1942-03-12

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, shortly after sundown last night the life of the Right Honourable Raoul Dan-durand, leader of the government in the Senate, came to its earthly close. Less than twenty-four hours before, Senator Dandurand had been present in the Senate conducting its proceedings, as he had been wont to do in all but five of the last twenty years. Of the Senate itself, he had been a member for forty-four years. In years of service, he was, in fact, its oldest member. Indeed, in years of continuous service, he was the oldest living member of the parliament of Canada.
On November the 4th of last year Senator Dandurand celebrated his eightieth birthday anniversaiy. Some weeks later, when parliament had reassembled, this anniversary -was made the occasion of a presentation ceremony in the Senate, at which felicitations on his long and distinguished career were extended to him on the part of leaders and members of both houses of parliament.
Despite his great age, the Senator possessed a remarkable vitality of body and mind. He had suffered no infirmity in the course of his [DOT] life. In the early morning of yesterday he felt as well as ever. At breakfast he experienced a sudden seizure of pain, which, however, did not last for long, but left him very weak. He rested throughout the day, at times conversing with his accustomed keenness of expression, with those at his side. The end came peacefully. One might truly say it was a fitting, indeed a beautiful close to a long, a great and a good life. Having sat in the Senate since the closing years of the last century, Senator Dandurand was in himself a link with the past -with the earlier political life of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and of those others who have laboured to establish firmly the foundations of our nationhood. Like Sir Wilfrid, he strove, in public and private life alike, to promote under-

Right Hon. Raoul Dandurand
standing and cooperation between the two great races of the dominion, and on this basis to preserve and strengthen the bonds of a common nationality.
Although his own career, and many of the traditions with which it came to be identified, had its origin in an earlier generation, Senator Dandurand did not live in the past. He took a keen and active interest in the questions alike of peace and of war. To the deliberations of the war committee of the cabinet he brought a wide knowledge of international affairs, and a strong sense of practical reality. To the last, his life was characterized by a spirit of helpfulness. As a former Speaker of the Senate, as government leader in that chamber for many years and as a member of the administration, he gave exceptional service to Canada.
Senator Dandurand was first and foremost a citizen of Canada, but he was also, in larger measure, I believe, than any other Canadian of his generation, a citizen of the world. His deep and abiding affection for the people of his native province and of his native land did not preclude a kinship with mankind which so broadened his interests as to embrace other lands and other races. There will be those in many other countries, as well as throughout our own, who will deeply regret the passing of one whom they had come to regard as a personal friend and as a tireless worker on behalf of international goodwill.
For six years in succession, Senator Dandurand represented Canada at the assembly of the League of Nations, and in 1925 was elected president of the league assembly. During practically the whole three years that Canada was a member of the league council, he was a Canadian representative on the council. At the league he won for himself an enviable international reputation as an authority on social questions and as a champion of the rights of minorities. The record of his devoted labours at the league is a part of the history of international affairs.
It has been well said of Senator Dandurand that there was about him an innate distinction of manner, combined with a gentleness of spirit which made him one of the beloved as he was one of the most familiar figures in Canadian public life. He exemplified in his career the finest traditions of public service, and indeed helped, by precept and example, to add to them. His life and work may well serve as an inspiration to those of our own and of succeeding generations who seek to play a useful and honourable role in the administration of the affairs of our country.
Personally I cannot say how grateful I feel for all that the close association and friendship which I shared with Senator Dandurand has meant to me in the course of my public life.
We had been friend's over forty years. For fifteen of those years he and I shared responsibilities in the cabinet and leadership of the government, in the Senate and House of Commons respectively. During the still longer years I have had the responsibility of the leadership of the Liberal party, in opposition and in office, I doubt if I could possibly have begun to 'cope with many of the problems of one in that position without the wise counsel, guidance and loyal cooperation he so constantly and unswervingly accorded me. In all his personal and public relationships Senator Dandurand was fidelity itself.
Although his voice will be heard no more in the councils of the nations, in the hearts alike of his fellow-countrymen and of the friends of justice and peace in other lands, the memory will long endure of Senator Dandurand's continuous and untiring efforts to promote the common well-being of mankind.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, this parliament and the people of Canada have been greatly shocked by the announcement of the sudden death of the Right Hon. Raoul Dandurand last evening. His death marks the passing from the political scene of one of Canada's best known public men.
Born fourscore years ago in the city of Montreal, where he made his home, received his education and practised his profession, he rose to be a national figure in the fields of finance and statesmanship.
The friend of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, he was, at the comparatively early age of thirty-seven, appointed to the Senate. There his qualifications marked' him out for advancement and he soon became a commanding figure. In 1905 he rvas appointed Speaker, and in 1921, when my right hon. friend became Prime Minister, Senator Dandurand was made a member of t'he cabinet and the representative of the government in the Senate, which position he occupied until 1930, and again in 1935 until the time of his death.
His achievements in the realm of international politics are well known, particularly in relation to the League of Nations, of which he was a warm supporter. He occupied, respectively, the position of a Canadian delegate to the League of Nations, President of the Assembly and, later on, a delegate to the council of the league, a reputation which no Canadian since Sir Robert Borden has surpassed.
Contemplating in retrospect the life and career of Senator Dandurand, one cannot help but be impressed by the realization of w*hat a full and happy life he had. Even prior to his appointment to the Senate, he
Right Hon. Raoul Dandurand

had played a leading part in the public life of his native province; and' during the forty-four years he was a member of the Senate, no one took a more important and active part in the deliberations of that body.
In July last he received the highest honour at present in the right of Canadians to receive-membership in His Majesty's Imperial Privy Council.
My own relations with him were friendly. I often met him in Ottawa and1 on the trains. He was an engaging personality and a first-rate raconteur. Many times I have enjoyed my conversations with him.
He was a vigorous champion of his own opinions and of the aspirations of his compatriots.
His passing leaves a very distinct blank in the government of the country. I desire to extend to my right hon. friend and to his followers my sincere expressions of sympathy and regret.


Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, we join in mourning to-day the passing of one whose life was both useful and full. That Senator Dandurand was what we seldom see in our own dominion-and what we hope we may see more of in the years to come-a Canadian statesman with an international outlook, was recognized not only in our own country but in other countries of the world. He received distinguished honours at the hands of the people not only of Canada, but of France, from whose culture he derived so much inspiration. I shall always associate the late Senator Dandurand with the noble efforts that were made following the last great war to secure world peace. He was faithful to the ideals of collective security- sometimes called a noble experiment which failed; but I believe- the day will yet come when upon the foundations' laid by him and others like him will be erected a structure which will not fall and will not fail.
I did not know Senator Dandurand well, but I often used to see him in the corridors and the picture which I shall carry in my mind as long as I remain in these associations is of a noble and friendly figure Standing beside the throne in the Senate chamber, and bringing to my mind the words of Geoffrey Chaucer, "he was a verray parfit gentil knight."


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, naturally when one passes who has filled for so many years so large a place in the public eye as Senator Dandurand, the first reaction is one of shock and regret. But I believe that in the contemplation of this man's life and of his passing most people will feel that he has been blessed in his going hence as he had been in his living here. He

has had a long, rich and abundant life, full of activity, full of striving for the ideals which guided him; a life crowned with a large measure of success. I do not know how anyone could ask of life anything finer. Now that he has closed that life without pain, without regret, I think there is cause for satisfaction and comfort.
We join with those who will extend sympathy to the bereaved ones, for no matter how far advanced one may be in years, when he passes there will be an empty place at the fireside and there will be hearts that are lonely because he is no longer here. To these we extend our sympathy and condolences.


Mr. THOMAS YIEN (Outrement) (Translation) :: 

CANADIAN ARMY


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table order in council P.C. 1916, which contains several amendments to the reserve army (special) regulations. There are amendments respecting clothing allowance, notification of change of address, and penalties for failure to report: that has to do with men called up for training under the National Resources Mobilization Act.
Several hon. members have asked with regard to the regulations, which I mentioned in Hansard at page 818, whereby we are endeavouring to secure a more uniform method of administering provisions for leave or postponement by utilizing, even though men have commenced their training, the boards which have been appointed under the Department of National War Services. An amendment to that effect is embodied in this order in council which I am laying on the table.
In order that the house may have a general outline of the provision, it is this. Applications may be made by men who are in training under the National Resources Mobilization Act for leave at any time within three months after enlistment or after the commencement of training, and those applications may be granted under circumstances similar to those under which a man would have been granted postponement of training had he applied before his training commenced; or,
as the order in council provides, leave may be granted where the circumstances show extreme hardship to dependents. The procedure is that the man who is already in training applies to his commanding officer, giving the grounds of his application, which should be verified by affidavit or by statutory declaration. The commanding officer forwards this material with his own recommendation to the district officer commanding-that is necessary in order that they may get in touch with the board-and the district officer commanding transmits that material to the board with any recommendation he has to make. The board then review the application just as they would review an application for postponement if made previous to training, and the provision in the order in council is that the district officer commanding shall give effect to the recommendation of the board, with one exception. That is to say, he has no discretion to turn down the recommendation of the board unless at that particular time the military situation is such that the exigencies require that leave be curtailed or refused; in that case he may refer the matter to national defence headquarters. Hon. members will understand, of course, that that is under special circumstances, but the general provision is that the recommendation of the board is to be accepted by the district officer commanding.
While that procedure is, under the order in council, permissive, instructions are being issued by the Department of National Defence that that is the procedure which shall be followed.
There is also a provision in the amendment whereby the boards are given specific authority to hear these cases. Another provision is to the effect that boards are given authority to hear any other cases or classes of cases which are specially referred to them by the adjutant general. That applies not only to men in training, but to the Canadian army home defence or the Canadian active army- either one.
I believe that this outline will give hon. members who have been asking about this matter the necessary information. The order in council is tabled so that hon. members may get full particulars if they desire.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I take it that this applies only to those who are called up under the compulsory training plan and not to men who have voluntarily enlisted. A case came to my attention this morning of a woman in my own constituency who has four sons. One is in the army overseas, another is in the navy, a third is working on home defence, and the
Questions

fourth son, she tells me, has been called up for the air force. I do not understand that; he must have enlisted voluntarily. But she ipleads with me to do something to get her fourth and last son out of the armed forces. I have written her explaining what I understand to be the position. I suppose this amendment will not apply in a case of that kind.


James Layton Ralston: No. This does not apply to the air force. The general provision to which I have just referred may, however, apply to the Canadian active army or to the home defence army. That is to say, there is power in the order in council for the adjutant general to refer those cases to the board. The order in council does not provide that they must be referred to the board. As the order in council stands the only cases which are specifically provided for, in connection with which the board's decision is to be taken, are cases where men are called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act and are actually in training.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
1942 VICTORY LOAN
['1.\tYes.\n2.\tFebruary 24, 1942, by order in council P.C. 1426.']
Mr. ILSLEY:: I would ask the hon. member to be good enough to consent to this question being dropped. The information will not be available for several weeks at least and perhaps for a longer period than that. When it is available the breakdown into categories will not correspond with the breakdown contained in clause 3 of the question. If it were made an order for return it would not serve any purpose because the information available up to the time the order for return is passed is the only information that goes into the return. I think therefore the only course left is to drop the question for the time being.
Question dropped.



Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	From whom did the government purchase the boat San Katy'i

2.	What was the purchase price?
3.	What was the cost to the government of reconditioning this boat for mine laying purposes?
4.	Is the said boat now in service?
5.	If not, why?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: 1.	Northumberland Ferries, Limited.
2.	$83,900 has been paid. There is a pending reference to the exchequer court of Canada to settle the claim of the former owner, for a larger amount.
3.	$97,213.39.
4.	Yes.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-PERSONS HAVING SERVED IN H.M. FORCES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Since the inception of the Unemployment Insurance Act how many persons have received payments thereunder?
2.	What are the numbers and occupations by provinces of such persons?
3.	How many of the said recipients have been on service in his majesty's forces during the present war and of those how many are in receipt of payment under the said act as of this date?


Mr. MITCHELL:: To furnish the information asked for will necessitate communicating with the nine regional offices of the unemployment insurance commission and as soon as the information is received by my office the question will be answered.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The question stands.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stands.
ORDER IN COUNCIL P.C. 2686*


Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Was order in council P.C. 2686, June 19, 1940, revoked?
2.	If so, on what date and in what manner?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	February 24, 1942, by order in council P.C. 1426.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. WRIGHT:: 1.	How many cheques were issued on wheat acreage reduction bonus for, (a) $50 and less; (b) $50 to $100?
2.	What were the total amounts paid under each of the above classifications?


M. G. ARMSTRONG, M.D.
Mr. CARDIFF:: 1. Is M. G. Armstrong, M.D., in receipt of pay of any description from the dominion government ?

Questions on Orders of the Day
2.	Is he the medical examiner for employees in the munitions or chemical works at Nobel or vicinity?
3.	If so, on what basis is he paid?
4.	What was the total amount paid to him by the dominion government in the calendar year 1941?


FARM LOANS-ABANDONED FARMS
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	How many loans were made in each province by the Canadian farm loan board during the last fiscal year, and what was the amount of each loan?
2.	How many farms on which loans were made have been abandoned in each province since the formation of the said board?
3.	How many of the abandoned farms has the board at the present time and where are they located?



WAR CONTRACTS


Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Has J. A. A. Leclair-Dupuis Limited, of Montreal, obtained contracts to construct Avar defence projects?
2.	If so, what amount has been paid to the company for each contract?
3.	How long has this company been in existence?
4.	Who are its president, manager and directors ?
5.	What kind of work does this company carry on, and at what place in the province of Quebec?
6.	Upon what date and in what year was this company incorporated?



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to direct two questions to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), based upon a translation of an article appearing in Le Droit, published in the city of Ottawa on the ninth instant in a column of comments entitled "From day to day". As the minister is away, and as there is no hurry about it, I shall ask that the matter be taken as a notice. The comments in principle are such that with the permission of the house I will read them.


Georges Parent: I do not like to interrupt the leader of the opposition, but I gather from the statement he is about to read that if will take the form of a question which would call for consideration by the minister before it can be answered, and therefore it would fall within the category of such questions as I have already ruled should properly be placed upon the order paper. I suggest to the leader of the opposition that he put the question on the order paper.
44561-so


Richard Burpee Hanson: I sent
notice of this question to the minister.


Georges Parent: May I interrupt to say that I did observe on a former occasion that when questions were asked, and the purport of the question had been sent to the minister, the minister came prepared to give an answer, and this in effect simply accentuated a practice which I have ruled is improper. As I said yesterday, if a question is improperly asked1 on the orders of the day it is just as improper for the minister to answer it. If we are to adhere to the rule, all these questions which are not of immediate interest and which do not require an immediate answer should be placed on the order paper.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I bow to your ruling, of course, Mr. Speaker, but I had not even come to the question.


Georges Parent: I gathered, however, from the form which the question was about to take that it was one that should certainly be put on the order paper.



PLEBISCITE ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I wish to ask a question of the Secretary of State. Owing to the fact that most of the returning officers for the plebiscite, and their assistants, will have to travel many hundreds of miles in their automobiles to make arrangements for polling booths, et cetera, will special gasoline cards be secured for these men to carry on this work?


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: I am afraid I shall have to make inquiries and in the meantime regard the question as a notice. So far as I know, the oil controller has not given special consideration to the matter. However, I will inquire and advise the hon. member.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, with due deference to your desire to limit questions that may be asked on the orders of the day, may I ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Raltson), in the light of the increasing development and activity in the construction of army quarters in other parts, whether he will be good enough to

Wheat Board Act

inquire into the lack of use of the camp grounds at Niagara-on-the-Lake, and see whether it could not be utilized to a greater extent.


Georges Parent: This is another question of the kind that should be put on the order paper.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton West) for the second reading of Bill No. 13, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Douglas (Weyburo).
Mr. BRUCE McNEVIN (Victoria, Ont.):: The subject matter of these three bills, commonly referred to as the wheat bills, similar in character, now constitutes an item that must receive attention yearly in this chamber. They represent something of great magnitude in the civil and commercial life of the country, apart from war, perhaps greater than any other question within that category.
The first bill to which I wish to refer is that introduced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), Bill No. 13, the amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The only point in that bill that is of importance is the abolition of the 70-cent price and the substitution therefor of 90 cents. When this question was under discussion a year ago I very strongly urged upon the government an increase in the price of wheat, and with the increase from 70 cents to 90 cents I may say at once that I am in full accord.
I think we all recognize and recognized a year ago that 70 cents is a very low price for wheat. I do not think it is necessary to discuss that question at great length. I realize that there has been a demand for dollar wheat, but we all know that the world situation affecting wheat is at present most difficult, and I assume that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has taken that into consideration in relation to his recommendation of a price of 90 cents.
With regard to the wheat acreage reduction bill, this item a year ago was dealt with through the supplementary estimates. At that time I think I raised the point that it should have been dealt with by a bill; therefore I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) upon the method of dealing with the matter this year.
Before proceeding to discuss the various items to which this bill relates I wish to make

a few general remarks covering some other matters of importance in the work and production of Canada. One item has already been referred to, industrial wages, from the point of view that industrial wages had risen more rapidly and to a higher point than had the farmers' income. I believe that is true to a great extent in the more central and highly industrialized centres. When you go out into the more remote districts I think you will find in the factories producing munitions and war materials and the materials for civilian consumption that the wage rates are fair and good, but not exorbitant. In fact I can go a step further and say that under present conditions, particularly in the province in which I live, they compare perhaps favourably with the returns to agriculture. Of course there is no question that those industrial wages,are high enough to attract labour away from the farms, and this creates a situation which I am sure is receiving careful consideration by the government. Later this session I may have something further to say on that point.
The next item to which I wish to refer is lumber. Lumber is an important commodity in the riding I represent. The timber controller's office informs me that since the outbreak of the war in September, 1939, of the lumber that enters into the construction of homes and such buildings, what might be described as rough lumber, white pine has increased in price 15 per cent, spruce 16 per cent and hemlock about 20 per cent So that you have an average increase of approximately 17 per cent in the price of lumber since the beginning of the war. Now, that is not a very heavy increase. We had a very heavy production of lumber in 1940 and again in 1941, but it is possible that without some further increase the production might not be as heavy late* on, because labour for lumbering operations is becoming scarcer and higher wages are demanded.
The next item to which I wish to refer was mentioned by the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly), that is, the rate of interest paid by the government for the money borrowed to carry on the war. I learn from the Department of Finance that since the outbreak of the war there has been lent to the Dominion of Canada in the form of war savings stamps and certificates and bonds, not including conversions but new money, the sum of $2,300 million at approximately 3 per cent. If you compare the interest rate paid during the last war, which averaged perhaps 5J per cent, you will find there has been a saving in annual interest, on that huge sum, of about $51,000,000. We recognize, therefore, that those who lent their money to the

Wheat Board Act
government, and they represent all classes, are receiving a substantially reduced income from that source.
I wish to refer to index figures covering a number of major agricultural products of all the provinces of Canada, also the general level of manufactured products, in fact all products. Taking the 1926 level as 100, manufactured products for civilian consumption stand now at 93-2. If we take all products, agricultural and manufactured, and all others, it stands at 92-2. Poultry and dairy products stand at 101-3; live stock products at 115-2. It is true-and this point has a direct bearing upon the whole discussion in which we are now engaged-that cereal products are indeed low in price, and perhaps on the same basis would come somewhere between 55 and 60. I should explain further that since these percentages were compiled we have had some increase in the price of cattle, in the price of lambs, a 3-cent bonus on eggs, and some additional payment to the whole milk and condensed milk producer; so that if the figures were brought up to date some of these indexes would register a reasonable increase.
The Minister of Agriculture has had something to do with the bonus for eggs and the bonus for milk, cheese, et cetera, and in that regard I think he deserves a word of commendation. There has also been an increase in the price of cheese. I believe the situation of the Ontario farmer is now reasonably satisfactory. I have not always agreed with everything brought before the house by the Minister of Agriculture, and I might add that perhaps this bonus system is not the best and soundest system. Nevertheless under present conditions it apparently represents the only instrument by means of which these matters can be successfully dealt with. I believe from the standpoint of an Ontario farmer I can state truthfully to the Minister of Agriculture that they have been fairly dealt with.
Perhaps the 20-cent increase in the price of wheat is not sufficient, but it is a substantial increase in price. I wish to make a comparison between the situation of agricuh ture in Ontario and in the western provinces. I find in the "Canada Year Book" for 1941 a statement showing investments in agriculture in the various provinces of Canada. These investments are listed under three headings, namely lands and buildings, live stock, and implements and machinery. The figures are found at page 154, and they relate to the year 1939. I do not believe that any major or radical change has taken place from that time up to the present. I find in this list that Alberta has invested under those three headings the sum of 8599,000,000, Saskatchewan $841,000,000, Manitoba $329,000,000 and Ontario $1,408,000,000.
44561-80}
If we have the gross income of agriculture in all the provinces we can arrive at what should be a fair estimate of the gross return per $100 unit throughout the various provinces, to indicate whether or not the farmers in one part of Canada are enjoying greater prosperity than are those in some other part. It is difficult to secure accurate figures respecting income, but we have estimates. I assume that as between the various provinces those estimates are fairly representative of the established and true situation.
I find that from the gross sales of agricultural products Alberta received, in round figures, $150,000,000 in 1941. A few days ago the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) gave for Saskatchewan the figure of S180,000,000. The figure for Manitoba in the estimate prepared by the bureau of statistics stands at $80,000,000, and we have in Ontario an estimated income of $285,000,000. We received in Ontario cheese bonuses during the last year amounting to $4,500,000. We have provincial hog bonuses in Ontario and Quebec, but they do not run into very much money. I will add to the $285,000,000 gross income of Ontario farmers the sum of $5,000,000 for the cheese bonus, and I believe in allowing that amount there will be some to spare.
The minister told us the other day that in the western provinces about $60,000,000 was to be divided among the farmers as payments under the wheat acreage reduction plan, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the Prairie Farm Income order in council. I understand that that sum will probably be divided as follows: Saskatchewan, $35,000,000; Alberta, $15,000,000 and Manitoba, $10,000,000. So that if we take the $150,000,000 gross income for Alberta and add this $15,000,000 we have a figure of $165,000,000. If we divide that $165,000,000 into the $599,000,000 of gross total investment we have $27.75 per unit of $100 invested. In each case of course that represents the sum out of which the farmer must pay his interest charges, his taxes, his threshing expenses, his living expenses and other costs incidental to the operation of his farm. If there were anything left I suppose it would come under the heading of profit. It would seem that there should be a column for profit and loss, because I assume in all provinces we do occasionally run into grievous losses.
I now come to Saskatchewan, with its estimated income of $180,000,000. If we add the $35,000,000 for the payments to which I have referred we have the figure of $215,000,000. As I said a moment ago, in that province invested capital stands at $841,000,-
000.	Computing that on the basis I have indicated we find that the income per unit
Wheat Board Act

runs to about $25.30. We come to Manitoba with a capital investment in agriculture of $329,000,000 and an income of $80,000,000. Then there is the 810,000,000 for bonus payments which must be added, making a total of $90,000,000. If we work that out we find that it comes to approximately $27.50.
Coming to Ontario, with its gross income of $290,000,000, and a capital investment of $1,408,000,000, a computation on the same basis indicates a return of $20.50. There is another point I suggest should receive some consideration, because 1 realize that interest charges in western Canada are substantially higher than they are in the east. But we have in Ontario certain set expenses which are higher than they are in the west. In order to produce crops in western Canada in 1941, 10,000 tons of fertilizer were used. That fertilizer cost approximately $55 a ton, making a total expenditure of $550,000. The cost of fertilizer in the west is high because of the excessive freight charges. The fertilizer used has a higher content of potash, nitrogen, et cetera, and less filler. This is done to save freight. The farmers of Ontario consumed 126,000 tons of fertilizer which cost approximately $32 a ton. Therefore they spent a little over $4,000,000 to purchase fertilizer to produce the crops that they have for sale.
Another important item is taxation. Again I shall give round figures, but I have the totals in every instance. In Alberta there are quite a few local districts where they collect school taxes, but I got my figures from the bureau of statistics and I am including all taxes, school and otherwise. In some of the w'estem provinces there are provincial improvement plans, but I have also included those. I shall give the taxation of the rural municipalities in the west and the organized townships in the east in order to give a fairly clear picture of the situation. In Alberta approximately $7,500,000 is paid in rural taxation. In Saskatchewan the total is approximately $11,500,000, and in Manitoba, approximately $5,000,000. But the total of rural taxation in Ontario is approximately $26,500,000.
I am not presenting these figures with any desire of minimizing the responsibilities or the difficulties or the problems of the farmers of western Canada. I have every sympathy with them in their troubles, but I give these figures to show that we have pressing problems in Ontario. If you will take the total receipts and divide them by the number of farmers engaged in agriculture, you will find that the gross income does not differ to any extent as between provinces. I have the figures here, but I do not want to tire the house with too 
many. Figuring on that basis there is probably a difference of not more than $100 in the average income of the farmer as between provinces. Of course, there are large units in the west where no doubt the carrying charges are high, but in Ontario we are faced with high municipal taxation and a high fertilizer cost. In addition, in order to produce these crops, we brought in-perhaps the Minister of Agriculture could give this information better than I

during the year 1941 from western Canada many millions of dollars' worth of western grain. That had to be paid for out of our income in order to make this production possible. I think we must have a broad viewpoint of the whole agricultural situation throughout the country.
Referring to the wheat acreage reduction bill, a year ago I took strong objection to the payment" of a bonus for coarse grains, and I cannot say that my objection to that principle has lessened. I believe that it created an inequality in the production of live stock. It is said that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, and up to a certain point the freight assistance provided in the year 1941 was of major assistance to the Ontario farmer. But I do not believe he will reap as much benefit from this in 1942 as he did in 1941 because the price of western grain will be higher. We brought in considerable wheat last year and because of a very insistent demand for Ontario wheat, we could exchange our wheat at the elevator for western wheat and make twenty cents on the exchange. Of course that is something that I do not think anything can control, because western wheat does not suit that particular market and that is why the situation prevailed. This condition will not prevail with western wheat at 90 cents should Ontario harvest a reasonably good crop. I hope that that situation prevails in all the provinces. The Minister of Agriculture has been criticized, sometimes severely, throughout western Canada-


Mr. HOMUTH:: How about the east?


Thomas Bruce McNevin: Probably in the east too; more last year than this year. I think the bulk of this criticism has arisen from the fact that the minister has had to deal with these problems at a time when they were more difficult than ever before. When I look at the wheat acreage reduction bill, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the prairie farm income order in council I cannot help but think that the Minister of Agriculture has devised means and developed ideas to give assistance to the farmers of the western provinces, and in some instances as well to the farmers in the east, to a degree never equalled by any of his

Wheat Board Act
predecessors. I doubt if it has been equalled by anyone in a similar position in any of the food exporting countries of the world.
The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) referred to the number of telephones, electrical and running water installations in the homes of western Canada, and I think he referred also to the number of automobiles owned. It is true that there are a greater number of farms in Ontario with these conveniences, but it should be remembered that this part of the country has been settled longer. The district from which I come was settled in the late twenties and the thirties of the nineteenth century. I see by the reports that at the outbreak of the great war about 10,000,000 acres were under cultivation in western Canada, or put into wheat. If we go back to the beginning of the twentieth century, the development would be much smaller. Therefore, this point must not be forgotten, that there was a civilization approximately seventy years old when settlement started in the west. Naturally these services will develop and grow. I would like to see every farm in every province in Canada with the conveniences of electricity, telephones and running water, as well as automobiles. There is no class of people under the sun who are more entitled to or have greater need for these conveniences than those who live and work on the land.
There may be a reason for the attitude taken by the western farmer that his problems are greater than those of the farmers in any other part of Canada. I do not believe there is an agricultural section of Canada in which the land was more easily acquired than it was in the western provinces. There were homesteads, preemptions, cheap lands. Remember, I am not minimizing the problems in any part of the country. The farmers had many problems in the province of Ontario, and the same thing applies to the west. I believe also that the land in the west was recovered from nature and turned into production with less effort than the land in any of the older provinces of Canada. That may not apply to some of the northern and eastern districts of the west, but it does apply particularly to that triangle to which the Minister of Agriculture referred, bounded by a line running from Morden to Lloydminster, from there down to Calgary and on to the United' States boundary. That land was brought into cultivation with a minimum of effort as compared with the effort required in many of the other provinces. The farms out there are large, and in common with all the agricultural districts of 'this dominion, the farmers of the west have enjoyed periods of prosperity and good times. Each agricultural area in Canada has 'had1 its heyday. I think it will be agreed
that western Canada had its heyday. And during that heyday land in the western provinces blossomed forth in the production of bountiful wealth to a 'greater extent than in any other part of Canada. I threshed in western Canada for several years; I have seen the golden grain piled on the prairies, and the farmers were getting a good1 price for it at that time. I regret the difficulties that came later when farmers in some parts of the west suffered from drought and when the farmer's equity diminished and in some cases disappeared.
The reason I cite these facts is that I believe that the conditions I describe have left an imprint and had an effect upon the mentality of the people of western Canada. And now when their farm income is just about on a par, sometimes a little better, with that obtained in the other provinces, they are not used to being cramped to the same extent as farmers in many other parts of the country.
I think it was the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) who said 'that the wheat grower had made a noble and most important contribution to the war effort. I agree absolutely. I would be the last to detract in the slightest degree from their accomplishments because they are doing a great work and making a splendid contribution. In one of the galleries of this House of Commons since the session opened on January 21, a western farmer and his wife have sat during many sittings. I have talked to this man. He is a splendid fellow. I have heard western people say that they grow the finest wheat in the world. I would say that this fellow is as fine a fellow as you could grow anywhere in the world. He comes from that wheat area where, as the Minister of Agriculture said, it is difficult to grow anything but wheat and what is his situation? He said to me: "I left my farm on the first day of December." It is not a power farm; his power is horses, and he said: "I locked the stable door." The important point to remember is that his horses were on the outside of the stable, not on the inside, when he locked the door, and they went out on the prairies to hunt their living for the winter. "I am worried about them," he said. "There is not much snow, and I am anxious lest they be short of water. I am going to be back there on the first of April, and I hope they will be all right."
In the case of the dairy farmer-not in Ontario alone but in all the provinces of Canada-who produces cheese, milk, butter, hogs and cattle, what is called the mixed farmer, the door, mark you, is not shut and latched with his stock outside. The stock are all inside, where they must be watered and fed and tended, and not just on one day in the week
Wheat Board Act

or in one month out of five, but seven days a week and every week throughout the entire winter. I ask that this be borne in mind. The wheat farmer has made a great contribution to the war effort, but I believe that the mixed farmer is making perhaps a greater contribution to the war effort. I recall those famous words of Churchill about blood and toil and tears; certainly the mixed farmer knows what sweat and toil is, and if you are going to use that as the yardstick to measure their war effort, you will have to give a place alongside the wheat farmer to the mixed farmers throughout the length and breadth of this dominion.
There has been a request-I will put it that way-from the other side of the house and from here and down there to my left for a better understanding of the problems of the western farmers, and Ontario was mentioned particularly when hon. gentlemen from the west were speaking. I think we must have a better understanding, if it is possible to get it, but I hope it will be a mutual understanding, that we shall understand the problems of the west better, and that likewise the farmers of the west will understand our problems better. I do not think we have many differences of importance. I think our differences are minute and imaginaiy. Our objectives are similar. Our interests may differ in some respects but we have much in common. I would say first that as farmers we should perhaps be a little better satisfied with our lot. I say to the farmers from the east and to the farmers from the west, let us go forward together jointly and unitedly, in our common task of feeding our armed forces and our civilian population, and assisting to feed the armed forces and civilian populations of other parts of the empire and, whenever and wherever the opportunity offers, of our gallant allies, to the end that we may attain ultimate triumph and victory for our cause and bring about a just and honourable peace to this distracted and distorted and war-ravaged world.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: The motion for the second reading of Bills 12, 13 and 14, and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Douglas), deal with the most important domestic matters to come before parliament this session. Thus far the speeches made by those who have taken part in the debate have revealed a wide knowledge of world conditions, and of the situation of Canadian agriculture-which, with other natural resources, forms the principal basis of our 'wealth.
The country affected by this legislation was opened up largely after the northwest rebellion of 1885, which occurred not so far from

the constituency which you, Mr. Speaker, represented for many years so ably and faithfully. It was at this time that the attention of the civilized world was called to the great prairie country, the potential granary of the empire. It appealed to the fancy and imagination of the whole civilized world. This wonderful new land ' of promise and opportunity showed it would be one of the glories of the Victorian era. Militia units from Toronto, including the Queen's Own, the Royal Grenadiers and the Governor General's Bodyguard, the battalion commanded by our late admired magistrate Colonel George T. Denison, the York Rangers and soldiers from Halifax and Winnipeg, constituted this force. Many of them marched across lake Superior in the depth of winter, twenty to thirty degrees below zero, and endured the terrible hardships of winter in order to save that great country from secession and prevent Canada from being dislocated. After the war, numbers of these men received a small grant of land which they never saw, and many went west with their families into the territory which is now the three prairie provinces, aided only by the small grants which they then obtained. There was afterwards a heavy migration to the prairies from Ontario and Toronto.
I believe in a principle for confederation of "each for all and all for each." What is for the benefit of the prairie provinces is for the benefit of Ontario, the maritimes, and the great Pacific province. But let me remind hon. gentlemen that the winning of the war is the first and most important business of Canada. While we have many great domestic problems, including this one of agriculture, nothing will matter if we do not win the war, because if the enemy wins there will be no such thing as a price; everybody will be working as a slave for an alien government, and life will not be worth living.
The discussion on this subject lasted last year about three weeks, and it is instructive to notice where the demand for a policy of parity prices in war time comes from. You will find that those who, in this house and out of it, for many years past have argued that the interests of the great grain growing industry lay north and south instead of east and west and required free trade with all the world, have now veered around and, instead of preaching free trade from the housetops on the prairies, are adopting methods of triple protection and supporting the principle of protection for this, Canada's greatest industry.
In the government's present policy, embodied in the wheat measures now before the house- it is not a long-term policy-it is not yet clear what they propose to do for wheat growers in the present year and what they

Wheat Board Act
propose to do in the years to come are two different things. The prairies alone are in on it. The other provinces will benefit by it but little. I have long contended that it is the desire of every good citizen to see agriculture put on the road to recovery, but this means a long range policy in the interests of all the provinces, to be put into effect before it is too late. After all is said and done, when the war is over there will be such a general wreckage in Canada and the world that it will be difficult to salvage anything. I believe that long before that time comes we shall require all the increased production which has been spoken of. But the ships are not available; we have lost the command of the sea in the Pacific; and it is difficult to see where we shall get the supply of labour or the ships or transportation necessary to take care of the crops and of our export trade.
I notice that the government, in connection with these bills, is not proposing to take a plebiscite on this particular question. Most of the plebiscite supporters are not in the chamber to-day. May I remark that the committee of agriculture is going to have a big proposition on its hands. However, I have never yet known any committee appointed by the government which did not do exactly what the government wanted them to do. They are a majority and write the report. They may function to delay, hinder and prevent the solution of this question. But it is the government that is responsible for the state of agriculture to-day and for a solution of any ills in it in all Canada.
In my opinion the government in the past has worn a coat of many colours in relation to the grain growing industry. The bill is said to deal with an emergency, and the legislation is under the War Measures Act in pursuance of the provision for "peace, order and good government". But if it is a wartime measure, why in the name of sense are those men who are getting $1.30 a day, about the price of a bushel of wheat, not to be considered, as man-power is an industry. If any of us served at the front and faced death twenty-four hours a day, we would be less inclined to give first place to material things like the price of grain and forget ourselves and dependents. Are soldiers who go away to fight for us not entitled to some economic protection, as well as grain growers? The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck), part of whose riding I used to represent, objected the other day when I was about to speak on this matter on Bill No. 5, saying it was not within the four corners of the rule to discuss the question then at issue and the
necessity of some protection and security for those who are employers of labour in industry which surely needs it. He was objecting to any proposals of mine for such security for industry as I read it in Hansard. Now I may say that in connection with this matter an emergency is declared for some and not for others; there is one economy for agriculture and another economy for the industrial worker and industrialist. Why should an emergency be declared for agriculture, and yet not for industrial workers, who are forty-five per cent of the population, or for soldiers, who are fighting a great fight at $1.30 a day in what are also war emergency conditions dangerous even unto death?
The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, passed by the late government, was another protective measure for the benefit of the grain growers and everybody on the prairies. That also was extended as an emergency act to fishermen. I contended at that time that, whether it was a war or peace economy, we should have included also the industrial worker under that protective statute.
In the past fifteen years I have repeatedly taken part in debates on wheat policies. It will be found by reference to Hansard that in 1924, 1925 and 1926 I called attention to the policy of our friends in Ontario, at a time when the council of agriculture from that province came to Ottawa, and Hon. Mr. Drury declared that the grain growing industry on the prairies was a free trade industry, that protection was an unmitigated evil that should be abolished and had ruined the grain growing industry on the prairies, and that they wanted free trade and the removal of the last vestige of the tariff and a north and south policy. Speaking on May 8, 1924, as reported in Hansard, I predicted that if their policy were carried out, and if, instead of sticking to our best customers and marketing our wheat in Britain and the allied countries, they adopted the free trade policy of hon. gentlemen opposite and of the prairie premiers, the price of wheat would go down to thirty-six cents a bushel, which it did in one critical year during the depression.	-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: They change their policy when it comes to wheat.


Thomas Langton Church: They were everything by fits and starts and nothing long. The policy I have proposed in this house has been a consistent policy. But here we have three measures of protection-the very thing which formerly hon. gentlemen opposite, members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and other groups which formerly sat on our left, so strongly opposed. I may say that I have been a consistent supporter of a
Wheat Board Act

protective policy all along the line for farmers. Agriculture, after all, has been traditionally associated with the Conservative party.
The policy of the Conservative party has always been to aid the farmers and our own work for our own workmen and our own markets for our own products; but hon. gentlemen opposite have made the great mistake of supposing that they could eliminate by a north and south policy the mother country, which is in reality our steadiest and best customer, and that wheat was an east and west policy to the markets of the world. The minister in 1938 and 1939 was going to propose a policy by which Canada would withdraw from the grain growing business altogether and get out of it-at least from the half-baked schemes he had then, and palliatives and other attempted cures. Pie came to adopt protection by means of bonuses, subventions, subsidies, stabilization funds and so on to aid the prairies.
The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) yesterday told us that on one occasion he was present at a meeting in Prince Albert in the Prime Minister's riding when the question was asked him why the government did not give western agriculture fair treatment. I admit that the Minister of Agriculture is a pleasing, hard-working, and, I am told, a very likable person. But what about the visit of the 400 grain-growers to Ottawa two or three weeks ago? Their motto was veni, vidi, vici. They came, they saw, and they conquered. Their slogan was, "On to Ottawa," to get the support of the Minister of Agriculture for an increase in wheat. Well, they did not come in vain, nor did they have to send home that laconic reply, "We regret to report" and so on. Oh, no; the trip was not in vain. Advance was the word. I read in some of the newspapers that the Prime Minister was member for his riding in Saskatchewan only by grace of that province and of the Minister of Agriculture. I do not say that it is true or not, but the soldiers who are only getting the price of a bushel of wheat pleaded in vain for something and did not get any relief for aid to their dependents. The 400 delegates a month ago were outside the hall; someone came out and said that the boys were getting impatient and that the ministers should not keep them waiting, and so the Prime Minister and all the rest went into the hall. I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the government did not walk into the convention hall on stilts, because they practically announced that the application for more money and a shell-out was not going to be granted, although eight members from Saskatchewan, it was reported in the Globe and Mail, threatened to resign unless the request of the delegation was granted.

I contrast that with the form of protection that prevails in connection with another war emergency-man-power as revealed in soldiers at war. Different treatment is given in that case. The regiment of 400 who came here looking for more money for their wheat got it. The price was raised from 70 cents to 90 cents. But the only trouble about this proposal is this, what is the ability of a country at war to pay it? What is the use of all the money that is being spent, the high-priced methods, the big-stick, tighten-your-belts methods that are being put into force in connection with ceilings so far as civilians are concerned, by the wartime prices and trade board and the talk of chairman Gordon? If these three bills go through they will sound the death-knell of all ceilings, because the history of economics and world conditions shows quite clearly that ceilings, to be successful, must apply to every individual and every industry throughout the country fairly, equitably, and on a standard plan. Consider what was said about daily belt-tightening by the great Pooh-Bah of the administration, the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board in the press and over the radio, that board which has its offices spread all over the country, so that no small independent business man can conduct his affairs without being hampered by all sorts of artificial restraints of trade, burdens and barriers. What did that gentleman say? He said, when these three bills were announced, that the consumer would not be interfered with. Because he says so, does not make it so. He acted the part of "me too" to the Minister of Agriculture in trying to persuade the people that the consumer was not affected, that the manufactured products of wheat in bread and flour would not be touched or raised. But these products are affected, the consumer is affected; there is no use denying that. The consumer is affected directly, and pays more because it is the taxpayer, that is to say the consumer, who in the end must pay the taxes of all these increases and boards. That is true under all governments and under all economic laws. In my opinion Mr. Gordon has sounded the death-knell of ceilings in Canada by supporting these three bills, but he has also played the part of life-saver for the government of the day in an endeavour to make that policy more acceptable to the rest of the country, and all these handouts from the consolidated revenue fund.
But there is something else to be taken into consideration. You will have an increase in freight rates. There is an application before the transport commission for an increase. They were to sit in Toronto tomorrow but the meeting has been cancelled.

Wheat Board Act
Consider, moreover, the effect it will have on economic values and cn ceilings in Canada -because the railways are a law to themselves. According to a return I received last year, the Canadian Pacific Railway had made at the close of 1940 $2,750,000 and the Canadian National Railways 12,500,000 out of this war by way of increase in their receipts from this war more than they got in the last war from transport of soldiers, food, grain and munitions and supplies of various war industries across Canada. Why should we have ceilings now for some and not for others? Why should there be an increase in freight rates now? I do not know what the farmers will think about it. I know they will strongly oppose it with a handout to the railways.
I do not see the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) in his place to-day. He is an old friend of mine and the day before yesterday he made a splendid speech in which he set out three essential reasons for this particular pegging. In the first place, he said it was essential that the man who has wheat to sell should receive such a price as would assure him a respectable living. He said that the man with a wheat crop should get a price from the government that would make it possible for him to live decently. That is no doubt true. The second point he made was that the man who cultivates land and who, through an act of providence, receives no return for his labours should be given protection. I presume he means any act of God, such as drought, hail, climatic conditions and so on. His third point was this. He asked, what is the government going to do with the wheat when it is delivered, and where will they sell it or Store it? How much will they pay for storage? These are matters that will be brought out, presumably.
I am opposed to the policy of restricting acreage, because in my opinion it is a great mistake in the present condition of the world to pay for idleness. In a short time you may not be able to find man-power to work the farms of Canada, because the average city man is little or no use on the farm. Any man brought up in the city is only in the way in farm work as a general rale. I suggest that the government should look into the question. In 1938 I urged that this government should establish food reservoirs in England, because I saw the war coming. In January, 1938, the British medical association met in London and it was pointed out then that this wonderful hard wheat and grain grown in the prairie provinces could be stored underground and above ground in reservoirs for ten years and', by reason of sanitary equipment and modern engineering, it would
be almost as good at the end1 of that time as when it was put there. We should have got rid in 1938 of our yearly carryover to Britain.
That surplus should have been moved over there; if it had been it would have done untold good to the old land. A great deal of useful work has been done by the wartime prices and trade board in some ceilings, as I am free to admit, some of which has been most commendable, in protecting the workingman on the necessaries of life. But ceilings can be made effective only if they are of universal application to all callings including farm products. The trouble with the Department of Agriculture as I see it, and the wartime prices and trade board, is that they first get one or two key men from the civil service, not heads of the service. They pick them out all the way down to Nos. 4 and 5, and bring them into the department. Then they put a whole retinue behind them and they start issuing orders. Then they engage two or three professors. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) was quoting a professor, Professor Hope I think. Well, they may have professors "Faith, Hope and Charity, these three," in the agriculture department, but I have never yet known one professor who knew much about modern competitive business; they have had no actual business training in any competitive business. The Department of Finance and other departments are filled with them. During the last centuiy, physics, chemistry and medicine have made great strides and are respected the world over because these sciences deal with facts proven. But these professors of economics who predict what will happen to the grain crop do not argue from facts; they have had no practical experience as dirt farmers. When they report their dicta and opinions to the government, it is always in the realm of doubt opinion, and not worth the paper it is written on as a practical demonstration of what should be done even in the Department of Agriculture.
The price ceiling no doubt in many lines has done a certain amount of good, but unless it is operated along the lines I have indicated as above it will be a failure in time. It cannot be done successfully under rales and regulations that exempt certain callings, as do these bills now under consideration, and railways and agriculture. A real movement against inflation must come from within as well as from without. The evidence taken in Washington the other day before a committee indicated that the best way to combat inflation and rising prices is by producing more, keeping down costs, and by a fiscal policy that
Wheat Board Act

will absorb the excess purchasing power flowing from the treasury. Direct results obtainable from price control are thus limited and precarious, and after the war may lead to economic disaster and ruination to thrift and all business and trade.
Canada must beware of the bureaucrats; we have too many of them; they interfere with business and agriculture and everything, and at the end of the war they will want to continue on forever. Wait till you see. They usurp the functions of parliament and do it over our heads and wre have no control.
On the same day as the announcement of the minister the other day of the order in council increasing the minimum price from 70 to 90 cents, Mr. Gordon of the wartime prices and trade board announced in the press and over the radio that the consumer would be protected. But he is not and cannot be by talk and more advice to tighten belts. These ceilings are only equitable if you have a fair cost. It is the taxpayers, the consumers, who will pay for this bonus; it will come out of the consolidated revenue fund. There should be equality of treatment of agriculture in other provinces, but in Ontario and other provinces they do not get the help the prairies receive, although suffering as much.
The Prime Minister said in 1935 regarding industry that if the manufacturers took the position that with the aid they were getting from the government they could not afford to continue in business under the tariff, the government should step in and operate the plants themselves. Whether or not the government at that time had the right to take over and operate an industrial plant is not the question; to-day under the National Resources Mobilization Act it has the power. I contendi that that should be applied to farmers as well. That war act gives the cabinet authority to require persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of his majesty's government to maintain supplies or services essential to the life of the community. In my opinion there is no difference between the government taking over and operating manufacturing plants and taking over and operating farms. In fact there is much greater reason for taking over farms to maintain the food supply of the nation, a matter of life and death to the civilian population. But so far there has been no proposal by the government to treat farm production in the same manner as the Prime Minister suggested for industrial production in 1935. Instead, there has been a bonus here, a subsidy there, a mark-up there and all kinds of subventions, yet the farmers are still leaving the land. If the government took over and operated the farms they would have a concrete 
demonstration and not the opinion of professors as to how far that policy proposed in 1935 can go. That was the opinion of a great newspaper. If they operated some of the farms that the farmers have said they cannot afford to continue to work it might be possible to make a scientific diagnosis of the whole situation; it might be found that some elements of collective farming could be applied to reduce costs and increase returns.
I wish to refer to the parity question, because that is a great issue in the United States to-day. The government would be well advised to look into it. Mr. Henderson has been appointed administrator at Washington. I refer now to the Monthly Review of the National City bank for February last, a bank which has very large real estate holdings in the farming areas and cities and towns of all Canada. The hon. member for Melfort said he believed that agriculture should receive the cost of production. He said there is a difference between cost of production and parity price, but agriculture is willing to accept cost of production to-day. An amendment was proposed last year by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn), seconded by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), reading as follows, as reported at page 1889 of Hansard of March 26, 1941:
. . . that the government should take immediate steps to create a parity of prices as between agricultural and other products in order to improve the condition of Canadian agriculture and in order that it may receive a just and fair return, and thus be enabled to make that contribution to Canada's war effort which is so desirable, and which our agricultural population so greatly desire to make.
That question of parity was investigated at Washington and the National City bank review refers to the proceedings, pointing out that for many months the upward movement in prices had been led by farm products, and as far as Mr. Henderson's powers are concerned this rise can continue, for he is stopped from placing ceilings on farm products below the highest of certain points, namely, 110 per cent above par for parities on certain commodities of agriculture, that is, a ten per cent increase, parity being the term used to signify the same relation between farm prices and prices of things that farmers buy as existed in 1909-14; the Ocotber 1, 1941, price; the December 15, 1941, price; and the 1919-29 price average.
According to this formula there would be room for advances in a majority of farm commodities, ranging from about ten per cent in cotton to about forty per cent in corn, before ceilings could even be considered. Moreover, no ceilings can be established without Secretary of Agriculture Wickard's approval, and it should be understood that

Wheat Board Act
parity is not static, but moves up as prices of goods farmers buy move up. If these rise, permissible price ceilings also will rise. In the last paragraph reference is made to the veto power given to Secretary of Agriculture Wickard. Hon. members will understand that the secretary has that power. He urges them to be satisfied with parity, ten per cent above par. At the end we find this:
If the rise in farm prices is to be checked short of the permissible ceilings, the soundest way to do it is through increasing production and selling government stocks. Meanwhile the restrictions on farm ceilings constitute one of the two grave weaknesses of the act. The fact that "parity" prices rise with other prices makes the parity formula a perfect device for contributing to the inflationary spiral, and the rise to date in the cost of living, which has been more in food than in other items, is prompting labour to make fresh wage demands. The executive board of the congress of industrial organizations, meeting in New York on the 26th, called on all its affiliated unions to demand substantial wage increases whenever new agreements are negotiated with employers. The danger is that if these increases are granted they will raise prices, farm prices parities and >
permissible ceilings will also rise, the cost of living will advance, and the cycle will be repeated.
According to past experience direct price controls, to the extent permitted by the act, will not be able to deal effectively with an inflationary spiral. The act leaves the real burden upon the treasury and congress, which determine fiscal policy, and upon individuals. There is need for cooperation, restraint, economy, saving and production.
It will be seen, at once that the United States secretary of agriculture there is in control. May I point out that in Canada, with the formation of all these bureaucratic boards which have been set up to regulate industry, trade and commerce, we are facing a staggering debt. No one can tell what they are costing, and if ceilings are applied to only fifty per cent of our war-time economy and war industries, and excluding agriculture and other callings, then I feel that a great mistake has been made, and I fear in the future for the economic safety of the state and its solvency. The ceilings are interfering not only with production and industry but with the proper solution of other industrial and economic problems, and I believe that after the war they will cause untold trouble.
The bill is now before the house for second reading, and I believe I can say truthfully that every citizen in Canada wishes to see agriculture established on a sound basis. There is a very warm feeling in Ontario toward the people of the prairie provinces who have suffered. But let me point out that I believe the farmer in Ontario has suffered nearly as much. Some of the industrial workers have found themselves in very hard circumstances,
and I can say that in many cities of Canada some poor people have not had enough to keep body and soul together. The lot of those who suffer from priorities unemployment is a hard one, and they are out of work.
May I repeat what was said yesterday by the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Clark), that the ceiling prices which have been proposed for tobacco, sugar and other commodities and other crops in Ontario have not been a success. I plead for the old province of Ontario, because it seems to be the forgotten province in the dominion in direct aid to farmers and industry and industrial workers. The two industrial central provinces have suffered most heavily, and they are paying more in taxes and nearly SO per cent of the cash taxes. I say there should be an agricultural policy in these three bills and not a political policy. The people of Ontario, however, are not going to object to the ceiling prices, if they will win the war. They are prepared to make any sacrifice whatever, no matter what the cost is or how drastic, so long as they know they are contributing to the war effort. They will stand for anything to win the war. I do say, however, that some of the orders in council have been drawn up by amateurs and theoretical or academic men, or men who have had no practical experience in any ordinary competitive business practice, and are forced over parliament's head on our employers and employees, and some of these orders in council will not amount to anything to help win the war.


Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) will pardon me if I do not attempt to follow him in his remarks this afternoon. We are now considering the second reading of Bill No. 13, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. This amendment affects only two words, namely that the price shall be changed from seventy cents to ninety cents a bushel, and there is a reference to mills. After the bill receives second reading it will go to the committee on agriculture and, I have no doubt, at that time will receive further review. I am wondering how much time need be taken in consideration of the measure now, when other opportunities are provided for discussion.
In a few remarks I made some time ago in the house I concluded by saying that the people of Canada are prepared to undertake any task the government may set for them. All they ask in return is that the responsibilities and rewards for those tasks may be as equitable as possible. I believe that applies to the people of Canada generally, but I can
Wheat Board Act

assure you, Mr. Speaker, it applies just as strongly among the farming population in Canada as it does among any other group. The farmers are prepared to do their part, and they ask only that they be assured of a reasonable degree of equity.
To my mind the government's programme recognizes the essentials of that degree of equity, and so far as possible there have been honest endeavours to meet it. After listening to the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a few days ago with reference to the unfortunate happenings at Hong Kong, and after seeing to-day's press dispatch from the minister of food supplies in Great Britain announcing that there will be no more white bread served in the old country after April 1, I am wondering whether our difficulties are, after all, so very serious.
Just at this point may I ask one other question-and of course I do not expect an answer. I do not know what the new policy in Great Britain will involve. I hope it does not mean there will be any less foodstuffs for the people over there. I believe, however, that it will mean a higher extraction from wheat, and as a result they may require less wheat from this country or elsewhere to feed their population. In the end it may mean that we have aimed too high in the amount of wheat we may be able to sell outside the country.
In any event, our job as farmers and as Canadians generally is to put our shoulders to the wheel to do our part in every way possible toward prosecuting the war to a successful conclusion. Admittedly there are difficulties in the way, as far as agriculture is concerned. There is no part of Canada's economy as widely diversified as agriculture. This fact comes right back to the doorstep of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and he is obliged to pay attention to every angle of it. He must consider the problems of the fruit growers, the tobacco growers, the sugar beet growers. He must consider the problems of the dairy farmers, the beef cattle producers, the hog raisers, the grain growers and the corn growers. All these different branches of agriculture require attention, and each must be dealt with in some manner. The minister must deal with all of them. I believe he recognizes his responsibility in that direction and has made an honest effort to meet the conditions obtaining in each branch of the industry.
Even in the western provinces there is a wide difference with respect to 'the general situation. A policy that would suit one western province might not be entirely satisfactory to the others. For example, Saskatc'he-

wan obtains about 70 to 75 per cent of its income from the production of wheat; that is its major source of income, and naturally the wheat policy of the country is all-important. In Manitoba the income from wheat is in the neighbourhood of 35 to 40 per cent of the total, so that the part that the price of wheat plays in any agricultural programme is not as important as it would be in Saskatchewan. I point 'this out merely to illustrate the problem which must be met.
Another feature is that western agriculture is tooled up to the production of cereals. Since the war began we have seen the difficulty that this country has experienced in revamping its economy from peace-time to war-time production. One of the greatest difficulties has been in retooling. That difficulty also affects agriculture. It is not easy to swing over to some other type of production. Even if it were possible or desirable to do so, that is one difficulty which must be faced.
I think that in the long run the policy which the Minister of Agriculture has developed during the past number of years will be found to have been generally a sound policy. It may not have been all we would have liked it to be, but I believe that in the years to come as we look back we shall realize that it was a step in the right direction. I think the Minister of Agriculture deserves more credit for his efforts than a good many people have been willing to give him.
There is another angle to the farm situation which should be considered. After all, a farm is not very much different from an ordinary business except that it also provides a home for the man who runs it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That is no different from a small business.


William Gilbert Weir: If my hon. friend will be patient, I was going to show that. A farm requires capital; it requires power, whether from tractors or from horses; it requires labour and it requires markets. But above all, it requires efficient management. Sometimes we do not recognize the importance of these things and the part they play in the general farming set-up throughout Canada. These separate farm units should be considered as little business concerns scattered over western Canada. When we consider that there are some 300,000 of them we realize immediately the importance of the industry to the general economy of this country.
It is regrettable that we should at all times in this bouse picture the least fortunate of our farmers. There are some farmers in western Canada who came through the depression fairly successfully. Why should we not

Wheat Board Act
pick out these men. and show what they have done? I think this should be done to a greater extent than it has been done in the past. The example and experience of these men should be mentioned so that others may profit from their experiences.
So far as western Canada is concerned, the main difficulty has been low yields, coupled, of course, with low prices. No matter in what direction you go you will find that the areas that have suffered from no crops for one reason or another are those that are in difficulties. It could not be otherwise. As long as recurring crop failures occur in any area, that area will be in difficulties, and attempts have to be made to relieve it as much as possible.
I should like to say a word in regard to the measures to be adopted next year for the handling of wheat. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) placed upon the record the estimated carryover of the United States, Canada, Australia. and the Argentine at the end of July next; he gave us a figure of 1,370 million bushels. Canada's part of that carryover is estimated to be about 400 million bushels. I would point out that in this regard Canada's position will be better by about 80 million bushels compared with last year. My view is that we should not deplete our wheat stocks. In other activities in connection with the war we are using up our production just as fast as it can be brought forward. Apparently wheat is the only thing that we can stock as a reserve. It may prove to be one of the best assets we could possibly have, probably the only tangible asset, when this war is over. I think we should attempt to keep a reasonable carryover of grain in this country.
So far as the farmers in my particular locality are concerned, I think I express their views when I say that they would prefer more emphasis placed upon payments on a bushelage rather than on an acreage basis. I do not consider the latter is the most equitable way in which to give assistance. Several areas in southwestern Manitoba have had difficult times for a number of years, although conditions this year are expected to be more favourable. This year, however, the northwestern part of the province has suffered very heavy crop depletions.
Everyone whom I have met lately has considered the acreage bonus scheme a reasonable means of assistance, but they all would like to see it carried out on a more individual basis. They believe that this would be more equitable, that it would give assistance to those who need it most rather than, in a few instances, to those who probably do not need it. Ever since I have been in the house it
has been recognized that the responsibility for taking care of the individual rests with the municipality. It is only when that responsibility reaches a magnitude where it cannot be handled that there is justification for other branches of government stepping in. If there were nothing in the nature of assistance as provided by the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, the responsibility of taking care of those who need it would rest with the municipality or with the provincial government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the constitutional position.


William Gilbert Weir: I would point out that in this measure that position has not been departed from. The farmers in the municipality contribute to the scheme on a bushelage basis, as they would have to do if the municipality had to bear the cost. Likewise, all the farmers in the province contribute to the scheme through the one per cent deduction on the grain they market. Then, if it requires further assistance, the federal government comes into the picture, the difference being that the federal government is behind the guarantee, whereas ordinarily, if the responsibility were left entirely to the municipalities, it would likely not pass beyond them or the provincial government.
If our policy were to place the emphasis on price per bushel rather than upon acreage basis, and recognize it as a contribution from the state, the thirty cents increase in the price per bushel of wheat to the man who has twenty bushels to the acre is equivalent to an acreage bonus of S6 an acre, and if the assistance were simply on a price per bushel basis the farmer who was unfortunate enough to have no crop would be carrying on with little or no assistance. The assistance would be given to the man who was fortunate enough to have a crop. I point this out to establish if I can that the scheme of price per bushel, plus acreage bonus, is a much more equitable basis for giving assistance than a straight bushelage basis alone.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: How about the man who has no crop?


William Gilbert Weir: Under the bushelage assistance alone, even if the price were $2 a bushel, he would get nothing.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Quite so, but what is he going to get now?


William Gilbert Weir: He will get the assistance provided under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the Wheat Acreage Reduction Act.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Provided there is a crop failure in that area.
Wheat Board Act


William Gilbert Weir: Yes, naturally, I join with those who expressed disappointment that the government was unable to go further toward meeting the requests of the very representative delegation from Saskatchewan which met the government in January. I attended some of the meetings while that delegation was here, and I think their presentation was well made and their requests were reasonable. The farmers of Manitoba were not officially a part of that delegation, but I can assure you, sir, they were none the less interested. They did make representations to the government, but they did it through their regularly constituted national organization, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and as between the representations made by the two organizations, the delegation from Saskatchewan and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, there is not sufficient difference to make any distinction.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why not make representations through their members of parliament?


William Gilbert Weir: Very true, and I can assure my hon. friend that they did make representations through their members of parliament.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Which was the most
successful?


William Gilbert Weir: That is a matter of opinion. I would go so far as to say that probably all had a little something to do with it. I am not claiming anything else at this time.


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: A good answer.


William Gilbert Weir: I should like to take a moment to point out what the government has done in recognizing the situation that prevails in western Canada. In the first place we have an increased price per bushel of twenty cents. We have the delivery quota increased by fifty million bushels, and I only hope that the volume which the government plans on shipping abroad can be maintained. We have, in addition, a guaranteed price for flax of $2.25 a bushel. I listened with a great deal of interest to the address made yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris). I think everyone recognizes that when the difficulties developed in the Pacific they threw upon us immediately the problem of producing oils to replace those formerly imported. I commend the government strongly for fixing a guaranteed price for flax, but I submit that they have not been any too generous in that regard. I know that in Manitoba flax is a very hazardous crop to grow and last year very few farmers received a yield or return that was worth while. Probably more should be done, because of the extreme importance of oils to guarantee a substantial supply of flax.

In addition, the government has put a floor price of 60 cents a bushel on barley and a floor of 45 cents a bushel on oats. The government also took steps a few weeks ago to assist the sugar beet producers. Then we have the wheat reduction policy continued on a basis of $2 per acre, coupled with a continuation of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
Therefore on the whole the government has recognized the representations made to it and to a large degree, if not entirely, has met them.
There has been a good deal of discussion as to how much the farmer actually received for his wheat in the past year. The Searle Grain Index has been quoted on many occasions, and I should like to quote this paragraph from its last issue:
It is interesting to note that for this present crop that is now being marketed the farmers, on the average, have received or will receive the equivalent of approximately $1 a bushel for No. 1 northern Fort William. This is made up of 74 cents, the open market value of wheat, and an additional 26 cents given by the government in the form of various acreage bonuses, making $1 in all.
That is the viewpoint of an outsider with respect to what has been done, and the price this year is raised to 90 cents.
I now come to another point. Those who recall the discussion last year will remember that an attempt was made to have an assured income for the three western provinces of
S325,000,000 or thereabouts. Actually their income has turned out to be much higher, nearer to $400,000,000. The Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day intimated that on the basis of the policy for next year the return to the three western provinces would be in the neighbourhood of $475,000,000, plus about $30,000,000 in bonuses. That certainly indicates some improvement, and it is to be hoped that the results will be as he forecast, but again I point out that much depends upon the crop which will be produced, something over which nobody has any control.
A good deal has been said about parity prices. I do not propose to discuss that subject beyond pointing out two or three things. I do not think we can take the position of attempting to establish a parity price for one particular product alone applicable to a large area. In other words, if we are going to emphasize parity prices for the three western provinces, we should take in the general income of the provinces combined. Admittedly that income or estimated income is not up to so-called parity of 1926-29; nevertheless there has been a definite improvement. I have a table here showing the cash income from the sale of farm products dating back to 1926-27. That income

Wheat Board Act
in 1926-27 was $525,000,000; in 1927-28, $571,000,000; in 1928-29, $562,000,000. The estimated income for 1940-41 is $410,000,000, and if what is contemplated under the present programme is carried out and the results are as anticipated, I would think that our income for this year would be substantially improved. Undoubtedly certain areas would suffer, but here again I would point out, on the basis of these same figures, that the income back in 1931-32 was down to $167,000,000. That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the chief difficulties from which the west is suffering-the accumulation of indebtedness, the depletion of live stock, the wearing out of machinery, the lack of paint on buildings, everything connected with a depressed farm income. The correcting of that condition is one of the big problems of western Canada to-day.
If we carry through this idea of parity prices, I think we shall have to recognize at least two and possibly three circumstances connected with it. The first is that it is going to require control. We could not hope to have high wheat prices without some control, when the state is buying the wheat. At the same time, under existing conditions, and probably even under normal conditions, we would have to recognize priorities and the control effected by their use. Does not any attempt to equalize these things largely resolve itself into a question of taxation? I just point that out; I do not at the moment propose to follow it further.
An important feature of the farm situation in the coming year is the prospect of increased costs. Already labour is much scarcer and more expensive than it has been in the past two years. Added to that, the state has intervened in the matter of fuel oils; and those who are in the unfortunate position of having to buy feed grains, even for horse-power, are going to find it much more difficult to secure these essentials. Therefore, while it may appear at the moment that we are getting assistance of some value, there will be other and important offsetting features. Here may I read a letter which was recently addressed to me. If some one wants the name of the writer, I shall give it, but for the moment I wmuld prefer not to:
I saw in Friday's Free Press a report that the freezing of farm labour and a bonus was being considered. If there is any truth in this report, and you have any influence for heaven's sake get on with the freezing part of it and bonus or no, talk about that after. You know of course my own boys are all in the air force and I think I told you I had a good tractor man (medically unfit). Now he tells me that he is going out to Vancouver to take a welding course and make 200 or more dollars per month. You may of course say that this is my worry, but this is what will happen if I can not locate
another good tractor man or a good stock man. I can of course take either end myself but men in either category are just about non-existent. At present the intention is to turn off 100 to 125 hogs per year, 15 or 20 beef cattle, approx. 350 dozen eggs per month and grow 50 acres or more of sugar beets, and grow just whatever wheat the government decides is enough under present conditions. These are not visionary plans. I actually did this in 1941 and have the stock, buildings and equipment to repeat it or better in 1942. But if I lose my tractor man I will have to cut out sugar beets entirely, hogs down to one litter, cattle down to a pair of cows to supply the house and do the best I can with the grain end of it. To say we can use women or school boys is evading the question. There is no doubt we can use this kind of labour at rush times and no doubt will have to but the average woman or school boy could not take a tractor and hook on to a power drill or most other power machinery. This is a resume of my own situation but there is no doubt that it could be multiplied by many thousands throughout the country. It goes without saying that I shall do my best to carry on as I have been, both because the country needs the bacon, beef, eggs and sugar more than grain, and because I think it is the right kind of farming and something I was building up to long before the wheat situation became acute. However the chances of me being able to continue this way are anything but bright.
I point that out as indicating a situation which I fear is going to arise in connection with farm labour not only in the west but all over Canada.
Let me now refer to another matter. There are some brighter spots of which we should, I think, be reminded. We have just had a very successful campaign to raise a war loan; every part of Canada, including the west, has responded well to that appeal. I notice that the municipalities of our province find themselves in a much better position than they have been for some time. I am not saying this to indicate that there are not hardships and misfortunes in many areas in Manitoba, but I point out that there has been and still is an improvement. I hold in my hand a statement which was made by the municipal commissioner of Manitoba, and I should like to read two or three paragraphs. He says:
There has been a reduction in the unmatured capital liabilities of municipalities between 1935 and 1940 of over a million dollars.
At the end of 1935 the municipalities owed for municipal commissioners' levy, including trunk highways, $499,452 while in 1940 it was down to $365,907 and at the present time the arrears, not including the 1941 levy, are less than $200,000.
At the end of 1935 the municipalities owed the government in defaulted debentures, seed grain, fodder, and drainage liability $1,641,419, while in 1940 it had been reduced to $623,957... .
There has been a further improvement in the financial position of rural municipalities in Manitoba at the end of 1940, notwithstanding that assessments continue to decline, being
125S
Wheat Board Act

approximately one million dollars less than in
1939	and some fourteen and a half million dollars less than in 1935.
The taxes levied have increased slightly in
1940	being one hundred thousand dollars more than in 1939, and seven hundred thousand more than in 1935.
Municipal tax arrears are lower in 1940, being forty-two thousand dollars less than in 1939, and two million, one hundred and forty-five thousand dollars less than in 1935.
During 1940 the percentage of collection of taxes, current and arrears, was 96-76 per cent of the current levy, while in 1939 it was 102-15 per cent and in 1935 it was 85-97.
During 1940, of the 169 municipalities under review, 115 operated on a cash basis, as against 109 out of 170 in 1939, and 44 out of 170 in 1935.
I think it is only fair to point out some of these things, as indicating that some improvement is being made, and that, coupled with the programme which the government has announced its intention of carrying through, and provided we get a crop, it should continue in succeeding years.
I reemphasize that the real problem of western Canada to-day turns on the matter of debt. Manitoba is not privileged by having debt adjustment legislation whereby it can adjust many of the cases which should be dealt with. That legislation has been done away with, but I hope it will be renewed, because I believe it is still necessary in many instances. If we consider most of the causes of distress and hardship we shall find that they hinge largely round two things-crop failure and accumulated indebtedness-and these problems have to be faced up to in any programme that may be undertaken.
There is only one other thought which I wish to pass on to the house at the moment. It would appear that we are going to be confronted with restricted markets, particularly for wheat and other cereal grains. Western Canada in the main is geared up to produce cereals, and wheat has proved to be the most satisfactory crop that can be produced there. Experience has been that it will stand more damage, more drought, more hardships than any other crop. If we are not going to be able to produce wheat to the extent that we have, then the situation will have to be faced. I think we should be making plans now to develop some other type of production suitable to that vast area. I do not know what it will be. It may be that we can utilize that area for growing other types of products. At any rate, I submit that there is opportunity there for a very far-reaching and fundamental type of research.
Surely that area is capable of producing something. The sooner, therefore, we try to find out what its possibilities are, the more

satisfactory will the situation become out there. Investigations have been going on in other parts of the world for the purpose of finding new uses for many agricultural products. Surely we can lend our hand in this regard, in some way or another, to see if new uses for products or new types of products cannot be developed for that vast area if it is to be taken out of wheat.


Mr. CARDIFF:: How much has hog production been stepped up in that part of the country?


William Gilbert Weir: I have not the percentage before me, but I can assure my hon. friend that hog production in Saskatchewan, particularly in the last two years has gone ahead by leaps and bounds. It has doubled itself in the last two years and, while Manitoba was always substantially in live stock production, Saskatchewan went out of it for a time because of drought conditions. It is only now getting reestablished, and no doubt it will make further progress along that line.
While many of us would like to have seen the price fixed at $1 a bushel, nevertheless we must be grateful for what we are to receive. We have a 90-cent price together with bonuses, and in the end we may secure out of this something in the neighbourhood of $1 a bushel. After listening to the masterly speech *by the Minister of Agriculture the other evening and his general review of the entire agricultural situation, and what has been done with respect to it by the'government, I do not think anyone can say that the representations by those who came to Ottawa to urge certain things on the government were not given every possible consideration. I do not think anything was left out in the consideration of the different requests that were made on behalf of those who appealed to the government. The government has taken the requests into consideration, and from its general review has undoubtedly come to the decision that the programme which it has placed before parliament is the -best that it can offer under the circumstances which exist at -the present time. The amendment put forward by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) is, I take it, a want of confidence motion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Minister of Agriculture said it was not.


William Gilbert Weir: Well, if the amendment were carried, where would we be? We would be back with the act as it was last year, without any provision having been made to increase the price. I am prepared to say that the programme of the government as outlined and placed before us is a programme which most of us can support and for which we are

Wheat Board Act
grateful. I doubt if any other government or any other political party at this stage in Canada's development, and at this stage of the war, could have done more.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: I have followed very closely the remarks of the ihon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Weir), and I agree with him that often when we have discussed particular cases that exist in western Canada the conclusion is drawn that we are attempting to suggest that those conditions represent the conditions which prevail in every home. That has never been the intention of any who have spoken in this section of the house. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) some time ago visited the farm of the hon. member for Mel-fort (Mr. Wright). He made a flattering reference in the house to the hon. member for Melfort as one of the most prosperous farmers in the west. The house might be interested to know that when the hon. member for Melfort came back from the last war, where he had an enviable record as an officer with the armed forces, he looked over Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the Peace River country carefully and decided that the most promising part of Canada was the Carrot River valley. While this is not in my constituency, I agree that it is one of the finest areas anywhere in the dominion. The hon. member for Melfort has had the good fortune to have an average yield of over thirty bushels an acre for his wheat for twenty years in succession.


Mr. GRAYDON:: He knows how to farm.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, and he has good land and good judgment. If every farmer had been able to get thirty bushels an acre by working hard on good land, we would have different problems to face to-day, but we would not have solved them. The hon. member for Macdonald indicated that the drought areas had been largely responsible for our predicament, but if we had had bumper crops during those years, the problem now confronting us with surpluses would have arrived some time ago. While there are many people in parts of Saskatchewan who have had good crops and have been able to pay their taxes, it is fair to consider the average farm income in a province and compare the return with the income of other groups and to decide whether those who are producing agricultural products are getting a fair share of the national income.
I have been disturbed by references made by some members, in private conversation, to the problem that we are now discussing. It has been suggested that those of us who speak on this subject are whiners, that we
could not be satisfied under any circumstances. One hon. member said last night that he had been here a great many years and had heard the same old story over and over again and would listen no longer. I submit that my duty as a member is to sit in as one of a group of 245 charged with the responsibility of looking after a rather large family of over eleven million people. Whether we like it or not, we are living in a society and not in a jungle, and we must have controls and plans for the activities of our people, so that we can give direction along certain lines. I would remind the house that we have a problem in western Canada, and I think it is fair to say that the agricultural problems all across the country have never received the consideration that they deserve from the parliaments of the dominion. Particularly at the present time the wheat problem so far has not received in this house the consideration it should receive.
The recent victory loan campaign gives material for careful consideration. The Department of Finance, which is charged with the business of getting money to run the war and carry on the business of the country, has to get the money where the money is. I think we all agree that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) is doing a very good job according to the rules laid down by the government. In planning to float this loan he asked the people in my province to raise $8,000,000 and the people in the city of Toronto to raise S180.000.000. The population of Saskatchewan, according to the last census, is 888,747. The population of Toronto, according to the preliminary report, is 657,612. The Minister of Finance asked the people of Saskatchewan to raise $10 per person to help win the war, while the people in Toronto were asked to raise over $273 per capita. Hon. members will say that a great deal of the money in Toronto represents the accumulations of corporations carrying on business all over the country, and some of this money is trust money. But the fact remains that this money is spent under the direction of people residing in Toronto, and it is clear that these large sums available there for investment in victory bonds were not available in the prairie provinces during recent years. There is something wrong with our economy when such a large group of people are recognized as being able to contribute so little. No one has ever suggested that the people living in Saskatchewan are less patriotic, less willing to contribute in any way possible than those elsewhere.
Nothing would please me better than to be able to return to my constituency during the
Wheat Board Act

Easter recess and assure the people there that the burdens of this war are being carried as fairly as possible by all groups in the country, but how can I do so when over 800,000 people are found to be in a position to contribute only $10 each, whereas the position of people in Toronto is so very different? The government at this time should see to it that all groups in the country are called upon to make real sacrifices. In checking over our income tax legislation I learn that the Minister of Finance feels that he has gone about as far as he can in boosting the rates on people in the higher income brackets. Do hon. members realize that after having imposed the heaviest income taxes ever known in Canada, by legislation based on the assumption that provincial governments would withdraw from the field, those in the higher income brackets still have a very substantial sum left after paying the taxes, as shown by the following figures based on 1941 rates:
Income	Tax Remainder Per day
$ 20,000	
$ 9,105	$10,895	$ 3050.000	
28,392	21,608	7275.000	
45.887	24,113	80100.000	
64.347	35,653	105200.000	
143,795	56.205	187500.000	
411,720	88,280	294
The amounts per day are calculated for our convenience on the basis of six days a week and fifty weeks in the year, or three hundred days. These figures are for a single person without dependents.
The people in these groups are those who have something at stake in this war in which our democratic institutions are being challenged and I submit they have not commenced to	make	sacrifices while	they are
left with the daily incomes indicated.
It has been suggested that we in the west are like poor relations, always coming to the treasury and saying, gimme, gimme, gimme. Let me remind the house that it is not a new condition in Canada for poor people to come asking the government for help. Many years ago	the	poor	manufacturers inCanada found themselves competing in a ruthless	world with	more	powerfulgroups in	the	United	States	prepared
to flood their markets and force down prices. So these poor manufacturers came to the rulers of that day and said, "we want help." And they got it. They got lots of it, and as one hon. member reminds me they have had it ever since. Let me refer the house to the information that the late Norman Rogers placed before the people of Canada, showing what tariff costs in 1931 amounted to. He showed that every province with the exception of Ontario and Quebec suffered a substantial loss by reason of the tariff. The figures he gave were as follows:
CMr. Nicholson.]
Per capita
Province	loss
Prince Edward Island	
$17	88Nova Scotia	
12	28New Brunswick	
11	67Manitoba	
13	25Saskatchewan	
28	16Alberta	
26	93British Columbia	
22	33
Whereas in Ontario the per capita gain was $15.15 and in Quebec, $11.03.
He also showed that the people of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta in the year 1931 paid $86,323,421 more for what they bought than they would have paid but for the tariff. Is it not then clear that the government of that day, in imposing such a burden on a group of people to give to another group, were following a policy of helping poor people?
I wish all hon. members had been in the Chateau Laurier the other day to hear the presentation made to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and members of the cabinet by the delegation from western Canada. I think all hon. members have received a copy of the brief presented, and j hope they have digested carefully the representations made. As far as I know, the reports given by a dozen representative members of that delegation have not been made public. I was particularly interested in the presentation made by the mayor of Moose Jaw. He showed that this is not a problem affecting only a few farmers in an isolated part of Canada, but one that affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. He referred to book II of the Sirois commission report, page 100, containing the following statement:
The people of Saskatchewan have suffered a reduction in income during the last decade which has probably been unparalleled in peace time in any other civilized country.
His worship quite rightly said that this statement covers a great deal of territory and a long period of time. He said it was significant that the mayors of the three largest cities in Saskatchewan were here supporting that delegation. They were here because they realized that if this problem was not solved, we were not going to have any cities. One hon. member with whom I discussed this question last night said it would be a good thing for all the people in Saskatchewan to leave and go somewhere else. He said he would not take $10,000 a year to live there. I asked where they should go. Starting with Toronto, I said, "How many will you take in Toronto?" He replied, "Oh, we cannot take any in Toronto; we have all we can look after; we do not want

Wheat Board Act
any." We have over eight hundred thousand people in Saskatchewan, so let us start with one group of one thousand people. In the House of Commons there are 245 members. Is there one member of parliament who will say, '"All right, I will welcome a thousand people from Saskatchewan to my constituency, and they will be able to find work on the farms, in the factories or in the stores. They will find places to live, and they will become self-supporting citizens"? Where is that member? I say you cannot move a group of eight hundred thousand people simply by snapping a finger, and you cannot dismiss this problem in such an easy way.
Coming back to the delegation, let me refer to the presentation made by the reeve of a rural municipality. This man went to that community thirty years ago. He was young, and looked forward to spending the best years of his lifetime in producing necessary commodities-food for the nation. I know that this man has an enviable record in this community, and that he is one of the best citizens to be found anywhere in Canada. He said, "We owe our municipal doctor $6,000"-and I am Speaking from memory when I mention that figure. They would not have had a doctor in that community, I suppose, had it not been for the fact that the people collectively had guaranteed that the doctor would have a proper return. But can we expect a young doctor to have his salary $6 ,000 in arrears over an extended period, when there is a scarcity of doctors all across Canada? Then, he said, "We owe $6,000 to the sanatoria in our province." As hon. members understand, our provincial sanatoria are supported chiefly from municipal revenues. This particular municipality had not been able to collect its taxes, and therefore had not been able to discharge its responsibility to the sanitaria. They cannot run indefinitely on good will; they must have money to pay their staff and buy their goods. This municipality was in a position similar to that of a great many others, namely, that it was unable to meet its commitments. He said, "We owe our teachers a large sum of money, and teachers cannot live without having some financial return, no matter how much they are concerned about the educational needs of the community. And so the teachers are going to Ontario."
The next speaker was a Roman Catholic priest, who came with the delegation. He said he had been the parish priest for twelve years in the parish in which he was born. He was in a position to deal with the direct relationship between the economic security of the people, and the providing of spiritual
needs in his community. He said, "Think of my position: blessing twelve marriages in the last twelve years-only one per year. Young people growing up cannot take the responsibility of establishing homes under prevailing economic conditions. We are now in the position where we have more funerals than christenings."
Another member of the delegation was a United Church minister from Saskatchewan. He told us that he is now serving a community which was formerly served by five United Church ministers. It is unnecessary to deal with the social problems which arise, when the chief organizations in western Canada are unable to maintain their services, and have to withdraw.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They have a bad enough time right in Ontario.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have no doubt they have; but I do not believe there is any part of Canada where the condition is as bad as it is in the west.	[DOT]
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has suggested that all the money that can be found in Canada for agriculture is being spent. I would remind the house that early in the war the Prime Minister said that whatever is physically possible will be made financially possible, or words to that effect. Those sentiments were endorsed by the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) who was then Minister of Finance, and by the present Minister of Finance. That is the only policy that any government should carry out-that whatever is physically possible will be made financially possible.


Mr. GARDINER:: I think I made use of
the words "all that can be safely taken."


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: All right-"all that can be safely taken." Well, I hope the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) is not proceeding on that basis. I hope he is proceeding on the basis that every factory which can work will work, and that every material that is needed will be made.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: And that
everybody will pay for it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I would hope that the Minister of National Defence is proceeding in [DOT]the same way, and that he does not stop to see what the railway fare from Edmonton to Ottawa is. I would hope that he would not waste time to see whether we can spend the money to bring men in the army from Edmonton to Vancouver, or from Saskatoon to Halifax. I hope that we have reached the stage where we are not considering dollars and cents in that manner.
Wheat Board Act

I should like to remind the house that the Minister of Munitions and Supply is spending money very freely-and I am not complaining about that. The evidence he placed before the house last year shewed us that his department spent over $10,000,000 in providing capital establishment for the Alberta Nitrogen company; $11,000,000 for the Canadian Car and Foundry company; $14,000,000 for the Chemical Construction company of Niagara Falls; $10,000,000 for D.I.L. at Nobel; over $15,000,000 for D.I.L. at Ste. Therese, province of Quebec; $17,500,000 for the John Inglis company at Toronto; nearly $2,000,000 for the Ford Motor company; about $11,000,000 for the Otis-Fensom company, and over $14,000,000 for Sorel Industries Limited, along with a great many other items, bringing a total of $268,499,894.
Those figures were given nearly a year ago. Let me make it clear that I am not complaining about the sums of money the Minister of Munitions and Supply has spent, and I hope that every factory will be working to capacity.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, before six o'clock I was discussing the activities of the Department of Munitions and Supply and the various departments of national defence. I was commending those departments for carrying out the stated desire of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to use whatever money was necessary to see that Canada should make her greatest contribution.
I want to stress the fact that I am anxious that the government should avoid any policy which would lead to inflation, but I do not see how anyone can suggest that the introducing of parity prices for agricultural products could, by any stretch of the imagination, lead to inflation. Something should be said about this question of parity prices. In the United States in 1936 the soil conservation and domestic allotment act laid down these general objectives:
. . . reestablishment, at as rapid a rate as the secretary of agriculture determines to be practicable and in the general public interest, of the ratio between the purchasing power of the net income per person on farms and that of the income per person not on farms that prevailed during the five-year period August, 1909-July, 1914, inclusive.
The present secretary of agriculture of the United States spoke over the air on May 19, 1941, in connection with the regular farm and hour broadcast from Kansas city. He was

appealing to the people to give their go-ahead signal to the United States department of agriculture to carry out their plans for the coming year. I may say that on May 19 the secretary of agriculture was outlining the wheat policy for the 1942 year, while we find ourselves on March 12 debating our policy. It might be stated that the policy outlined in the United States included the fall seeding of wheat. Mr. Wickard went on to say in this broadcast:
As you all know, parity is one of the most important objectives of the national farm programmes and will continue to be a goal, just as soil conservation, for example, will continue to be a goal. We've been trying to reach that parity goal since 1933 and we've made a lot of progress.
This administration developed the parity concept and the president has worked for it all along. Had it not been for such setbacks as the supreme court decision which killed the original Triple-A, farmers probably would have had parity long ago. The president is still working for parity and in this connection, I have some grand news. I talked to the president only a few hours before I left Washington. He told me he wants the basic crops to reach parity this year. He told me also that he thinks wheat farmers, taking loans and payments into account, will get parity on this year's crop.
This news is further proof-although none is needed-that Franklin D. Roosevelt is the best friend that farmers have ever had in the White House.
The president told me that he knew farmers want fair treatment and want to be fair in return. He said he was sure they did not want loans or money paid out of the treasury to bring their prices higher than parity levels. He told me-and I use his exact words-"In this critical time, you can depend on it that farmers won': rock the boat."
It is unfortunate that Canada has no policy similar to the one in force in the United States, and I shall have more to say about this later.
To explain it simply, a parity price for farm products is a price that will enable the farmer to buy in the market an amount of goods similar to what he was able to buy during a basic period. There is always difficulty in deciding what the basic period shall be. In the United States they have taken the period 1909-14 as the base period. There would be objection to taking a similar period in Canada in view of the fact that at that time we were passing through a period of unusual expansion. Great numbers of people were coming to Canada from Europe; great numbers of United States citizens were coming north to take advantage of our cheap land. No doubt there would be objections in certain sections of the community to taking 1917-1919 as the base period. During that short time agricultural

Wheat Board Act
prices were at the highest levels in Canadian history. So our bureau of statistics has taken 1926 as the base period.
I am not prepared to admit that there ever has been a period when the farmer has had a fair share of the national income, keeping in mind his investment in land and equipment and providing a rate of wages for the farmer and his family in connection with the production of foodstuffs. For example, if you assume that the price the farmer paid in 1926 for a pair of shoes was $5, and the price he received for a bushel of wheat was $1, he was able to get a pair of shoes for five bushels of wheat. If you agree that that is a fair price for wheat and a fair price for shoes, you can start from that base. But when the farmer has to give ten bushels of wheat to buy the same pair of shoes, you must assume that there is something wrong with the price of your wheat or with the price of your shoes.
The most recent information available in Canada in connection with spreads was that placed before the Stevens' investigation, and I should like to draw attention to some of this interesting information. Those hon. members who use tobacco will be interested in knowing where their money goes when it goes up in smoke. My Scottish environment and tradition would not permit me to pay so much for so little. So I have never smoked. Those who paid twenty-five cents for a package of cigarettes in 1934 gave 11T cents to the government in the form of taxes; seven cents to the manufacturer; 3-3 cents to the retailer and 2-2 cents to the wholesaler. The farmer received 1-4 cents. When you bought a tin of peas you gave the farmer 1-2 cents; you gave the worker in the canning factory 0-75 cents and you paid 2-4 cents for the tin can which was later thrown out on the garbage heap. When you bought a tin of tomatoes you gave the farmer slightly more, 1-5 cents; you gave the worker 1-2 cents, and for the larger can you paid 3 cents.


Mr. TUSTIN:: From where is the hon. member getting his figures?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: From the report of the mass buying and price spreads investigation. When you paid 10 cents for a quart of milk you paid the farmer 4-24 cents, but you paid the dairy company enough to replace broken bottles, pay for delivery services, income tax and operating expenses and leave a net profit of one-half cent per quart. These figures show the relationship between the return received by the farmer for these commodities, and the amount which went to the other interested parties.
We find a similar story in connection with farm implements. I have in my hand a report submitted to the legislature of Saskatchewan by a special committee, upon which the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Graham) played an important part. When the farmer paid $281 in 1936 for a binder in Regina he gave to the factory worker S22.62; he paid for raw materials $71.06; for overhead or burden, $33.93; for experimental work, $2.55, or a total cost of $130.16. The freight charges were $26.08, and the net sales realization amounted to $209.42. If you agree that the price paid by a farmer for a binder in 1913 was fair, you must conclude that the price he paid in 1940 was too high. In 1913 the farmer secured a binder for 261 bushels of wheat; in 1940 it took 637 bushels to buy the same or a similar binder. The objective of parity prices is to bring about such a price for wheat that the farmer can buy a binder in 1942 or 1941 or 1940 for the same number of bushels that it took to buy the same or a similar binder in 1926. I would ask the house, is there anything unfair about that? The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) has gone on record repeatedly that it is unreasonable to ask any manufacturer to manufacture at a loss, and I have yet to hear anyone tell of a manufacturer of machine guns or tanks or munitions or any other war equipment who is losing money. The farmers are engaged in the production of food to feed our own people and allied peoples of the world. Is it fair that those who are engaged in this necessary activity should have a return for their services that is not on a parity with the return that is going to these other groups of society?
Coming now to more controversial issues, I was disappointed with some of the statements made the other night by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). There are some things about the minister which I admire. When the government is in an awkward position there is no one on the other side who can rally the troops and make as good a case as the Minister of Agriculture. Referring the other night to the treatment we are giving our farmers he reprimanded the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Douglas) for suggesting that we should take pride in which is being done across the line and suggested that we take more pride in what is being done in Canada. He is reported at page 1210 of Hansard of March 10 as saying:
When a man cuts down his acreage to the extent that the government says he ought to, they will lend him 98 cents a bushel on his wheat. They have made loans covering considerable amounts which I have in the records here. But if he does not cut down his acreage in accordance with their request, they will lend him only 49 cents on his wheat. In other words, in the United States they lend a man twice
Wheat Board Act

as much on his wheat if he obeys the request of the government than if he does not. It is true that this has tended to set a floor under wheat of 98 cents a bushel in the United States provided the farmer does what the government asked him to do.
On the next page he says:
I should like to suggest to hon. members that I think it would be much better if we all went out and told the people what we are doing in Canada instead of telling them what they are doing in the United States. Despite what they are doing in the United States, the farmers of Canada have really been getting more for their wheat than the farmers in the Argentine and Australia. Of course, there are reasons for that.
What is the situation? I have here the report of the administrator of the agricultural adjustment administration, the AAA, in the United States for 1941. I wish the minister would use statistics instead of making general statements as he did the other night when he said that Canadian farmers are getting more for their wheat than the farmers of the Argentine and Australia. I inquired, how much more, but the minister carefully refrained from giving figures. I quote from page 20 of the report of the administrator of the AAA:
Canada alone had enough wheat to fill all available world import markets. Altogether, the world had 4 bushels of wheat for sale for every bushel the market would take. The price offered the export producers was correspondingly depressed and not far from the record-breaking low quoted on the Liverpool market just before it closed at the outbreak of war in 1939.
He is discussing the general situation. He goes on:
In Argentina, all buying and selling of wheat was taken over by the government, and producers were offered the equivalent of from 42 to 45 cents a bushel.
That is not so much less than Canadians are getting.
Australia instituted a licence system which required wheat farmers to obtain a permit to grow wheat and the government offered the producers about 51 cents a bushel on a limited production.
The United States programme, however, stands out in at least two respects. First, farmers were called upon through referendums and elections of committeemen who administer the programme, to share in the responsibility for choosing their course of action. Second, farmers cooperating in the programme received a return per bushel twice that received by producers in the other countries.
The report goes on:
This progress of the United States wheat grower was possible only because of the experience of years, experience that formed the background for the comprehensive ever-normal granary programme which has been in operation since 1939.

Then, under the heading of "Guaranteed Return" the report says:
The 1941 loan rate of 98 cents a bushel plus the conservation and parity payments of 18 cents a bushel on a farm's normal yield of wheat is providing the programme cooperator a guaranteed average return of about $1.16 per bushel.
Since its inception, the loan programme has encouraged farmers to make use of farm storage where feasible.
The other night when the minister was speaking I interrupted and asked him, as reported at page 1210 of Hansard: /
What percentage of United States farmers cooperated ?
As I heard him he replied: "Not a very large percentage," but on thinking this over apparently he considered that that would be an unfair picture of what had been done an the United States and I find that although the Hansard reporter heard the minister as I did, the daily Hansard has been changed so that it reads:
Not a large percentage cooperated by accepting loans.
I should like the house to understand the situation. In the United States it was not possible for the government to accept all the wheat that might be grown. The Minister of Agriculture, speaking of what was done in Canada, said, as reported at page 1210 of Hansard:
We said to the farmer last year that if he did not reduce his wheat acreage, he could draw 70 cents a bushel, Fort William, or approximately 50 cents a bushel at the farm on his wheat, just one cent more than he could have drawn in the United States if he had done the same thing.
We did not say any such thing to the farmer. We said: we are not going to take more than 230 million bushels, and you will have to reduce your acreage to conform to that. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) last year said something to the effect that he was "not going to pay any attention to what the government suggests because over a period of years" he had "come to the conclusion that if you do what you think is best you will be better off." I suppose he will be able to market all he produced last year. But I submit that it is not fair; those who cooperated with the government in this country expected that the government would accept 230 million bushels, and for the minister to state that the farmers were given to understand that they could sell all the wheat they produced at 70 cents a bushel is misleading. The United States is in the same predicament. They cannot accept unlimited supplies of wheat, and so they said to their farmers:

Wheat Board, Act
If you will cooperate, we will make certam proposals. It was unfair of the minister to give the impression in the house that only a very small percentage of farmers in the United States cooperated with their government. I understand that 80 per cent of the farmers there cooperated in carrying out the request of the AAA to reduce their acreage and carry out the desires of the department. They had a loan in the United States which made it possible for the farmer to realize 98 cents a bushel, and as the minister correctly said, there was a heavy penalty for those who insisted on delivering above their quota. That penalty was 49 cents a bushel, but the report makes it clear that that penalty was not with a view to collecting revenue but for the purpose of seeing that the quota was lived up to and respected.
The United States farmers have been able to get a loan of 98 cents a bushel on the farm, and naturally when they can get that, the market price has to keep in that range. A great many farmers sold their wheat at the regular price, which was around this figure. I have some of the latest available figures here in reports from Washington, which I found in the library in the minister's own department. The latest report I have deals with the price of wheat in Canada, the United States, the Argentine and Australia. The average price on the 24th of October in the United States, at Buffalo, was S1.23J; at Montreal, 78-8 cents; at Buenos Aires, 54-2 cents; in Australia, 69-4 cents. It is explained that to get the average farm price you subtract from the United States price 30 cents, from the Canadian price 28 cents, from the Argentine price 13 cents, and from the Australian price 10 cents, which makes the average farm prices as follow: United States, 93 cents; Canada, 50-8 cents; Argentina, 41-2 cents; Australia, 59-4 cents.
Another Washington publication, "Crops and Markets", gives the average farm prices in 1941 in all the states. The figures given for the west north central area will be of interest; they are: Minnesota, 87 cents; Iowa, 98 cents; Missouri, SI; North Dakota, 81 cents; South Dakota, 85 cents; Nebraska, 97 cents; Kansas, 96 cents; or an average price to the farmer of 89-7 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend would permit me I should like to make this correction of those figures, that I believe it will be found that as regards both the Argentine and at least half the amount the government assisted in Australia, payment was made on a bushelage basis, but any extra payments which were made here w'ere made on an acreage basis, and they do not appear in that figure for Canada at all.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am glad the minister mentioned that, because it gives me an opportunity of saying that in the United States they had an additional payment of 18 cents a bushel, bringing the price up to $1.16. What the minister says is true.


Mr. WOOD:: Would the hon. member permit me to ask him a question?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sorry, but I have only a few moments.


George Ernest Wood: I think we should get this
clear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Parent: The hon. member's time
has expired.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should be glad to
answer the . hon. member's question if I can have the extra time.


Georges Parent: I would remind the hon. member that his time has expired, and that unless he has the unanimous consent of the house he cannot continue. He has gone over his time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) :	Mr. Speaker, I intend to make my
remarks at this time more or less of a general nature. I believe that the time for going into details on these various bills will be when they come back from the agriculture committee. Before I begin my remarks I would express the hope that, before the debate on agriculture with particular regard to our western farmers is concluded, we shall have the opinions of one western member, in particular, expressed in this debate. My reference is to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I may sit on the opposite side of the house from him, but back in Saskatchewan we are next-door neighbours. I know parts of the Prime Minister's riding almost as well as I know my own; I know the feeling of the farmers there, and I believe I am correct in stating that the farmers in his constituency are anxiously waiting for a declaration of their own member's views upon this agricultural policy.
The things I should like to mention specifically to-night seem to me important, and I do not think any hon. member has expressed them so far in this debate. I suppose that all hon. members who represent agricultural ridings, indeed every member of the house, will agree upon the importance of food production as a weapon of war. I was pleased at the reference in the speech from the throne

Wheat Board Act

to the matter of food as a war essential, and later, at a statement made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). On February 10, as reported in Hansard at page 448, he said:
So that, put in briefest form, our pattern of total war is a pattern consisting of food-


Georges Parent: Order. Do I understand that the hon. member is quoting from a speech made during the present session?


Mrs. NIELSEN:: Yes.


Georges Parent: She is not in order.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I had forgotten that rule. In brief, the Minister of National Defence was saying that there are three essential things in our war effort-food, armaments and supplies, and men. He added that it was impossible for him to say which of the three is the most important. It has been necessary-at least, I have found it so-to disagree with some government policies, but I have already assured the government this session that any specific measure they bring in which in my belief will really aid in the efficient and speedy prosecution of the war will receive my wholehearted support, both here and among the people of my constituency. I have already expressed that opinion with reference to the plebiscite.
But when we come to consider the agricultural policy as set out in these bills, I find it impassible to see that it will serve for the speedy prosecution of the war. I hope hon. members will realize that at a time like this there is no question, with me, of criticizing for the sake of criticism or for party advantage. In a time of national emergency no such consideration should motivate what any hon. member has to say with regard to government legislation.
The thing I particularly wish to mention is the question of wheat production by the bonusing of summer-fallow, which means, of course, the letting of land lie idle. I am forced to the conclusion that the policy of the government in bonusing summer-fallow is incorrect, because it is based upon an incorrect premise. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) has said already this session, in substance, that as far as markets go we can only look this coming year to Great Britain and, to a limited extent, a few other countries. I recall also that at the beginning of the July war loan the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), when speaking about it to groups in this city-I believe, at one of the largest theatres in Ottawa-is reported as having said that we have to regard this war as lasting possibly five or more than five years longer. That, I assume, is the premise upon which the agricultural policy

of this government is based, that we have yet before us a war of many, many years. In my view that premise is incorrect. It seems to me that it is one which is bound to result in complacency among the Canadian people, creating in them the feeling, "Oh, well, we have years and years ahead of us; we can more or less muddle along from year to year with policies which will tide us over from time to time", instead of realizing that at the present time we have come to the crucial stage of the war where we need to mobilize for speedy victory; for "if it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly."
There is at the present time a growing body of opinion in England, the United States and this country that if we are intent upon a very thorough prosecution of the war and a very thorough mobilization of our resources, we can create an offensive and go forward to speedy victory. I notice in our own newspapers in this city, to be exact, in the Ottawa Citizen of March 10, a report from London, England, as follows:
Soviet pressure for a second front in northern Europe which might swiftly link British, United States anil Russian troops on a solid line was increasing in London to-night with considerable Anglo-American support. The Soviet argument heard now wherever Russians, British and Americans meet, is that Hitler can be beaten by autumn provided there is bold use of his own divide and conquer strategy against him, and that once he is disposed of Japan will be considerably less formidable to the United Nations.
There was also in to-day's Journal, March 12, another report saying that in Free Europe, an international review which is published in London, the statement appears:
An allied spring offensive in the west should have a good chance for success since the forces now concentrated in the British isles presumably are stronger than those the Germans have arrayed from Norway to the Spanish frontier.
Our own Prime Minister, when speaking over the air the other night, and thanking the Canadian people for their contributions to the war loan, said:
The present is the crucial year. Germany and Japan are staking everything on 1942.
I myself am apt to believe that it is necessary for us to encourage the people of Canada to act upon that premise, that were we to concentrate to a far greater degree than we are, and to which I believe we could concentrate, victory might come far more speedily than we have been anticipating. The longer we delay; the longer we fail to take the initiative, the longer it seems to me we are going to be and the worse our position is likely to become. Our forces are becoming divided and dissipated because we are in the position of

Wheat Board Act
having to defend ourselves wherever the enemy creates a new offensive. It is a wrong idea for the people of this country to believe that time is necessarily on our side. At the present time every preparation should be made for greater expediency, with a view to strengthening every nerve and every particle of our resources to bring victory this year.
One of our own men, a man in whom I believe everyone in Canada has the greatest confidence, General McNaughton, was also quoted in the Citizen of yesterday as saying that the united nations will let no opportunity slip by to take the offensive against the axis. He said:
We must resist the temptation to whitewash our forces all over the map. . . . We have never lost our intention of training our forces for attack in Europe.
Of course, we know that the Pacific situation is a ghastly one. No one is attempting to hide that fact. But I want to stress at this time that that is a part of the deliberate plan of our enemies, to distract our attention throughout the whole of the globe, if it is possible to do so. But we must never allow them for one moment to cloud or to blot out in our minds the certain knowledge that Germany is to-day the key centre of the whole world war, that in Germany the master minds and master brains who are concentrating on the world war are situated. Not only that, but in the Europe which Hitler is now dominating lies the bread-basket, the food supplies, of the whole enemy armies. Germany to-day is staking everything on 1942. Whether they and
the Japanese between them will stage new offensives in the spring is, of course, a matter of conjecture, but it is, I believe, something with which every citizen is vitally concerned and believes is likely to happen. If it is possible, we of the allies have to make 1942 the crucial year and strike before the enemy strikes, to create diversions for the enemy and scatter his troops throughout the length and breadth of the continent of Europe.
We must do what we can to encroach upon the bread-basket of the axis. In that way we shall take the offensive of 1942, and 1942 will bring victory nearer for us. If we could do that; if we could by invasion of the continent destroy some of the seeded acreage which Hitler this year is counting upon for the feeding of his armies and those vast numbers of civilians whom he has under his control, then it seems to me we would bring the conclusion of the war so much closer.
The other day I was inquiring from the dominion bureau of statistics to see if I could find out the amount of wheat which was consumed in Europe just before the war started, and I was given figures for the year 1938-39. I do not know whether other members are like myself, but when I have a number of figures read to me quickly I find it difficult to absorb them and to see their relationship. I do not want to read over the figures of production and consumption of wheat in every country in Europe, 'but I should like to have these figures placed on Hansard because they are interesting and I believe they help to prove my argument. They are as follows:
In the fiscal year 1938-9, wheat figures for the following countries are, in bushels:
Production	Consumption
Russia			900,000,000* 64.900.000 121.500.000 85.900.000 54.200.000 75,400,000f 8,100,000 156.400.000 273.800.000 20.500.000 7,000,000 10,000,000
Hungary	 Roumania			
Yugoslavia	
Bulgaria	
Poland	
Lithuania	
Turkey	
Great Britain and Northern Ireland	
Eire	Latvia	
Finland	
Sweden	Greece	Switzerland	Czechoslovakia	Denmark	Norway	
Italy	9,600,000Germany, including Austria	
France	73,200,000tEsthonia	
Portugal	
Spain	2,800,000 18,500,000 123,000,000*
Wheat Board, Act


James Garfield Gardiner: That will produce more wheat.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: I believe in building up a reserve, the need for which may come upon us far more quickly than some of us are apt to think. Within the wheat belt in which the land can be used only for the growing of wheat I do not think we should bonus this year for summer-fallow, but the wheat farmers there should grow wheat on their land, except the amount of summer-fallow which they would normally have in the ordinary course of good farming. With regard to the marginal lands to the north of the real wheat belt, there the farmers should be encouraged to go in for raising coarse grains to provide other types of food which will also be so greater needed. I am in complete agreement with the government in regard to bonusing for coarse grains, provided, of course, there is a parity price. But the money which will, if these bills pass, go towards bonusing land for summer-fallow could be used more effectively in helping the smaller farmers to produce coarse grains by subsidizing or helping them to procure machinery for the more efficient working of those small farms. The Minister of Agriculture knows, as we all know, that during the years of drought and depression machinery on the smaller farms has run down; we have all been in the fields and seen the old binders mended with a bent nail or tied up with string and that sort of thing. The smaller farmers have not efficient machinery. Some form of government bonus by way of supplying or helping to increase the machinery at the disposal of the small farmers so that they could produce coarse grains on a more economic basis would be money well spent. I am not saying that machinery should be supplied on an individual basis. It might be better that in those northern areas groups of these small farmers should try to work on a cooperative basis, if the government would help to supply cooperative units with power machinery for the more efficient production of coarse grains.
I had hoped also that the government would have considered and given to us in greater detail some plan for increasing industry in the prairie provinces. Speaking on an earlier occasion, I mentioned the problem of wool. None of the ministers have given us much
44561-Sli
information on that, but it does appear that in it we have an industry which, if given some encouragement by the government, might become a permanent one on the prairies and help to solve not only the problems of some of our farmers but also the problem of the unemployed in our cities.
The question of utilizing more fully this year the garden produce may seem rather a small thing, but were the government to help small cooperative canning centres for the fruits and vegetables produced on the prairies it would be a very great help, giving our prairie people an opportunity to do something more than they are at present doing. It seems an appalling thing, when you consider that to-day we are supposed to be waging a total war, to know that we still have so many unemployed. I know men can go and earn fifteen dollars a month working on the farms in northern Saskatchewan, but still there are unemployed in the cities. In the Regina Leader-Post of February 17, Mayor C. C. Williams, who, I believe, is one of those who came here on the farm delegation, is reported as stating that Regina still has one of the largest unemployment problems in the west. He said that there are on relief in Regina approximately 2,400 persons, 565 heads of families, and in addition many others whcv could be classed as unemployed, such as persons making a meagre living at part-time work. Others are getting by through exhausting the last of their small savings, and still others are able to stay off relief only by living with friends and relatives. ,
No government is waging total war unless it is making an honest attempt to find ways and means of putting to work every man and woman who is capable of working at some form of productive enterprise which will aid the efforts of this country.
With regard to prices, I feel that more must be said in detail in committee; but I am in agreement that this question of parity prices must be looked at as a war measure, if not as a permanent one. Personally I believe that it should be a permanent policy; but even as a war measure it is something that should be considered necessary, because without parity prices the farmers of this country cannot equip themselves for the production of food on an economic basis, or for the greater production of food which may be necessary as time goes on. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has spoken about morale. This session he said that there should be a place for the old, the young, the humble and the poor. One of the greatest factors in arousing a nation to a war effort is the morale of its people; that statement has
Wheat Board Act

been made a dozen times in this house. In the winning of a war morale is a psychological factor, the value of which cannot be estimated in dollars and cents. It is true that the young and the old, 'the humble and the poor, must have a place in the war effort of this nation, those who look into the future with their young eyes and the old who look over the past years of their endeavour. We have these people out there on the prairies, and at the present time they do not feel that they are being given a chance to do anything toward this effort. I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot afford to neglect these people, for it is out of such as they that the spirit of a nation is bom and progresses.
It is the duty of a government to keep alight in the hearts of the people of Canada a flame of resolve to win this war. You cannot stop to count the cost of preserving a thing like the spirit of a nation. The policy of the government to-day in denying a parity price for wheat and other farm products I would say is a penny-wise and poundloolish policy. On the smaller farms in Saskatchewan to-day, unfortunately, you have a defeatist attitude. You may hear the people, speaking among themselves, saying to each other, "How much worse could it be under Hitler?" VTou may hear them say to each other, "We are undernourished; we are ill-clad; we lack medical care and schooling; we cannot support our churches." If you turn round and say to them, "Well, you have democracy; you can still speak; you can still send delegations to Ottawa," they will turn to you in great bitterness and say, "Yes, we have democracy. We sent our delegation to Ottawa. We asked for a loaf of bread, and the government has given us a dry crust."
This is a very difficult problem. The farmers of the prairies will go on, because they are of the breed who will not admit defeat. They will endure. They will go out into the spring rains; they will plough the fields; they will go out in the heat and the dust of summer. They will produce; but they lack the machinery; they lack the barn space; they lack the power they require on these small farms. They will do their best; but they will do it with a feeling of despair in their hearts; and when there is bitterness, despair and unhappiness, and lack of morale, these are the things which can sabotage a war effort, no matter what the government may say.
Because of these things I shall support the amendment which has been moved by the hon. [DOT]member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas). It is the job of the government to provide the sinews of war. Parity prices, such as were outlined in the brief brought here by the farmers

of Saskatchewan, are necessary to provide the sinews of war and to make it possible for our farm people to give of their best in this war effort. Food is a sinew of war. I should1 like to remind this government that if they fail any section of our Canadian people to-day, they fail the whole nation in its hour of peril, and they fail the allies to whom they have pledged a total war effort.


Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, the government have a tremendous problem. They are carrying an enormous load, and in my judgment they are making a very good job of it. I was impressed yesterday when I listened to the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Clark) deal with the problems which face the farmers of his district. As he delivered his address I could not help but think what a task the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) must have. The hon. member said, as reported at page 1233 of Hansard:
At the outset I want to say that neither the rural districts nor the members from Ontario are antagonistic to the welfare or well-being of the people of western Canada. We may disagree with certain policies put forth by the government; we may disagree with the way in which they are applied and the extent to which they go, but we are really interested in their problems and hope that they will appreciate ours.
I want to say to the hon. member for Essex South that this appreciation is fully reciprocated. Two or three years ago I had the privilege of visiting the home of the hon. member, just at the time he was planting his tobacco. It was a surprise to me to learn the amount of work connected with the growing of tobacco. He had a plumber repairing the pipelines and heating plant; he had men putting new glass in his hothouses, he detailed to me the enormous amount of expensive work that was entailed in the production of tobacco. Ever since then I have felt that perhaps there were other agricultural problems in Canada in addition to the growing of wheat. Then yesterday the hon. member, speaking of the sugar beet industry, went on to say, as reported at page 1233:
We have factories which have been operating for some twenty years, and under the present price scale only ten per cent of the contracts have been signed.
I should think that was a pretty serious situation for the growers of sugar beets. Then he went on:
Contrast that with the wheat situation. Every table in Canada is affected by the shortage of sugar. We have a large surplus of wffieat, and I am glad of that, but we are now going to pay the wheat growers another bonus of $56,000,000.

Wheat Board Act
A little further on he said:
... it is difficult for me to go back and ask that same farmer to contribute to a bonus to the western wheat grower to the amount of $56,000,000.
Surely that should suggest to all of us what a job it must be to be Minister of Agriculture in Canada. I have often stated my belief that Canada is the most difficult country in the world to govern. When we consider the wide diversifications that exist, climatic and otherwise, we cannot help but be impressed with the responsibility that rests upon a minister of agriculture in times like these.
Until the day before yesterday I had no intention whatever of taking part in this debate; indeed I did not decide to- do so until I heard the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), that Lochinvar from the west. I should like to quote from the remarks he made the other day in order that the house may appreciate fully just what a wonderful member we have representing the constituency of Qu'Appelle and just why I am replying. Here is what he said, as reported on page 1171 of Hansard:
On many occasions I have gone on record in this house, and I think it is well understood just where I stand. I think I can say that my position is such that I have been the greatest champion-
Listen to this. He is some man!
-of the producers of western Canada in this house. For fourteen consecutive sessions I have been a greater champion than any other member from western Canada.
The Wizard of Oz was as nothing compared with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I think I have heard every speech the hon. member has delivered in this house in the last six years.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That would be enlightening.


William John Ward: Yes, quite so. My mind went back to when I used to read Hansard, so I called a page and sent him to the library for all the Hansards from 1931 to 1935 inclusive in which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle had made any statement whatsoever in support of agriculture. I have them all here. I want to say at the outset that I am going to be absolutely fair with the hon. member. I am not going to omit a single speech or item of his in support of western agriculture. Speaking during the debate on the address on April 13, 1931, the hon. member said, as reported at page 574 of Hansard:
My next suggestion may be considered a little drastic, but I offer it by way of immediate relief. I think a suggestion that the 1930 crop be subsidized has been made by one hon. member on this side of the house. I do not intend to go that far, but I think the 1930 crop should be subsidized to the extent of the government
paying the freight on all grain sold since the price dropped below 70 cents per bushel. That subsidization would involve only about 50 per cent of the crop, as considerable of the crop was shipped during last September, October and November before the price got below 70 cents per bushel. This would not involve the expenditure entailed in pegging the price at 70 cents per bushel.
I hope the house will keep in mind the fact that he was opposing a price of 70 cents a bushel at that time.


Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: The freight on top of that.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman has the floor and interruptions are not in order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Just a minute.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order.


Thomas Vien: Order. When the Speaker stands hon. members should sit down. Furthermore, the hon. member for Dauphin has the floor and under the rules there should be no interruption.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Thomas Vien: Order, please.. Under the rules of the house no interruption! is permissible except by leave of the hon. member who has the floor. The Speaker is the servant of the house and must apply the rules because he is the depository of the honour, authority and good behaviour of the house. I should like hon. gentlemen to observe the rules because the Speaker, as the servant of the house, must see to it that the rules which are the command of the house are observed.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Vien: Order,	ptease.
The hon. gentleman is out of order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order.


Thomas Vien: Order,	please.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order.


Thomas Vien: Order, please. I hope I shall not have-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order.


Thomas Vien: Order, please. I hope I shall not have to name the hon. gentleman.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Vien: Order,	please.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker-
Wheat Board Act


Thomas Vien: Order, please. Is there any point of order?


Richard Burpee Hanson: You will
not let us state it.


Thomas Vien: Order, please.
The hon. member for Dauphin has the floor. No one, except by leave of the hon. gentleman, has the right to interrupt him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the
point of order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order.


Thomas Vien: Order, please.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Generally speaking, Your Honour is quite correct, but the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) rose to a point of order.


Thomas Vien: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes,
he did.


Thomas Vien: There is no
point of order before the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Your
Honour would not let him state it.


Thomas Vien: Order, please.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You would not let him state it.


Thomas Vien: There is no
point of order before the Chair.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Go ahead and run the
government; it is quite all right; we are satisfied; go ahead.


William John Ward: I was about to point out
that at the time the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was speaking, the price of wheat was 36i cents a bushel to the farmer in his own province.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: He wanted 70 cents.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the freight.


William John Ward: I shall read his statement
again for the benefit of the hon. member for Waterloo South.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Keep it right.


William John Ward: He said:
This would not involve the expenditure entailed in pegging the price at 70 cents per bushel, which has been requested generally by the farmers of western Canada.
He said that that proposal would not involve that expenditure, and that year the price of wheat was 36| cents a bushel. We shall now see what he said in 1932. On February 17, 1932, the then member for Assiniboia, Mr. Robert McKenzie-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: St. Patrick's day.
 '


Thomas Vien: Order please.
I shall have to name the hon. gentleman. I hope the hon. gentleman understands parliamentary good manners.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The Speaker and I are getting along very well.


Thomas Vien: Please!


William John Ward: The then member for Assiniboia moved a resolution. It will be recalled that this was the year following the introduction of the five cent bonus on wheat. The resolution read:
Whereas the policy of extending federal assistance to western farmers on a bushel basis rather than on an acreage basis has worked out most unfairly and unjustly to the residents of those districts suffering from failure or near failure of crop,
And whereas a largely signed petition and memorandum has been presented to the government by the secretary of Saskatchewan association of rural municipalities, praying for additional legislation to partially remedy the situation that exists,
Therefore be it resolved: that, in the opinion of this house the government should give immediate consideration to a more equitable and less discriminatory solution of this problem.
In that year a man in the district which I have the honour to represent had a crop running fifty-two bushels to the acre, and he received a bonus of $2.60 per acre. Others of my neighbours had crops running forty and forty-five bushels to the acre. At that time I happened to be president of United Farmers of Manitoba, and my work took me through the southwestern part of Manitoba, where owing to drought wheat yields were as low as 8 bushels per acre.
The then hon. member for Kindersley, Mr. Carmichael, speaking in that debate said, as reported at page 292 of Hansard, of February 17, 1932:
Mr. Speaker, the resolution now before the house says that the act passed last year has worked out most unfairly and unjustly. I rather agree with that statement. In fact I heard the opinion expressed in different parts of my constituency that the act was a very good fulfilment of the Scripture: "Whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which [DOT]be seemeth to have."
He went on to say that he had received a number of resolutions from farmers' organizations and quoted this one as,typical of many:
Whereas the farmers in the dried-out areas are not receiving any of the five cent bonus, and
Whereas the seed wheat provided by the government will cost the said farmers five cents above market price,
Be it resolved that we petition the government to grant one dollar per acre on all acreage seeded in 1931, less the bonus already paid.
May I pause to remind those who did not know the then hon. member for Kindersley

Wheat Board Act
that if he did not follow along traditional party lines, his feelings were in sympathy more with the Conservative party. But he was an Independent, pretty much in the same position as my hon. friends in the southeast comer.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You cannot call them
Conservatives, can you?


William John Ward: The hon. member must judge for himself.
I come again to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). Speaking in that same debate, he said at the very outset, as reported at page 298 of Hansard of February 17, 1932:
I suppose it is hard for some hon. gentlemen opposite to give this government credit for anything, no matter what it has done.
How reminiscent of my hon. friend and his colleague the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Ernest Edward Perley: You ought to have heard
what they were saying on this side of the house then.


William John Ward: The hon. member was the
government's expert on wheat economy, and further on in his remarks he said:
Think what it would mean to the whole of Canada if for the next two years or so there was a normal crop in western Canada. It is quite possible if we have normal climatic conditions next year in the three prairie provinces there should be a production for export of about 500,000,000 bushels of wheat.
He had big ideas. Do you know how much was exported that year, Mr. Speaker? The amount exported was 186,000,000 bushels.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Who was the
expert that prophesied 500,000,000?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The hon. member for
Moose Jaw.


William John Ward: It was the hon. member for
Qu'Appelle. Further on he said:
A crop yield of 500,000,000 bushels for export might easily mean an earning of between $50,000,000 and $60,000,000 for our railways.
How solicitous he was for the railways just then. He went on:
Undoubtedly the morale of the western farmers has been put to a very severe test during the last two or three years, but our flag is not at half mast and the people out there are prepared to carry on and do their best. They are facing the coming season with a spirit of confidence, optimism, courage and fortitude.
Wheat was selling at 30 cents a bushel to the farmer in Saskatchewan the day he was speaking.


Ernest Edward Perley: Who was responsible for that?


William John Ward: The hon. gentleman's party had been in office for two years.


Ernest Edward Perley: Read Mr. Dunning's May budget.


William John Ward: The hon. member for
Qu'Appelle went on to say:
.	.	. after the experience of the last three
years I am sure they are prepared to go forward and do better.
They did, in 1935. They had profited by their experience. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle went on:
There is no way in which a government could invest a few million dollars to better advantage than by assisting the farmers in some way either through a bonus or by whatever means may be adopted.
At least 90 per cent of the people intend to repay their debt.
Of course they did, if they had anything to pay it with. He concluded his remarks with these words:
I am willing to leave the matter with the government in the belief that they will do what they think best.
I hope hon. members have closely followed these remarks because they do not sound very much like the young Lochinvar who started out to address the house in this debate the other day. Here is what he said in 1932, on February 17, as reported at page 300 of Hansard:
I am willing to leave the matter with the government in the belief that they will do what they think best. . . .
I believe the Prime Minister knows just as much as or more than any other hon. member in this house about western conditions.


Ernest Edward Perley: So he did.


William John Ward: He went on:
He realizes, as I fully realize, the important position the western provinces hold and the outstanding part they will play in bringing back to normal the state of Canadian economic conditions. We all realize the part the western provinces will play in balancing our trade and furnishing exports. With these thoughts in mind I am sure the Prime Minister wants' and intends to do the right thing, and I am prepared to leave the matter with the government and to support whatever measures they may consider right and proper.
He was ready then, to support any measure. He went on:
I trust the great' majority of the people of Canada, and in the west particularly, are prepared to leave the matter there.
That is the only suggestion he had to make-this man who did more for western agriculture than any other man who came out of the westl When this young Lochinvar was speaking in the house the other day my mind went back to men like Hon. Mr. Motherwell, Hon. Charles Dunning, Hon.
Wheat Board Act

Robert Weir and some private members of the house like Robert Gardiner, George Coote, Alfred Speakman, Ted Garland, J. L. Brown and others who have spent their lives in building up western agriculture and have supported the principle of cooperation throughout and all legislation for the betterment of the western farmer.
Then, speaking in the budget debate on March 31, 1933, as reported at page 3584 of Hansard, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said:
In the budget brought down by the Prime Minister, then acting as Minister of Finance, in the session of 1931, the bonus of five cents a bushel for wheat-
That is the very maximum-he could not go beyond five cents a bushel.
-was granted to the western farmer. I am particularly interested in that bonus as I was the first member of this house to move on the floor of this chamber for such a bonus to agriculture.
What an accomplishment! I am sure there nust be thousands of monuments built on .he farms of western Canada to commemorate the action of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle in proposing this great and wonderful assistance to western agriculture. He went on:
I did so on April 13, previous to the bringing-down of that budget. When that proposal was brought down in the budget hon. members of the opposition, particularly those from the west, opposed it strenuously. But under that bonus, Mr. Speaker, the government has paid out some $12,000,000 to the people of the western provinces.
Further on in the same speech he said, as reported at page 3585 of Hansard:
The exports of bacon-
He was talking of bacon now, instead of wheat.
The exports of bacon for the first two months of 1931 amounted to only 120,000 pounds; for the first two months of 1933, they had increased to 4,264,624 pounds.
That was the third year in which his government had been in office.


Ernest Edward Perley: The present minister is following along the same lines.


Georges Parent: I would draw attention to the fact that when an hon. member is speaking he should not be interrupted.


Ernest Edward Perley: For the balance of his speech he might give some of his own material.


John Gordon Ross: You can't take your own.


Georges Parent: Order. The hon. member has the floor. He can make his own speech.


Ernest Edward Perley: He is not making his own speech.


William John Ward: I will give one further reference to the hon. member's speech. He said, as reported at page 3584:
In the first short session in 1930 two measures were introduced, the first granting $20,000,000 for unemployment relief, and the other dealing with some two hundred odd items in the tariff, being those items which the Prime Minister and his government believed would do most to correct the adverse trade balance at that time. I may say that that increase in the tariff had the desired result.
You bet it had, because I looked up the record to-day from the statistics branch and found that our external trade dropped over half a -billion dollars in the twenty-four months that the then government had been in office. So assuredly it had its effect.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The trade of the whole world had dropped.


An hon. MEMBER:: Bennett was the cause of it.


William John Ward: We come now to 1934. It is getting better all the time! On February 8, 1934, the hon. member, speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, said, as reported at page 373 of Hansard of that year:
Let us now take the exports of wheat. During the period in which the opposition held office there was an abnormal increase in production, and exports did not keep pace with that increase. We find that in 1922 our exports of wheat from Canada amounted to 185,000,000 bushels and in 1930 the total was 186,000,000 bushels.
I do not know how he expected to make a handle out of that, but he does refer to it. The next place in Hansard where he refers to wheat is at page 375:
The question of the wheat agreement is vital to western Canada at the present time and I feel that this matter should be thoroughly discussed. The other day the Prime Minister outlined the whole situation with respect to the circumstances leading up to the wheat agreement, and it w'ould be presumption on my part to go into it in fuller detail than he did.
A little further on he says:
The exporting countries undertook that there should be a fifteen per cent reduction in acreage or production.
He does not say so, but I imagine he is referring to the international gathering which took place in 1934.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Not such a bad one, either.


William John Ward: However, it will be seen that at that time the government were considering some measure of reducing wheat acreage, but no reduction took place. The present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) undertook just about a year ago to reduce wheat acreage

Wheat Board Act
in this country in a practical way, with the result that it was cut by seven million acres in one year.


Ernest Edward Perley: Mr. Speaker, would you allow me one question? In that same speech -if you will read it-I think I suggested how to control production and delivery to the market, on the basis of so many bushels per acre on the seeded acreage, the possible exports, and everything; then, issue the quota. That is the first time that a quota basis of delivery was ever suggested in this house.


William John Ward: I was coming to that. I was going to give the hon. member credit for having suggested something in the nature of a quota. But the point I wish to make is that apparently all his efforts had no effect on his own government. His party was then in power. It is easy to talk when you are in opposition. I think we can excuse the hon. member for not having too much influence with the government in office to-day, but he had five years in which to work, and the price of wheat in those years, from 1931 to 1935, was, on the average, 4(R cents a bushel net to the farmer. During all that time nothing was effected but the five cents a bushel, and that lasted for just one year. A little later in the same speech the hon. member said:
But the farmers are very much concerned as to how they are to proceed to bring about the fifteen per cent reduction. I am farming on a considerable scale myself and I am concerned about it.
He then goes on to suggest something in the nature of a bonus, but nothing more came of it. It is merely an empty suggestion that gets nowhere.
We come now to 1935. One would have thought that at that time, obviously the last year his government was likely to be in office, something would have been done. In his first reference to wheat he complained bitterly of Hon. W. R. Motherwell. He said he thought that Mr. Motherwell had gone out and won an election in Saskatchewan on dollar wheat, "Vote for Motherwell and dollar wheat". He complained a second time that the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) won an election by telling the people that dollar wheat would provide a surplus for a rainy day.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Did they get it?


John Gordon Ross: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: When?


John Gordon Ross: In 1936-37.


Ernest Edward Perley: That makes the minister laugh.


William John Ward: I mention these matters, Mr. Speaker, not particularly for the benefit of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, but to refresh our memories as to what consideration was given to wheat during those five years when the present opposition was in office and when the average price to the farmer was 40J cents a bushel. At one time wheat was selling in my own constituency for twenty-one cents a bushel. These are matters in which I think we should be interested, in the light of the attitude taken by hon. members like the hon. member for Qu'Appelle in relation to the measure which is now before the house, and which I intend to support. I support it not because I think ninety cents is enough-it is not sufficient, I know, on my own farm-but in the light of conditions generally. I support heartily the continuation of the bonus principle. It is the only way to deal with that great semi-arid area of western Canada. I am grateful for what we have got; it means ninety cents plus the bonus.
I should now like to turn my attention to another quarter of the house. We have heard a good deal during the present session-and it is time someone said something in rebuttal-regarding the organized industrial workers of this country. Not long ago I visited one of our largest industrial plants, in which several thousand people work. As I walked through the plant, the first thing which impressed me was the small number of persons doing technical work. I saw very few jobs which I myself, were I twenty years younger, could not have done after two hours' training. As I walked through this steel plant, I inquired as to the class of material they were turning out, and the last question I would ask these young men I talked to was, "What do they pay you for this job?" From the first group I received the answer, "seven dollars for a day of eight hours, seven days a week;" and when I got to the other end of the line I found that the men there were getting eleven dollars a day. I began to scratch my head and wonder why in the world I was wasting my time as a member of parliament.
Within two weeks of the time I was there, the same crowd went on strike for higher pay. I was not very happy about it because I thought there was surely something wrong. So I sent to the bureau of statistics for some figures in order that I might draw a comparison between the earnings of these men and the earnings of farmers, the work being very similar. This is what I got. The average farm in Canada has a value of $7,202, equipped with live stock to the value of $746, and the average value of implements and other equipment is $893, making a total of $8,841. Then I inquired

Wheat Board Act

how many men were employed on the average farm in Canada and I was told, 1-2 on the average, with the operator, or a little more than two men on each farm in Canada. With all the bonuses added last year, the average gross earnings of our farms in Canada was SI,139. Take these same plants that I was in where men were working, without responsibility and without any investment; and they were earning just under $2,000-$1,960 a year. The question I ask myself is this: Is there growing up in this country a new racket? In days gone by, we spoke of the banking racket and there was the manufacturers' racket.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Not manufacturing.


William John Ward: Under the shadow of protection we referred to them as racketeers.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You were entirely wrong.


William John Ward: Then there was the steel racket, in connection with which great bonuses of many millions were paid out to the steel interests. Of late years, however, since this government of ours has been in power, what with taxation, the conscription of wealth idea, and so on, we do not hear more about these racketeers. The government has them pretty well cornered. I was in company with a group of industrialists a short time ago, and one smilingly said, "The day of the rich man has gone; the government has caught up with us." "Thank God," I said. But I am wondering whether there is not a new racket in Canada. We have heard a great deal from the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) with regard to Kirkland Lake. The other day I sent to the bureau of statistics for a statement of average wages-not salaries-paid to Kirkland Lake miners, and I would pause here to remind the house that the men engaged in those mines are not men who in the main have invested money in education. That may be their misfortune, but they have not.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Are you saying they are stupid?


William John Ward: Not at all. I am not saying that. Those men are quite intelligent. But the point I am making is that they have not invested a lot of money in education, and they have no investment in any other form. Yet they get $1,745 a year, whereas the average farmer in Canada, with an investment of $8,841, with the help of a hired man, to whom he pays $477 a year-and taking the -2 extra, it brings the total farm wages up to $572-[DOT] receives for himself $567, and out of that he has to pay municipal taxes amounting to $80.40, fire insurance $18, life insurance, if he has any, $30, and has to provide general sup-

port for his family and pay doctors' bills, dentists, education and provide food and clothing and care generally for his family and take care of his buildings and machinery. All that he has to accomplish with $567, while we pay these racketeers, the workers in the large industries of the country, from $1,500 to $2,000 though they have neither investment nor responsibility.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That is an unfair statement.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do you call the workers racketeers?


William John Ward: I sent to the bureau of statistics the other day to get figures for some specific plants in Canada and they telephoned saying they could not give them to me, but they did give me the average wage in all the primary steel industries of the country. There were sixty-five, and the average wage is $1,580, from the boy who sweeps the floor right up. The wage scale is $1,580. In other words, they get nearly $400 a year more than the farmer receives for an investment of nearly $9,000, and he has the help of a hired man and his family. That is what the farmer gets for the whole year. I mention these matters in order to point out that we have devoted entirely too much consideration to the people who have a guarantee in the form of a good job. What better guarantee could any man have than a job paying $2,000 or even $1,500 when he has no responsibility and no investment.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Is that the enunciation of the Liberal policy?


William John Ward: I am speaking only for
myself.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Thank God for that.


William John Ward: I was at Niagara Falls less than a year ago and I found there they were building the great international bridge. I inquired what wages the men were getting and I was told they were getting $1.50 an hour and working ten hours a day. That meant they were getting $15 a day. Two weeks after I was there they went on strike for $1.65 an hour and they got it. It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, we are developing a new form of autocracy in this country.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


William John Ward: Yes.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Has the hon. gentleman any idea how many bridges per annum these men work on?


William John Ward: No, I have not, and perhaps there may be something in what the hon.

Wheat Board Act
member has interjected. But the point is that there is plenty of steel work all over Canada.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You fellows have been bridging things so many years you do not understand any more.


William John Ward: I contend', however, there is a serious disparity between the earnings of our farmers and the wages paid to organized industrial workers of the country.
I wish to thank the house for its patience with me and particularly the member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), but I am sure he will not again tell us that he was the only champion, or at least the greatest champion, of agricultural interests from the west during those years to which he referred, because had he been the magician he would have us believe he was, surely he could have impressed his great leader; the then Minister of Agriculture from that province, the late Hon. Robert Weir, and some of the other members of the government, to do something for agriculture during those four or five terrible years.
There was a great deal in what the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir) said this afternoon, that the problem of the west is the problem of the backlog of debt piled up during those years. I operate a three-quarter section farm, some of the richest perhaps in all Canada. For two years, 1931 and 1932, I had to go to other sources to obtain $1,000 to meet the bare running expenses of my farm. Why? Because I was selling wheat and other products at prices too far below the cost of production. I am not blaming the then government entirely for that; I know there was a depression, but I do criticize the complete failure of that government to do anything practical until just before their dying day to assist western agriculture. We all like the hon. member for Qu'Appelle; we like to hear him talk, but it is not very consistent for him now to accuse this government of failing western agriculture because it is not fixing the price at a dollar a bushel when he himself and his colleagues of that day left the farmers of the west for nearly five years selling their wheat at forty cents a bushel.


Mr. A. H. BENCE (Saskatoon City):: The subject of wheat, its production, and the price obtained for it, deserves the serious and closest attention of this house; for there is in fact hardly a constituency represented here which is not either directly or indirectly affected thereby. I am particularly concerned and the constituency from which I come is particularly concerned with this problem. Although that constituency is largely urban, nevertheless it comes within that great triangle described
by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) the other day, and mentioned by so many speakers since, in which it is difficult to grow anything in volume except wheat. I am not a farmer and do not purport to be an expert in such matters, nevertheless there are one or two suggestions which I should like to place before this house because I believe them to be pertinent at this time.
First, with respect to the Minister of Agriculture I do not propose to lavish fulsome praise upon him, nor am I going to search for language with which to call him names and at the same time keep within parliamentary limits, because to my mind neither is useful or necessary, particularly at a time as serious as this through which we are now going.
Someone suggested the other day the possibility of fighting a Saskatchewan provincial election on the floor of this house. We recently had the spectacle of some by-elections being fought on the floor of this house, when certain hon. members expressed! opinions obviously deliberately intended for consumption in other parts of the country. In my opinion the course of conduct adopted at that time was not calculated to raise either this house or this government in the esteem of the people of the country.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Or the opposition.


Alfred Henry Bence: I would ask the hon. member for Fraser Valley to stop chattering when I am endeavouring to make a speech.


George Alexander Cruickshank: "Endeavouring" is right.


Alfred Henry Bence: The hon. member is continually interrupting speakers in this house. He interrupted me the last time I spoke. I had good reason to interrupt him when he spent twenty minutes in indulging in a diatribe. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to stop his interruptions. I do not mind intelligent interruptions, but I object to the chattering from that corner of the house.
The problems confronting us are, I suggest, far too serious to allow time for the luxury of political jockeying within the confines of this chamber. With all due respect I warn my friends and colleagues from Saskatchewan that the people of that province do not want wheat to be made a political football. The livelihood and the well-being of the people of that province and other provinces transcend political considerations. We from the province of Saskatchewan must be very careful to see that political considerations and political harangues do not prevent us from getting that equality and justice which we believe are, in the words of the Prime Minister, the rightful heritage of all. I regard with the
Wheat Board Act

gravest suspicion, any attempt by any political party to use as a vehicle for attempted political success the great agricultural organizations of this country. I hope that such attempts will be resisted by these agricultural organizations, because if they are not the usefulness of those organizations will be drastically reduced.
I listened with some dismay the other day to the attack made by the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) upon the wheat pool, because it seemed to me that by that attack he was opening up an issue andl focusing political attention upon a great and useful agricultural organization which is composed of men of all shades of political thought, and which should be so composed if it is to be of use to Saskatchewan and to Canada.
With respect to the Minister of Agriculture I have this to say: the minister in my opinion always knows what he is talking about. When we ask him a question he knows the answer, with very few exceptions, even if sometimes he does not give us the whole of it. He knows about wheat and wheat problems. I am going to repeat a suggestion which I made here last year and which has been made on many occasions, that is that he should be given the whole problem to handle, including the setting of the price and determining the advance and questions relating to it which are now dealt with by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). I have the greatest respect for the Minister of Trade and Commerce both inside and outside this house. He has demonstrated his ability as a negotiator, but in my opinion he does not know a great deal about the wheat problem. That is only natural, because he has not had the background of experience which is necessary to know the problem thoroughly.
A few years ago I understand consideration was given to the question of transferring that phase of the work of the Department of Trade and Commerce, when Mr. Euler was the minister in charge, to the Department of Agriculture. At that time, according to the information I obtained in the press-because I was not a member of this house and did not have access to the exact information-the suggestion was opposed by the then Minister of Trade and Commerce. But I do believe that at this time the present minister would be very glad to be relieved of the embarrassment of looking after this particular' phase of the problem. At the same time the people of Saskatchewan, who are particularly and vitally interested, would prefer to have one figure on which to focus their attention, because, after all, as I imagine the Minister of Agriculture

remembers only too well, occasions do arise when particular problems come up in connection with the matter of wheat and the minister has sometimes said, "Well, I am the minister from Saskatchewan, it is quite true, but this matter is handled by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce." It seems to me that every one would be far better satisfied if one man had charge of it, one man who would be in a position to answer all our questions in connection with this particular subject.
I am not satisfied with 90-cent wheat, Mr Speaker, and I fail to see how any hon. member coming from an agricultural constituency of western Canada could be satisfied with it. Nevertheless it is a decided improvement. It is an improvement of 20 cents per bushel for the amount of wheat that is going to be taken, which amount, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated, is limited. Consequently there will be a decided improvement in the ability of the western wheat farmer to carry on. It is somewhat fallacious to be continually referring to 90-cent wheat. I know that most members of this house recognize the fact that actually it is not 90-cent wheat, but it seems to me that that fact should be impressed upon hon. members continually in dealing with this question, in order that they may deal with it intelligently. We know that 90-cent wheat means approximately 65 to 70 cents on the prairies. Last year when the price was 70 cents, No. 1, Fort William, it actually brought only 45 to 50 cents for No. 1 and No. 2 northern. I believe we should impress that upon our minds, for unless we do we shall not be in a position to determine exactly what it means to the western farmer and exactly what he is obtaining for his product.
To my mind a great deal of the credit for the improved situation as far as the wheat farmer is concerned must go to that great delegation of western farmers and business men who came to this city a short time ago and presented a most capable and most reasonably framed brief to the government, in which they requested an initial payment of $1 a bushel as an absolute minimum. They set the initial payment at $1, not because it was a parity price either on the basis of the 1913-14 parity or the 1926-29 parity; they did so because they recognized the fact that this country is passing through very tiying times; because they realized that we were in a life and death struggle, and because they knew the exigencies of the situation. But that initial price or advance of $1 was, I submit, the absolute minimum which, after very careful study and research, they felt was required to permit them to carry on under existing conditions. It was

Wheat Board Act
not-and I want to emphasize this point-a basis for bargaining; it was a minimum. I was surprised to hear the Minister of Agriculture offer the suggestion on Tuesday evening that the delegation did not expect to get the $1 initial advance. That is contrary to the statement issued by the head of the pool and the head of the delegation, Mr. J. H. Wesson, after the 90-cent policy was announced. According to the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of March 7, he said:
If a situation has developed under which western members have thought it necessary to compromise there will be genuine regret amongst the members cf the delegation and the 185,000 people who signed the farm petition.
Then he referred to the fact that three years ago the initial price was set at sixty cents and subsequently raised to seventy cents, and expressed the hope that after this matter had received the consideration of the house and the agriculture committee, in view of the reasonableness of their presentation and the logic of their arguments, the House of Commons and the government would see fit to raise the price to that minimum initial payment of $1.
There is one point about this whole matter which I should like to emphasize because to my mind it goes to the whole root of the problem. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated that the wheat board will buy only that amount of wheat which it expects to be able to dispose of during the coming crop year.


James Angus MacKinnon: Oh, no.


Alfred Henry Bence: The minister says that statement is not true. My statement was that the minister said the amount of 280,000,000 bushels was the amount which they expected to be able to dispose of during the coming crop year. Now that the minister has contradicted me, I would refer to his own words.


James Angus MacKinnon: If I may interrupt the hon. member, he said we were only taking what we expected to be able to sell.


Alfred Henry Bence: That was my statement.


James Angus MacKinnon: The statement was that we are taking 280,000,000 bushels of wheat definitely, whether or not we sell that amount. We arrived at that figure by estimating what we might be able to sell.


Alfred Henry Bence: I quite agree. I do not think there is any difference between the minister and myself in that regard. The minister and
the department estimated that the wheat board would be able to dispose of 280,000,000 bushels.


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes; we took a very generous guess at it.


Alfred Henry Bence: I am only taking the minister's own words for it, as they appear at page 1124 of Hansard:
This figure is based upon estimated domestic and export demand but it is extremely difficult to accurately forecast exports a year and a half in advance.


James Angus MacKinnon: That is right. I think I must have misunderstood the hon. member.


Alfred Henry Bence: The point I am making is that this is the amount which the government or the wheat board expect to be able to sell, either domestically or abroad, during the coming crop year; it is this amount, and this amount only, that they are prepared to purchase from the farmer, and they have told this to the farmer. In other words, they are not paying the farmer money for something which they anticipate will not be required. They are paying the farmer for
280.000.	000 bushels of wheat because they believe 280,000,000 bushels will be utilized, either in domestic consumption or for export trade.
Attention is drawn to the fact that there is at the present time a reserve of approximately
480.000.	000 bushels on hand, and that at the end of the present crop year that will be reduced to approximately 400,000,000 bushels. But I would point out that, as I understand it, this has been declared a necessary war reserve; at least outstanding men of the world have declared that it is necessary to have a reserve like this set aside. The Right Hon. Winston Churchill has said it; the President of the United States has referred to the necessity for it, and members of this administration have spoken of the necessity of setting up a reserve such as this. They consider that that is a sufficient amount to set aside as a reserve for the purpose of feeding Europe when the blockade is lifted and the war is over and for the psychological purpose of dangling it before the eyes of the nazi countries. Consequently, that reserve is put aside and should have no influence whatsoever upon the price. The only thing that should be taken into consideration is the fact that
280.000.	000 bushels are required.
As the Minister of Agriculture has pointed out, we require to ship to Great Britain, pork, beef, cheese, butter, eggs, wheat and many other products for the prosecution of the war. He has indicated also that in the majority
Wheat Board Act

*of cases the producers of these products are dependent upon the treasury of Canada for a return for their production. With one exception, as mentioned by the minister the other night, the case of butter, a large proportion of the amount being paid to these producers is taken out of the treasury of Canada. Consequently I say to him and to the house: Is there any reason for a distinction between the amount paid to the wheat grower and the amounts paid to the producers of these other commodities? They are all required for the same purpose, namely, to be sent to Great Britain to help in the prosecution of the war. It is right and proper that a large part of the cost of these products should be borne by the treasury of Canada. It is part of our contribution toward the war effort, but there is no reason why the wheat farmer should be placed in a different category from the producers of eggs, cheese, pork, beef and so on.
The Minister of Agriculture demonstrated that in most instances the prices of these other products are at parity or in excess of parity. Consequently I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and this house: Is there any reason why there should not be a parity price for the amount of wheat that will be used? Tell the farmer that you cannot take any more than 280,000,000 bushels of his wheat because that is the amount you estimate you will be able to use. But you should deal with him as fairly as you deal with the other agriculturists with respect to the price for what you will take.
The Minister of Agriculture asserted the other evening that the amount of money being spent to look after this problem was all that could safely be taken out of the treasury of Canada at this time. I wonder how the minister or the government arrived at that conclusion. I wonder how they arrived at the decision that it would be dangerous to take any more money for this purpose out of the treasury of Canada. How did they know that the government should stop at that particular figure? How did they arrive at the conclusion that it would be unsafe to go any farther? Would it be unsafe to add ten cents a bushel to the initial payment and make it a dollar, or an additional $28,000,000? Would it be unsafe to pay the whole $28,000,000? Would it be unsafe to pay half of it? Would it be unsafe to pay $1,000,000? Have we exceeded the point and are we now on unsafe ground? I think we should have more information in connection with that particular point.


James Garfield Gardiner: Would my bon. friend like to have the information now? I can give it in just a word.


Alfred Henry Bence: Other members have been prevented from finishing their speeches because

of lack of time. I should like to have the information, but I ask the minister to give it on his own time so that I can finish my remarks. I am glad the Minister of Agriculture has anticipated my question and I shall look forward with interest to his explanation.
What would happen to the war effort of Canada and the treasury of Canada if the government went a little further and made it dollar wheat? This question should be coupled with the assertion made by the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Clark) who referred to Hong Kong and said that in view of the exigencies of the situation he thought the wheat growers ought to ask the government to take this money to buy more bombers, more munitions of war and so on. I believe he was applauded by hon. members on the other side of the house. I cannot follow the logic of either the Minister of Agriculture or the hon. member for Essex South.
As far as I can see from an examination of the statements made in this house by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) and other ministers, the war effort of this country, the manufacture of tanks, bombers, corvettes, planes and the rest of it, will not be affected one iota by a price of one dollar for wheat. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has asserted in this house time and time again that our war effort is not circumscribed by a lack of finance, that it is circumscribed only by lack of materials, by lack of factories, by a lack of 'labour and that kind of thing.
Recently we had in this house a debate lasting some five weeks in connection with the taking of a plebiscite during which the Minister of Finance made a most eloquent speech. He made reference to the criticism there had been with respect to the cost of the plebiscite, and he poured scorn upon those people who interpreted the cost of the plebiscite in terms of corvettes, planes, tanks and bombers. If my memory serves me aright, he said that the country's war effort in connection with production was not limited by finance, but that, as everyone knows, it was limited only by those things to which I have referred, namely, material and labour and factories. Consequently the suggestion that has been made that it is a question of finance and that the farmers, by getting more money for their wheat, might slow up the war effort 'is, to my mind, a most fallacious argument. I am convinced that if the farmers of western Canada thought for one minute that the raising of the price of wheat to one dollar would be detrimental to the war effort, they would be the first to say no. But there has been no proof that that would be so.

Wheat Board Act
There has been an attempt made in this house by some hon. members to effect a cleavage between the sections of the prairies concerned with wheat by insisting that there are two schools of thought, one wanting higher prices for wheat and the other wanting increased payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. In my opinion those who put forth this argument are merely attempting to draw a red herring across the trail. There are not two schools of thought among the farmers. We want a continuation of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act because we believe it is absolutely necessary in crop failure or near crop failure districts. For instance, in my own constituency last fall the price of wheat was not so important because we had had a partial crop failure. The assistance given under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act was most beneficial. The two go hand in hand; they cannot be separated. Payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act are made in cases where there is a crop failure or a partial crop failure, and these payments are entirely justified. In districts in which there is a crop failure or a partial crop failure the farmers are entitled to assistance because, when there were good crops generally, they did not get a reasonable price for it. In 1940 there were bumper crops in some districts, but they did not get enough from their wheat to put anything aside for the days of crop failure, and there, I submit, is the real justification for the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
'In conclusion, by way of brief recapitulation, I just want to emphasize this: Ample proof has been given in this house by hon. members from all sides that the wheat farmer is not getting parity prices and that, generally speaking, in comparison with other agricultural producers at this time, he is suffering more than they. I do not propose to clutter up the pages of Hansard with any more statistics because I think enough figures have been given in the last three days to demonstrate the proposition that the wheat producer in comparison with other producers is not receiving as much as they and1 is not receiving parity prices. It is conceded that a wheat reserve is required. It has been stated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the wheat board is going to take only that amount of wheat which the wheat board and the government estimate they will be able to dispose of, and it is admitted that that amount is approximately 280,000,000 bushels. Therefore I say that we should receive for this 280,000,000 bushels a price which is something akin to parity. The price of $1, as has been demonstrated by the figures given by the hon. member for Moose Jaw
(Mr. Ross), is considerably below parity price, and there seems to be no real reason why the price cannot be raised to at least that much.
As far as the amendment is concerned, I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting it. It favours parity prices,, and I fail to see how any hon. member of this house, particularly those interested in agriculture, can disagree with the principle of a programme of parity prices, because parity prices mean nothing more or less than equality among all sections of our people.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at great length on this subject because it has been fairly well covered by other hon. members who have preceded me. I believe that one of the greatest problems facing us to-day from the point of view of agriculture is production, and that one of the greatest problems facing us from the point of view of the entire war is production. I have said on other occasions that my great concern in this war is the proper control of production. I am not so much concerned with what the government does with that production after it gets it, provided it is made good use of, as I am concerned about proper methods of production.
I think we are all greatly concerned at this time, as the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) has so eloquently expressed it, with preserving unity in Canada, to prosecute to the full the war in which we are engaged. But I do not see how it is possible to have unity in Canada unless we have unity among all classes of our people. You certainly cannot divide eastern Canada from western Canada and then expect to proceed along normal lines. It just cannot be done, and it will not be done. You cannot divide the forces of our industrial areas and expect production to go along harmoniously. It just cannot be done. I do not believe that there is a class of people in Canada who have done more not only in the production of things they were asked to produce but also in enlistments in all the fighting forces of Canada than the western farmer. I think I am safe in saying that western Canada has contributed more per capita to the fighting forces than any other part of Canada.


Mr. KIRK:: Take and include the merchant marine and check up on Nova Scotia.


Charles Edward Johnston: They do not comprise a great number.


James Ralph Kirk: I mean on a percentage basis.


Charles Edward Johnston: They form a part of Canada, I agree, but they do not form a major part.
Wheat Board Act


James Ralph Kirk: I am speaking of the merchant marine.


Charles Edward Johnston: There
again, Mr. Speaker, you see we cannot have unity in Canada until we have a degree of understanding. I am afraid that my hon. friend on the other side shows a decided lack of understanding of agricultural problems.


James Ralph Kirk: You are the one who spoke disparagingly.


Charles Edward Johnston: And you are the one who interrupted. If the hon. member would rise in his place and present his point in orderly fashion, I am sure that the rest of us would be delighted to hear him.


James Ralph Kirk: I just wanted to assist my hon. friend in getting his facts straight.


Charles Edward Johnston: I just want to use the words of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) himself, Mr. Speaker, to show that a class distinction is drawn between eastern Canada and western Canada. If that part of the country represented by my hon. friend opposite is not being properly treated, I think it ill behooves him to sit idly by and say, as the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) said the other day, that he is bound to follow the government. I do not think that is the proper attitude. I think my hon. friend should rise in his place and express the desires that he has and get recognition for what he believes to be right.


Mr. TUCKER:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member said that I had said I was bound to follow the government whatever it did. I challenge the hon. member to point to a single statement of mine where I intimated anything of the kind.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is this on a point of order, Mr. Speaker?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes. I make the point of order that my hon. friend is misrepresenting what I am supposed to have stated in this house, and I ask him to withdraw that statement.


Georges Parent: The hon. member for
Rosthern is objecting to the statement that he had said he was prepared to follow the government at all times, and I understood he was not quite sure whether those were the words used by the hon. member for Bow River.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am sorry I did not quite hear what, you said, Mr. Speaker, but if the hon. member objects, he is quite in order.


Walter Adam Tucker: Does the hon. gentleman
withdraw his statement?


Georges Parent: The hon. member for
Rosthern wishes to know if the hon. member for Bow River will withdraw the statement he made?


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not
know, Mr. Speaker, what statement I made that was incorrect.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. gentleman said
that the member for Rosthern took the attitude that he had to support anything the government brought in. I never made any such statement, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am sorry if the hon. member is offended by that remark. I merely said that is what I understood. That was my understanding of the statement the other day.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is wrong. I am not
responsible for the lack of understanding on the part of the hon. member. I ask him to withdraw.


Georges Parent: The hon. gentleman has
stated that he did not make the remark which was quoted by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) who now has the floor. Will he kindly tender a withdrawal?


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, that was exactly the thing I was trying to convey to Your Honour. If the hon. member now denies that, I am perfectly willing to withdraw. If he is not bound to follow the government, that is his affair. I am glad to hear it, though.
As I was pointing out, there is one section of Canada which is being discriminated against. The Minister of Agriculture, I believe, acknowledged that the other day, when he said, as recorded in Hansard, page 1211:
The correspondence which I have on my desk is full of appeals to the government to remember that Canada is at war, and these appeals come from Saskatchewan farmers, not from eastern industrialists, as some people would seem to imply sometimes is the case in relation to agricultural problems. These are from Saskatchewan farmers telling us to stay with the job-get food over to Britain-"and we will struggle along. If you have to assist us," they say, "assist us with acreage payments, and if after that you can give us something more for our wheat we shall be pleased to have it. But," they say, "the most important thing at the present time is to fight this war to a successful conclusion because if we do not we shall not be able to market any farm products to advantage for many years after this war is over." That is the important problem which is in the mind of the western farmer, . . .

Wheat Board Act
I think that without question of doubt the Minister of Agriculture will agree with me that these people are sincere. On no occasion, as far as I know, has he suggested otherwise. But I want to point out two references in his speech. First he refers to the eastern industrialists. The farmers who have written to him have demonstrated their loyalty beyond question, even to the extent of saying, "and we will struggle along." I regard that as one of the highest forms of patriotism, and it should appeal to the Minister of Agriculture in the matter of giving the western farmers a square deal, for I am sure he is personally convinced that they are not receiving a sufficient price. But I want to compare the attitude of the western agriculturist-and I think the expression of opinion which I have just read is common to Alberta and Manitoba as well as Saskatchewan, indeed to all agriculturists throughout Canada-the sense of loyalty and patriotism which was expressed to the minister in the correspondence of these people, with, should I say, the patriotism of the eastern industrialists, as recorded in Hansard, September 12, 1939, at page 179. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), speaking at that time, said:
The provision of 5 per cent was put in the last act after a good deal of consideration as a minimum return for the service rendered, but it was one which men of considerable experience believed to be unworkable. I can say to my hon. friend that from that day to this the defence purchasing board has done its best to plaee contracts on that basis and has used every pressure that could be brought to bear in the form of patriotism and so on, but to date it has not succeeded in placing a single contract on that basis.
There you have a situation where the industrialists were working on a cost-plus contract. They were getting a clear five per cent profit after all their expenses, including depreciation of their machinery, rent of plant, and their own wages, yet they absolutely refused the proposition and went on a sit-down strike. The minister could not place a single contract. And you call that patriotism ! I do not think the eastern industrialist should even question the proposition that the agriculturist should get at least a dollar a bushel. When the Minister of Agriculture appeals to the farmers to produce wheat, not, mark you, at cost of production, but at a loss, they without hesitation have produced more than he knows what to do with. Not so with the industrialists. They simply refused. And who won out? As the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) said the other day, the squeaking wheel gets the grease, and those squawkers got the grease
to the extent of considerably more than five per cent. 'I do not think you can expect unity under those circumstances.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Rosthern interrupted me. I want to put his words on Hansard, so that he will be able to read them and will not have any reason to complain.


Walter Adam Tucker: All right; put my right words on Hansard and I won't complain.


Charles Edward Johnston: I shall read from Hansard. I hope the hon. member is listening. This is page 1145:
I ask the government, which I am proud and pleased to follow, in this time of world crisis, to do the thing that is necessary to mobilize this country's industrial capacity one hundred per cent.
These are the words which he used1. That is in effect what I said.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has repeated the statement.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, is this a point of order?


Walter Adam Tucker: It is a point of order.


Charles Edward Johnston: What is the point of order?


Walter Adam Tucker: The point of order is that the hon. member read my statement and said that that in effect was what he said, and it was not in effect what he said. I said that I was proud and' pleased to follow this government in this time of world crisis. That is an entirely different thing from saying that I am bound to support anything that they do. Again I ask the hon. member to withdraw his last statement.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not see the hon. member's point of order. I told him that I was going to read the words he said. Now he takes offence at that. Does he want to agree with the first words I said?


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member went on to say "those were the words I said in the first place".


Charles Edward Johnston: I said no such thing-if the hon. member will listen.


Walter Adam Tucker: I listened very carefully.


Charles Edward Johnston: I cannot help what he understood. I took the words from Hansard that he said, and still the hon. member is not satisfied.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am quite satisfied with my own words, but I do not like them edited *by the hon. member.
Wheat Board Act


Charles Edward Johnston: Now, Mt. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted to go on. I said that the Minister of Agriculture himself, in my opinion, was not satisfied, and that certainly the people of western Canada had good grounds for being discontented. In fact they were so discontented that 430 of them had to come here to Ottawa; they held their meeting over in the Chateau Laurier, at which meeting the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce were present, and I was there listening to the remarks. When they had concluded their presentation to the government, the Minister of Trade and Commerce rose on the platform and said that the demands of that convention were just and fair. I commend him for that; I think he was sincere and honest. That is all these people are asking. I think they have every right to insist upon a square deal, and it was a square deal; the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) admitted that it was fair. I say, therefore, that they have just as much right to ask that their demands be granted as the industrialists of eastern Canada have to ask that they be allowed to make a profit above all their expenses, and a profit above five per cent.
I suggest to the minister that he will run into a lot of difficulty, and I think he could well afford to take a leaf out of the book of American history and to consider the suggestions made in regard to the AAA programme. Let him consider what was said by the representative of that organization when speaking in the Chateau Laurier. He gave us an outline of the way in which the agricultural organization was set up in the United States. He pointed out that after considerable years of experience they had found it advisable to organize their department from among the agriculturists. That is to say, the farmers had their small community organizations throughout all the counties in the United States, and these small organizations, or small committees, elected what were termed committee men. These committees represented something like 130,000 people. I am speaking from memory. From among them the government chose their advisers and that formed the basis of their department. It was on the advice of these men, actual farmers, that they drew up their agricultural policy.
I believe that if the Minister of Agriculture gave the farmers a share of responsibility in forming their own policy, there would be a great deal more satisfaction. He would do well, I suggest, to call into his department some of these people. In the department there are some fellows who do not know the first thing about agriculture. The minister should allow practical agriculturists to take part in 
drawing up the policy, because they have ability, as was demonstrated at the convention at the Chateau Laurier. There are some clever men among them and they could get together under the leadership of the Minister of Agriculture. I do not think they could pick a better man from that party, though they might get an improvement upon him outside. In their party, however, they have the best they can get, and with him as leader guiding them I am sure that better results would be obtained if he sat round a table with these men representing agriculture and in that way fixed upon the acreage reduction and the price, on a fair basis, allowing them to state how much acreage reduction there shoilld be, the amount of increased stock production, and so on. I believe he would get a far greater degree of cooperation in that way than he has so far obtained. In other words, I suggest that you have to give these men democracy in action. You have to show them that democracy is working for instead of against them. I could not do better than read what Mr. Evans said at that meeting at the Chateau Laurier on January 29, 1942:
I tell you this, in closing, only because that experience so forcibly brought home to me the strength of a fertile land tilled by free men, men willing to work for democracy because democracy is working for them.
I think the Minister of Agriculture will admit that the United States programme is better than ours.
A good deal has been said about the cost of production. I do not intend to weary the house by giving a great many figures, because, after all, it is difficult to follow these figures. I will speak more or less in the words of the Minister of Agriculture in reference to cost of production. Every member will recall,
I believe, that about a year ago the Minister of Agriculture agreed that the cost of production was ninety cents on the farm, and I think he made a conservative estimate. He just about hit it. I do not like to flatter him at all, but his judgment is good. The Minister of Agriculture agreed that ninety cents was the cost of production, and he who was in charge of agriculture must take responsibility along with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, for setting the price at seventy cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: The advance was set at 70 cents, not the price.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not think there is much danger of the farmers getting more, do you?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been up to seventy-eight cents even with that advance.


Charles Edward Johnston: The farmers
have not received any of it.

Wheat Board Act


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes.


Charles Edward Johnston: They were supposed to receive twelve cents at one time, but that is bringing us back into election times, and they were promised a dollar.


James Garfield Gardiner: The average price of the first three months of this past season was seventy-four cents, and the price did go as high as within a fraction of a cent of seventy-eight.


Charles Edward Johnston: But my point is that so far the farmers have not received anything on participation certificates.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some of the fanners sold at that price.


Charles Edward Johnston: That was what it sold at on the open market, but those who sold to the board did not get that, and what was sold on the open market and what was sold to the board are two different things.


James Garfield Gardiner: Delivery was taken at an advance of seventy cents, but the final settlement will not be made until all the wheat is sold.


Charles Edward Johnston: While the minister may be correct in saying that, it is nevertheless true that he said on that occasion as well that the farmers would lose around $100,000,000. That would be the loss to the farmers.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was by reducing
acreage.


Charles Edward Johnston: That was their cash loss. I do not care what you call it; it comes out of their pockets. It is all right for the minister to say now that the farmers will get a dollar a bushel. You can sit here and do all the figuring you like, but when you ask the farmer what he got for his wheat and he tells you he got forty-eight cents, it is mighty hard to convince him that he got a dollar. It is as the hon. member for Battle River said the other night. What the farmer actually received was forty-eight cents, and you cannot convince him that that is a dollar unless you are a magician.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but if I may be permitted again would point out that the other night I could have read the letters to which I referred, and there were letters from farmers stating that they did get at the farm as high as $1.40.


Charles Edward Johnston: That might have been an individual case, but that is certainly not the average. In some particular
instances, with other farm produce they marketed, the total return may have come up to that. I am not disputing that, but I say that that was not the average. I am saying that the farmers in most instances did not get anywhere near it. If I recall rightly, the minister said the other day that the farmers this year would not make any money. I cannot understand why it is that every other industry in Canada is not asked to carry on at a loss. Other industries are not expected to. There is only one industry, and that an industry we could not do without for one year without total failure in this war, and that industry is agriculture. Only that one industry is asked to produce at less than cost. Surely my hon. friends from eastern Canada must understand that that is not a fair proposition. You are not going to have unity when here in eastern Canada they get $1.26 for their wheat and out in the west under this new programme' they are going to get ninety cents at Fort William.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: That $1.26 is delivered: at Montreal.


Charles Edward Johnston: I wish hon. members would speak on their own time. The price set in eastern Canada is $1.26 a bushel.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: At Montreal.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, and
the 90 cents is at Fort William, not on the farm. Of course it may be said that this is for soft wheat. I do not care what it is for; the fact is there is discrimination there, and very unjust discrimination. Let me read what was reported in the Lethbridge Herald of March 9:
J. H. Wesson, Saskatchewan wheat pool president and chief spokesman for four hundred farm delegates which presented the petition to the federal government last month, said the farmers would insist ninety cents a bushel was not sufficient.
"We will continue to urge that the initial payment in the crop year 1942-43 be $1 a bushel, and that further payments to bring up the wheat price to a 'parity' level be made during the crop year," Mr. Wesson said.
Mr. Wesson said the farmers would be content to have the "parity" price established by the dominion bureau of statistics.
You cannot expect anything fairer than that. Why the government persist in agitating such a great number of people in that way, when they know the proposition they make is unfair, I just cannot understand, unless, of course, the Minister of Agriculture had in mind what he said the other day as reported at page 1211 of Hansard:
I would say to him that any member of this house who carries back into western Canada the government's policy in relation to wheat
Wheat Board Act

and its policy in relation to other farm products can stand before any audience and explain to the people there that this is the best that can be done under the conditions with which we are confronted in the Dominion of Canada to-day, and the best that has been done in an attempt to settle their problems at any time. We are taking every last dollar out of the treasury of Canada to deal with these problems which we feel it is safe to take at this present time.
That is an absolute contradiction of what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) have stated on different occasions. The Minister of Agriculture says we are doing everything we possibly can for the farmer in view of the fact that money is limited; that we are taking everything out of the treasury that we think we can safely take. The Minister of Finance said on more than one occasion when speaking to the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), "We are going to make financially possible anything that is physically possible. There is going to be no money restriction." The Prime Minister said-the words have been repeated so often in this house that I hardly need remind hon. members of them

"We shall issue currency and credit in times of public need." Which is right? The Minister of Agriculture says to the farmers: "I cannot do anything more for you fellows, much as I would like to, because my hands are tied, because of the financial strings that hold me back." But the Minister of Finance says: "That is not right because we are going to make financially possible anything that is physically possible." I think the western farmers have good reason to complain. I should not be surprised to see them on the train coming here again and demanding a square deal, and I believe the Minister of Agriculture would be the last man to say to them, "You are asking something unreasonable."
Let us now look at the income the farmers have. I am not going to quote figures at length, but I want to put on the record some statements from the Searle Grain company's letter. We all admit that they keep very careful watch on this critical situation. This is from No. 22 of November 19, 1941:
Wheat, including bonuses.. Coarse grains, including 8 million dollars bonus..
Live stock	
Dairy products	
Miscellaneous products....
Eggs and wool	
Vegetables and other crops
Total revenue	
[Mr. C. E. Johnston.1
Last	Present
year year 1940-41	1941-42
(omitting 000) $234,000	$152,000
17,980	29,873
87,150	104,537
23,720	31,167
10,190	10,190
6,290	6,340
2,560	2,560

The figures for 1941-42 are, of course, estimated. Remember that the total revenue for 1928 was $611,780,000. That brings, generally speaking, about $45,000,000 less for 1941-42 than they received the year before. It is an estimate, but based on good sound calculation. They go on to say:
There are, in the three prairie provinces, approximately 300,000 farming families. It will be seen, therefore, that the annual average income for wheat alone for each family will be $506 from wheat, and from all other sources other than wheat $616, making the total income for the average farming family $1,122 for this year. Out of this total sum of $1,122 each farming family has to pay its living expenses for the year, and the costs of growing, harvesting and hauling to market its farm products . . .
The index includes 16 items of groceries; 36 of clothing; 28 of household equipment; 53 of farm equipment; 12 of farm machinery and two items of school and municipal taxes. These items, we find, cost farmers to-day $1,004 a year. It will be observed therefore that each prairie farming family has on the average only $118 left ($1,122 minus $1,004) with _ which to pay for all those things which farming families require, and which are not included in the 147 items in the Searle index.
Out of that total profit-if we call it a profit-of $118 from their entire return including the bonus, they have to pay the interest on mortgages and loans and for such small extra comforts as any family requires. It is amazing that the government, knowing that the farmers were producing at a loss and are compelled by quota to sell only a certain amount, did not cut down the interest on farm mortgages. Why should they not have made it possible to lower the cost of production by lowering the cost of machinery by lowering the tariff?
Before this bill passes the minister should- and I do not believe he would be condemned for it by anyone, even members of the cabinet-form an advisory council of agriculturists, the same as industry has. Industry would not think of letting a bunch of farmers come in and run their industry and set the profit they would get. They would not even allow members of parliament to set the profit. Then why should anyone object if the agriculturists come in and assist the minister to deal with problems and policies regarding their own industry? I believe the minister would be well advised to clip that sheet out of United States history. He should raise the price to $1 a bushel. Mind you, we have always advocated $1 a bushel at the local elevator. Then probably it would be advantageous to pool the freight rates, so that everyone would be treated alike. There should be no reason for the eastern farmer to complain and say, "Well, we are not getting

Wheat Acreage Reduction
as much as the west," or for the west to say, "We are not getting as much as the east." There must be some pooling arrangement as to freight rates, so that every farmer will be treated alike.
Then you must give the farmers the parity price; they have a right to ask for it. If the government does not give it to them, I hope the farmers come here again and sit right on the doorstep until they get it. Apparently that is the only way they will get anything, and I believe the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce are asking for just that sort of thing. You cannot expect people to go on fighting for democracy in this war when the very thing for which they are fighting abroad is denied them at home. I think the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce should get together and talk to these other fellows in the cabinet a little bit. Surely they will come to reason and let democracy live in Canada.
On motion of Mr. Tucker the debate was adjourned.



MEASURE TO PROVIDE ACREAGE REDUCTION AND CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gardiner for the second reading of Bill No. 12, respecting wheat acreage reduction.
James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, after discussion with the representatives of the three opposing groups it has been agreed, according to my understanding of it, that the two bills, Bill No. 12 and Bill No. 14, should be given second reading now and sent to the agriculture committee. The general discussion will then proceed under the understanding we have had, on Bill No. 13, that understanding being that we shall go on with this discussion, deal with the amendment now before the house and finally with the second reading of the bill itself. That is, we shall carry on the discussion as it has been carried on up to the present time. In the meantime the other two bills will go on to the committee early next week.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Is it agreed that the agriculture committee will meet in the mornings, so that hon. members may be free when Bill No. 13 is being discussed in the house?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. I should have said that the agriculture committee will not sit while the house is sitting, until we have completed the discussion of Bill No. 13. The agriculture committee will meet early in the week, as soon as it can be arranged.


Charles Edward Johnston: And there will be an open discussion on the remaining bill, as it has been carried on up to the moment?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, on Bill No. 13.


Mr. STIRLING:: Supposing either of these bills is considerably amended in committee and returned to the house reprinted as amended. Would there be an opportunity to discuss those changes on third reading?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I think that is understood; we shall go into committee of the whole then.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gardiner for the second reading of Bill No. 14, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
On motion of Mr. Gardiner the house adjourned at 10.58 p.m.
Friday, March 13, 1942