first, that there are too many white-collar gentlemen making a good living off agriculture. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Haldi-mand in his address commend the butter speculator. I have in my hand a letter from Mr. M. M. Robinson, of the Canadian Food Distribution Council, Toronto, which indicates something of what has been going on with regard to speculation in farm products. I will read a part of the letter:
A certain party in Ontario bought four carloads of butter last summer on speculation. He made $10,000 on the deal, but has two grievances:	(1) the government took ^$8,000 in
excess profits; (2) speculate this year.
be does not feel free to
The point I would make in connection with that letter-


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Would the hon. member give the name of the speculator?


Hughes Cleaver: I gave the name of the writer of the letter. Unfortunately the letter does not give the name of the speculator, but if the hon. member wishes to have it I will seek the information. The point I make is

Supply-State of Agriculture
this, that, although I am glad that the excess profits tax is operating, this $8,000 went to the income tax branch instead of into the pockets of western farmers.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Whose fault is that?


Hughes Cleaver: If agriculture were properly organized, that could not and would not have happened.
A second suggestion which our farmers make is this. To-day the domestic price of farm products in Canada is governed by the price obtained for the small exportable surplus. I should like to put some figures on the record to show what a small percentage of the Canadian crop governs the price at which the entire crop is sold.
Percentage of Canada's agricultural exports
Per cent
Field crops	 19-7
Live stock	 17-8
Dairy products	 8-4
Poultry produce	 1-1
Live stock and animal products		11*2
From these figures it will be seen how unnecessary it is that farmers should have to accept on the domestic market a price set by the price realized by the small exportable surplus. In my riding the producers of several crops-I am now thinking of the asparagus growers and the sour-cherry growers *-are organized under a provincial marketing act, and they sit in conference with the canners; they set the prices of asparagus and cherries, and they levy from their own members enough money to finance the handling of the export surplus at a discount. I suggest that the same principle could be put into effect in other branches of agriculture, and that it would achieve desirable results.
I come now to a suggestion in relation to the agricultural problem which is alternative to the one I have just mentioned. Obviously the effect of the suggestion I have just made would be to bring about an increase in the cost of living, with an enhancement of the prices of all farm products in Canada. Before presenting this alternative suggestion, I wish briefly to review the facts, in order to have them before hon. members.
In 1929 the net income of agriculture stood at $691'4 million; in 1932 it went down to $144-5 million, and in 1935 it came back to $290 million. Then we had a series of new trade agreements. Trade began to flow again, and gradually the condition of the farmer improved, until now the incomes of Canadian farmers aggregate $508-8 million. I fear, however, that we are running into another era wherein, having lost his foreign markets on account of the war, the Canadian farmer will be faced with a condition as serious as that which prevailed prior to 1935, unless appropriate action is taken to forestall or remedy it.
With the outbreak of war, Canadian farmers have lost in large measure their foreign markets. With the drifting of farm labour from the farms into industry we would soon clean up the embarrassing surpluses which we now have, and prices would rapidly stiffen. But, we are told, it is the war policy of this government that the cost of living shall not rise. At this time we are not going to permit the pyramiding of war costs as they pyramided in the last war. With that point of view I must say that I agree. Yet, if the Canadian farmer is to lose his foreign market, and if, concurrently, it is to be the policy of this government that prices must not rise, obviously something will have to be done to compensate the Canadian farmer for the loss which he is sustaining. He is in every respect a war casualty, and to the extent to which he is a war casualty he is entitled to compensation. It is my suggestion that he should be paid on that basis. But, some one may say, how are you going to make that payment? Everyone knows that if it is met by bonusing the production of any type of product, we shall have immediately an embarrassing surplus of that product. Therefore that suggestion is "out". We could not divide it upon a per capita basis. There are farmers in my riding with an investment of over $100,000 each; there are others whose investments do not equal one-tenth of that amount. I have farmers in my riding each employing fifty hands, while others are doing all their own work. Obviously the division could not be made upon a per capita basis. It must not be made as a relief payment, because it is not relief, it is compensation.
To my way of thinking, our problem is just this, if we mean what we say. There has been an agitation in the press across Canada, and many hon. members have expressed opinions, to the effect that something must be done to assist agriculture. If we are honest and sincere in that opinion, we must find some way of equitably placing in the pockets of the Canadian farmer a sufficient amount to properly compensate him for what we have taken from him. If we take a farmer's land in order to build an airport, or if we deprive him of part of his farm in order to build a highway, we do not hesitate to pay him for what he has lost. When the government, in

Supply-State of Agriculture
pursuance of its war policy, says, "We will not permit farmers to receive a competitive price for their commodities," then, I submit, the farmers should be compensated. My suggestion is just this, that Canadian farmers should be paid yearly an amount, readily ascertainable through the bureau of statistics, to compensate them, and that the payments should be made in war savings bonds, not negotiable until the war is over.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What good will that do the farmer?


Hughes Cleaver: My time is getting a
little short. I would be glad to answer questions when I have finished.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am asking my hon.
friend in all sincerity. He said these bonds will not be negotiable until the war is over. What is he to do for money in the meantime?


Hughes Cleaver: If my hon. friend will be patient, I will answer him when I have finished, but my time is getting short.
The reason why I suggest payment in war savings bonds is this: first, it would not increase the present domestic demand for goods, which is most important. Second, it would create post-war demand for goods, and this is equally important. Third, the farmers of this country are well trained in living carefully; I am quite confident that they would willingly postpone the building of new fences, painting the barn, shingling the house, buying the new implement, all those hundred and one things that they need, until the war is over, so long as they are assured that when the war is over, they will be in a position to obtain them.
I can almost hear the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) and others saying, how ridiculous and absurd this proposition is-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I think it is.


Hughes Cleaver: -bankrupting the country, paying men something to do nothing, and all that. I should like to answer some of those objections.
In the first place, to any one who ridicules the suggestion, I say, bring along a better one. I do not say this is the best way to solve the problem, I am advancing the suggestion only for the purpose of stimulating thought along the line of an honest attempt to compensate agriculture in this country for
what we are deliberately taking from it. No matter how absurd the suggestion may appear on its face, it deserves study.
With regard to the charge that it would be paying people something for doing nothing, every hon. member knows that in the crop season every farmer in this country works from dawn to dark, and with the drifting of labour from farms to the cities that is now going on, I believe he will have to work even harder. I am not suggesting that he should slacken in his work, but I do suggest that when we take something from him we should give it back again, as a matter of common justice.
I should like also to throw out this suggestion: The national income stood at $4,039 million in 1939, and the estimate of the national income this year is $5,950 million, or an increase in two years of about $1,911 million. My suggestion means that the farmers should receive one-tenth of that amount. The farming group represents from 35 per cent to 40 per cent of the total inhabitants of Canada, and the capital investment of this farming group to-day is about as follows:
$ million
Land and buildings	 3,634.9
Implements and machinery	 478.4
Live stock....'	 609.1

This works out to an average capital investment of $6,700 for each farm across Canada.
Last year this group, representing over one-third of the population, with this enormous capital investment, received only 11 per cent of the national income. The proposal I make would step up their share of the national income to only 15 per cent. And this is for 35 per cent of the people, with that great capital investment.
I should like to put on Hansard a table which I have obtained from the bureau of statistics, showing a break-down of the national income by provinces for the years 1929, 1937, 1938, 1939 and 1940, with a column showing the loss of agricultural income in these latter years over 1929 and another column showing the percentage that the net agricultural income for 1940 bears to that of 1929.


Georges Parent: With the consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Hughes Cleaver: The table follows:

Supply-State of Agriculture
Net agricultural income of Canada-by provinces
Loss of agricultural income over
Percentage
agricultural income is of
Prince Edward Island.
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
British Columbia.
* Gain.
1 11C6C	MCIC 4VUCV, cu	[DOT]	-
always lumped the entire prairie west together: Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. But what do we find? In 1929-and I am told that 1929 was a fair average year for the industry-I find that agriculture in Manitoba had a net income of S46.4 million and in 1937 it had a better than normal year, S51.2 million. In 1940 the figure was $39.2 million, or 84-4 per cent of normal.
1929	1937	1938	1939	1940	1929	1929mill. $	mill. $	mill. $	mill. $	mill. $	mill. $	per cent8*8	4*9	4*2	5*6	5-5	3*3	62*517*6	19*5	19*8	19-2	17*5	[DOT]1	99*416*6	13*2	12*0	13*7	14*5	2*1	87*399*7	77*3	82*9	87*1	96-5	3*2	96*7204*7	154*0	157*4	156*2	164*5	40*2	80*346*4	51*2	41*4	44*2	39*2	7*2	84*4158*1	10-3	*065	83*1	72*5	85*6	45*8119*1	73*2	83*4	74*2	76*0	43*1	63*020*5	18*7	20*8	22*4	22*7	2*2'	* 110*7691*5	422*5	421*8	505*7	508*8	73*5shock	to me. I	of Saskatchewan	at least	when	he gave the
figures showing that Saskatchewan in 1940 received only 45-8 per cent of its 1929 agricultural income, and pointed out that the income for 1937 was 810*3 millions as compared with $158*1 millions in 1929. I should like hon. members to remember that in those years when agricultural income was low the debt which the farmers were carrying still maintained its burden of taxes and interest,
Then Saskatchewan's net income in 1929 was $158.1 million, which in 1937 dropped to S10.3 millions, a terrific drop. In 1940 it climbed back to $72.5 million, but even at that it was only 45 *S per cent of that of 1929.
These figures show conclusively that conditions in Saskatchewan positively demand special treatment. The same is in a measure true with regard to Alberta. The figure for Alberta's income in 1940 is S76 million compared with $119.1 million in 1929, or 63 per cent of that of 1929.
Then, jumping right across Canada to Prince Edward Island, we find the net income for last year was only 62*5 per cent of that of 1929. In my own province of Ontario the figure for 1940 stood at 80*3 per cent of that of 1929, compared with Quebec at 96*7 per cent.
These figures show once again what a difficult country Canada is to govern.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: I agree with the opening statement of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), who has just taken his seat, that the war is one of our most important considerations. That is one reason why I condemn the agricultural policy of this government which is now before us as one of the most devastating forces in ruining the morale of this people. I think the hon. member proved the case for the farmers
and to-day those farmers are still loaded with the debt problem, which has not been and is not being solved. This is what, with this policy, is ruining these people and taking from them the last remnant of equity that they have in their land, acquired in some cases at the cost of forty and even more years of work. I hope the government will take into consideration the statement of the hon. member for Halton that Saskatchewan does need special consideration at this time.
The problem is even more serious than perhaps the hon. member will admit. I do not intend at this time to repeat the proposals already advanced from this part of the house for the saving of agriculture, plans under which food supplies could be stored against crop failures and famine conditions which may easily arise in the near future; plans under which we might have freedom of action and independence for the farmer instead of the regimentation which is going to result from the present proposals of the government. Regimentation is unavoidable if this legislation is implemented. If proper plans were put into effect we could be building up the morale of these people, not destroying it, and agriculture throughout the dominion could be saved.
I condemn this policy as being undemocratic, shortsighted, unscientific and, I believe, deliberately ruinous. It is undemocratic because it
Supply-State of Agriculture

comes into the house in the form of regulations. These are so frightfully confusing that even cabinet ministers do not agree on certain parts of them, with regard to quotas and so forth. After a brief visit to the province of Saskatchewan and the west I find a terrible misinterpretation of these regulations. This is adding to the confusion in the minds of those engaged in agriculture. It is shortsighted in both its national and its international outlook, and where the international picture is so uncertain it seems to me that we ought to be saving up and providing ourselves with an almost inexhaustible supply of food.
I do not know what the agricultural members of the house think of such an agricultural policy. Anyone who knows anything at all about it will realize that one thing that agriculture must have is a scientific plan of crop rotation, spreading itself over several years; but here a shortsighted one-year policy is almost forced upon these people. They have to disrupt their whole plan of production. It can have nothing but the most ruinous effect on agriculture. Farmers are almost forced to go into summer-fallow, and summer-fallowing in many parts of the land in the west is ruinous. Too much summerfallowing has resulted in soil drifting, and only those of us who lived in the west during the times of the dust storms know what the result of that soil drifting is.
I charge those responsible for this policy with the deliberate wrecking of agriculture in the west. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has absolutely failed in what he promised to do. Last November he said, "We are undertaking to see that they (the farmers of the west) do not bear an unfair share of the burden." But the burden they are bearing to-day is no less than the loss of their homes and their land. This policy will depopulate large parts of the west. It will result in the loss of everything the people there possess. Are those who are making fortunes out of this war losing their homes? If they are not, then equality of sacrifice does not exist.
The minister promised that the western farmers would not bear an unfair share of the burden. I was bom in Saskatchewan, and perhaps I may be excused for standing up and fighting for the people of that great land. I was proud, until I knew the minister for destruction of agriculture, of my country and everything which it has produced. Our Canada was a great land. What caused it to fail so miserably in time of peace? Why is it failing in time of war?
I was interested to hear the last speaker talk about the free voice of the Canadian people. As I visit various parts of the dominion and study people engaged in mining
{Mr. Castleden.]
work, people in the lumber camps and in factories and in various forms of industry, I know that the people of Canada have not the free voice which the hon. member holds to be the voice of Canadians. It is the voice of people who have been dispossessed. The natural resources which belong to the people have been taken from them and handed over by political parties at a price varying from $700,000 to Beauharnois to whatever they could get. Canadians have been driven from their homes and forced to seek work elsewhere. Their security is gone. They must bow to the will of the political machine, and that political machine exists across this country. The man working in the mine knows that on the ground above him are hundreds of men waiting for his job. The person on relief is told by the political machine where to vote and how to vote, and what will happen to him if he does not vote the right way- and we see plenty of examples.
No land can be free where there is no security. Democracy is dead in most of Canada because profit-ruled industry and the political machine will not permit democracy to survive. From the maritimes to British Columbia the story is the same. The last ditch of the democratic way of life which I see in Canada is held by the independent people who live on their own land, the workers of the land which they themselves own. They do not have to beg for a crust of bread from the boss of the political machine. I see destruction of freedom in Canada wherever that system exists, and I would call attention to the fact that from the western plains, whether it be in Alberta or Saskatchewan or in parts of Manitoba, comes the revolt against things as they exist in Canada. The protest comes in the strongest voice from that part of the country.
This proposed legislation will lead to the setting up of a system of agents, inspectors, checkers and other officials who will regiment every farm into a dictatorship. Notice what the supplementary estimate says. The $35,000,000 is:
To provide for payments on reductions in wheat acreages, under conditions prescribed by the governor in council, for administration expenses in connection therewith, and for temporary appointments that may be required notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act.
I do not know why the phrase "notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act" needs to be put in. Where does the minister intend to get his gestapo? I doubt whether anyone from Saskatchewan would say that he does not know of twenty or thirty instances of the work of this machine.

Supply-State of Agriculture
There are few people who dared to oppose it who have not been victims of its operation. It has seeped into the public life of that province to a disgraceful extent. I will not talk about the canteen fund disgrace, men who have been spirited away and men who have committed suicide. The whole rotten story of the political machine of Saskatchewan is a miserable page in Canada's history.
The policy as outlined here is the only effective way of finally ruining the free independent farmer, the owner of land in Saskatchewan. If this administration were working hand in glove with those who want to get control of that land and obtain title to it, they could not do so more effectively than under the present scheme. The Minister of Agriculture admits that this will reduce farm income by almost $100,000,000, and he nas already admitted that it discriminates between the farmers of the west and most of the other people of Canada. He would drive still further down those people who have already suffered much.
I should like to place on the record the case of a farmer in the constituency which I represent. This farmer is not the Minister of Agriculture, but he is like many thousands-


Mr. GARDINER:: Before the hon. member leaves that point, may I say that I have not admitted that this particular policy will reduce the farmers' income by $100,000,000. I have said that the action in connection with wheat, left by itself, would reduce it by $100,000,000.


George Hugh Castleden: My words were that the minister has admitted that this will reduce the income of farmers by almost $100,000,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the wheat part, but this gives them back some income.


George Hugh Castleden: Yes, but the minister
will admit there is a terrific reduction in the farm income of the farmers of the west.


James Garfield Gardiner: Possibly.


George Hugh Castleden: To return to what I
was saying: this farmer was like many thousands of his fellow-Canadians. He enlisted and suffered once in saving democracy about twenty years ago. He was patriotic in his effort to save democrcay. Those men did not use patriotism as a cloak to try to ruin their country. After the war was over they settled on pieces of land administered by the federal government. I believe the plan of the soldier settlement board was to put these men on land where they could have homes, where after suffering and losing a great part
of their ability to work, they could establish themselves. In many cases the men who returned were wrecks. I do not think it was intended that they would be A-l farmers, but they were to be placed where they could be independent and free from worry and could provide themselves with the food and clothing they needed.
What is this man's story? He states that his 1940 crop turned out at 548 bushels. That quantity, sold at 49i cents a bushel, amounted to $271.26. His taxes were $81.95. Possibly this year they will be heavier than ever. Because his crop was light he had to thresh by the hour, and the cost was $77. His store bill was $74, making a total expense of $232.95. This left him $38.31 to pay for twine and repairs. Not one cent was left for food, clothing, books or anything to help the children or to provide the necessities of a family or a home. His income may be even further reduced this year.
But I have not yet dealt with the worst part of this case. Having communicated with the representatives of the soldier settlement board in Saskatoon he was told that if he paid some small amount for taxes and for advance on fire insurance on his land it would be considered that the 1940 crop would be accounted for. But on January 16 a letter came from the Saskatoon office stating that upon reviewing his account they found that he was heavily in arrears and advising him that because his account was in such terrible condition it would be good business for him to rid himself of this load of indebtedness and to sign the quit claim deed, which they enclosed. Then they went on to point out that if this quit claim deed was not completed and returned to the office before February 13 they would recommend to head office immediate recision of the contract. It was a case of driving a returned man off his land.
I should think one of the most important things the government could do would be, through the War Measures Act, to guarantee to everybody living on the land in Canada that they would be entitled to freedom from seizure, and freedom from loss of their homes, at least for the duration of the war. The most precious heritage of any man is his freedom. The most easily assurable heritage of Canada is security. So far as I can see, this wheat legislation is aimed to wipe out both so far as agriculture is concerned. Apparently the administration is adamant in its determination to carry out its plans. But I know that those responsible for these plans will carry with them as long as they live, the curse of a great number of ruined agricultural people. We are demanding only a square deal, the right of a man to exchange his labour for a

Supply-State of Agriculture
decent living standard. During the war the farmer is willing to take an even lower standard of living. I tell the government that the rights of these oppressed people will finally win out, whether the government likes it or not.


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: The question of payment is of secondary importance to the stakes at issue. Let it never be said that the great Dominion of Canada was found wanting on the question of profit and loss. To-day is not the time to reduce production in foodstuffs when the existing needs of the empire are so apparent, and when the subsequent needs of a prostrated Europe stand out, even now, in bold relief. Let us produce and continue to produce. What is the wisdom and what the nature of that which dictates a policy of underproduction? What is to be gained, apart from idleness, from a policy of underproduction?
The nazi machine of war was forged, not through monetary manipulation but through production-yes, primary production. The destruction of natural wealth, as, for example, the so-called "revalorization" policy with respect to coffee in Brazil, involving as it did the destruction of the major part of coffee produced in south America, was intended to sustain an artificial price level. A similar policy with respect to cotton in the southern states was carried on regardless of the increased production of cotton in India, the Sudan and Egypt. Moreover, the withholding of wheat from the world market in 1929-30 proved a fallacious policy on the part of the Canadian government, in view of the fact that Canada had no monopoly in wheat production.
The withholding of wheat from the people of Great Britain except on a cash or credit basis can hardly be identified with a total war effort.
To-day we are not concerned with price or cost of production. We are concerned with winning the war. On the economic front, the supreme and sublime gesture has come from the United States. Great of heart and forever loyal to their antecedents, the people of the United States have cast in their lot with the people of Britain. In pursuance of this attitude of a nation, not at war, is there any logic or any explanation sufficiently convincing to condone the attitude of the Canadian government with respect to wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: Is the hon. member implying that the government held the wheat in 1929?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: They held it at a certain price in 1929.


James Garfield Gardiner: The government did not have the wheat in 1929.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: In 1929 or 1930.


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: No.
Mr. GARDINER; The government was not in the wheat business then at all.


Mr. GRAY:: Neither was the hon. member.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I thought that was the correct date, but I may be misinformed.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: That was about the time the hon. member did not want any truck or trade with the Yankees.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: If that date is incorrect I will ask the privilege of correcting it to-morrow.
The people of Great Britain are shouldering a heavy burden. Are we in this hour of want and necessity to be other than co-partners in this great crusade for freedom?
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) : Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but feel sorry when speaking in this debate on agriculture to see that so many members are absent from their seats. Evidently they deem agriculture to be of such little national concern that their presence in the house is not needed.
So much has been said on this question of agriculture that it seems almost impossible for any one member to present any facts that are new or to present them in any new form; yet silence at this time would imply acquiescence in the government's policy, and since I know that the great majority of my people at home are not in any way acquiescent I feel it incumbent upon me to voice my protest against the government's policy.
Although I am a western member I think we western members should not concentrate wholly on the question of agriculture from the western viewpoint. I think we should have a greater realization of the plight of agriculture generally throughout Canada. The question is one which affects vitally the future of our people, since we have always believed that in time of peace we should prepare for war and in time of war prepare for peace. The question of agriculture is undoubtedly bound up with the future development of this country, as regards both the success of agriculture itself and the consequent development of industry.
I know that some hon. members of the house have criticized the government's agricultural policy, and yet they have made it very clear, in fact have definitely stated, that they do not wish to embarrass the government. I think I should be very frank with you, Mr. Speaker, and say that I feel that a government which at this time has not hesitated seriously to embarrass so many of our people should be embarrassed by members of this house if by embarrassment is meant that the whole problem of agriculture would be squarely faced by them; and opposition members I think should make very clear what

Supply-State oj Agriculture
is the general opinion of the farming people of this country with regard to the government's policy.
All of us, whether we are farmers or not, realize that we live in a machine age. During these last years we have seen vast technological improvements which have changed agriculture and are continuing to change agricultural methods. We have come in agriculture, as we have in industry, to an era of mass production, and I think the vast technological improvements which have taken place are going to be a deciding factor in the future development of agriculture. The question to-day is far-reaching. We all know that at the present time the trend is towards greater industrialization. That of course has been accentuated by the war; there is no doubt about that. But the doubt in the mind of many of our farm people who to-day would be willing to be drawn into industry is, when the present boom in war industry ceases, what will their prospects be? Will peacetime industry be able to continue to absorb men and maintain them, or will they then be forced to look back once more to the farm as a means of sustaining themselves?
During our present generation we have already heard the cry, "Go west, young man," and from eastern Canada thousands of people have gone to the western plains and settled there and developed the country. Those plains were a wilderness. Out of that wilderness they have built homes, highways, churches, schools, hospitals and all that goes to make up community life. But now these people, after years of such toil, are beginning to hear a new cry; "Go east, old fellow, go east!" and they are beginning to wonder whether all their efforts throughout the years in the development of the west are of no avail. They are beginning to wonder, too, whether if they heed the call, and go east and become absorbed in industry, that will be their final migration, or whether when this war is over there will be a new call; maybe by that time it will be, "Go north, and maybe you can live on reserves as the Indians do; you can fish a little, and for solace you can smoke birch-bark or something like that." Many of our farm people are realizing the alternatives which are placed before them, namely to continue under conditions which month by month become increasingly difficult and almost impossible, or to make an attempt once again to regain their footing as selfsupporting citizens by making a trek to the east, looking towards industry to give them an opportunity.
During the last two or three decades we have become aware that in all branches of agriculture it is large-scale production which
has proven the most economical and therefore the type we should pursue. It does not matter whether you go into dairy products, into cattle or into wheat, to-day it is those who have capital sufficient to buy for themselves large herds, or to procure a large acreage and sufficient power machinery, who are able to support themselves, making at present prices a profit substantial enough to maintain their equipment and to enable them to live according to standards to which they feel themselves entitled. During this last era of development, while adequate investment in land and machinery has enabled some agriculturists to place themselves in a fairly secure position, for lack of capital hundreds and thousands of our farmers have attempted in vain to compete with the large-scale units.
Of course the method which we have to-day of unrestricted, unregulated competition is called "freedom" by those who advocate it. It is said to stimulate initiative. That conception of freedom is of the same character as a man's "freedom" to sleep on park benches. The farmers to-day are not free. Because of these competitive conditions, only those who have the capital to invest in and maintain large-scale units are free to go on, because it is only those units which are economical enough to produce and to survive. The small farmer finds himself without freedom, and that condition, we believe, will continue. Indeed, it becomes more and more apparent as time goes on that it is impossible for anyone to speak of farmers as a group, because of the great differences which gradually over a period of years have made themselves noticeable. You have on the one hand the large unit; you have on the other hand the small homestead, the small farm; and, of course, there are gradations between them.
In listening to some hon. members who represent eastern constituencies, I gained the impression that agriculture in eastern Canada is in a more prosperous state. Yet, upon comparing the amounts of income of farmers in eastern Canada, particularly in the maritime provinces, with my own province of Saskatchewan, I am convinced that the same trend is noticeable down here; that, although you have in the east large-scale units both in dairy farming and in other types of agriculture, you have also many small farmers who are suffering as severely as our own small western farmers. In the Sirois report, page 76, there is an enlightening table of farm incomes. In 1937 among the cash net incomes of farmers in the various provinces I find: Prince Edward Island, $205; Nova Scotia, $193; New Brunswick, $108; Quebec, $313; Saskatchewan, $141.


An hon. MEMBER:: Have you the figures for Ontario?
Supply-State of Agriculture


Mrs. NIELSEN:: No, I have not, but the average income is a little higher; it is somewhere around $600.
I recall that one hon. member on the government side suggested that farmers were wasting a certain amount of time in self-pity. Knowing something of the farmer's life, I can only say that the farmer has no time to spare for any indulgence of that kind. His days are one long round of labour. It is not a sentiment of self-pity which fills the minds of small farmers to-day; it is a sense of injustice. They pick up their daily newspaper, and in odd corners they will see such notices as this:
The Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company experienced in 1940 the "greatest expansion in business in its fifty-five years of existence," the chairman of the board declared yesterday in his annual report to stockholders. Orders received totalled $400,477,724, an increase of 87 per cent over 1939. Approximately 40 per cent of the company's 1940 business was in connection with the national defence programme.
When our farmers read notices like this- and they see plenty of them in the papers to-day-they are moved not by self-pity but by a sense of injustice, a sense of inequality. They cannot help being filled with righteous indignation, having tried so nobly during these years to carry on. That is particularly true of our western farmers, who have suffered from years of drought. To-day they are-


Mr. WOOD:: May I ask the hon. member a question with regard to the figures she gave relating to the Westinghouse company? There was, she said, a large increase in the amount of business. Was there a comparable increase in the reward or return obtained by investors, or was the reward much less?


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: It would certainly mean, I believe, that there was a greater return.


George Ernest Wood: I think the facts are that the shareholder's dividends were less, in spite of the fact that the volume of business was greater.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: That may have been so in the case of the Westinghouse company, but I believe that generally speaking industry is reaping greater profits at this time and is having a great increase of business.


George Ernest Wood: The profits are not in proportion to the business.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: I have no doubt that the majority of hon. members are aware that our western farmers, as well as possibly a number of eastern farmers, are, in an attempt to find for themselves a new basis of living, drifting towards the cities, particularly those cities where they believe that industry will give

them a chance. Not long ago, on April 22, in one of our western papers, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, there appeared the following report:
A large-scale movement of Saskatchewan people to other parts of Canada has taken place during the past twelve months, according to unsolicited reports which have drifted into the provincial bureau of labour and public welfare, and the Hon. R. J. M. Parker, ministei of municipal affairs.
There has been no check made of the number of people who have -moved away from the province and there is no way of knowing accurately or even approximately the number who have done. It is believed, however, to be quite substantial.
In August of last year the Canadian Finance magazine in an editorial had this to say:
It now seems quite plain that for the duration of the war only the most efficient producers of wheat are essential to our war effort. The productive efforts of all others should, in some way, be diverted into other lines of industry or war service. What does the government intend to do about it? And more important, what do the farmers and their organizations intend to do about it? The farmers must accept some responsibility in facing this issue. The government is very busy with the war.
Those of us who are interested in the question of maintaining the farmers on the land would like to know what the government policy is with regard to the need for our farming population being established either on a better basis on their farms or on a decent basis in industry. If this government has a plan for the rehabilitation or reinstatement of our surplus farm people in industry, why can we not at this time have some knowledge of it, because were our farm people to understand that there is an opportunity for permanent reinstatement in industry, I have no doubt that thousands of our small farmers, those living on the marginal lands especially, would be only too pleased to be thus absorbed? To-day, however, the position seems to be that they are to be given little assistance to maintain themselves on the land; yet they are not aware of the fact that there are channels whereby they may be diverted to industry, and the question of migrating is left to them. It is causing to-day in the minds of our smaller farmers a great amount of anxiety, trepidation and fear for the future. They cannot be assured of their maintenance on the farm; they realize that the large-scale unit, particularly in wheat, is the only economic unit. There was one hon. member, I believe the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly), who recognized that fact clearly when speaking last night. He said something to the effect that the large-scale unit was the only one which this government should legislate to protect, because it was the only unit

Supply-State of Agriculture
for wheat production which would be efficacious in the future. He said that they are the men who will hold our markets for us and will continue to grow wheat. He also said that he thought the government's legislation, or rather order in council, in connection with the bonus would assist the small farmers because it would help them to divert what would be wheat farming on a small scale to more general or mixed farming.
From my knowledge of the small farms in northern Saskatchewan I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. member, because the proposed bonus is not going to give the small northern Saskatchewan farmer, whom I represent, an opportunity to do any better, if he attempts to go into mixed farming. The amounts of land these farmers have under cultivation are small; the opportunities they have for producing are poor and so limited and, besides that, they come into opposition with the eastern farmer who is going in for dairy produce and hogs. There is no doubt in my mind that were our small farmers, in Saskatchewan particularly, to go in for mixed farming, they would be to some extent a menace to the small farmers of eastern Canada. We have had too much division of east and west; there should be nothing further done to separate our people in that way and to cause feelings of bitterness or resentment between them; for agriculture as a whole, that is on the small-scale farms both in eastern and western Canada, is in the greatest need of assistance.
I cannot help feeling that if other assistance is not given than is going to be given by this bonus to the smaller farms, we will see an attempt on the part of these people to go to eastern Canada on their own account, where they will present somewhat of a menace to organized labour, or else they will have to relapse into what is nothing but a peasant economy. When these farmers on their small farms attempt to go in for a little dairy produce and to raise a few hogs, grow a little wheat, a little coarse grain, do hon. members not realize the needless toil on those small uneconomic units of production? It will mean that the farmers and their wives and children will have to labour from early morning until late at night to eke out a mere existence. Even then it will mean that they will not receive sufficient return from their toil to give them anything over and above the barest of livings. They have already had a taste of this; for during the years of depression many of them were forced to eat more or less only the food that they could produce on their farms; they were forced to go back to spinning and weaving in order to try to produce some of the clothing and bedding that they needed. If we are to have
a section of our farm people turning the clock back and declining into a peasant economy of that kind, I cannot see where this government is making any concrete progressive proposals to save agriculture.
There is no doubt that as far as our children in western Canada are concerned, they will suffer from this, because with a certain number of our young men being drawn from the west into industry and a certain number being drawn to the forces, there will be a shortage of labour. The small farmer, if he goes in for mixed farming, dairy products and hogs and so on, will need more help, but with the low prices we now have he cannot afford to hire labour, which means that the women and children will have to help, and, as was the situation in the years of depression, the children will have to be kept out of school to help keep the farm going. This is not advancing the people of Canada along the road of progress; it is retrogression; it is something which in its worst form we have deplored in other countries. We know that Hitler in recent years has been forced to keep a kind of land army, a new peasantry, and anything of that kind for the people of this country is to be abhorred.
I remember listening to the speech made by the Prime Minister in .welcoming Mr. Willkie at the gathering in the Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto. The Prime Minister spoke at that time about the new heaven and the new earth which must be built, not after this war, but here and now, if we are to escape the economic chaos which may come upon us when the war is over. A policy such as we now have for agriculture is setting the clock back; we are building, not a new heaven and a new earth, but a new hell of anxiety, worry, trouble, fear, and poverty. These things must be acknowledged. Let us face the facts.
I learn from the bureau of statistics that we have in the three prairie provinces 17,987 farms on which there are fewer than 100 acres in cultivation. We have 125,583 farms with under 200 acres in cultivation. We have, of course, farms going up to 800 and 900 acres; and, finally, we have 9,480 farms of over 1,280 acres. In my opinion, any policy of the government should not be a blanket policy. What need have we to bonus these 9,480 large-scale units? These are the most economical units of production; why bonus those people? They would have summer-fallowed their land anyway; they can, if they wish, summer-fallow large areas of land, and because their costs are low they can from this bonus draw considerable income. But take the 17,987 small farms of under 100 acres; those farmers to sustain themselves cannot afford to summer-fallow more than perhaps twenty acres, and

Supply-State of Agriculture
twenty acres at $4 an acre will not bring them any recompense. It seems that in these matters the whole economy of western Canada is going to suffer. It is not only our small farmers, it is our whole communities that will suffer.
Recently I found out that the debt legislation in our western provinces is not giving the protection to our farmers that it should, acknowledging the emergency of the time. I speak more particularly, of course, of Saskatchewan because I come from that province. We have debt legislation there; we have a debt adjustment board, but I find that last year there were 800 cases of foreclosure in Saskatchewan. Of those, 135 were by mutual consent, but the fact remains that 665 straight cases of foreclosure took place. That condition is going to increase; and if our federal government has a right to override provincial legislation with regard to the tenant and owner, as it has done in connection with this bonus, it should also override provincial legislation and, because of this emergency, should provide a general moratorium for all our farmers. In that way our farmers would be sure at least of a roof over their heads. They would know the satisfaction of not being turned out on the road if they cannot pay their debts, and it is certain that they cannot pay their debts.
I have been trying to find out the amount of land in Saskatchewan which is held by mortgage or finance companies, but unfortunately the dominion bureau of statistics could not give me that information and I could not get it from the Saskatchewan government. If, however, during last year there were 665 foreclosure proceedings, and if on an average we have that number every year, there is undoubtedly a vast acreage going into the holdings of mortgage companies. These companies to-day may be farming these large units, and they may in future have a monopoly of wheat farming in the west. This will be but a natural development of capitalistic enterprise, and it will not be for the good either of Canada as a whole or of the general run of farmers. I cannot help thinking that a general moratorium would be a good thing- and I think it is as necessary for the small eastern farmer as for the farmer of the west. In this time of crisis, as a war emergency it Should be provided that no mortgage company shall turn the small farmer off his farm. Rather, by legislation, the federal government should give some protection to our farmers in that way.
When we come to the question of the price of wheat, I know there is variance there also. It has been said that 85 cents might be adequate, but I cannot in the name of these small farmers agree that such a price would

enable them to carry on. Even though they might divert some land to the growing of coarse grains, even though they might obtain a little from the bonus on their summer-fallow, and raise a few hogs and sell a little butter and a few eggs, the fact is that on the rest of their wheat, sold at 85 cents, it is impossible for them to carry on. I have lived among them; I know the way the money on the farm comes back and is used, and 85 cents will not enable those farmers to carry on.
Again, the payment of storage on the farms would be one thing which would help the small farmer perhaps in some ways; it has in the past, I believe. But there, again, a limit should be placed on the amount which the government would pay to large-scale units for the storing of wheat on their farms, because they would possibly take advantage of that in storing huge quantities, Whereas if a maximum limit were set on it, this would be of assistance only to the smaller farmer.
Again, the amount of quota allowed to the farmers is a vital matter. Suppose a man who has 100 acres in cultivation is seeking to sell his wheat. He would not have the whole 100 acres in wheat; he might have fifty or sixty acres. If the quota is only five or eight bushels to the acre, it is impossible for him with that small acreage to deliver enough wheat to carry on, pay his small store bills and buy food and clothing for his family. The small farmer must be allowed a quota of at least 1,000 bushels of delivery. If that would mean that the general quota would have to be lowered for the large farmer, we would be justified in doing that; because after all, although agriculture as a whole needs to be placed on a higher basis, the large-scale unit that can manage to exist is not as much in need of assistance as the small-scale farmer who can barely manage to live- and it is protection for the latter that we need more than anything else.
Already the agricultural crisis in the west has brought about a gradual decline in our community life. I was astounded to find that during last year in Saskatchewan no fewer than 219 of our teachers were forced to go on relief. Is that not itself an example of the inability of the municipalities to carry on? When the farmers cannot pay their taxes, the municipalities cannot pay school teachers, nor can they look after the usual run of business of which they are called upon to take care. We have the federal government declaring that it can no longer take care of the problem of supplying the provinces with money for relief, and therefore the municipalities in Saskatchewan are told that they must raise their mill rate. I had a report from one of our northern municipali-

Supply-State of Agriculture
ties in which the statement was made that out of 491 farms in that municipality there are under cultivation 166 farms of less than 50 acres and 144 farms of less than 100 acres. Three-quarters of all farms in that particular municipality have less than 100 acres under cultivation, and when one considers that these same people are to have their mill rate increased, so that they can help to provide for municipal expenses in connection with relief, he will see that it is like asking a blind man to put pennies in his own hat to ask these people to provide relief for others in the municipality.
To-day the municipalities are sending in resolutions to that effect. No doubt many members have received them. It seems that the people in western Canada on the small farms are realising the desperate condition they are in. When they know that this bonus scheme is to be set up, they begin to see that here and there among their number there will be some who will take advantage of the government scheme to put their foot into the machine and become one of the political heelers who in the past, as we know, have done so much to perpetuate the present system of government in western Canada. We have had road inspectors, relief inspectors, bonus inspectors. The people of the west have a name for these men; they call them "heelers." It is a good word, only it is an insult to dogs, because many of these men have sold their very heritage; they have given away all that they possessed for a mess of pottage. They have taken little jobs here and there and, by reason of the stress in which they find themselves, they have become a party to such things and therefore discriminate against their neighbours and so keep up the whole structure of the rotten political system in the west. One cannot prove these things, but everyone from Saskatchewan is aware of them. One has only to mention the word "heeler" to some farmers to see the look of disgust that comes on their faces.
After all, we know that the farmers live very close to the land. They know the basic, fundamental truth that when the hungry people of the world are free, they will demand the food which our western people will grow; and they know to-day that when our government is asking for a reduction, it is really denying one of the fundamental principles of life itself. In asking us to summer-fallow our land in these days, knowing at the same time that industry is doing not only as well as it has ever done before but even better, the government is asking our farmers not only to make a sacrifice but to summer-fallow their minds and to turn under their intelligence. It will leave them with the
blackness of despair during the coming months and years, and they fear to face the future.
I cannot help feeling that, were industry to be asked to-day to forgo all its profits, there would be an organized protest from industrialists. But to-day the small farmer is not organized, and under this wheat policy the farmers are asked to go without a decent standard of living. Advantage is being taken by this government of the fact that the farmers are not organized sufficiently well to protest. After all, the government to-day is making an agricultural policy which is going to have tremendous effects in the future. It is in other words, in my opinion, sowing the wind. The whirlwind will inevitably follow. In all the small farms throughout the length and breadth of Canada to-day, I have no hesitation whatever in saying there is one crop which is slowly but surely ripening, namely, the grapes of wrath.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, on
the one hand a request for unprecedented sacrifices and a tremendous expenditure of public funds; on the other, a reduction of $131,584.o6 in agricultural .appropriations, a lack of farm labour, low prices and absence of markets for farm products, heavier taxation. Such is the future in store for the farmer. Yet, agriculture is of supreme importance in these troublous times. Last year the government cancelled the usual grants to local agricultural associations and to boys-and-girls live stock clubs. In the province of Quebec alone thirty-five agricultural fairs and the same number of boys-and-girls clubs have had to cease operating for want of the required assistance. Considering that all these restrictions represent the trifling sum of $96,504.36, the question naturally arises of what is to become of farming.
The benefits of agricultural co-operation have been proclaimed from the housetops. But how can the farmers cooperate with one another when the public authorities, on the plea of effecting a paltry saving, refuse to cooperate with them? How can they be made to love and appreciate the land when government deprives them of the few dollars essential to association and cooperation? The excuse based on war expenditures does not hold. The government cannot be unaware that agriculture feeds the armies and supplies them with many of the raw materials needed to carry on the war. Let us not forget either the insuperable difficulties with which the farmer is faced in connection with the labour supply. In many districts war industries have already engaged all the labourers who otherwise would be available for farming operations. The high wages they receive will keep them away from farm work as long as the war lasts. Everyone knows that the farmer cannot afford to pay

Supply-State of Agriculture
wages equal to those received by workmen in the war industries. The prices he obtains for his pork, his milk, his potatoes, his cattle and all his other products are constantly falling. In support of my statement I shall simply quote the average price obtained by the producer for milk delivered at Montreal in
1938, 1939 and the first part of 1940. In 1938 he received $2-076 per 100 pounds; in
1939,	$2-023, and in January, February, March and April, 1940, $2-150. These months, it should be noted, are those in which the price of milk is the highest in the year. Besides, milk prices have varied very little since. Then, when butter fell to an extremely low price last summer, shameless profiteers accumulated great quantities in the warehouses. Consequently, both producer and consumer were exploited to such an extent that butter reached the high price of 38 cents a pound in late autumn and early w-inter and the profiteers made a profit of more than 15 cents a pound to the detriment of the farmer and the consumer. They had accumulated reserves at prices as low as 21, 22 and 23 cents in the summer of 1940. The government should show no pity to such miserable speculators. Must the people now have to bear the tyranny of war profiteers in addition to the heavy burden of taxation? It is imperative to fix a minimum price for butter.
Let us now consider the prices of potatoes, pork and cattle. Is it not a fact that they are lower than in recent years? In consequence of the rising price of feeds, the bacon producers have operated at a loss of late. The price of potatoes, at a time of year when they should be at their highest, is little better than 30 cents. Beef is selling at a very low price. Let it not be thought that I am giving vent to systematic criticism. The farming situation stands out in its distressful reality. Our governments have in the past established a system of colonization and settlement. They have devoted large sums to this patriotic endeavour. Should all that be lost in these difficult times, would the country be any better off? Let us be careful not to discourage agriculture by forcing it to reduce its production because of low prices and lack of labour. The entire country would suffer the consequences of an unprecedented depression. Its disastrous effects would even now be felt by us. They would grow worse in the post-war period.
Every hand is needed on the farm and the farm plays an essential part in the war effort. Farmers, farm labourers and every person employed in industries related to agriculture should not therefore be called for military training. Whether the farmer be engaged in the production of food, in the raising of live 
stock or in lumbering, he supplies our fighting men with food, clothing and shelter. He is second to none in his contribution to the prosperity and the the survival of the country. It w-ould indeed be an irretrievable mistake, were the legislator to look with disdain upon the invaluable contribution of agriculture and its indispensible support toward the war effort. Farmers, farmers' sons and farm hands are needed on the land, not only at harvest time but the year round. Their services are required in winter for the care of dairy herds, for threshing and for a thousand other similar works essential to the running of a farm. Vegetable growers, in the vicinity of Montreal and of other large centres, raise their crops in hothouses or hotbeds. For all the reasons I have stated and in order that we may continue to develop our natural resources, I urge that we exempt farmers from military training.


Mr. GAUTHIER:: Hear, hear.


Liguori Lacombe: May I draw a comparison between the appropriations of the department of agriculture and those of our war services? No one can fail to notice the considerable discrepancy in the amounts allotted to these departments. As we have already seen, agriculture is an industry of still greater national importance in time of war than in time of peace. Why, then, would not the government grant to agricultural associations the same subsidies as in the past? Why should they not continue to give to agriculture all the necessary assistance for its encouragement and development?
I wish to discuss another question: that is to say the general incidence of taxation. It is always more equitable to tax luxuries, amusements and superfluity than to subject to taxation the essentials of life.
Inasmuch as the respective provincial and federal jurisdictions warrant it, theatres, clubs, amusement halls, taverns and all organizations non-essential to Canadian economic life should be required to assume a larger share of the burden imposed on industrial workers, farmers, employers, business men and manufacturers. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has requested our population to make unprecedented sacrifices. The budget he brought down gives food for thought even to the most apathetic. The enormous expenditure for war purposes will require important additional revenues. In order to meet this need, existing taxes will be insufficient and, inevitably, further sacrifices will be requested from our people. In these days of sufferings and trials, the government should not forget the inevitable reactions that must follow the war. In this period of tremendous expenditure, he

Supply-State of Agriculture
must not overlook the maintenance of our financial structure. The cumulation of taxes under which our people is burdened should remind the administration of the necessity of warding off the possible collapse of our economic life, the foundation of which is agriculture.
Would it be reasonable for the authorities to leave agriculture settle its own problems? Or, on the contrary, will they realize that their duty commands them to consider the ever more pressing requests of the farming communities? If the government were to adopt the first of these solutions, I would not hesitate in taxing it of injustice towards our country. In Britain itself national defence is the only field that is given more importance than farming. Will the Canadian government leave our agriculture to its deplorable lot? It is not necessary to give much thought to the distressing condition of agriculture to realize that the time has come for applying drastic remedies and that both inertia and indifference in the matter would be sinful. The time has come when we must drop down from the clouds and face the real facts of life. The directors of professional organizations and farmers unions have often brought the attention of the government to the deficiencies of agriculture. Its economic aspects have been pointed out by the leaders in this field. When shall we settle the problems of the present and thus prepare for the future? At the close of the present war, the nations, weakened and bruised, will look to the land for obtaining the sorely needed regenerative food and vitamins. What will then become of disorganized nations if the neglected agricultural classes are unable to revitalize them and assure their survival?
_ A few moments ago, I requested that farmers, farmers' sons, farm employees and all persons employed in industries connected with agriculture be exempted from military training. I also wish to put on record a resolution of the county council of Two Mountains making a similar request. It was unanimously adopted by the mayors of seventeen municipalities at a regular meeting held on March 12, 1941. It reads as follows:
La corporation du comte des Deux-Montagnes To whom it may concern
St. Scholastique, P.Q.
March 14, 1941.
Whereas Canada request that everyone concentrate all their efforts towards victory;
Whereas the best manner in which the farmer may be of assistance to his country is by making sure that there is no shortage of food;
Whereas if farmers and farmers' sons, working on farms, are called for a four-month period of military training, this will impair to a large degree the production of vegetables, dairy products, etc.;
Whereas if farmers' sons leave the farms to undergo military training, a large number of them will never return to their original calling. . . .
The act has been amended since this resolution was adopted.


Pierre Gauthier: Hear! hear!


Liguori Lacombe: . . . and will repair to the cities in the hope of securing easier and, above all, more remunerative work;
Therefore, it is moved by Mr. J. 0. Charette and unanimously seconded:
That, in compliance with resolutions adopted by the municipal councils of the county, la corporation du comte des Deux-Montagnes is, by the presents, requested to exert its influence on the federal representatives so that farmers and farmers' sons, working on their farms, be exempted from military training as being more useful on the farms than in the army.
Carried.
J. Leo Beaudet,
Secretary-Treasurer.
This is a unanimous expression of opinion on the part of the first citizens of various parishes. The mayors, following the example of all true Canadians, assume the role of protectors of agriculture, our first line of defence since, without it, all our efforts to win the war would be vain.
There is another question I should like to discuss. It is the matter of conscription for service overseas. I am justified in doing so by the repeated and ceaseless attempts of the ultra-loyalists. The adoption of such a measure would endanger the very foundations of national unity. It would imperil true nationalism which must be prevalent and alive in all our people and their leaders. Let us not repeat our past monstrous mistakes. During the last few years, the government has often asserted its policy of first organizing our own defence. I do not need any further proof of this fact than the words uttered by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) before this house, on March 30, 1939:
One strategic fact is clear: the days of great expeditionary forces of infantry crossing the oceans are not likely to recur. Two years ago, I expressed in this house the view that it was extremely doubtful if any of the British dominions would ever send another expeditionary force to Europe.
One political fact is equally clear: in a war to save the liberty of others, and thus our own, we should not sacrifice our own liberty or our own unity.
That is, however, a simple statement of principle, as so many others. Long before, that is, during the sessions of 1937, 1938 and 1939, similar solemn statements were made by the Prime Minister in the name of the

Supply-State of Agriculture
government. It is, therefore, our duty to protest with all our might against the pernicious doctrine of the proponents of conscription.
On February 21 last, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) called the government's attention to the grave abuses committed in the war industries. He mentioned the plant at St. Paul l'Ermite and pointed out to the house the great increase in its cost. I did so myself not long ago. To what is this due? To the shameful exploitation of the working man, to the venality of certain emploj^ment office managers, to the hiring as carpenters of men who knew nothing about carpentering, to the sale of jobs to the highest bidder. This new kind of fifth column has recently landed before the Montreal courts. How is it that the authorities have waited six months and more to bring to justice these miserable parasites of the public treasury, these loathsome despoilers of the war appropriations? I know hundreds of labourers, skilled workmen and unemployed men who have spent week after week vainly waiting for employment, although they were recommended by respectable and responsible people such as their parish priest, their mayor and their members of parliament. Packed in enclosures unfit for human beings, they were compelled to await the end of a shameful racket. A week, two weeks, three weeks, four weeks passed without their being provided with employment. And they had to pay their board and travelling expenses meanwhile. The government should track down these exploiters of their fellow-citizens, wherever they may be. There should be no pity for scroundrelly war profiteers and shady middlemen who seek war contracts not through patriotism or even for the purpose of making a legitimate profit, but in order to increase their fortune.
This country is running too deeply into debt to stand for any organized robbing of the national chest. After being almost bled white, this nation shall demand strict accounting from all profiteers, nay, from all persons in authority whose first duty it was to forestall and prevent any kind of profiteering. For the sake of honesty and elementary justice, let the government be ever watchful lest any wrongdoers, in high or low places, attempt to take advantage of a people already in desperate straits.
The hiring of labour required for munitions plants should not be the exclusive privilege of the member for the constituency in which such plants are established. The taxpayer is entitled to fair and equitable treatment. The system by which certain districts are put aside for the exclusive benefit

of a given constituency must come to an end. The determining factors must be skill or experience in a trade, the labourer's rate of production, and the rules of strict economy. The nation will have nothing to do with shameless patronage nor with its sorry tools. We must rid ourselves at any cost of this canker of both labour and the public treasury. In this hour of peril, are we to stand for or tolerate any longer this horrid sore which, after causing us so much harm, now threatens the essential industries of this country? That is why I call upon the government to take without delay, decisive and adequate steps, in order to suppress entirely the ill-effects of a patronage which is the result of endless scheming altogether detrimental to our country. Let the ability and honesty of our public servants stand up against patronage and we shall thus protect the fatherland against many betrayals.
I should not close these remarks without saying a word of the unwholesome influence of the trusts in Canada. We saw a moment ago how the butter monopoly operated last fall and winter in the Montreal district. There are also those who monopolize electricity, thus taking unfair advantage of the people. The milling, flour and feed trust is still being operated with impunity, and although very profitable to its members, it is playing havoc with the producers and consumers. Can anyone explain why the consumers in eastern Canada pay S3.50 per 100 pounds of flour, while western wheat sells for as low as 51 cents a bushel? Why should the Canadian farmer pay SI.75 for the waste and by-products of our breweries, when he has already sold them the original product for less than a dollar? There is some talk of a "fifth column." Is there a worse wrecker of our war effort than the trust? We have here an industrialization of crime in its worst form. The creators of these monopolies are the No. 1 enemies of the people and of the fatherland.
They aim at the best initiatives of the governments in order to make them inoperative and ineffective. But have not the governments the necessary authority to bring them to reason? Indeed they have. And the day our governments undertake the general cleaning, they will fulfil an imperative duty to the nation. Why wait any longer? The government has at its disposal all the means and power to checkmate monopolizers and profiteers. Let them act promptly, effectively, immediately, and save the country from an irretrievable wrong. At a time when the resources, the revenues and the blood of the country are mobilized, the dictatorial power of money must cease to control with impunity the economic life of a whole nation.

Supply-State of Agriculture
Let me add just one word. I cannot praise too highly the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Blanchette) for the masterly statement he made on the alarming situation of the dairy industry. When the government grants the request of my honourable friend'-and it is also our request-and sets a minimum price for butter, they will give justice to agriculture whose very existence depends on the firm stand our leaders will take against the trusts. The first duty of the powers that be is to abolish at all costs that state within the state, that abominable dictatorship which endangers the nation in its vital forces. The trust must be replaced by the eminently national work of agricultural cooperatives, credit unions and occupational associations. These are patriotic institutions which the government should protect and encourage by exempting their capital, reserves and working capital from taxation. On the survival of these associations rests the survival of agriculture, so necessary at all times and more so when we are at war.


Mr. L. PHILIPPE PICARD (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to take part in this debate on the wheat policy of the government, I feel like a stranger entering an exclusive club and wondering whether he will not be reminded that he does not belong. The wheat experts in this house make me think of bridge players or golfers who during the day follow quite different occupations in life and have different standards of living but who, when it comes to their hobby, forget all their differences and think only of the game. The western members when they discuss wheat in this house seem to do the same thing. They forget their political affiliations and their former quarrels, and all join together to ask for as much as they can get for the west.


George Hugh Castleden: They ask for justice, that is all.


Louis-Philippe Picard: such a measure as sufficient to cope with the agricultural problems of Canada. We believe that there is an equally acute eastern farm problem. The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Blanchette) referred to it yesterday evening, much more competently that I can do, because he is more familiar with the subject. I believe that we eastern farmers-although I am not a farmer, I represent an entirely rural district, so I include myself among them-should also benefit by some favours from the Department of Agriculture. We have done so in the past, and I hope that those favours will be not only maintained but increased.
Recently the minister announced a measure designed to help the western producer and the eastern consumer. It was the offer of a plan whereunder the government would pay half the transportation costs of a certain quantity of wheat from the western provinces to the eastern provinces. At the time I thought it was a wonderful proposal; I still believe that it probably would prove practicable. When first I saw that some of the provinces rejected it, I could not very well understand the reason. I did not know much about the problem, but the project appeared to be a sound one. Since the opening of the session, an hon. member asked for information as to which provinces have accepted and which have refused. The problem of transporting throughout Canada the various necessities of life is one of tragic importance. We all realize, I believe, that the government's proposal to cope with the problem by means of a reduction in the cost of transport would have helped the farmer. When we see that wheat produced in the west and sold there for as little as fifty cents, retails in certain parts of Quebec at $1.60, we realize the seriousness of the question.
I was astonished at first when I saw that only Ontario had accepted1 the plan. I was convinced that the Quebec government would give ail necessary consideration to the problem, and when I learned that they had refused, I inquired into the matter; I looked more closely at the question, and I received some information of value. Personally I have always had great confidence in the present premier of Quebec, who also is the minister of agriculture. The Hon. Adelard Godbout is a broad-minded statesman, who has demonstrated his capacity since he has taken office; he is also an expert on agriculture, a man who has his hand on the pulse of the farmer and, better than anybody else, can understand him, help him and promote his interests.
On motion of Mr. Picard the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, May 1, 1941.