1942-03-09

GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor General, reading as follows:
I have received with great pleasure the address that you have voted in reply to my speech at the opening of parliament, and thank you for it sincerely.
Athlone
Government House,
Ottawa,
March 5, 1942.



PLEBISCITE ACT


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: I desire to lay on the table of the house copy of order in council P.C. 1796, passed pursuant to the Plebiscite Act. Attached to it is a copy of the proclamation fixing the date for voting and the other provisions required by the act. I may say that the date for voting will be April 27 next.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 14, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.
He said: The bill contains only one section. It provides for the removal of section 3 (1), which reads as follows:
Any crop year in which the average price is less than eighty cents per bushel may be declared by the governor in council as an emergency year under this act.
And substitutes therefor:
The governor in council may for the purpose of this act declare any crop year to be an emergency year.
It takes out the restriction of eighty cents a bushel.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. KUHL:: 1.	Has the government used the information obtained in the national registration to compile statistics which will show, (a) the number of skilled man-hours of work which are available;
(b)	the extent to which these hours of work are being utilized; (c) the manner in which they are being utilized; (d) the number of unskilled man-hours of work available; (e) the manner in which and the extent to which they are being utilized; (f) the extent to which the unskilled labour is being trained?
2.	If so, what statistics are available?


Mr. THORSON:: 1.	(a) No.
(b)	See answer to "a".
(c)	See answer to "a".
(d)	No.
(e)	See answer to "d".
(f)	No.
2.	None.

Questions


BRITISH IMMIGRANTS
Mr. LECLERC:: 1.	How many British immigrants have entered Canada each year since 1935?
2.	Of that number, how many are of military age?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1. Fiscal	From	From	years	overseas	U.S.A.	Totals1935-36	... 2,049	3,103	5,1521936-37	... 2,264	3,063	5,3271937-38	... 2,972	3,341	6,3131938-39	3,317	6.6901939-40	,.. 3,566	3,365	6,9311940-41	.. 3,104	4,898	8,002Totals...	... 17,328	21,087	38,415
The term "from overseas" includes British immigrants from all parts of the world, except the United States.
2. The total (38,415) includes males and females. There were 8,948 males between the ages of 20 and 50, as indicated in the following groups-
	From	From	
Ages	overseas	U.S.A.	Totals20-24	... 1.078	748	1,82625-29	... 1,072	795	1,86730-39	... 1,390	1,641	3,03140-50	... 784	1,440	2,224Totals...	... 4,324	4,624	8,948
No figures are available to show from what countries the British immigrants from overseas came. However, recently a special compilation was made for the calendar year 1941 to ascertain how many male immigrants over the age of 18 had arrived in Canada. The total was 774. Of these, 96 came from the British Isles, 470 from Newfoundland and 208 from other countries. Of the 96 from the British Isles-
18 were from 18 to 29 years of age
38 were from 30 to 40 years of age
40 were 41 years of age or over.


GOLDEN BALL GARAGE, SAINT JOHN, S3.
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Has the government paid any money to General Realty Company, Limited, Saint John, New Brunswick, on account of rental for that part of the Golden Ball garage it leased on January 15, 1941?
2.	If so, how much and when?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN PRISONERS OP WAR-JAPAN
Mr. REID:: Have any steps been taken by the government to send food supplies for the use of Canadian soldiers now held prisoners of war by Japan?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Allied governments, the nationals of whose countries are prisoners of war of Japan, are alike concerned with the Canadian government in the matter of sending food supplies for the use of soldiers now held prisoners of war in the far east. The Canadian government is associated with the other governments concerned in taking every possible step in this matter.


PURCHASE OF CHOCOLATE FOR CANADIAN ARMY
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Has the government awarded a contract for the supply of chocolate for the army?
2.	If so, to whom was this contract awarded?
3.	Was it sublet?
4.	If so, to whom?
5.	What will be the total expenditure in connection with this contract?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4 and 5. Answered by 1.


PURCHASE OF PORK AND BACON FROM CANADA PACKERS
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Did the government purchase pork and bacon from Canada Packers during the years 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942 for use of the army?
2.	If so, what amount in each of these years?
3.	At what price per pound?
4.	Were all of such materials used entirely by the army?
5.	Were the sides or fat portions used for the needs of the army?
6.	If not, were they resold?
7.	To whom and at what price?


Mr. RALSTON:: I want to ask my hon.
friend to drop this question in the form in which it now appears. If you will look at it, Mr. Speaker, you will see that it would involve work which I am sure my hon. friend would not ask to have done at this particular time. He wants to know the pork and bacon purchased by the government from Canada Packers for the use of the army during 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942; the amounts for each year; the price per pound-and the price per pound varies I think every three months; then he comes to what I believe must be the real text of his question, whether the materials were used entirely for the army and whether any were resold. If my hon. friend would reframe his question, giving particulars of the place or district to which he is referring and also the

Questions as Orders jor Returns
particular period, I think we could handle the matter all right. As it is now we would have to go to every military district in Canada, as well as to Newfoundland, to get the information for which he asks.
Question dropped.


SHEEP RAISING
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	In view of' the rumoured danger of the development of a shortage of wool in Canada, will the minister tell the house what steps his department has taken to prevent the slaughter of ewes?
2. What steps have been taken to import suitable breeding stock?
3. What steps have been taken to assist, through advances of credit or otherwise, those who would go into the sheep business?
4.	What has been done in the way of guaranteeing and stabilizing prices of wool and mutton over a period of years?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	No steps of the nature indicated have as . yet been taken to avoid the possible development of a shortage of wool in Canada. The Canadian wool situation is at present being considered by the Department of Agriculture and the Wool Administrator in consultation with representatives of the sheep industry.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.
interned anti-fascists Mr. QUELCH:
Has the government taken any action to investigate the cases of interned anti-fascists, on their own individual merit, to the end that those held merely on the charge of having been members of the communist party, may be released ?


Mr.   S@: No persons have been interned as anti-fascists, nor are any being held as such. The cases of all internees under regulation 21 of the defence of Canada regulations who have requested a rehearing, or for whom such a request has been made, have been or are being investigated by advisory committees, on the individual merits of each, to the end that each may be dealt with by the Minister of Justice in view of the recommendation of the committee.
national labour supply council


Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Does the national labour supply council still function?
2.	Who are the present members of the council, (a) representatives of industry, (b) representatives of labour?
3.	How many meetings have been held by the national labour supply council since November 1, 1941, to date?
4.	What matters were referred to the said council from November 1. 1941, to date?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. None.
Explanation: Due to the establishment of the national war labour board and following representations of organized labour, order in council P.C. 2686 was revoked and the functions formerly performed by the national labour supply council are now largely undertaken by the national war labour board and the regional war labour boards.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mrs. NIELSEN:: 1.	Are women employed by the federal government in organizing women, (a) for war work; (b) to take over civilian duties to release men for the armed forces?
2.	If so, how many such women under each of the above categories?
3.	Who are such organizers, listing names, addresses or where employed, qualifications, duties and salary of each?
4.	Of these women who registered rvith the voluntary registration bureau of the government, now called national registration division, how many have been placed with, (a) the auxiliary services of the forces; (b) war industries, (c) civilian services?


Mr. THORSON:: It would require an enormous amount of correspondence to attempt to answer part 4 of this question, and even then I think it would be impossible to comply with the request. I would ask that part 4 be dropped, and that the remainder of the question stand as an order for return.


Georges Parent: Parts 1, 2 and 3 stand as an order for return; part 4 dropped.


HOUSING LOANS
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How many loans each year have been made under the provisions of the National Housing Act since the said act went into operation?
2.	How much money was loaned (a) by the financial institutions, (b) by the government, in connection with the said loans in each of the said years, by provinces?
3.	During the year 1941, how many loans under the provisions of the National Housing Act were made in the county of Peel?
4.	What was the total amount so invested (a) by financial institutions, (b) by the government, in the said county?


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-SAVING OF PAPER
Mr. PURDY:: 1. Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recently issued a series of advertising booklets under the heading, "Five Years of Achievement"?
Motions for Papers

2.	If so, what is the total cost of this publication, including distribution, and including any of the series not yet distributed?
3.	Who is the minister of the crown responsible to parliament for the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
4.	Has he taken appropriate steps to curtail further expenses of this corporation for nonessentials?
5.	Has any department of the government recently distributed a bulletin stating that- "Every scrap of paper that can be saved and every scrap that can be salvaged will help the war effort"?
6.	If so, by what department was this distributed?
7.	Have steps been taken to make sure that all departments of the government and government owned or controlled corporations carry out the above suggestions as to saving paper, as well as all savings advocated for private business by government sources?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MARSHALL:: For a statement showing the names of all persons, firms and corporations, including loan companies, insurance companies and banks, who subscribed $100,000 or more to Canada's second victory loan, setting forth the amount subscribed by each.


Mr. ILSLEY:: It has never been the practice to disclose the names of purchasers of bonds, except with the consent of the purchaser, so that I shall have to take exception to this motion. I suggest that if the hon. gentleman would like to know the amount taken by loan companies as a class, or by insurance companies as a class, or by banks as a class, there would be no objection to giving that information. Nor is there any objection to giving the information w'hieh has been given in the press releases, because that has been given with the consent of the subscribers. Further than that, however, I would not care to go.



WAR EXCHANGE CONSERVATION ACT ALLOWANCES FOR DEPRECIATION

Mr. CASTLEDEN:: For a return showing the names of individuals, partnerships or corporations, and the amounts of any special tax credits ami/or special allowances for depreciation or depletion agreed to between the Minister of Finance and individuals, partnerships or corporations under the War Exchange Conservation Act, between June 14, 1941, and January 30, 1942.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Again in regard to this motion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the hon. gentlemen's attention to the fact that all agreements must be tabled within a short time after they are entered into, and therefore all this information is available to 
every hon. gentleman in this house. To comply with this motion it would be necessary for the government to make a precis of information which is already before the house; that is the only function the government would be discharging. I will ask, therefore, that the motion be dropped.



GASOLINE RATIONING

Mr. CARDIFF:: For a copy of all orders in council and all regulations made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the oil controller and/or any other official of the Department of Munitions and Supply with reference to the proposed rationing of gasoline.



TIRE RATIONING

Lewis Elston Cardiff: For a copy of all orders in council and all regulations made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the controller of supplies and/or any other official of the Department of Munitions and Supply with reference to the rationing of tires for motor vehicles.



SUNDAY LABOUR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. LOUIS S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, on
the 5th of March the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) read to the house a letter addressed to him on March 3 by Mr. L. Dumais, secretary of the National Catholic Union of the pulp and paper industry, of Dolbeau, informing him that a pulp and paper company had carried on manufacturing operations at that place on Sunday, May 1. The hon. member asked whether the Minister of Justice would take immediate steps to ensure the observance of the law prohibiting Sunday labour.
Mr. Dumais' letter refers to a communication from the Department of Justice addressed to Mr. P. J. Martel of Chicoutimi on January 21 last, informing him that the government had not passed any order in council amending the Lord's Day Act. In this letter the deputy minister of justice added that he had no personal knowledge of the paper industry having been classed as an essential war industry.
It would be a complete answer to the hon. member's question to point out to him that the administration of justice is a provincial matter and that the Lord's Day Act expressly states that no action or prosecution for a violation of the act shall be commenced without the leave of the attorney general for the province in which the offence is alleged

Sunday Labour
to have been committed. However, believing that the hon. member wished to obtain the fullest possible information on the point, not only for himself but for all those who are interested in the question of Sunday observance, I have endeavoured to procure it for him.
The hon. member knows that, notwithstanding the general provisions of the act, section 11 allows the performance on Sunday of any "work of necessity or mercy." In paragraphs (a) to (x) of section 11 various kinds of work are given as examples. Since the outbreak of the war the question has frequently arisen whether the urgent need of certain products was sufficient reason to continue their manufacture on Sundays. So long as the dominion government has not made any specific enactment in the matter, each case is one for the attorney general of the province to decide when, an apparent violation of the act having occurred, he is requested to authorize the taking of an action or a prosecution in the premises. Should he allow proceedings to be taken, the courts will decide the issue.
I am informed that in many instances manufacturers pressed by the Department of Munitions and Supply to increase their output have asked that department whether, in order to do so, they would be allowed to carry on their work on Sundays. Of course, the Department of Munitions and Supply could not give a certificate of immunity to anybody, but the officers of that department could express their opinion as to whether or not the work in question was sufficiently urgent to be classified as "work of necessity or mercy." I am told that in many instances officers of that department have written to manufacturers letters expressing an affirmative opinion and that the bearers of such letters communicated them to the attorney general of the province in which their plants were situated, who accepted the opinion of the Department of Munitions and Supply as sufficient reason for the exercise by him of the discretionary power to deny authorization to prosecute, conferred upon him by section 16 of the act.
I do not know whether or not the company operating the pulp and paper plant at Dolbeau has obtained from the Department of Munitions and Supply a statement of opinion as to the urgency of increasing the volume of its production, but I know in a general way that, wishing to accelerate as much as possible the output of pulp and paper, that department has informed several manufacturers that it considered the urgency sufficiently great to justify their requesting the attorney general
of their province not to authorize proceedings against them in respect of work done on Sundays for the purpose of increasing available stocks of their product.
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: May I ask the Minister of Justice whether he will draw the attention of the attorney general of the province of Quebec to the non-essential work performed by the Lake St. John Pulp and Paper Company Limited?	[DOT]
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Mr. Speaker, I do
not think it is the duty of the Minister of Justice to take the action requested by the hon. member. Any citizen of a province may draw the attorney general's attention to anything occurring in his province.
(Text) Mr. HOMUTH: In view of the fact that the answer given by the Minister of Justice has a bearing on all industry in Canada, would he give the house a summary in English of the answer he has given, so that all hon. members may be familiar with it?


Mr.   S@: Perhaps it will suffice if I tell the hon. member that the translation will be printed in the English Debates.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Could we not have a synopsis of it?


Mr.   S@: I can send my hon. friend now a rough translation if he wishes to have it.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: That is all
right.



WAR EXPENDITURES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: May I ask the Prime Minister if at this session a special committee will be set up to look into war expenditures? A number of hon. members are anxious that such a committee be formed.	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, it is the intention to have a committee on war expenditures.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Will the committee to be set up act as a secret committee, as the last one did, or is it to be one which will function openly so that the people will know what is going on?


Georges Parent: Order. The hon. member's question might well be put on the order paper.
Wheat Board Act



AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which might properly be directed to the Department of Public Works, having reference to the partial blackout as it is applied to the parliament buildings.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It is complete.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps it is complete. The steps in front of the main building leading down to the promenade are very dangerous at night. Could a little light not be thrown on those steps? Some night somebody is going to have a serious accident there. Will the government attend to the matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure the Minister of Public Works will note what my hon. friend has said and will find a way of affording more light.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 13, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
He said: For the greater part of the past decade wheat has been a difficult and an extremely complicated problem for the dominion government. It has been possible to decide upon each year's programme only after weighing all the factors capable of measurement or accurate appraisal. For several months now this government has given very serious consideration to all phases of our present wheat position and I can say frankly that the decision this year has had to be made in the face of the most difficult set of circumstances which has, I believe, ever confronted this country in regard to wheat.
In arriving at our decision we have most carefully considered the various representations which have been made to us by different groups from the western provinces and have been in almost continuous consultation with advisers of the government as well as between members of the wheat committee of the cabinet and of the whole cabinet. This has resulted in a most comprehensive research into the whole wheat situation. The many recommendations we have received have been carefully analysed and the present decisions have only been arrived at after the most thoughtful consideration of every angle of the problem.

Five major factors have had to be considered. These factors were:
(1)	The necessary steps to be taken to improve the position of wheat producers who constitute such a large and important group in Canada, and on whom in large measure depend the well-being of the economy of the prairie provinces as well as of Canada as a whole.
(2)	The extent to which the dominion government could act in respect to the wheat problem without detracting from our immediate objectives in respect to the war.
(3)	The extent to which we could count on export markets during 1942-43.
(4)	The responsibility which we bear to ourselves and to our allies in this war in maintaining a reserve of wheat in Canada sufficient to meet unforeseen contingencies.
(5)	The relative importance of wheat production in 1942 as compared to other farm products under the stress of wartime conditions.
While other factors entered1 into our consideration of our present wheat problem, these five factors emerge as the most significant in relation to the decision which the dominion government had to make. Let me deal briefly with each of these points.
In regard to the position of the wheat industry and wheat producers in the prairie provinces, the government has throughout its consideration of 1942-43 wheat policy, been very sympathetic to, and in fact strongly in favour of additional financial support to wheat producers and the western economy through an enlarged income from wheat. This decision in itself was not difficult to make because the government has been aware that wheat prices were low when Canada entered the present war, and since the outbreak of the war the fixed initial price of wheat under the Canadian Wheat Board Act has been continued at 70 cents per bushel No. 1 northern in store Fort William and Vancouver. Additional assistance in 1941-42 does not alter the government's attitude toward the price of wheat. During these war years production costs have increased for the wheat producer as for practically all primary producers in Canada, and therefore, it is only reasonable that at the proper time an adjustment should be made in the income derived from the production of wheat.
As far as this government is concerned, the only question in regard to this phase of the wheat problem was by how much and in what manner it would be possible to improve the income of wheat producers with due regard to the other obligations of the government in respect to the all-important question of the

Wheat Board Act
successful prosecution of the war. No one in Canada, and certainly not the wheat producers of the prairie provinces, suggest that anything should be done in respect to wheat which will in any way limit the capacity of this government to meet the immediate responsibilities and burdens of the war.
In connection with the second point we have had to carefully examine the possibilities of moving our wheat into export trade. Under existing conditions, export markets for Canadian wheat are definitely limited; that is inevitable in the present phase of the war. Our principal market last year was, and this year will be the United Kingdom, and in forecasting our export possibilities we can only see in sight the immediate requirements of the British isles, and rather small exports to other countries.
The government has kept in mind at all times, in addition to these immediate considerations, the more general responsibility which Canada must assume in respect to providing adequate reserves of wheat for the United Kingdom, and our allies and against possible contingencies. At the end of last July Canada had a carryover of 480 million bushels of wheat, in all positions, the largest year-end stock of wheat ever held by this
country. We expect to have about 400 million bushels of wheat on hand at the end of the present crop year, or when the 1942 crop is ready for harvest. The government believes that this stock of wheat constitutes an adequate reserve of Canadian wheat, and does not feel that Canada can be called upon to maintain wartime reserves in excess of this amount. If we maintain a reserve in these proportions we are doing all that can be expected of us at this stage of the war. In addition to the reserves of wheat which we shall hold in Canada on July 31st next, the United States will have the largest carryover in its history-slightly over 600 million bushels-and it is estimated that Argentina and Australia will hold stocks of 360 million bushels. At the end of next July, the four chief wheat exporting countries will have a carryover of 1,300,000,000 bushels of wheat in addition to the surpluses which may arise from 1942 production. In the face of this situation there should be no anxiety as to the supplies of wheat available in normally exporting countries, and in particular in Canada and the United States.
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to place on Hansard a table showing the carryovers of the four chief exporting countries from July 31, 1938 to 1942.
July 31		United			
each year	Canada1	States2	Argentina2	Australia2	Total1938	
25	153	72	50	3001939	
103	252	230	50	6351940	
301	282	75	130	7881941	
480	387	175	70	1,112*1942	
400	610	215	145	1,3701	Official statistics.2	Food research institute.
* Estimated.
Note.-Figures in million bushels.
Richard Burpee Hanson: That
would indicate, would it not that this is not a special war problem?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Yes. I would point out particularly that at the end of 1938 the carryover in Canada, the United States, Argentina and Australia amounted to 300 million bushels, but at the end of 1942, and this is a conservative estimate, the carryover of these same countries will have risen to 1,370 million bushels. The government had to give further serious consideration to the relative importance of various farm products in connection with our war effort. No one disputes the value of wheat as a food product; no one disputes the advisability of carrying a substantial reserve of wheat under present conditions; and no one disputes the fact that of all farm products wheat can be most effectively stored. But with 480 million bushels of wheat on hand last July, and with the prospect of 400 million bushels of wheat on hand next July at the time when the 1942 crop will be ready for harvest, and in view of the lack of large export possibilities, wheat production in 1942 cannot be regarded as an extremely urgent matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Could the minister give the stock in Canada available for export as of February 1?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am not just sure that I can give the figures offhand. I think it would be about 480 million bushels.
Wheat Board Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister said that that would be the figure on July 31. I am trying to follow his figures and I find it a little difficult. My understanding was that he said there would be a carryover on July 31 of 480 million bushels.


James Angus MacKinnon: 400 million bushels.


Mr. CRERAR:: 4S0 million bushels last July.


Mr. GARDINER:: 400 million bushels next July.


James Angus MacKinnon: The statement I am placing on Hansard sets this information out in detail.
As I was saying, wheat production in 1942 cannot be regarded as an extremely urgent matter. This cannot be said, however, in respect to practically all other farm products produced in the prairie provinces. We urgently need more hogs; we urgently need more feed grains; we urgently need more milk, butter and cheese. If the government were to establish priorities in respect to the production of farm products in 1942, it would be necessary to place wheat well down on the list, topped1 in point of urgency by feed grains, live stock and live stock products. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, will be dealing with the coarse grain situation but the situation is a most vital one and had to be considered along with our wheat policy. I stress this point deliberately in order to make it clear .that an undue expansion in wheat acreage and wheat production in 1942 is not advisable, and at the same time to strongly urge every producer in the prairie provinces to make certain that the government's wheat policy does not influence him one iota to cease, or in any way interfere with his efforts to increase feed grain and live stock production to the limit of his resources.
When the full grain programme for 1942 is before the house it will -be seen that the government has made provision for encouraging farm production along the lines most urgently required, and provision will be made whereby wheat producers may benefit from the 1942-43 wheat programme without unduly expanding wheat acreage.
Before dealing with the 1942-43 programme, I -would like to briefly review the wheat position in the present crop year, 1941-42.
As I have already noted, Canada ended the crop year 1940-41 with a carryover of 480 million 'bushels (on July 31, 1941). This was a smaller carryover than we had expected- to have earlier in that crop year as it seemed inevitable that our carryover on July 31, 1941, would be about 550 million bushels. As a result of increased exports, mainly in April,

Kingdom, total exports in 1940-41 amounted to 230 million bushels, whereas we had expected exports, at best, of about ISO million bushels. This increase in exports to the United Kingdom, substantial flour exports to Britain and other countries, and a somewhat larger domestic demand for wheat made it possible for us to bring our July 31 carryover down to the 480 million bushel level.
The 1941 wheat crop in the -prairie provinces and in Ontario was very small. Canadian production in 1941 is now estimated at 299 million bushels, as compared with 540 million bushels harvested in 1940. Despite this the wheat problem has persisted in a very difficult form. The following figures show the quantities of -wheat available in Canada in 1940 and 1941:
	1940	1941
	(million bushels)	
Carryover, July 31	
301	480New crop	
540	299841	779Taking carryovers into	account, we	had 841
million bushels of wheat with which to deal in 1940-41, after harvesting the second largest crop in history. During the present crop year we have had 779 million bushels of wheat with which to deal after harvesting a relatively small crop. These statistics show that the increase in carryover between July 31, 1940 and July 31st, 1941, largely offset decreased production in 1941. In spite of the small crop in 1941 we have only 62 million bushels less wheat to handle during the present crop year, as compared with the previous crop year when production was so high. The house will appreciate from these statistics the extent of the wheat problem for which we had to prepare, and for which we were prepared, in 1941-42. If the 1941 wheat crop had been 400 million bushels instead of 299 million bushels, we would have had to deal with nearly 900 million bushels of wheat during the present crop year. If yields of 1940 had been repeated in 1941, we would have had to deal with over a -billion bushels of wheat in Canada.
One of the effects of the small crop harvested in 1941 was to materially ease the grain storage problem in Canada, and the Canadian wheat board was able to rapidly advance delivery quotas during the fall of 1941. The crop year commenced with a general delivery quota of 5 bushels per authorized acre; on -October 7th the general quota was raised to 8 bushels per authorized acre; on October 16th to 12 bushels per authorized acre; and on November 21st to 15 bushels per authorized acre. Finally, on December 6th, quotas were removed and all delivery points in the prairie

Wheat Board Act
provinces were placed on an "open delivery'' basis. In addition to the ' increases in the general quota, the delivery quotas at individual stations were raised throughout the fall months as soon as local storage permitted.
The dominion government undertook to limit deliveries in all of Canada to 230 million bushels, which would mean about 223 million bushels deliverable in the prairie provinces. Since the prairie wheat crop amounted to 279 million bushels in 1941, it was apparent from the commencement of the new crop year, that marketings would not exceed the maximum established by the dominion government, making it possible to take delivery of all surplus wheat in the prairie provinces. It is expected that total deliveries for the crop year 1941-42 will amount to about 200 million bushels, which will be well within the limit prescribed for the prairie provinces.
Up until February 27th country deliveries of wheat had amounted to 166 million bushels, leaving a balance of about 34 million bushels to be delivered before July 31st, 1942.
Exports are running somewhat higher than for the corresponding period of 1940-41. Up to February 27th export clearances of wheat had amounted to 84 million bushels as compared with 65 million bushels for the corresponding period of last year. In addition during the six months ending January, flour exports in terms of wheat had amounted to 22 million bushels this crop year, as compared with 15 million bushels for the same months in 1940-41. It may be said, therefore, that our exports of wheat and flour are running about 25 million bushels ahead of the same period in 1940-41. We must remember, however, that exports were very light up to this time a year ago, and did not run into substantial volume until the last four months of the crop year. As the crop year progresses, therefore, it is very likely that our exports will be less favourable as compared with a year ago. I would not attempt to forecast our wheat exports for the crop year 1941-42 because the volume of these exports depends so largely upon the requirements of the United Kingdom and the ability to provide the necessary shipping.
In announcing the government's 1942-43 wheat programme, I shall deal with that part of the programme which comes within the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Following my statement, my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), will deal with other forms of assistance which will be administered by his department.
I wish to make it quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that the announcements to be made by my
colleague and this announcement by me are closely related. There are not two plans but one plan carefully worked out, each in relation to the other on the basis of the needs as w'e see them of the whole of the western provinces.
In so far as the wheat programme is concerned, no attempt has been made to formulate a long term policy. This would be virtually impossible in the light of the many factors which have a direct bearing on our policy at the present time but which may or may not exist after the cessation of hostilities. In the studies which have been made in regard to the whole agricultural policy to be followed in the west, a possible long term programme has been reviewed but, as I say, under present circumstances it is not possible to implement a programme which might be dislocated within six months of its announcement.
It is my responsibility to announce the government's decision in respect to the price which will be paid to the farmers for wheat in 1942-43, the volume of wheat which we propose to accept in that crop year and decisions which have been made in regard to price of certain coarse grains and flaxseed.
The government proposes that the fixed initial price for wheat delivered in 1942-43 under authorized delivery quotas shall be 90 cents per bushel, basis No. 1 northern wheat in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver.
In reaching its decision in regard to the fixed price per bushel of wheat, the government has taken into account the position of producers who, by virtue of geographical location, and established farm practice, must depend mainly upon wheat production in their farm operations. Producers in this position have not been able to take as much advantage as producers in other areas of remunerative markets which have existed for live stock and live stock products. With due regard to the percentage of total wheat acreage in the prairie provinces which is normally seeded to wheat in these areas, the government feels that an increase in the per bushel price is an effective way of assisting those who need assistance most.
It is not the intention of the government that domestic buyers of wheat and wheat products shall be deprived of the protection of the price control policy.
Accordingly, the Canadian wheat board will continue to sell wheat to domestic buyers for flour or other use at a price which conforms to the spirit and intention of the maximum prices regulations and is an appropriate price in relation to the domestic selling prices of goods made from wheat or in the production of which wheat is used.
The wartime prices and trade board, in the discharge of its responsibilities under the maxi-
Wheat Board Act

mum prices regulations and the wartime prices and trade regulations, will have the duty of determining the price at which wheat will be sold to domestic buyers in accordance with these principles.
The wartime prices and trade board will discharge this duty from time to time after consultation with the Canadian wheat board.
Since the resolution on the order paper on March 5 indicated an increase in the fixed initial price of wheat, the Canadian wheat board has taken steps to prevent any speculative profits that might arise from the government's decision and to that end sent the following wire to the secretary of the Winnipeg grain exchange before the opening of the market on March 6:
J. T. Irving,
Secretary, Winnipeg Grain Exchange,
Winnipeg, Man.
A resolution placed on the order paper for March 5th 1942 indicates the government's intention to increase the initial price of wheat. This is an official notification of our intention that all open wheat futures will be adjusted to the new level of wheat prices on or before July 31st 1942 and that all open wheat futures will be cleared on or before this date at the closing prices of Thursday March 5tli, that is May wheat futures at 79f cents and or July wheat futures at 80S cents. If this action is not taken until July 31st suitable carrying charges will be allowed to holders of cash wheat for the elapsed period during the month of July. Unhedged cash wheat will be adjusted on the same basis. In the meantime holders of cash wheat as well as futures may continue to carry on with their normal business bearing in mind the above.
The Canadian Wheat Board


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before
the minister approached that portion of his remarks with respect to the grain exchange, he suggested that there might be a deficiency between the initial price of wheat and the price fixed by the wartime prices and trade board. He has not made it quite clear who is to absorb that deficiency, if any. I think he ought to tell the Canadian people on whom that burden is to rest. Is it to be on the millers, on the bakers, on the general public by way of some increase, or is it to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund; and how much?


James Angus MacKinnon: Investigations have been in progress and are continuing as to the point raised by the leader of the opposition, and an announcement will be made just as soon as a decision is arrived at.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When will that be?


James Angus MacKinnon: Well, that should be shortly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before
this bill goes through?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am not sure of that, but I expect that it will be shortly.
In announcing the government's decision in regard to price, I may once again reiterate the fact that this new price is not to be considered as warranting undue expansion in wheat acreage. I will go one step further. This is the highest government-guaranteed price for Canadian wheat at any time since the last war. Wheat producers must accept the responsibility of keeping wheat acreage at reasonable levels.
In proposing a price of 90 cents per bushel for No. 1 northern in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver, the government is going as far as it feels it can go, with due regard to its immediate and unprecedented financial responsibilities in connection with the prosecution of the war. I need not remind this house of the present financial commitments of the government in respect to wheat. The annual report of the Canadian wheat board, recently tabled in this house, showed on July 31. 1941, deficits in respect to 1938, 1939 and 1940 crops amounting to 879,972,814.45. A substantial proportion of Canadian wheat supplies is held by the Canadian wheat board and is a direct responsibility of the dominion government.
In addition to these exceedingly large commitments in respect to wheat, the new fixed price will add materially to the government's obligations in respect to wheat during 1942-43.
In addition to increasing the fixed price per bushel of wheat, the government proposes to substantially increase authorized deliveries of wheat in the prairie provinces and British Columbia during 1942-43 to a total of 280 million bushels.
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. The government is guided by estimates of exports and domestic demand and is fixing authorized deliveries at 280 million bushels. This figure will not be changed on the' basis of later estimates of the 1942-43 demand for Canadian wheat. The government thinks it is more satisfactory from the producers' standpoint to name a definite figure for marketings in 1942-43, rather than make it conditional upon factors which can only be estimated.
The authorized deliveries of 280 million bushels will apply only to the prairie provinces and part of British Columbia. The government does not propose to regulate marketings in eastern Canada because of the large demand

Wheat Board Act
for soft wheat for milling purposes, and because of the volume of grain required for live stock feeding in eastern Canada.
In the main, the government's proposal to permit marketings of 280 million bushels in the prairie provinces and British Columbia during 1942-43 was designed to limit such marketings to about the quantity which will go into export trade or domestic consumption in Canada. As a result, the government does not anticipate much change in year-end stocks on July 31, 1943, as compared with stocks which will be carried on July 31, 1942.
Delivery Quotas.-As long as maximum authorized deliveries are established for the prairie provinces, it will be necessary to provide for the limitation of farm deliveries. This is the only way in which total deliveries may be regulated.
The government, in consultation with the Canadian wheat board, proposes that individual deliveries in the prairie provinces and British Columbia will be based upon authorized acreage of each individual producer, as established in 1941-42. On this basis the authorized acreage of the prairie provinces and British Columbia for delivery purposes will be about 20,000,000 acres.
The per-bushel quotas to be estimated on authorized acreage in 1942-43 will be determined in an equitable manner when 1942 seeded acreages are known and when the general pattern of the 1942 crop is established. It is the desire of the government and the board that the simplest possible quota plan be established for 1942-43, consistent with the obligation of distributing marketings of 280 million bushels equitably among approximately 240,000 wheat farmers in the prairie provinces.
In connection with establishing delivery quotas it will be necessary for all wheat producers who are operating new farms in 1942; or who are operating more land in 1942 than in 1941; or who are operating less land in 1942 than in 1941; or who did not take out permits in 1941, to advise the Canadian wheat board at the earliest possible moment of changes in their farms or of the fact that they do not hold 1941 permits. This is necessary in order that authorized acreages may be properly established and in order that there be as little delay as possible in issuing permits to deliver wheat in 1942-43.
Before leaving the matter of the price of wheat for 1942-43, and authorized marketings, I would like to indicate broadly the effect of the new price upon potential income in the prairie provinces. I say "potential" for the reason that we cannot be assured of how much wheat will be produced in 1942-43 when the new price basis becomes effective. In 1941-42
the dominion government permitted the marketing of 230 million bushels, which at the fixed price of 70 cents per bushel provided for farm income from wheat of about $125,000,000. Since a very short crop was harvested in 1941, wheat deliveries will probably not exceed 200 million bushels, and the return to wheat producers will be about $106,000,000, exclusive of other forms of assistance.
In raising the per-bushel return from wheat and the amount of wheat permitted to be marketed from 230 million bushels to 280 million bushels, the potential wheat income of the prairie provinces will be raised from $125,000,000 in 1941-42 to about $205,000,000 in 1942-43, provided the full amount of the authorized marketings is available. The government's proposals in connection with price and authorized marketings therefore involve a very substantial increase in the income of wheat producers. When this increase in income from wheat is placed alongside of a very large income which is now accruing to producers of the prairie provinces from the sale of live stock, live-stock products, and grains other than wheat, western Canada should be assured of a very substantial farm income in 1942-43 provided crop conditions are reasonably good. If farm revenues from sources other than wheat increase moderately and if an average crop is harvested in 1942-43 farm revenues should reach $475,000,000 in the prairie provinces during the coming crop year, as compared with about $350,000,000 in 1941-42, exclusive of direct dominion government subsidies in both years.
So far I have dealt mainly with that phase of the government's grain programme which deals primarily with the desire of the government to increase farm income and add greater security to the position of the wheat producer. I now wish to submit three additional and important proposals for the particular purpose of securing increased production of three farm products which are necessary to our national war effort.
These proposals are:
1.	That a minimum price level for barley be established. This minimum price level will be 60c. per bushel basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur for Winnipeg barley futures as well as for all cash barley, basis No. 2 C.W. 6 row at 60 cents. The Canadian wheat board will be empowered to carry out this policy and regulations will be prepared in due course.
2.	That a minimum price level for oats be established. This minimum price level will be 45 cents per bushel basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur for Winnipeg oats futures as well as for all cash oats, basis No. 2 C.W. at 45 cents. As in the case of
Wheat Board Act

barley the Canadian wheat board will be empowered to administer this policy and Regulations will be issued in due course.
3.	That the price of flaxseed be fixed at $2.25 per bushel basis No. 1 C.W., flaxseed in store Fort William/Port Arthur. The dominion government will empower the Canadian wheat board to purchase and handle all flaxseed delivered by producers in Canada in 1942-43. Trading in futures and cash flax will be stopped on all Canadian markets at some date to be determined. An order in council has been passed which prohibits any person under very heavy penalty from moving flaxseed from any licensed or unlicensed elevator or mill in Canada, and also prohibits any operator of any elevator or mill from utilizing flaxseed without the written authority of the Canadian wheat board. Needless to say there will be no interference with the processing of flaxseed in Canada. In the near future regulations will be issued for the handling of flaxseed under the new plan.
In connection with the minimum prices being established for oats and barley the government wishes to give a measure of assurance and security to those producers who cooperate in producing an ample supply of feed grain in 1942 in a patriotic endeavour to maintain our live stock production at high levels. Producers generally will face the new crop year with the assurance that whatever the production of oats and barley is in 1942, the market will be supported on the basis I have outlined.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Would the minister state how that compares with the present price?


James Angus MacKinnon: I
think it is a few cents below the present price.
The government's proposal in connection with flaxseed is designed to stimulate maximum production in 1942. Canada and the United States must take steps to increase their supply of vegetable oils to replace sources of supply now cut off by the war. Flaxseed is not an easy crop to produce. The seed is expensive, land must be well cultivated and flax is not ordinarily a high-yielding crop. With these facts in mind -the government feels that a relatively high price should be established for flaxseed in 1942 and consequently has decided on the $2.25 per bushel basis.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: What is the reason that trading in flax futures is to be forbidden?


James Angus MacKinnon: The handling of flax is being made a monopoly of the Canadian wheat board, to avoid speculative profits by people in possession of flax acquired at very much lower prices.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Why not also wheat and all other grains?


James Angus MacKinnon: Corresponding procedure has been adopted to prevent speculation in wheat, for the same reason.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Except the closing of
the exchange.


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not think the closing or holding open of the exchange has anything to do with the question.


Mr. PERLEY:: It might be a debatable
subject.


James Angus MacKinnon: Possibly. In any event I do not think it is relevant to the matter I am placing before the house at the moment.
No participation certificates will be issued in connection with marketings of oats, barley and flaxseed. Any losses accruing to the government from these operations will be charged to -the consolidated revenue fund and in the case of flaxseed any profits resulting from the government's operations will accrue to the credit of the same fund. In the case of oats and barley, any profits will accrue to this fund to apply against government disbursements under the general programme.
When the grain policy which I have outlined is supplemented b3r the statement which will be made by the Minister of Agriculture,
I am sure that the house will agree that this is the most comprehensive grain programme ever presented to parliament. As I have said each step, each stage, has been carefully considered and the implications thoroughly worked out. Broadly, the programme which I have placed before the house seeks to give assistance where it is needed, to give greater assurance to the farmers of western Canada, to indicate the lines of production which should be emphasized in 1942-43, and finally to facilitate the production of needed farm products.
I have every confidence that our programme is practical and will commend itself in the present emergency, and meet with the full cooperation of grain producers of western Canada.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Has there been any floor or ceiling fixed in regard to rye?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.
I think my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, will be dealing with matters in connection with rye in his presentation.
It is my intention as soon as the principle of this legislation is approved by the house on second reading to ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on agriculture for consideration and report.

Wheat Acreage Reduction


Ernest Edward Perley: We have just listened to a very interesting statement and review of the situation from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). To one who had advocated many of the principles now adopted for three or four years or more it is very interesting. As the minister has given a multiplicity of figures and has stated that his end of the question, so to speak, is related to what the Minister of Agriculture is going to say, I now move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. WHEAT



MEASURE TO PROVIDE ACREAGE REDUCTION AND CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 12, respecting wheat acreage reduction.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, when the measure
which has just been moved to second reading by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr MacKinnon) and the one which I am about to move to second reading were in the resolution stage, it was arranged in the house that these bills should be brought to the point where they would appear on the order paper for second reading; that statements then would be made by the ministers concerned, and that in the discussion following some leeway would be allowed in order that it might not be necessary to deliver three speeches on the three bills that will be before the house. In accordance with that understanding it is my intention at the moment to discuss the three measures, one of which has been advanced on the order paper for second reading and the other two of which now stand for second reading. I shall try to confine my remarks to matters which may concern one or other of these three bills, as they may relate one to another.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) has just moved the adjournment of the debate on one of these measures. I presume that he and other hon. members are in a position to speak on the second reading of either this or the other bill, that someone will move the adjournment of the debate on this measure in due course, and that we shall attempt as far as possible to have only the one discussion dealing with all matters having to do with the wheat policy.
The action being taken in the house this session in relation to the handling of wheat and other grains is along the line of the policy laid down at the beginning of the war. I mention "other grains" because in his statement the Minister of Trade and Commerce
dealt with the handling not only of wheat but also of coarse grains and flax. The discussion therefore will deal with matters other than wheat. The bill providing for wheat acreage reduction also has to do with the production of coarse grains, so that it will be possible to discuss matters having to do with other farm products as well as wheat.
The action we are now taking is the final step in a policy which was laid down at the beginning of the war and which has been consistently adhered to up to the present time. It was stated then that before every war difficulties developed for agriculture, in countries which finally become involved in the war, and more particularly in countries which are suppliers of food commodities to the nations participating in the war. For that reason we in the Department of Agriculture in Canada have been very much concerned during the last two and a half years in developing the agricultural policy of this country to a point where increased prices and quantity would give reasonable returns to farmers. It was realized that prices of farm products were very low before the war. They were low during the first five-year period of preparation for war in Europe from 1930 to 1934. They were not quite so low during the second five-year period from 1935 to 1939. During the two years since the beginning of war prices have gradually advanced on all farm products excepting wheat. There are reasons why wheat should be the last to advance in price.
It will be remembered that just before war was declared, wheat had reached the low level of about 50 cents a bushel. Immediately following the declaration of war wheat gradually began to advance in price, and continued to do so until the spring of 1940. It reached the level of approximately 90 cents a bushel. After the fall of France, the price of wheat dropped very rapidly to the level of about 60 cents a bushel. That drop occurred in a very few days, and then the government of Canada, through the wheat board, pegged the price at 70 cents a bushel, where it has remained ever since.
I cite these facts with regard to wheat in order to indicate that when it was expected that France would continue in the war and that the battles of this war would be fought on the plains of northern France and in Belgium, as was the case in the last war, it was thought that there would be a fairly rapid advance in the price of wheat and that in due course wheat farmers would obtain reasonable prices for their product. But the war has not developed in that way. Up to the present time we have not been able to choose the battlefields. Our enemy has been choos-
Wheat Acreage Reduction
[Stage Direction]
ing them, and during the period of our preparation we have not been feeding the people we expected to. The result is that there has not been a rise in the demand for wheat, because those great agricultural areas are still producing.
From the very beginning of the war it was realized that if farmers in Canada were to be able to maintain themselves and develop agriculture to the point where it could take its proper place in providing food for allied countries, prices in due course must advance. Very early in the war we embarked upon a policy of trying to establish floors under various farm products. The first product under which we were able to establish a floor was hogs. That floor was established by entering into an agreement with the British government in the fall of 1939, the first fall of the war. The second product under which we were able to establish a floor was cheese; it was established in the spring of 1940, when a price of 14 cents a pound at Montreal was agreed upon with the British government. The third product under which we were able to establish a floor was wheat, when we pegged it at 70 cents in 1940. The fourth product was butter for which in the spring of 1941 we were able to establish a price of approximately 30 cents a pound for that summer. Finally, toward the fall of 1941, we were able to establish a floor under eggs, by making an arrangement with Britain under
which we shipped eggs at 28 cents in certain of the summer months and 32 cents in the winter months, which prices were increased a short time ago to 31 and 35 cents a dozen.
So that down to the fall of 1941 we were able to establish floors for various farm products, and I should like to place on Hansard a table indicating the range of prices which brought about the result I have just indicated. For example, from 1930 to 1934 the average price of wheat was 74-2 cents a bushel. For the next five-year period the average price was 96-5 cents. In 1939-40 the price was 76-5; in 1940-41 it was 74 cents, while the average price for the period from 1926 to 1929 was $1.41-7. I am stating the average prices for the period 1926-29 in order that I may say that I believe it has been the established policy of organized agriculture, from one end of Canada to the other, that the government should have as its objective the establishment of prices for farm products in Canada equal at least to the level of farm prices for the average period between 1926 and 1929.
Now, the average price for wheat in the period 1926-29 was about Si.41 per bushel. I have before me a list of prices for other years, and I would ask that when these figures are placed on Hansard they appear in tabulated form, as they appear in my notes, so that they may be more intelligible to hon. members. The tabulation is as follows:
Crop year
	Average	Average
	1930-34	1935-39
	c. bus.	c. bus.
Wheat JNo. 1 (Winnipeg)...	
74-2	96-5Oats 2CW (YVinnipeg)	.... 36-1	42-0Barley lFd. ( Winnipeg) ... .	.... 38-7	49-71939-40	1940-41	Average 1926-29	Ceiling pricec. bus.	c. bus.	c. bus.	c. bus.76-5	74-0	141-7	35-6	34-8	59-7	51-542-5	44-0	73-6	64-8
The table showing the figures for other farm products gives the prices for the calendar years. They are as follows:
These figures, it will be noted, are for the crop years, and the prices are Winnipeg prices, or what are more generally known as Fort William prices.
Beef cattle (Toronto). Hogs (live) (Toronto)
Butter (Montreal).... Cheese (Montreal)....
Eggs (Montreal)	
Calendar year		
Average 1930-34	Average 1935-39	1940? cwt.	$ cwt.	$ cw-t.5-89	6-06	7-687-70	8-93	8-57c.lb.	c. lb.	c. lb.23-7	24-8	26-411-7	13-0	16-1c. doz.	c. doz.	c. doz.33-6	32-3	32-3Average	Ceiling1941	1926-29	price$ cwt.	$ cwt.	$ cwt.8-70	9-04	9-95	11-61	c. lb.	c. lb.	c. lb.33-7	3.8-2	35-3 f1)18-2(4)	18-9	25-0(2)c. doz.	c. doz.	c. doz.34-6	48-2	46-0(3)
I1) Highest wholesale jobbing price during basic period.
(2)	F.O.B. country shipping point.
(3)	Spot cash delivered Montreal. This price 2 to 3 cents lower than wholesale quotation.
(4)	For greater part of year price was 14-4 cents under contract, plus 1-6 cents Dominion bonus, Plus 2 cents provincial bonus, plus Dominion quality premiums which average 1 cent pound for No. 1 cheese-Total, 19 cents.
[Stage Direction]
Wheat Acreage Reduction
I place these prices on record to emphasize the fact that while the prices of farm products have been going up, during the first two years of the war, on an average during the second year of the war they were much lower than the average prices for the period 1926-29.
I have placed on record another set of figures, because they demonstrate something else. We will have in mind the fact that ceiling prices have been placed on certain farm commodities. Those ceiling prices are set out in the tables I have placed on Hansard, and I direct the attention of hon. members particularly to them.
May I make these further comments with respect to the ceiling prices. It will be noted that while the ceiling price for oats has been placed at 51-5 cents, the average for the 1926-29 period was 59-7. The ceiling on barley is 64-8, and the average for the period I have indicated was 73-6. No ceiling prices have been placed on wheat or cattle or hogs. However a ceiling of 35-3 cents has been placed on butter, as compared with 38-2 for the period 1926-29. The ceiling price on cheese is 25 cents, as compared with the average of 18-9 cents for the period indicated. The ceiling on eggs stands at 46 cents, compared with 48-2 cents.
I believe it will be found on examination of these figures that in so far as they have been established on products other than grain the ceiling prices are almost the same as the average prices found in the 1926-29 period. When one takes into consideration the increased volume, it will be realized that these products probably bring a higher net income to the farmer than they did at the average price between 1926-29.
There are certain farm products on which no ceiling prices have been established. In this list are wheat, cattle and hogs. No ceiling has been established upon those products as sold by the farmers; but there has been a ceiling established on beef, on pork, and on bread. Although it is not true of bread, it is true of beef and pork that the ceilings established on these products will make possible a price which will be somewhat higher than the average prices for hogs and cattle in the period 1926-29.
I wish now to make a statement to bring to the attention of hon. members the present position of agriculture. I have been speaking of the condition in which agriculture was at the end of the second year of the war. We are now six months into the third year of the war. May I say that there has been a higher floor placed under farm products since the beginning of the third year of the war. The floor prices for the third year of the war are higher than they were in 1941.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has just stated that for wheat the advance or floor is to be 90 cents. That is a much higher advance than we had as a floor under wheat during the first two years of the war. He has also announced that the floor under oats will be 45 cents a bushel. May I point out that down to the present time there has been no floor under oats. This simply assures that any farmer who grows oats, whether in eastern or western Canada, will obtain a price based upon the floor of 45 cents a bushel at Fort William. The floor under barley is now 60 cents. In the past there has been no floor under barley. It will be noted, therefore, that for the third crop year of the war there has been established a floor of 60 cents under barley.
The only floor we have had under beef since the beginning of the war has been the agreement with the United States under which we offer our product to the market in the United States at approximately the United States price, less the reduced duty upon cattle going into that country. During recent weeks and at the present time that has given us a floor under cattle, at Toronto, of $9.90. This price is above the average of the period at which we have been aiming.
The price of hogs is $11.63 at Toronto. This is approximately the level at which we had been aiming under our policy of the first two years. Butter is 35J cents per pound, which is just about three cents below that average level of 1926-29. Cheese is 25 cents per pound, just a little more than six cents above that average level. Eggs are 32 cents, somewhat below that average level of 1926-29. This brings live stock products, on the average, to approximately the 1926-29 level. In the case of flax, which was dealt with to-day, the average price for that period was, I think, $2.05 a bushel, so that the price which will prevail in 1942 of $2.25 is 20 cents a bushel above the average price for the four-year period 1926-29.
Let me repeat that wheat and coarse grains are the two products which we have not yet advanced to prices which bear favourable comparison with the average prices for 192629. The fact that coarse grains have not advanced to the 1926-29 level is not so serious a problem from the point of view of the farmer as is the fact that wheat has not advanced to the level of 1926-29. The reason is that by far the greater part of all coarse grains grown in Canada are fed on the farms where they are grown. Those which are not fed on the farms where they are grown are being transported at the present time from one farm to another, whether it be an adjoining farm or a farm at the other end of Canada.
Wheat Acreage Reduction
[Stage Direction]
If it is a farm at the other end of Canada, the government is paying a very considerable part of the freight rate to move it from the one farm to the other. So that the prices of coarse grains in themselves do not play as important a part in the building up of income for the farmer as do products which are produced through feeding coarse grains, such as, butter, cheese, hogs, cattle, and so on. These products, occupying the position that they do in the price level, make it possible for the farmer to grow coarse grains and dispose of them indirectly at a price which approximates the price of 1926-29.
But the wheat growers are in a different class. They are growing a product which is used largely for the purpose of making bread or for human consumption. The price obtained for this product is the only income which the wheat farmer can obtain for by far the greater part of his investment and labour.
May I say that the prices which I have given to this house do not tell the whole story. When I say that to-day we are producing in Canada more than twice as many hogs as we produced in the last year before the war, you will realize that price does not tell the whole story in relation to the income obtained in Canada from hogs. When I say that there has been an increase in the production of nearly every other farm product since the beginning of the war, you will realize that volume as well as price plays a considerable part in the return which the farmer receives for the things which he has to sell.
The result is that the total farm income for 1941, including assistance given by federal and provincial governments-this includes acreage payments or subsidies paid for the production of hogs in Ontario and1 Nova Scotia, subsidies on cheese in Ontario and Quebec, and premiums paid by this government on cheese-taking all these into consideration, the result is that the total farm income in 1941 was $921 million as compared with an average of $966 million for the four-year period 1926-29. I cite these figures in order to emphasize that our farms across Canada drew an income in 1941 of $921 million as against an average income for the four years at which we have been aiming, namely, 1926 to 1929, of $966 million.
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Has the
minister a breakdown of that $921 million?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, but I am going on
to deal with it as related to wheat.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Has the minister the figures for 1939-40?
fMr. Gardiner.1


James Garfield Gardiner: I gave the prices for all
years.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Have you the total figures?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not at the moment, but I know they are considerably lower than that. This means that the annual average return per farm for the 1926-29 period was $1,368, while the average for 1941 was $1,245. A few more farms were being operated in the 1941 period than in the 1926-29 period. I would ask the house to contrast these returns, including those from wheat farming, along with all others, with wheat itself.
The average annual return for wheat in 1926-29 was $405 million, whereas the return in 1941, including all acreage payments, was only $210 million. That is, the return for wheat in 1941 was just a little more than half the average return in 1926-29. The average annual return for all farm products other than wheat during the 1926-29 period was $561 million, whereas the return in 1941 was $711 million. On the one hand, you have one product produced by the farmers of Canada, the income from which dropped from $405 million to $210 million. On the other hand, you have another set of products produced by the farmers of Canada, the income from which in the same period increased from $561 to $711 million. The annual return per farm in the first period was $795, whereas in 1941 it was S961. These figures leave wheat out of the picture. In other words, the return from products outside wheat in 1941 was better than the return in 1926-29, whereas the return from wheat in 1941 was only a little better than fifty per cent of the return in 1926-29. I should like hon. members to keep this fact in mind when we are dealing with the assistance that is to be given to wheat growers by means of the increase in the advance mentioned a few moments ago by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and also under the provisions of the two bills to which before I sit down I am going to ask the house to give second reading.
It is to improve the position of the farmer who depends largely upon wheat that the advance on wheat has been increased from 70 to 90 cents. This, however, will only improve the position of the wheat farmer, on 280 million bushels of wheat, being the maximum of which we will receive delivery under the advance of 20 cents per bushel, by an increase in revenue of a maximum of $56 million, which will still leave the wheat farmer at least $176 million below the 1926-29 level. If we add the $20 million which he will receive under wheat

Wheat Acreage Reduction
acreage reduction and the estimated $10 million under prairie farm assistance, he will still be $146 million below the 1926-29 level.
As I say, that part of the farmer's operations which is related to wheat will be down by about $176 million. We are going to try to improve this position by taking two steps. We are going to pay $2 an acre for wheat acreage reduction, which on the basis of our 1941 experience will bring $20 million. You will naturally ask me how that improves the position of the wheat farmer. Well, it would not if the government were prepared to take all the wheat the farmer could grow. But we are saying to him:	No matter how good your
crop is, we are going to take only 280 million bushels of wheat this year. It is quite a common thing in western Canada to produce on the average 15 bushels to the acre, and an average of 15 bushels to the acre on 20 million acres will produce 300 million bushels of wheat. It is possible therefore that if the farmers seeded 29 million acres in wheat, as some estimate they did in 1940, and grew even less than 15 bushels to the acre, they might have a very considerable amount of wheat which during this year they would not be able to market. So that the government is saying to the farmer, "we are prepared to pay $2 an acre for a reduction in wheat acreage, which may net you less income than the wheat would."
I should like to correct an impression that seems to have been abroad throughout Canada during this last year that this government was paying for summer-fallow. This government was not paying for summer-fallow last year. We were paying the farmer to reduce his wheat acreage. The discussion in the house last session by those who were in favour of the policy which was then brought before the house was to the effect that we had an enormous carryover, this was referred to by the Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon, a carryover which induced many of us to say last year that by the end of the crop year 1941-42, on July 31 next, we might have an amount of wheat on hand very much in excess of what the figures now indicate will be carried over. I think there were a few who prophesied a carryover of 700 million bushels, and some prophesied that we might even run close to the billion bushel mark. But with a short crop, and the reduced acreage under the wheat acreage reduction plan of last year, we are going to be down to about 400 million bushels at the end of this present crop year. We helped to bring about that reduction through a wheat acreage reduction policy.
The government still feels that it would be a mistake in this third year of the war to put the wheat acreage back to where it was in 1940. There is a difference of opinion as to what the wheat acreage was in 1940. Statistics have estimated that ;t was something over 27 million acres. The wheat board, I think, basing the figures on their permits, have figured it at something over 29 million acres, and the prairie farm assistance organization of the Department of Agriculture have estimated that the reduction from 1940 was approximately 9 million acres, which would place the total at about 29 million. So that if the wheat board's estimate of the average for 1940 is correct, and if our reduction figure, the actual amount of reduced acreage on which we shall be paying, is correct the wheat acreage at the present time should be somewhere around 20 or 21 million acres. It is the desire of the government this year to attempt to hold it at around 20 or 21 million acres. I want to emphasize that, because I noticed a newspaper article the other day in which it was suggested that the present act raised the proposed acreage from 65 to 80 per cent of 1940. That is not the intention of the present act, nor is it in accordance with the terms of the present act. The 80 per cent in the present act has only to do with farmers who in 1940 put practically all their land into wheat. On those particular farms they are only allowed to start their reduction from 80 per cent and work from there down, to earn the $2 an acre that is paid to those who put their reduced wheat acreage into summer-fallow or into coarse grains. Last year we paid $4 an acre when the acres. Last year we paid $4 an acre when the acreage taken out of wheat was put into summer-fallow, and this year we are paying only $2 an acre. Last year we paid $2 an acre on all coarse grains including flax. This year w'e are paying $2 on all coarse grains excluding flax. In other words we are paying $2 on the rye which was mentioned while the Minister of Trade and Commerce was speaking, but W'e are not paying $2 on flax because the government is prepared to guarantee a price of $2.25 a bushel for flax which it is hoped will induce the production of all the flax that is required.
It might be asked why we are anxious to have an increase in the production of flax and an increase in the production of coarse grains this year. The reason is found in what has been happening in the war in recent months. We had lengthy discussions last year as to the amount of coarse grains that would be required, and whether we could get rid of all our coarse grains if grown in the
Wheat Acreage Reduction

quantities per acre in which they are sometimes grown. We also had lengthy discussions on the question whether we should increase the production of flax. I think I am correct when I say that the flax which we did produce last year was more than twice the amount required to keep the crushers which we have in Canada running, so that if nothing had happened which we did not expect at that time probably those who were then arguing on the other side would have turned out to be right. But many things have happened. Japan has taken possession of by far the greater part of the areas from which vegetable oils come, and immediately Japan took possession of those areas vegetable oils were not available to the allies. Those allies included all the democracies fighting on our side in this war. The United States will suffer from a shortage of oil, Canada will suffer from a shortage of oil, Great Britain will suffer from a shortage of oil, and so will all t'he other countries fighting on our side. The appeal is made to us to produce animal fats in the northern part of this continent, where it is very difficult to produce vegetable oils. We can produce more flax and soya beans. We ean produce sunflowers from which oil can be taken. But we can produce more animal fats through increasing our hogs and dairy products and even through the production of beef. So we are making an appeal to our people this year, by putting a floor under the price of oats and barley; offering $2 an acre on land converted from wheat to coarse grains in order that we may produce animal fats to take the place of the vegetable oils which for the time being we are not going to be able to get. We are asking for more flax to increase vegetable oils. That is the reason for our action in that regard. It will be realized at once that the proposal does cut down somewhat on the return which the wheat farmer will get from the production of wheat. We are asking him to transfer from the production of wheat into the production of coarse grains and flax and hope he will make up by that means some, if not all, of the $146 million he is still below the average 1926-29 level.
I do not know whether members of the house fully understand the situation in western Canada, but I am quite certain that many of those outside the house who discussed the question and who have not been in that part of the country do not understand the problem which there is in western Canada. If you draw a line from Morden in the southern part of Manitoba straight to Lloydminster, which is on the boundary line between Alberta and Saskatchewan, up near the North Saskatchewan river, and then draw another straight line 
from there down to Calgary, and then from Calgary down to the United States boundary line, you will have mapped out south of that line what is known as the Palliser triangle in which it is difficult to produce anything in great volume except wheat. That is because of the nature of the soil, and because, too, of the climate in that particular area.
The important fact is that a million people are living south of that line. South of that line you have cities such as Regina and Saskatoon in Saskatchewan, and, over in the province of Alberta, Calgary, and many other smaller cities and towns in all the provinces. In that area, too, is a vast agricultural population. It is a greater agricultural area in one block than can be found in any other continuous block in Canada. When people are talking about closing up that area, as some do, they are talking about taking care of a million people; and if they are proposing to take care only of those who are on the farms, and on farms upon which only wheat can be grown to advantage, they are going to be asked to take care of at least half a million people. It is not so easy, therefore, to do as some people seem to suppose. They say, "Let them stop growing wheat while the war is an." But there is no way in which these farmers can make a living unless they can grow wheat, and if they cannot be left where they are they must be taken somewhere else where a living can be found for them.
With that picture in front of us, may I say that it is for these people particularly that twenty cents a bushel has been added to the advance which was placed upon wheat. Of course those who grow wheat in the districts just outside the area to the north will benefit to some extent, but that is not where the great bulk of wheat which flows out of western Canada comes from. It comes from the area to the south. As to the others, they are not only getting the twenty cents a bushel for the limited amount of wheat which they grow, but they are receiving an increased price for their live-stock products; increased returns for their coarse grains, if they have a surplus to sell; and in addition to that, what every farmer in western Canada is proud to do at the present time, they are serving the allies. It was not the $4 an acre which was paid for land taken out of wheat and put into summer-fallow, or the $2 an acre for land which was taken out of wheat and put into coarse grains, which induced the farmers of western Canada to do something which has not been done by any farming population anywhere else in the world either since this war started or before it-to take almost one-third of the acreage out of any one crop and to put

Wheat Acreage Reduction
it to other use. It was not because they were going to make money by doing so-they were not-but because they were told it would help to win the war if they did do it, and they did it for that purpose. As I said last year when we were asking them to do it, it took at least a hundred million dollars out of their pockets, and we did not by any means manage to put all of it back in. We attempted to do so, it is true, but the poor crops of last year made it impossible. Not all of what was taken out went back by any indirect means. But this year again all these fanners are going to rise to the appeal which is made by this house, by the government of Canada, but more particularly by the British government and by the other allied countries by whose side we are fighting, to produce live-stock products in even greater quantity than they were produced last year. We have to do that if we are to meet the programme which has been marked out for us. We are asked to produce 600 million pounds of Wiltshire sides, to be placed at Saint John or Montreal to be shipped to Britain during this third year of the war. That is, we shall have to send each week four times as much as we sent to Britain in each week of the last year before the war.
This will give you some idea of the enormous task which the farmers of Canada have attempted. As you know, the hog year begins on the first of October, so that we are now in the sixth month of the operation, and up to the present time the agreed upon amount has been sent. It is going to be more difficult for them during the months which are ahead, but we believe that the farmers will place that amount of pork products at the harbours of Canada to be shipped to Britain during the summer months, thus bringing the total by the end of the year up to 600 million pounds.
Again we are going to be asked to produce, not for consumption here but for shipment to Britain, 125 million pounds of cheese, and the British and Canadian governments will agree on the price to be paid for it. I am not in a position to-day to announce the price, because the negotiations between this country and Great Britain are now proceeding, but it will be a price which will induce a production in Canada during the third summer of the war of at least 125 million pounds of cheese for the British market. You know what that means. It is 25 million pounds more than Canada produced in 1935. and it required more than we have produced in any year since 1925. Our production of cheese had been on the downgrade ever since the last war, but during the last five or six years it has been on the upgrade, and this year we shall send much more cheese to Britain than we produced only a few years ago.
We are not asked to send butter, but we have been requested to ship canned milk. That will be forwarded in increased volume. More and more of the food products of this country will be sent to Britain, but more particularly products which carry animal fats, to take the place of the vegetable oils which cannot now be obtained from other parts of the world, and thus assist in feeding the British people and contribute to the winning of the war.
The legislation-and by the way, it is not all legislation; some of these measures which were placed before you this afternoon by the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be carried out by order in council under the War Measures Act - assists toward that end. It will have the effect of giving a higher return to the farmers in the area from which most of our grain crops come. The regulations which will be enacted by order in council will also assist in the production of coarse grains, and of flax, from which vegetable oil can be taken. The measures which I have placed before you will have the effect of encouraging also the production of coarse grains and hence live stock.
I know that some hon. members would be interested in knowing something of the latest returns with regard to wheat acreage reduction during the last year. I will cite a few figures in this connection in order to make it possible for them to discuss the questions which are before them.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Will the Minister of Agriculture explain the situation with regard to rye?


James Garfield Gardiner: I said we were paying $2 an acre on rye raised on land which is taken out of wheat, and an additional S2 if it is still in rye in July, 1943.


James Arthur Ross: That is all that will be done?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is all the encouragement we are giving this year. As a matter of fact there has been some difficulty, which I think can better be discussed in committee than here, with regard to handling rye in the last year.


James Arthur Ross: There has been no ceiling on it; is that it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that one has ever been announced.
Farmers to the number of 186,892 applied for payment under the wheat acreage reduction regulations of last year. Of these 135,157 have been paid in full and about 50,000 have been paid in part. The part paid is I think in nearly all cases, if not all, 75 per cent of the total, and some adjustments have to be made on the other 25 per cent. Claims not
Wheat Acreage Reduction

paid are 2,000, making a total of 187,000 in round figures. The amount paid out, $26,813,718.75, is the total up to February 28.
Under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 41,727 farmers have been paid $5,722,832.97. That will represent 60 per cent of the total to be paid out to these particular farmers. The other 40 per cent will be paid after March 1.
On prairie farm income the total number of farmers to whom payment has been made up to date is 147,137. The total amount paid, again on a 60 per cent basis, is S6,932,659.79.
In the bill to which I am going to ask the house to give second reading are embodied the principles of the regulations of last year. There will be some changes in the terms of the measure as compared with the regulations. The regulations attempted to average the acreage as between 1939 and 1940. There is an attempt in this bill to establish the acreages for 1940, and to go back to 1939 only in cases where there was no wheat in 1940, making payment on the basis of 1940 acreage in all other cases. The reason is to try to avoid some of the delays that occurred in the administration of the regulations this year.


Mr. BENCE:: In connection with the payments under the wheat acreage reduction plan, has the minister any information regarding the payments to landlords?


James Garfield Gardiner: Claims of landlords have been paid numbering 43,000, divided as follows: Alberta 11,000; Saskatchewan 26,000; Manitoba 6,000. There are some others to be paid.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Could the minister give the totals of the payments that will be made on these three accounts for last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The total for wheat acreage reduction is estimated at around $30,000,000. We cannot yet give it exactly. Some adjustments have still to be made.
The total for income will be between 16 and 20 million dollars. I am not in a position to give it any more exactly at the moment. The applications have not all been considered, hon. members will see. There were 186,000 that had reductions in wheat acreage, so that there will be a considerable number more to be paid.


Mr. QUELCH:: From the work already done has not the government a record giving acreage average for 1939 and 1910 instead of taking 1040?	*


James Garfield Gardiner: We have the established acreage for 1940 based upon the average, but a considerable number of farmers who did not apply last year may come in this year. It would bring in the same complications we had a year ago. I would prefer to leave these matters until we reach the committee stage. 
The intention is to send this bill to the agriculture committee and have these matters discussed there. It is our hope that the decision will be reached to base the calculations on the 1940 acreage. There is not a great deal of difference in the amount paid; the greater part of the difference concerns the difficulty in '*dministering the act.


Mr. LEADER:: May I ask-


James Garfield Gardiner: I wish hon. members would allow me to finish, and ask these questions in committee. I was just going to move that the bill be now given second reading and referred to the agriculture committee.


Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: In following the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) this afternoon in the first speech by a private member on this policy, I should like to set before the house certain information which I think' will be of value in the debate which will follow here and in the committee.
First of all I should like to give the average price for wheat at Fort William-Port Arthur for the last thirty-two years, 1910 to 1941 inclusive. That price is $1.22 a bushel, basis No. 1 northern Fort William. That makes the average price at the farm in western Canada $1.07 for wheat, basis No. 1 northern, for the past thirty-two years.
For four years, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918, during the last war, the average price of wheat was $1.77 a bushel, and in 1917 on the open market wheat rose to, I think, $3.12 a bushel, basis No. 1 northern, Fort William.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: What was the price of sugar then?


John Gordon Ross: About $30 a bag. Wheat rose to the price of $3.12 a bushel, but the government of the day immediately decreased the price to $2.21. I am not saying that was an improper thing to do.


Ernest Edward Perley: Same old stuff.


Mr. MacKENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: I
know it all by heart.
Mr, ROSS (Moose Jaw): I am endeavouring to show that during the last war, because, there was a scarcity of wheat, the government of Canada thought it proper to reduce the price from that which could have been obtained in the world market. By the same token I say that in this war the government has the responsibility of seeing that the price of wheat does not go too low because there is a surplus.
The average price of wheat for twenty-eight years of the last thirty-two, excluding

Wheat Acreage Reduction
the four war years, was $1.07 a bushel, basis No. 1 northern Fort William, or 92 cents at the farm in western Canada.
The average amount of wheat from the western inspection division which is milled for consumption in Canada as flour amounts to about ten to fifteen per cent of the western wheat crop in any one year. Therefore the remainder of eighty-five to ninety per cent of the western wheat crop is not used for the production of flour for domestic use in Canada. Eastern wheat is practically all used for domestic purposes in Canada. Ordinarily about 6 million to 7 million bushels is milled for flour, mostly for pastry and cake flour, the remainder of the wheat crop of eastern Canada being used as feed. Therefore the whole wheat crop of eastern Canada is generally used for domestic purposes. The amount of the western wheat crop that goes into flour in Canada, to be used by the bakers, is from five to seven and a half per cent. The proportion of flour from the western wheat crop that is sold to the housewives of Canada amounts to about the same percentage; and by far the greater part of the flour sold to the housewives of Canada is purchased and used upon the farms of this country.
The position of the farmer in the last war was that his price was held down because of a scarcity. The price of wheat in the last war cannot be used as a guide for the price of wheat in this war, but it is surely reasonable to expect that in this war the government and people of Canada should see to it that the apparent surplus of wheat is not used to depress the price of wheat in this country to an unduly low level.
There is another thing I should like to say in connection with the wheat farmers of Canada. The greatest trouble we have encountered in our whole economy, and the economy of the allies during this war, is that we found practically no one who was organized to produce the amount of material we needed for the war. Our manufacturers, our producers of other farm products than wheat, our shipbuilders-none of these could turn over to the government of this country or to the allies the required amounts of any materials required for the war. Only one person stands out in this regard in our economy; that is the wheat farmer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about mechanical transport?


John Gordon Ross: No. We could use a great deal more mechanical transport than we can get to-day.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Please don't forget eastern agriculture.


John Gordon Ross: I am not forgetting it, but I am saying that it did not have a surplus of anything that was required for the war effort. Further I say that no food commodity is so vitally needed during war time as wheat. The western farmer has been in this position, that he has produced not only what we have needed but also a surplus for our needs in the future. There has been no worry whatever on the part of Great Britain or our other allies in regard to bread during this war. Then we use that surplus, which we need and must have, as a basis for saying that economically wheat is not worth a certain price to-day, and as a result we depress the price of that wheat.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: Is that not due to the fact that there is a greatly reduced demand for wheat and a greatly increased demand for hogs and these other commodities?


John Gordon Ross: Yes, because there was no surplus of hogs, but there was a surplus of wheat. To-day there is no surplus of hogs being produced, but there is a surplus of wheat. There was a surplus of hogs before the war, and there will be a shortage of wheat before this war is over, regardless of the figure that was given to-day by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). I have said that wheat is a vital necessity during the war. If the position were reversed; if we did not have that surplus of wheat, the Minister of Trade and Commerce would have risen in his place in this house to-day and offered the western farmer anywhere from $2.50 to $3 a bushel in order to get the wheat that was required. That must be admitted.


An hon. MEMBER:: Make it $4.


John Gordon Ross: During the last war they paid more than $4; the price was $4.40 at Liverpool. There has been a good deal of discussion throughout the country in regard to ceiling prices, and a few moments ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) discussed some phases of this matter. Ceiling prices were set for the purpose of preventing sudden rises throughout the country, and inflation; and I think we all admit that it was a proper thing to do. But when these prices were frozen proper regard was not had for the relation between the price of one commodity and the price of another.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What the hon. member is saying is that it was an uneven price level?


John Gordon Ross: Surely.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree
with the hon. member.
Wheat Acreage Reduction


John Gordon Ross: At that time western wheat was at a much lower level, in comparison, than any other commodity in Canada.


Ernest Edward Perley: Where will 90 cents take it, then?


John Gordon Ross: There has been
do ceiling price set on wheat, which I think is a perfectly proper position for the government to take at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) said there was.


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friend
will have a chance to make his speech shortly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Minister of Finance said there was.


John Gordon Ross: I do not know
what the Minister of Finance said; I say there is no ceiling price for wheat in Canada. There are many reasons why there should be no such ceiling on wheat. In the first place there are the figures I gave in the early part of my remarks. Only from 10 to 15 per cent of the western wheat crop is used for the purpose of milling wheat into domestic flour in Canada. Therefore it would not be logical to set a ceiling price on a commodity of which only about 15 per cent is used in this country, while the other 85 to 90 per cent is exported. Another argument is that at no time in this country has the domestic price for wheat set the price of western Canadian wheat. The price of that wheat has always been set in the world market, in competition with other countries. The amount of wheat sold in Canada has had very little to do with the price of western wheat at any time. We are the greatest exporter of wheat and wheat flour in the world, and surely it would be a ridiculous position for us to take to set a ceiling on a
No. 1 northern wheat, basis in store Fort William-Port Arthur $ per bu.
1926		 1.50
1927		 1.48
1928		 1.35
1929		 1.34
1930		94
1931		59
1932		56
1933		61
1934		75
1935		84
1936		94
1937		 1.34
1938		 1.02
1939		65
1940		77
1941		75
Dominion Bureau of Statistics, March 7, 1942. (a) Includes processing levy.
[Mr. R. B. Hanson.1
commodity of which we export such tremendous quantities. In effect we would be saying to the world, "We do not believe this product is worth any more than a certain set price, which has some relation to the use of wheat for milling domestic flour in Canada." As a western representative I must say this, that I will not accept, nor will the people of western Canada accept, any economy for western Canada based on 90-cent wheat at Fort William, or anything near that figure, for the duration of the war.
There is no ceiling price on hogs but, as the minister said a moment ago, there are ceiling prices on pork, bacon and ham. There is no ceiling price on live cattle, but there is on beef over the counter. There is no ceiling price on wheat. We may need a ceiling on the products of wheat consumed in Canada. It may be necessary to hold to the ceilings as set to-day for flour and bread in this country, but I do not admit that wheat for domestic consumption as flour or bread must be sold as low as 90 cents a bushel, basis Fort William, to protect those ceilings. Nor do I admit, either, that the present ceilings on flour or bread in Canada are necessary to maintain ceilings on wages in industry.
In order to clarify that statement I should like to place on record a few figures with respect to wheat, flour, bread and industrial wages over a period of yeans. I hold in my hand a table prepared by the bureau of statistics giving prices on wheat No. 1 northern, basis in store Fort William; flour, first patent, per barrel, Montreal rate points; dominion average retail cash price per pound of standard white wrapped bread, and average wages paid in manufacturing industries of Canada, per year. The table I would ask permission to place on Hansard is as follows:
Dominion
Flour first	average retail	Average wagespatent per 2-[DOT]	cash price	paid in the98's jute basis	per pound of	manufacturingl.c.l. Montreal	standard white	industries ofrate points	wrapped bread	Canada$ per bbl.	c. per lb.	$ per wage-earner8.82	7-4	9998.25	7-5	9907.77	7-7	1,0217.93	7-4	1,0427.02	7-4	9955.03	6-4	9504.81	5-9	8445.09	5-6	7775.50	5-6	8305.43	5-7	8706.08	5.9	8967.73	6-6	9656.49	6-7	9564.99	6-2	9755.91(a)	6-2	...(b)5.73(a)	6-5	...(b)
(b) Not yet available.

Wheat Acreage Reduction
It will be noted that when wheat sold at $1.34 in 1929 the price of bread was 7-4 cents, or exactly the same as it was when wheat sold at $1.50. Then, in 193S the price of bread was 6-7 cents per pound, or one-tenth of a cent per pound higher when wheat was $1.02 per bushel than when it was $1.34 per bushel, in the preceding year.
Reference to the table will show that in 1941 the price of wheat was 75 cents a bushel and that of bread, 6-5 cents a pound, whereas in 1937 when wheat was priced at $1.34 a bushel bread stood at 6-6 cdnts a pound, or one-tenth of a cent more to make the difference between 75-cent wheat at Fort William and $1.34 wheat at the same point.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: Does the processing tax affect these prices?


John Gordon Ross: The processing tax does not appear in the second table, but it does in the first, and there is a note to that effect at the bottom.
The second table I should like to place on Hansard was prepared by the bureau of statistics, and has reference to the wholesale prices of wheat, wheat flour and bread for the calendar years 1910 to 1941 inclusive. If I have the permission of the house I should like to place the table on Hansard.


Georges Parent: If the hon. member has the consent of the house he may place the table on Hansard, but I wish to point out that this is a practice which should not be encouraged, and if it is continued unduly it will have to be forbidden. If the table is to be placed on Hansard it will have to be done with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


John Gordon Ross: I thank hon. members for their courtesy. The table is as follows:
Wholesale Prices Wheat, Wheat Flour and Bread
		Flour Man.	Bread
No. 1 Wheat1	1st patents	plain whiteCalendar	cash Wpg.	Mont. & Tor.	Torontoyear	c. bus.	$ brl.2	c. lb.1910	
100-0	5.68	1911	
95-5	5.31	2-761912	
97-4	5.60	2-671913	
88-1	5.38	3-121914	
100-1	6.01	3-171915	
128-2	7.26	3-421916	
138-1	7.91	4-001917	
220-2	11.91	6-061918	
222-3	11.66	6-701919	
237-3	11.42	6-61920	
253-4	13.84	7-71921	
164-9	9.72	6-41922	
123-5	7.65	5-21923	
108-4	6.87	5-31924	
127-4	7.40	5-71925	
164-1	9.42	6-71926	
149-5	8.82	6-71927	
148-1	8.25	6-71928	
134-8	7.77	6-71929	
134-3	7.93	6-21930	
94-2	7.02	6-01931	
58-7	5.03	6-01932	
55-6	4.81	6-01933	
61-0	5.09	6-01934	
74-8	5.50	6-01935	
84-4	5.42	6-01936	
93-7	6.08	6-01937	
134-0	7.72	6-41938	
101-5	6.49	6-41939	
64-5	4.98	6-01940	
77-2	5.61	5-31941	
74-7	5.50	5-3
f1) Calendar year average price.
(2) 1910-18 delivered Toronto; 1918 to date car lot f.o.b. Montreal and Ontario lake and rail points.
Source: Prices and Price Indexes, Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Wheat Acreage Reduction

Reference to this table will indicate that in 1910 flour sold in Montreal and Toronto for almost the same price at which it is selling in those cities to-day. In 1911, with wheat at 95-5 cents a bushel, flour sold in Montreal and Toronto at $5.31 a barrel, or 29 cents a barrel less than to-day's price.
It will be noted that in 1922, with wheat at $1.23 a bushel, bread at 5-2 cents a pound was selling at one-tenth of a cent less than it did in 1941, with wheat at 74-7 cents a bushel.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the hon. member offer any explanation for the apparent discrepancies? There is the question of taxation, cost of doing business, and other things which enter into these differentials.


Mr. TUCKER:: The farmer is affected by those things. He has to take the rap; that is what the hon. member is pointing out.


John Gordon Ross: As I follow through, my hon. friend may see some reason. An examination of these figures shows that prices of wheat and flour bear little relationship to the price of bread. They show clearly that the flour price to the baker could be raised considerably without affecting the price of bread in Canada to-day. The figures show clearly also that with wheat prices considerably above 90 cents Fort William, flour has in the past been sold at prices per barrel Montreal and Toronto which were under present ceiling prices.
I wish to be absolutely fair to both millers and bakers of Canada. If the war-time prices and trade board maintain that present ceilings for bread and flour must be continued in order that Canadian consumers may be fairly dealt with, then wheat should be sold to the millers for the production of flour to be consumed in Canada at 90 cents a bushel Fort William until such time as the millers can prove that that is not the proper price for wheat to be milled and sold as flour under present ceiling prices. At no time should the Canadian miller pay more than can be procured elsewhere for wheat to be milled into flour. At no time should the wheat producer sell to the Canadian miller at a lower net price than can be obtained elsewhere. We must bear in mind, of course, that the war has upset our regular markets, that it is difficult to ship, but these factors should not detract too much from the value of wheat in our hands at the present time.
If it is found necessary to subsidize the Canadian miller in order to maintain the ceiling price of flour so that the Canadian consumer can be placed in a preferred position in regard to bread and flour, the responsibility

is that of the Dominion of Canada, not of the wheat producers of Canada. Before a proper price for flour to the baker can be determined, many economies in that industry will have to be effected. Wrapping, slicing and delivery could be greatly curtailed. It certainly looks like a waste to see two, three or four bread carts or trucks covering the same block in a city day after day. All these expenses enter into the cost of a loaf of bread. More people in this country could carry home their bread. There are people in a great many parts of the world who would walk quite a distance to-day to get even a part of a loaf of bread. A one-pound loaf of bread contains only about one-half pound of flour. At the present price to bakers in Canada, that one-half pound of flour is worth exactly one and a quarter cents, or about fifteen per cent of the cost of the loaf of bread. You cannot make any great economy there, you have to make it somewhere else. So, before you start to economize on the wheat or the flour that goes into the bread, you must first look at the other costs. The flour that bakers use is second patent, which is sold at a much lower cost than the first patent flour which is used by the housewife.
In connection with the milling industry, before we start to economize on wheat there are possible savings which might be surveyed in connection with packaging and methods of sale and distribution. First of all, we must determine the proper price relationship between first patent flour used by the housewife and second patent flour used by the miller, or the baker. I did not make a mistake altogether there because in many cases in this country the bakers are the millers. We must consider the price of export flour in relation to both types of flour sold in Canada, the prices of feed flour, bran, shorts and middlings; all these factors and many more must be taken into consideration before the price of wheat can be determined to maintain flour at ceiling prices.
The prices of other grains as set forth to-day by the Minister of Trade and Commerce bear a fairly proper relationship to the advance of ninety cents a bushel for wheat. Coarse grains are badly needed, and a floor of forty-five cents under oats would assure the farmer of his position in growing oats in relation to wheat. A floor of sixty cents under barley would assure the farmer of his position there and, in my opinion, would switch many farmers in the coming year from the growing of wheat to the growing of barley. A price of $2.25 a bushel for flax may appear high to some, but it will not greatly increase the production of

Wheat Acreage Reduction
flax because of price alone. Flax is a speculative crop. It is difficult to produce and handle and it is of low average yield.


Georges Parent: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the ruling I gave in connection with reading speeches.


John Gordon Ross: I cannot see very well and the type is quite large in my notes. As I say, a price of $2.25 a bushel for flax will not greatly increase the production of that grain in Canada. But if this government tells the western farmers that flax is needed badly to augment the supply of vegetable oils in this country, that it is the patriotic duty of the farmers of western Canada to produce large quantities of flax regardless of the price offered this afternoon by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the western farmers will go out and do their part in that regard. The western farmer is the best citizen we have in this country and wants to pull his weight during this war.
The wheat acreage reduction enunciated by the Minister of Agriculture is a common-sense policy that will tend to increase the production of badly needed coarse grains. The amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act are there to protect producers of low yielding crops. The amendment made in order to allow the Minister of Agriculture to declare an emergency year regardless of price is a proper one because the farmer who will have a low yield this year has it because he has no control whatsoever over the circumstances. He will do the same job that any other farmer will do, but if climatic conditions are such that his yield will be low he should be projected and kept in a position to be ready to produce again as quickly as possible.
I still consider that a proper price for wheat in Canada is at least $1.20 a bushel, basis Fort William, in comparison with prices of other commodities in this country. I have not time at the moment to quote from a booklet I have here, but I would advise all members of the house to read it. It is put out by one of the western grain companies, and is known as the Searle Grain Index. It gives a complete picture of the western wheat grower and shows that whereas costs of living to the industrial workers have risen from 100 in 1913-14 to 146 to-day and their wages to considerably above that figure of 146, the western wheat grower whose costs were 100 in 1913-14 has costs of 150 to-day, and under the old price of wheat, 74 cents a bushel, basis Fort William, his revenue from wheat amounts to 81 per cent of what it was in 1913-14.


George Hugh Castleden: If the hon. member will permit a question, is that price of $1.20 basis Fort William, which he said was a
proper price, his estimate of a parity price for wheat at the present time?


John Gordon Ross: That is my estimate of the proper price for wheat in comparison with present prices of other commodities in Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then go to work on the government.


John Gordon Ross: Maybe I have done more work than you have.


James Arthur Ross: How much headway have you made with the minister?


John Gordon Ross: Along with others in this House of Commons I have endeavoured for some years to inform the Canadian people and the members of the House of Commons of the position of the western farmer in our economy:	I have tried to show them the
advisability of meting out justice and fair play to the western farmer, and we have made substantial gains in that regard both in this house and in the country. I am certain that there has been a great change in the-attitude of members from all parts of the dominion in regard to the plight of the people of western Canada and1 that to-day they are better informed and more sympathetic. Slowly but surely the members of this House of Commons and the people of Canada generally are coming to see that the present wheat surplus is not a burden but a great asset to this country.
Wheat is the most valuable food in wartime. The Secretary of Agriculture of the United States has stated that food will write the peace. It will, and food, especially wheat, will help to fight this war. The promise of food, notably wheat, to the enslaved peoples of Europe will do wonders for the allies once they start to invade Europe, and that surplus of wheat now held in our elevators in Canada can then be used to great advantage. A large part of that surplus will be badly needed by our valiant ally, Russia, in the very near future. Governments of European countries which have been overrun are to-day carrying in other parts of the world large sums of money which they can and will use for the purpose of buying wheat for their peoples just as quickly as they can be liberated. Much of that money will be used to purchase wheat from this continent as soon as that is made possible. As a matter of fact, the government of one overrun country in Europe to-day have purchased some millions of bushels of wheat and some millions of bushels of barley, and they have that wheat and barley, not as an option, but bought and paid for and stored to-day in Canada and the United States against the day when their people are liberated. Wheat is valuable and will be

Wheat Acreage Reduction

valuable. Gradually the people of Canada are coming to see that it is a short-sighted policy to gauge wheat as a burden at this time.
With these thoughts in mind, Mr. Speaker, and looking at the broad picture of agriculture in Canada to-day, taking into account the assured position of the farmer in regard to butter, milk and milk products, cheese, cattle, hogs, wool, eggs, flax, barley, and oats, and an advanced price for wheat of 90 cents a bushel, which is still too low in my estimation, and in addition the wdieat acreage reduction policy announced to-day by the Minister of Agriculture and amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, I commend both the Minister of Trade and Commerce for the information which he has given to the house and the policy he has brought down to-day, and the Minister of Agriculture, and I say to the government that on the whole they have done a good job and I am going to support them on all these measures.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to express to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) the appreciation of myself and my constituents of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Some weeks ago I communicated with several of my constituents as to what they thought the proper wheat policy should be for this year. I did so for the reason that I believed there was too much concentration on the question of price and not enough attention paid to some of the other things which had been done by the Minister of Agriculture and this government. I got 194 replies, seventy beseeching me at all costs to see that nothing was done to detract in any way from the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, that it should be left as it is, if not impro\ ed, but that payments under it might be a little more liberal. Of the others, eighty said they wanted to be sure that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act was left in force, and they would like an increase in the price if it were possible for the government to grant it. Of the 194 letters which I got, 150 therefore laid their main emphasis on the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Many of them said it was the first time that any government had done anything to add a certain amount of -security to the position of the farmer on our western plains, subject as he is to the continual fear of crop failure.
The situation so far as the present Minister of Agriculture is concerned has been this, as I see it: that he, coming from western Canada, knows as well as anybody living in that country the difficult position of the western farmers; but, being a member of a government which must govern with the consent of a majority of the people of Canada, naturally
IMr. J. G. Ross.]
he cannot dictate the policy of that government, and it has only been possible for him to secure the adoption of some of the ideas which he thought necessary. For that reason, because everything was not done which we in western Canada advocated and which, I believe, the minister would have liked to see done, there has been a tendency on the part of some elements to concentrate their attacks upon him and to pretend that he has not done his best for the western farmers. In my humble judgment the present Minister of Agriculture has done more for the farmers of the west than any other Minister of Agriculture since confederation. I would like those who attack him to remember that no matter what government is in power, be it Liberal, Conservative, Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or Social Credit, of necessity a majority of their parliamentary supporters would come from elsewhere than western Canada, and that the west cannot hope to dictate to a dominion government, no matter of what political stripe. If we are to have fairness in public life we must give credit where credit is due.
Further, to what does this sort of campaign lead in a country like ours? The man who takes the initiative in fighting for a minority, such as are the western farmers, finds that the more he gets in the public eye, the more severely he is condemned. The result of such attacks is to create a tendency on the part of many public men to take the attitude that the less we do, the less we are in the public eye. If we are in a position such as western representatives find themselves in, the less we are in the public eye, the less likely we are to provoke attack, and therefore the best way to get by is to do as little as possible.
Another thing to be remembered is that the history of representatives from western Canada shows that time after time, after they have fought their very best to get a square deal for the west, the fact that they were not able to get all that westerners thought they should get has been the basis of charges that they had "sold out" the people and not represented them as they should have done. As a result, we have destroyed some of the best fighters for western Canada who ever came to parliament. The effect of this kind of thing is that western representatives, including those supporting a Cooperative Commonwealth Federation government, if ever there is one in this country, will be advised by the cynic, "Don't fight too hard for your western farmers, because you will never satisfy them, you will not be able to get the rest of the country to agree with what you want to do, and ultimately you will be 'crucified' no matter how hard you work or what you accomplish."

Wheat Acreage Reduction
I suggest to our people in the west that they try to sort out their friends from their enemies, that they distinguish the people who are trying to serve them to the best of their ability and are getting results, even if not all they would like, from the people who pretend that if they were in office all would be like paradise as far as western Canada is concerned. I hope the people of the west will not be misled by the campaign which has been carried on, as I see it, against a man who, in the position of Minister of Agriculture, has worked harder for western Canada than any man who previously occupied that position.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Walter Adam Tucker: When the house rose I was dealing with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and I wish to deal further with it for a few minutes before I pass on to the price of wheat.
As I understood the minister, the suggestion is made that the government is taking power to declare an emergency year even if the average price of wheat is over 80 cents, basis No. 1 northern Fort William, during the three fall months; but it is not proposed to change subsection 1 of section 2 of the act, which provides that the amount that may be paid in townships which have an average yield of eight to twelve bushels to the acre shall be paid on the basis of the average price of wheat between 70 to 80 cents. In other words, as the act now stands, if the average price during
the three fall months is, say 72 cents No. 1 northern, Fort William, the amount paid1 in townships in that category, the 8 to 12 bushel, would be 80 cents per acre on one-half the cultivated acreage. If the price were 75 cents, the price that could be allotted in the townships from 8 to 12 bushels average per acre would be 50 cents per acre. If the initial price of wheat is raised to 90 cents and if the grain exchange functions at all, I presume it will function at a price over 90 cents, so by that very fact, unless this section is amended, the people who have received assistance in the past in the 8 to 12 bushel category will not get it any more. The reason for no change being made is, I believe, that the price being raised to 90 cents, you do not need to worry very much about the person in the 8 to 12 bushel category. I do not agree, for anyone in that category, supposing he had 8 bushels per acre, would have only six bushels for sale, and that would mean he would not have very much income.
I suggest that very serious consideration should be given to amending this so that in an emergency year anyone in the 8 to 12 bushel category should get a dollar just the same as anyone in the 4 to 8 bushel category would get S1.50 for half his cultivated acreage.
Some may think that would mean a tremendous drain on the treasury. I took the trouble to look up the relative amounts paid in the various categories in the last two years, namely, 1939-40 and 1940-41. The year 1941-42 is not yet complete, so I have not those figures.
I found that the total amount actually paid out in those years was as follows:
Amount paid out under all categories	 $ 6.712.201
Amount collected from the farmers	 2,582,687
Cost to the treasury of Prairie Farm Assistance Act	 $ 4,129.514
Amount paid out under all categories	 $ 9,904,300
Amount collected from the farmers	 2,421,507
Cost to treasury of Prairie Farm Assistance Act	 $ 7,482.793
[DOT]	$11,612,307
Therefore the total cost of this act, which has meant so much in the way of security to the farmers of western Canada during those two years, was only $11,612,307. That meant actually a subsidizing of the price of wheat by the treasury of this country to the extent of a little over one cent a bushel.
Actually in all the categories, the payments were as follows: In the eight to twelve category during those two years payments were made to 69,783 farmers; in all the other categories, including the crop failure categories, payments were made to 40,353 farmers, so that 44561-73}
actually there were 50 per cent more farmers who got payments in the 8 to 12 category than in all other categories put together. The amount involved was as follows:
In the eight to twelve category.. $7,466,668 In all the other categories, including the crop failure categories. . 9,149,828
Therefore if amendment is not made to leave the eight to twelve category in, you will eliminate more than half the farmers who drew benefits during those two years from the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. If you have similar years in future, you are elimin-
Wheat Acreage Reduction

ating almost half of the money paid out under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
I submit that in view of the fact that this policy cost the treasury of this country only a little over one cent a bushel (spread over all wheat marketed) and that it means so much in the way of security to the'western farmer, and has cost the treasury in two years only a little over eleven and a half million dollars, when you are increasing the price to the farmer who has wheat you should not deprive the farmer who has a small crop of eight to twelve bushels of the bit of protection he has already.
I most earnestly urge the government to make an amendment so that you do not take away from the farmer in the eight to twelve category the bit of protection he has under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
The benefit received under this act in the case of crop failure is $2.50 per acre; on half your acreage that is $1.25 an acre. Anyone who knows anything about farming in western Canada knows that is not adequate for a farmer to pay for his loss of crop and keep himself and family during the next year.
Instead of cutting down the payment I earnestly suggest that the government consider increasing the payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and particularly in that category, and that the protection now given in the eight to twelve category should not be taken away.
Coming now to the question of the price of wheat, I should like to urge this House of Commons to approach the matter of dealing with our western Canadian farmer in the same spirit as that in which we asked our people to approach the problem of dealing with people in other countries. We know that last August the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Right Hon. Winston Churchill, and the President of the United States, met and signed what is known as the Atlantic charter, Clause 6 of that charter reads:
After the final destruction of the nazi tyranny they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want.
Mr. Speaker, if that is the objective for which we are fighting this war, that the people in all lands of the world should be able to live out their lives in freedom from fear and want, is it not time that the members of this house should actually say that they will apply that to their own fellow Canadians? Continually I am meeting fellow Canadians in western Canada who say, "Here are the noble principles of the Atlantic charter;

Canadians in western Canada are sending their men in as large a proportion as any other part of Canada to fight for these principles; if we cannot get them at home, what real hope is there of getting them established in the world at large?"
Some one may say that I am exaggerating the situation. I have not much time to prove my point, but I think I can give some figures that will establish it to any fair-minded man in this house.
The province of Saskatchewan made a submission to the Sirois commission, and in that connection they made a very careful survey of their debt situation. They found that the agricultural debt in Saskatchewan in 1937 was $525,000,000. I need not go into the reason for that, except to say that no doubt the interest being charged was too high. Many people were paying more than eight per cent. If the interest had been five per cent and the debts had been amortized, there would have been very little debt comparatively in western Canada in 1937. But be that as it may, the debt upon Saskatchewan farming was $525,000,000, or $15 for every acre of cultivated land in that province.
Everyone knows also that during the past several years, with prices so low, certainly the farmer needed the two-thirds of the crop he was allowed to retain to live on and the one-third left would often barely pay taxes and perhaps a very little on the principal and interest. What has been the situation, then? I wish this to be considered by people in the other parts of Canada. Year after year men who went into that country in the early days, who worked there during all their lives and had their families working with them, who lived on a very low standard of living, have seen their equity being cut down, until finally someone has come along and said, "You no longer have any equity left in your land." Then what happens? When they get around seventy years of age they are told, "You might as well let us foreclose, and you can live on the old age pension," or something to that effect. I venture to say that seventy-five per cent of the farmers in Saskatchewan have seen their equities in their land and their homes gradually disappear. The farmer has no place to go with his family, unless he wishes to go on relief in the cities and towns. He sees his equity vanishing; he sees the time approaching when he will be told that his equity is gone and that he might as well let himself be foreclosed. Could anyone in this house say that those farmers, seeing their equity reduced inexorably year after year, were free from fear, the fear of losing their homes and, with their families, being cast out? I know it will be said that there is

Wheat Acreage Reduction
debt adjustment legislation which is intended to prevent these foreclosures; but when the equity is wiped out, the tendency is for the man to be told, "You no longer have an equity, and you might as well quit struggling."
This is something we should all consider. I absolutely agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that if we are not well on the way to a new order in Canada before this war ends, then our chances of getting it after the war are not so good. I ask the government, as I ask every hon. member, in approaching this question of the price of wheat to bear in mind the situation which prevails in western Canada, and to determine that we in this house will apply the principles of the Atlantic charter to our fellow Canadians. '
As an example of what is happening, not only on western farms but all over Canada, in the 1941 "Canada Year Book" I find that the average value of farms and equipment in Canada in 1941 is given as 813,814. For 1931 it is given as $7,185, a drop of over $6,000 for the average Canadian farm and equipment, or almost fifty per cent. If you have operating also an increase in debt due to inability to pay 'interest and principal, you can see how equities can be reduced year by year. Someone may say, "Well, your western farmer lives too extravagantly." Again I go to the year book; I cannot give all the figures, but I should like to compare the western farmer with the Ontario farmer in certain respects. I find that according to the census of 1931 Ontario farmers having cars comprised 65-4 per cent of the farmers of Ontario, while the farmers of Saskatchewan having cars comprised only 47-7 per cent. Ontario farmers with telephones comprised 54-1 per cent; in Saskatchewan the figure was 34-2 per cent. In Ontario 21-5 per cent of the farmers had radios; in Saskatchewan 20-2 per cent had radios. Ontario farmers having gas or electricity totalled 16-8 per cent, while in Saskatchewan the figure was 2-S per cent. Farmers having piped water in their kitchens, and so on, totalled 10-4 per cent in Ontario and only 1-4 per cent in Saskatchewan.
This situation is reflected in our educational services, our medical services and all the other services we give our people. To-day it is extremely difficult to get doctors to stay in rural districts; it is very difficult to keep rural schools open in more outlying districts particularly. Here is the situation, and I put it to members of this house point blank. Would you, for any reason, I do not care what it is, say you are going to have one first-class type of citizen in Canada and then another, a second-class type, who cannot afford the same education, who cannot afford the same medical services as people in other parts of the
country, at the same time that you are asking these young men to go out and give their lives, together with the first-class citizens of Canada? These may be regarded as harsh words. We can close our ears to them if we wish, but the facts are there, for every member of this house to see. We are all members of the Canadian parliament, and we should not close our eyes to the situation that is before us.
Someone may say, "Well, you have not proved that your income is low in Saskatchewan." I should like to give a great many figures, but I might give just enough to indicate that there is real truth in what I am saying. I have before me figures as to the per capita national income by provinces in 1927 and 1940; I have them for all the provinces, but I cannot take time to give all those figures. The average per capita income in Ontario in 1927 is $511. In Saskatchewan, in the same year, the average per capita income was $466. Then we come to 1940. In that year the average per capita national income in Ontario had dropped to $505, but in Saskatchewan it dropped to $261, or by almost fifty per cent. Then we might take the receipts from the sale of farm products, by provinces, which will give the gross agricultural income, based on the average from 1926 to 1929. In Quebec the average income during that period was $101,000,000, in round figures. In 1941 that income had increased to $136,000,000. The average agricultural income in Ontario from 1926 to 1929 was $260,000,000, and in 1941 it had increased to $284,000,000. In other words, there was an increase in both Ontario and Quebec in the gross agricultural income. What was the situation in Saskatchewan? The average income from 1926 to 1929 was $280,000,000, but in 1941 that income shrank to $156,000,000. I ask any hon. members representing Ontario and Quebec just what their farmers would do to them if the agricultural income of their provinces, instead of going up, had shrunk by almost half; and I ask hon. members representing eastern farming communities, who may oppose some measure of justice for the western farmer, what they would do if they were in our position.
Then I might quote some figures as to the index number of receipts from the sale of farm products, using the period 1926 to 1929 as 100. In Quebec the index number in 1941 was 134-6; in Ontario it was 109-3; in Saskatchewan, 55-9, and in Manitoba, 98-1. After all, Saskatchewan is the province that suffers most in the present situation because in 1940, for example, 76 per cent of our total agricultural income was derived from wheat, while in 1941, 71 per cent of our income came from wheat which is most depressed in price of any agricultural product. I would speak to the
Wheat Acreage Reduction

labouring people of this country-and I am glad the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) is interested. No farmer objects to labour being well treated, but we ask labour to have some sympathy for us when we ask for a fair deal, too.
I have before me a report of the Searle Grain Company, to which reference was made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross). I am going to read only two paragraphs from it:
Looking at the two charts-
It gives a chart showing camparative receipts of labour and farmers.
-it will be observed that for wheat to have the same purchasing power as it had in 1913 and 1914, . . . the price should now be one dollar. This is at the average country point. . . .
In other words, the parity price for wheat, if it is to have the same purchasing power as it did in 1913 and 1914, should be one dollar to the farmer-and that means $1.20 a bushel at Fort William. That would put the farmer in the same position as he occupied back in 1913 and 1914-not the good old days between 1926 and 1929. He has reached a point where he is almost 50 per cent worse off than he was in 1913.
We now turn to the industrial worker. This is where I say he should give some support to the position taken by the farmers. The industrial worker's average hourly wage, if it is to have the same purchasing power as it did in 1913 and 1914, should now stand at the index number of 145. In other words, where the industrial labour got $100 in 1913, to purchase the same amount of goods to-day he should get $145. What is he getting? He is actually getting $210. In other words, the industrial worker to-day is better off by 44 per cent than he was in 1913-1914, and the farmer is roughly 45 per cent worse off-that is wheat at the price prevailing last year.
The suggestion was made that we should freeze the farmer in that inferior position. At a time when the industrial labourer would be getting only $145 compared with $100 in 191314, to be as well off, and when in fact he is actually receiving $210, the suggestion is that the farmer should get only $54 where he got $100, and that his position should: be frozen there. Is it any wonder that the hon. member for Moose Jaw and every other western farmer says that we refuse to be placed1 in that position of inferiority compared with the rest of Canada? Is it any wonder that the west takes that attitude? We have children to look after and to educate; we have medical services to obtain; we are human beings, just the same as the industrial workers.
Mark this: whereas the total average income per farm in 1926-29 was $1,007 a year, the aver-

age yearly earning of industrial workers was $1,017, or roughly $10 more a year. That was the condition, in spite of the fact that the farmer has an investment in his land. During the period 1930-40 that had shrunk to an average income per farmer of $468 a year, while that of the industrial worker was $902. During that time the average investment in farms was $7,185, and the average income per farm during the same ten years had fallen from $1,007 to $468.
In spite of the investment involved, and in spite of the fact that that is total farm income, for, let us remember, the farmer works, his wife works and his children work. It seems to me that the time has come when everybody in Canada should know those figures, and act according to the principle laid down in the Atlantic charter. We should act, as well as talk in that regard.
What objections are made? One objection is that there is too much wheat. I believe the hon. member for Moose Jaw dealt thoroughly with this point this afternoon. Let me read what Mr. Churchill had to say:
We shall do our best to encourage the building up of reserves of food all over the world, so that there will always be held before the eyes of the people of Europe, including the Germans, the certainty that the shattering of nazi power would bring them all immediate food, freedom and peace.
In other words, one of the weapons for the destruction of nazi tyranny is the tremendous over-supply of wheat we have built up in Canada. Mr. Churchill says that we will encourage that. Are we encouraging it when we say that we will pay less than the cost of production for that wheat, just because the farmer is doing the very thing that Mr. Churchill, that incomparable leader of democracy, has said we will do? That is all I shall have to say on the suggestion that we have too much wheat. But the day will come when every bushel of wheat will feed some hungry mouth that will be very happy to receive it.
It is suggested that we should go into other lines of production. Well, I shall not take time to give figures, but I might point out in passing that Saskatchewan hog marketing increased from 312,000 head in 1939 to 857,000 head in 1941. That is an increase of well over 200 per cent, and if she went on increasing at the same rate during the next two years she would produce as many hogs as Ontario does now.
For those who say that we should turn our entire effort to the production of mixed products, I have some interesting figures. Assuming that to-day we can use 230,000,000 bushels of wheat, that our average crop would be 450,000,000 bushels, and that we turned the remaining 220,000,000 bushels to the production of hog products, we would produce in hogs alone 2,640,000,000 pounds. Yes, think

Wheat Acreage Reduction
of it-2,640,000,000 pounds! Our entire marketings last year amounted to only 1,245,000,000 pounds of hog products. In other words, if we turned our entire excess wheat production to the feeding of hogs, we would produce in Saskatchewan alone more than twice the total amount of hogs marketed in all of Canada. I say to hon. members from Ontario: Supposing you drive the Saskatchewan farmer to do that, in what position will it leave your constituents when we in Saskatchewan produce twice as much as the whole of Canada combined? That is a point which must be faced,


Mr. BLAIR:: Don't worry about us; we shall be all right.


Walter Adam Tucker: An hon. member says,
"Don't worry about us, we shall be all right." Well, I am glad he is so optimistic. But I suggest that the path of true statesmanship is not to shove your head in the sand and say, "We shall be all right."
There is the further suggestion that wheat is no advantage to Canada. Between the years 1910 and 1936 the value of grain marketed from western Canada alone was $10,278,000,000. That went to build up eastern Canada, as no other single factor has built it up. In the days ahead, when we get out of this period of interference with markets, western Canada once more will make a vital contribution to the upbuilding of the rest of Canada. Do not drive that country, which has done so much to build up Canada as a whole, away from the industry it has developed.
Then the suggestion is made that we should swing over to manufacturing. I have something to say in that regard which is aside from the subject. Hon. members will perhaps bear with me for a moment, or maybe permit me to have a minute or two extra to deal with it. There are 20,000,000,000 tons of coal in Estevan, perhaps one of the largest deposits of soft coal in the world. I suggest to the government: if you are having a total war effort, why do you not develop a tremendous head of power at the Estevan mine and have the advantage of all the by-products that would be obtained? Some of those by-products I believe could be used to make synthetic rubber. Probably a half-million people could be put to work in industry as a result who now have no chance to participate in the war effort.
I grant that it might cost a little more to manufacture in western Canada, but while a tank that costs fifty per cent more to make may do something to the national debt of this country; it will kill a nazi just the same as a tank manufactured more cheaply in eastern Canada. We have not a total war effort when the prairie provinces have only a few hundred thousand dollars worth of munition contracts. All we in Saskatchewan have been
permitted to do in the war is to send our young men to enlist or our young men and women to the coast or down to eastern Canada to work. But some of them cannot leave home and they would be very glad to engage in industry. I know the answer will be that we have not the management.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have not the steel.


Walter Adam Tucker: We can ship steel out to the west just the same as we can ship it to the east. Surely we can get it. After all, if we are not going to lay the foundation for stepping up our production to a one hundred per cent effort, then we are not doing our part toward'the people of this country. I ask my hon. friend who has just interrupted me: Does he think that because it cost extra money to establish industries behind the Ural mountains, Russia hesitated to do it when the very life of that country was at stake? Did they consider the question of money and the cost of doing these things? 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.
On the question of management, we know that we had not the management at the outbreak of this war, for example, to provide an armoured division for Canada. You have to train management in industry the same as you are training men for an armoured division or in the commonwealth air training scheme. Once you have trained your management in eastern Canada, can it not be moved in part out west to establish industries there alongside these tremendous coal fields? Some people who may feel that they are wiser than I, and properly so, will say that this is going to cost more money, that it will be difficult and so on. I say that it might be the last ounce of strength put into the effort that will win this war. Many of us at one time or another have had our car stuck. We have tried to get it out and have almost succeeded. If a little child had come along and put his shoulder to the car, it would have come out, but for the lack of that extra few pounds pressure, the car rolled back into the hole and it probably finally required a tractor to pull it out.
The same situation exists so far as our position in this war is concerned. Anyone who is a soldier knows that when the battle trembles in the balance, one man thrown into the fray might turn the tide. I think Canada should make up her mind to put her whole strength into this war. She should make sure that western Canada is given a chance to do what it can do as well as any other part of the country. If you say to western Canada, "turn to other things," we will reply that we will turn to other things if you will only give us a chance to do so.
Wheat Acreage Reduction

I have exceeded my time by two or three minutes, and I shall not impose upon the goodwill of the house more than to say a few words in conclusion. In my opinion -the proper price for wheat when compared with other things would be $1.20 a bushel, basis Fort William. To pay that price would cost $75,000,000 -a year. For three years, the total cost would be $225,000,000. Would it make much difference three years from now whether the debt of this country was, say $10,200,000,000 or $10,425,000,000? The people of western Canada are in this war just the same as any other Canadians, but they see farmers across the line in the United States getting 10 per cent over parity prices for -their wheat. They ask whether they are not fighting just the same as those people across the line. I suggest to the government that it would be a good thing for the unity of this country if we treated our western farmers just as well as the United States treat their western farmers. I suggest that the actual cost to the taxpayers of this county would be nil because that debt will be renewed from time to time. A difference of $225,000,000 in a debt of the size it will be at the end of the war will not make much difference to the Minister of Finance of that day.
But the difference in the attitude of the people of western Canada, their ability to support the war and their feeling that they are felt, by the rest of Canada to be a real part of this country will be tremendous. I appeal to the government to bear in mind the fact that these loyal, honest, hard-working people are one with you in the great fight which we face. I ask you to treat them as first-class citizens, as fellow' Canadians, as brothers in arms-do not treat them as second-class citizens-and the result will be tenfold in the response that you will get, in the strength that you will get as we all get together as a united people to fight the battles that lie ahead.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the dinner recess has done things to some of us, particularly our western representatives. Before we adjourned at six o'clock I heard the hon. member who has just taken his seat say that those who represented minorities such as western Canada should not talk too loudly or too much, that if they did, perhaps after a while they would be left at home. I am convinced that since coming in here at eight o'clock he has felt ashamed of himself and the policy of the government which a few moments ago he told us he was bound and pleased to follow.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am not ashamed of anything. I think everything I said before the 
dinner recess was absolutely true. I believe the Minister of Agriculture feels as strongly as I do that more should be done for western Canada than is being done.


Robert Fair: I am Dot complaining at all
of anything the hon gentleman has said since the dinner recess, but I do not think he should discourage anyone from standing up and fighting for what he believes is right. The remarks he made before the dinner recess were to that effect. Again I say that he must be ashamed of the Liberal policy and is frightened of losing his seat in the next election when he tells some of the rest of us not to get up and fight.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. gentleman should not impute motives.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Fair: The hon. gentleman said-


Walter Adam Tucker: I ask the hon. member to take that back.


Robert Fair: I did not say whether it was a provincial or federal election.


Walter Adam Tucker: It does not matter.


Georges Parent: The hon. member should not make such statements.


Robert Fair: I suppose the hon. gentleman is all tuckered out because he had more than his time.


Walter Adam Tucker: The suggestion was, Mr. Speaker, that I had spoken as I did because I was afraid of an election that was coming. I absolutely deny that, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement.


Georges Parent: If the hon. member made that suggestion I think he will have to withdraw it.


Robert Fair: I was just expressing my own opinion, Mr. Speaker, but if the hat does not fit the hon. gentleman he need not wear it.


Georges Parent: I think the hon. member should withdraw the statement complained of by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker).


Robert Fair: i will withdraw the hat if it does not fit him.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, this has come to a point where it does not concern me alone but every member of the house if an hon. member is allowed to persist in disobeying the ruling of Your Honour. It goes far beyond anything that affects me personally, and I ask Your Honour to see that the member obeys the ruling of the Chair.


Robert Fair: If the hon. gentleman's conscience is pricking him I withdraw the statement.
\

Wheat Acreage Reduction


Georges Parent: Order. As the hon. member for Rosthern has said, this has got beyond the stage where it can be treated as a joke. The hon. member for Rosthern has complained of the hon. gentleman's statement and he should withdraw it, without any reservations.


Robert Fair: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. I was just having a little joke and I think, if we had a few little jokes of that kind instead of the kind more often practised in this house, we would have a much healthier atmosphere here. But what I have to say with regard to the agricultural policy I do not intend to apologize for or to withdraw.
The agricultural policy of this country for a number of years has been very truly described by the hon. gentleman who got so warm at my statement just now and insisted upon my withdrawing it. I think he made a very good case for the farmers of western Canada and Canadians generally, because in putting up the case for the western farmer I realize, as must every other hon. member, that a case is being put up for all of Canada. We cannot have poor relations in this country, as agriculture might well be described, if we are to have that Canadian unity which has been shouted about so loud and so long in this house.
As they gave us their policies for agriculture this afternoon I was wondering just who were the advisers of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), and I wondered because agriculture is not getting the same treatment as other classes in Canada. I attended a banquet at the Chateau Laurier not very long ago, on January 29, I believe, when we had the pleasure and profit of listening to Mr. R. M. Evans, Administrator of Agricultural Adjustment and Conservation, United! States Department of Agriculture. I was very glad to hear this gentleman who had been invited to Canada, and I was also very glad to see sitting on the platform with him the Minister of Agriculture. I have the speech of Mr. Evans here, and while I shall not read all of it, I should like to quote a few paragraphs from his address because I think they are well worth noting. He said:
It is all very well to talk about men being free in a democracy-for in a true democracy, they are. But it is only a matter of being realistic-for the protection of democracy itself -to recognize that when farmers who produce the food that a nation needs must sell their products at low prices, over which they have no control, and then lose their farms, their homes, and family security because they cannot meet their obligations-then those men are not truly free. They do not have economic freedom, and without it political freedom cannot long endure. Democracy needs bread and butter as well as ballots.
At the present time, when our young men and our young women are overseas fighting for democracy, I think it is only right that we should practise that same democracy here at home. A little further along Mr. Evans had this to say in connection with reserves:
To carry these reserves, as well as to smooth out the flow of crops to market, commodity loans are made to producers who have complied with their acreage allotments. These loans are based upon 85 per cent of the parity price for the commodity. For wheat, this has meant a loan rate of $1.15 per bushel for No. 2 hard winter at Chicago this year. At this price, the wheat in an average loaf of bread costs about one and three-quarters cents. The fact that wheat for some time now has been above the loan rate would seem to indicate that our farmers have succeeded in making it their market.
Under normal circumstances, this system of marketing appears to be adequate. But when the surplus of any basic commodity reaches a danger point, the law requires that a marketing quota be declared. The quota must be approved by two-thirds of the affected producers voting in a referendum.
I may point out that in this country the producers have not one thing to say about quotas. Instead, a policy of totalitarianism is practised. Mr. Evans went on to say:
Rounding out this programme of protection for the producer is crop insurance against losses from natural, unavoidable hazards. It insures yield only, not price. Crop insurance was provided on wheat for the first time in 1939 and is being extended to cotton this year.
In concluding my references to Mr. Evans'' address, I should like to summarize the six points of the United States farm programme, as follows:
1.	Conservation based upon sound soil improving crops and practices with payment in proportion to the work accomplished.
2.	Acreage allotments to adjust production to need-with payments for adjustment and to improve income.
3.	Marketing loans with farm storage allowances.
4.	Marketing quotas when supplies hit danger levels.
5.	Crop insurance-now offered on cotton and wheat.
6.	Market expansion programme including school lunches, food stamp plan and direct distribution to low income groups as well as export assistance when necessary.
A little further on he says:
During November, AAA farmer committeemen visited every one of their six million neighbours to sign them up in the AAA farm programme for 1942. Each farmer prepared a farm plan and indicated how much of each crop or product he intended to produce next year. The reports now show that our farmers intend to meet or exceed the goals we have set for the production of "food for freedom" in 1942.

Wheat Acreage Reduction

Just one other quotation from his address:
In every county and community, our programme is run by farmer committeemen elected by their neighbours. From the ranks of these 130,000 committeemen, our state committees are appointed by the secretary of agriculture. Many of the men in administrative, policyforming positions in our Department of Agriculture are farmers who have come up through the ranks of our farm programme in these past eight or nine years.
I have pleasure in commending this address of Mr. Evans to the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues in the government. Following that up, I should like to read a section of the statute which has been passed by congress dealing with parity prices. Section 3 (a) of the price control bill which became law in the United States on January 30 last states:
Sec. 3 (a) No maximum price shall be established or maintained for any agricultural commodity below the highest of any of the following prices, as determined and published by the Secretary of Agriculture: (1) 110 per centum of the parity price for such commodity, adjusted by the Secretary of Agriculture for grade, location, and seasonal differentials, or. in case a comparable price has been determined for such commodity under subsection (b), 110 per centum of such comparable price, adjusted in the same manner, in lieu of 110 per centum of the parity price so adjusted; (2) the market price prevailing for such commodity on October 1, 1941; (3) the market price prevailing for such commodity on December 15, 1941; or (4) the average price for such commodity during the period July 1, 1919, to June 30, 1929.
I believe that in this respect we should follow the action of the United States-because we always seem to wait for somebody else to take the lead, and then we follow. The United States has given us a very good lead in this case, and I commend it to the Minister of Agriculture and the government.
From time to time delegations representing the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and similar bodies have come to Ottawa. One of the last to appear here were the 400 or so representatives from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. This delegation was organized, I believe, by the Saskatchewan wheat pool, and included, as well as the Saskatchewan delegation, representatives of Manitoba farm and other organizations, the United Farmers of Alberta, the United Farmers of Canada, Alberta section, and the Alberta wheat pool. When the representatives of these bodies met the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and some members of his cabinet they were, I understand, very favourably received. They were told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) that their demands were just and reasonable, and none other than the Prime Minister himself told the delegation, according to press reports, that the wheat question was one wdth which Canada should 
deal, that it was Canada's responsibility. Now we are asking that Canada shoulder this responsibility. Some seem to think that we are too persistent in pressing this matter, but I believe that those who express this opinion do not really understand the situation in the west, as it has been so well described by the hon. member who preceded me. I have here a little poem which originated in North Dakota. It reads as follows:
I hate to be a kicker, I always long for peace,
But the wheel that does the squeaking is the one that gets the grease.
It's nice to be a peaceful soul, and not too hard to please,
But the dog that's always scratching is the one that has the fleas.
The art of soft soap spreading is the thing that palls and stales,
But the guy who wields the hammer is the one who drives the nails.
Let us not put any notions that are harmful in your head,
But the baby that keeps yelling is the baby that gets fed!


An hon. MEMBER:: That is as old as the hills.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Quite
applicable, though, over there.


Robert Fair: A great many "babies" have
been crying in Canada, and a whole lot of them must have been fed, because we do not hear them crying any more. So, now that everybody else has been satisfied, perhaps Canada will see to it that the farmer receives a little of what is coming to him.
I have here a publication which was put out by the Searle Grain company, of Winnipeg, dealing with prices and amounts which have been received by the farmers. I will read the following extract:
During the past eleven crop years our farmers have delivered to market 3,084 million bushels of grain. They have received for this in cash 1,709 million dollars. Had all these bushels of wheat enjoyed the same purchasing power as a bushel of wheat did in 1913-14 or been at so-called "parity" level-and no one considers wheat had too great a purchasing power in 1913-14-our farmers would have been able to pay for additional goods, commodities, services, debts and so forth to the additional value of 1,127 million dollars.
That is the amount which has been legally stolen from our western farmers; it is money which they would have received if they were getting the treatment to which they were entitled:
. . . our farmers would have been able to pay for additional goods, commodities, services, debts and so forth to the additional value of 1,127 million dollars.
That sum, I believe, would have supplied a whole lot of milk and have satisfied a great many "babies" and kept them from crying.

Wheat Acreage Reduction
Had any other class or group in Canada been deprived of any such amount as that, I believe you would have had, as we had in 1939, a sit-down strike. I am referring to what industry threatened when profits were restricted to five per cent. But we farmers have continued ever since 1929 to produce below cost of production and we have not yet gone on a sit-down strike. So I believe we are loyal citizens; we have been just a little too "easy" for our own good; we should get the consideration now which all those other "babies" have received who have now been satisfied.
According to other information contained in this booklet, Canadian wheat, to be at the 1913-14 parity, would require a price of about $1.20 for No. 1 northern in store Fort AVilliam. "To-day"-this book was written last fall- "No. 1 northern Fort William is 72f cents a bushel". In the United States, for wheat to be at the 1913-14 parity, it would require a price of approximate^ SI.22 in store Chicago. At that time May wheat, Chicago, was actually $1.19 a bushel. I think you will notice that United States wheat, although not as good as ours, has been approximately 50 cents higher for quite a long time.
The same booklet, dealing with wheat growers and industrial labour, has this to say:
The average hourly rates of industrial wages, as set out by the Department of Labour for 1940, were twice as high as, actually 104 per cent higher than, in 1913-14, and in 1941 wages have been raised still further, and in addition industrial labour has received substantial "costs of living" bonuses.
Some say that it is not fair for the government to give assistance to our wheat growers. With all courtesy, however, we draw attention to the fact that all the high wages and cost of living bonuses given to industrial workers who work directly and indirectly on war production, are themselves paid for by the government, for the government itself buys and pays for all the products of these workers.
I am not complaining about this being received by labour in industry in Canada to-day. Neither am 1 complaining of the cost of living bonus that is being paid. I have, however, a complaint that that cost of living bonus is not extended far enough. For instance, helpers in stores where only a few are employed, or in other industries where only a few are employed, khould also have the cost of living bonus.
I understand that at the present time an arrangement between Canada and the United Si^tes provides for quite an easement of tariff restrictions as far as war material is concerned. I wonder why the same could not apply to farm implements, both now and for a n umber of years past. We have not heard very much about tariffs for quite a while, and some of the "crying babies" of the past have not said anything about it either. For the 44561-74}
information of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) who has not been very long in 'his position I shall give a few figures, and I hope he takes them into consideration. I am sorry this table is not up to date, but it is the best we have been able to get. It relates to tariffs in the only year in which I know they were investigated, namely, 1931. I might say that 1931 was one of the years when we had poor crops and very poor prices, so that if a normal year were taken the various costs would be higher than I am about to quote.
In 1931 Manitoba paid by way of tariffs $29,185,40, or $13.25 per capita. In the same year Saskatchewan paid $29,228,285, or $28.16 per capita. Alberta paid $27,909,396, or $26.93 per capita. British Columbia paid $37,737,247, or $22.33 per capita.
That is to say, in that one year alone it cost the four western provinces $124,060,668 by way of tariffs, which amount would pay a great part of the wheat subsidies that we have been given in the past and should shut off a great deal of the criticism that has been offered.
Let me give some figures regarding the part of the country from which much of the criticism has been coming. The province of Quebec, as far as tariffs are concerned, had a gain of $31,685,885, which is equal to $11.03 per capita. That wonderful milch cow, Ontario, which western Canada has been feeding for the last number of years, had a gain of $51,989,761, equal to $15.15 per capita.
Perhaps that is enough; the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been listening patiently, and I hope he gets these figures and takes them into consideration in dealing further with our initial price of wheat.
A number of arguments are put up against raising the price of wheat. During the period 1926-1941 we had an average of 14-3 bushels per acre. For the years 1926-1929 the average was 18-4 bushels per acre.
The average price per bushel for 1926-1941 was 671 cents. The average price for 19261929, on which period labour wages are based, was 96J cents, or 29 cents higher than the average for 1926-1941.
The value per acre 1926-1941 was $9.65, whereas the figure for 1926-1929 inclusive was $17.44, or a drop in value per acre of $7.79.
The purchasing power index for 1926-1941 was 59 per cent, whereas the purchasing power index for 1926-1929 was 84 per cent, or a drop of 25 per cent for the 1926-1941 period.
I have here some other figures which, with the consent of the house, I should like to have placed on Hansard.


Georges Parent: With the consent of the house.
Wheat Acreage Reduction


Robert Fair: This statement gives corresponding figures for other years:
Yield	Farm price	Value	Purchasing powerper acre	per bushel	per acre	index numbersbushels	cents	dollars	1913=1001913	65	13.62	100-01926	
17-5	107	18.72	88-01927	
21-2	98	20.80	100-11928	
23-5	78	18.31	89-31929	103	11.94	58-71930	47	7.82	42-41931	
11-8	37	4.79	31-21932	
16-C	34	5.47	38-51933	
10-4	47	4.89	34-31934	
11-3	60	6.83	44-81935	
11-3	60	6.86	44-71936	
8-1	92	7.47	47-11937	
6-4	103	6.55	36-41938	
13-5	58	7.87	47-11939	
19-1	54	10.23	63-81940	
18-5	52	9.55	54-21941	
12-9	49	6.38	33-3YIELD	PER ACRE, PRICE PER	BUSHEL AND	VALUE	PER ACRE



OF WHEAT IN THE PRAIRIE PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
1910-19^1
YIELD PER ACRE	PRICE PER BUSHEL

[Stage Direction]
Wheat Acreage Reduction
In 1939 the three prairie provinces received for their grain crops §264,145,000. In 1940 we received $278,770,000. In 1941 the year in which the Minister of Agriculture told us we received over 90 cents a bushel, we received $141,680,000.
The people should not be led astray and made to believe that farmers in Canada all received over 90 cents a bushel. As a practical farmer myself, the wheat which I have sold to date has netted me 48i cents a bushel, and I have not received one cent of bonus since the bonus s}'stem was introduced in 1939.
James Garfield Gardiner: You are not an average farmer.


Robert Fair: Well, I do my best; I try to be.
Mr. MacIvINNON (Edmonton West): You are better than the average.


Robert Fair: I am still holding the farm, which a number of others have not been able to do.


James Garfield Gardiner: The income from wheat was $210,000,000.


Robert Fair: Well, the minister is trying to make an argument, and for his benefit and the benefit of the house I might point out that if one man gets 48-J cents a bushel for his wheat and another gets $1.25, which is possible under the bonus system provided he has a small enough yield, it does not mean that the average farmer gets 90 cents or over. The people should not be misled, because the farmers who are getting a wheat crop do not get the benefit of the bonus.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member will permit, if all the farmers in western Canada got $200,000,000 on account of wheat and there were less than 200,000,000 bushels, the average amount received was more than $1 a bushel.


Robert Fair: That is all very well, but as I said, it does not average up. The man who benefits by the prairie farm assistance bonus does not benefit by the high price of wheat, because in order to qualify for the bonus, the crop in his township must be below twelve bushels per acre. On the other hand, the man who gets a large yield, above twelve bushels to the acre, cannot benefit either. So we have two distinct problems to deal with, a higher price for wheat for the farmer who gets a crop, and a better bonus system for the farmer who does not. Averaging up and calling everyone satisfied does not work, and some change must be made before you can have a satisfactory and prosperous agriculture.
We have had a number of organizations pressing recently for a better price for wheat. First, the Saskatchewan delegation that came
here asked for an initial price of $1, and final settlement *o be made on parity price basis. I am quite satisfied with that, but the group with which I am associated and I myself have consistently advocated not less than 95 cents a bushel, and this past year or two, since the war, when costs of production have increased, we have consistently argued for and demanded $1 a bushel at the local elevator in order that farmers may live.
The Saskatchewan delegation wanted $1. with the balance to be settled as I have already mentioned. The Searle Grain Company believes that $1.20 is the parity price for wheat, while the Northwest Line Elevators set their figure at S1.22J. I do not know how anyone can expect to put up an argument that will stand analysis, to make us believe that we can grow wheat at less than $1 a bushel and hold our farms and homes. In my opinion, after close to thirty years of experience in that line of work, it cannot be done.
Perhaps someone may think we are paying our farm help too much. The average farm wage, from 1926 to 1941 inclusive, was $26.90 a month, for all of Canada. During this period the lowest wages were paid in 1933, when they averaged only $10 a month, or less than some of our "crying babies" receive as living allowance for one day, and the average in 1941 was $29.42 a month. The average during the whole period for wages and board was $46.75 a month; the lowest figure was in 1933, when it was $20, and the average for 1941 was $46.58. Then we are faced with the further problem that farmers' sons are taken off the land for the army, even though only one son is left on the farm. In many cases the farmer is too old to operate the power machinery he has bought recently, and under our present set-up the only son may be taken from the farm and put in the army. I do not for a moment say that farmers' sons should not serve. I think if an analysis could be made of all enlistments it would be found that the farmers have contributed a higher percentage than any other group in Canada; but in the interests of agriculture, in the interests of Canada and of the united nations I say that a boy who is the only help left on a farm should be allowed to stay there, because he is just as much a key man as any man in industry.
Then the minister told us that we would receive 90 cents a bushel for wheat. The average price per bushel at Fort William from 1926 to 1929 was $1.35. That was not the highest price paid during that period, but the average. For oats we are to receive 45 cents for the 1942 crop. The average for
Wheat Acreage Reduction

1926 to 1929 was 60 cents, or 15 cents more than the price offered this year. For barley we are to receive 60 cents a bushel, while the average price for 1926 to 1929 was 71.6 cents, and during that period we had fairly normal times in Canada. Then we are offered $2.25 for flax as against an average of $2.08 from 1926 to 1929. If I understood the minister aright, we cannot be paid any more because if the farmers were given the prices to which they are entitled we would not have enough money left with which to prosecute the war successfully. The minister told us that last year' we lost not less than $100,000,000 because of the price that was set. I do not think he made that amount nearly large enough.


James Garfield Gardiner: We dropped that on
wheat, but we got some of it back from other sources.


Robert Fair: I do not think the minister's addition was very good when he went to school, because $100,000,000 was not nearly enough.


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not matter what it was when I went to school; it is all right now.


Robert Fair: I do not think it has improved, considering the company he has kept since he left school. Some hon. gentlemen around me say that the minister is a magician. If I should read some of the letters I have received I do not think he would feel very much like a magician or a wizard.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can read you mine,
too.


Robert Fair: Little men usually have a pretty big opinion of themselves, but they do not always stack up. Then, Mr. Speaker, I said I had not received a bonus yet, and in that connection I should like to read a letter I received only a couple of days ago:
I am writing you in regards to the summer-fallow bonus. I think that it is a crime the trouble E. L. Gray is putting the farmers to, to get their bonus.
I am not blaming Mr. E. L. Gray entirely; I am just reading this letter to give hon. members an idea of how some of the farmers feel, and I do not say that Mr. Gray is responsible for all the trouble.
Myself, I have made five trips to the municipal office and each trip is thirty miles, and one to Edmonton, and still I am waiting for my bonuses, and there is quite a lot in this district that are still waiting for theirs, and I was told yesterday that we would have to go to Vermilion on February 24 and meet an inspector if we wanted our bonus. Now we have not been notified about this as they only
(Mr. Fair.]
wrote to the secretary, and I only heard it last night by a neighbour who has not got one dollar yet.
Now, Bob, you know that a lot of us in this district had almost a total crop failure, and yet a lot of us have not received a dollar bonus yet, although we are supposed to get three of them, and here it is the end of February. How in the world do they expect people to try and help in a war effort and buy victory bonds and then treat us like this?
This man must be saving, because I notice he has written on both sides of his stationery, which is not done by a number of others throughout the country. Then he goes on:
I had less than 750 bushels of wheat from 160 acres and no coarse grains on 200 acres, and yet I had about $600 in wages and $300 taxes to pay as well as my living and operating expenses.
The secretary also told me that a farmer with fifty head of cattle would not get the 75 cents cost of living bonus, yet there is a lot of farmers that have sold as high as 500 pigs who do get it. I wonder where the difference is, and the man raising cattle has been doing so at a loss for about eight years, and most farmers have only increased their cattle the last year.
That is a sample of the letters we are getting in connection with the bonuses. I have taken up a number of cases and have practically all of them cleared up after a little time.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my time is almost gone-


Mr. GRANT:: That's good.


Robert Fair: There are some people in this house who have not yet made a speech. Some folks call them laughing hyenas, I believe though I do not know what a laughing hyena looks like. I think it would pay these hon. gentlemen to sit quietly and keep their seats warm, because they are not doing any good anyway. They simply display a lack of the education they should have received at their mother's knee.
In summing up, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest' that we consider the following points, which are the policies of the group with which I am associated. The first is international cooperation between the four exporting countries, the United States, Australia, Argentina and Canada. This has been worked upon for some time, and I do not know what were the final results at Washington. I believe that would be much better than the competitive system which we have followed in the past.
Then there should be parity prices established for all agricultural products. I am not asking for any unreasonable profits, but certainly there is no reason why one class should produce below cost of production and stand

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
all the loss. We are willing to produce, and to do everything else to win the war, but in doing so there is no reason why we should run the risk of losing our farms, our homes and our morale.
I believe we should have loans on grain, as well as storage. I believe the storage could be reduced, because when we come to figure the cost of elevators, and what they bring in by way of storage charges, there is no doubt that that amount can be reduced considerably.
I believe in a policy of quotas, when necessary, because we cannot expect the government to take over all the wheat we may grow. I do not believe, however, that the growing of wheat shoidd be restricted to so great an extent, because it may be needed in the very near future.
Then, I believe that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act should be amended in three or four different ways. These points I shall discuss in greater detail when we are in committee of the whole. If that act were administered by local committees, in the same way that some agricultural policies are being administered in the United States, I believe we would have far better protection. I believe the township basis, on which we are now operating, is too large and that it should be on an individual basis. If we had local committees administering the act, the individual farmers would be compelled to do a far better job for themselves, and for the country as well. The limit of three thousand bushels and the live stock restriction under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act should be removed.


Georges Parent: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Robert Fair: I was interrupted on several occasions, and with the consent of the house I should like to have two or three more
minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Georges Parent: If it is agreed, the hon. member may proceed. I would point out, however, that we are beginning to do in this debate something which I called to the attention of hon. members in an earlier debate. The forty-minute rule should not be disregarded, even with the consent of the house.


Robert Fair: I should also like to see the grain exchange at Winnipeg closed not only for the duration of the war, but for good. As I have pointed out on several occasions, right after the war broke out the exchange in England was closed. I notice that the Argentine republic passed a decree on November 14 of last year by which they closed their grain
exchange, too. Now that we have others leading, perhaps we can follow the way, and do away with our gambling den and a number of parasites.
I should also like to see representatives of organized agriculture on all boards having to do with agricultural problems. For some time we have argued in favour of this procedure, and have consistently talked about it. I should hope the government would see fit to bring that policy into operation.
Canadian unity should be maintained, and the winning of the war should not be neglected to do any of the things I have mentioned. But the policy being handed out to agriculture to-day is forcing a large part of western Canada to a condition of starvation and relief.
With two verses from a poem entitled "When Babies Die," I would conclude. They are as follows:
The babies nazis kill:
Are they more dead Than those who perish in The days of peace,
Because that grasping fails To leave them food,
Because the greed of gold Knows no surcease ?
When nazi bombs are stilled,
And on the graves
0-f millions dead the wheat
Is Gold again,
Will man have learned a child Is just as dead By deprivation as By cannon slain?


Thomas Vincent Grant: Sing a song now.
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River) You don't understand it, anyway.
On motion of Mr. Wright the debate was adjourned.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 6, consideration in committee of Bill No. 5, to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of individuals who enlist for service in his majesty's forces or who perform essential war employment-Mr. Mitchell-Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-short title.
George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, on
Friday this bill was being discussed when the house adjourned at 6 o'clock, and at that time we were pointing out that we did not think the bill would be effective in solving the problem of reestablishing the soldiers in labour and
1154	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
industry. Differences of opinion were expressed throughout the house as to whether industry recognized any responsibility to humanity, and as to whether the onus should be placed upon industry to take care of this problem. The bill when in force will attempt to compel industry to accept these men on their return.
I believe we can best judge the ability of industry to do that job properly by looking into its past history. Apparently those champions of industry who sit in the house cast aspersions on some of the statements I made, and suggested that I did not know much about it. Well, I spent some time over the week-end going through a report of the royal commission on price spreads, which was tabled in the house a few years ago, and I recommend this volume to the careful study of those persons who do not know what it contains. After having read five hundred pages of it I think they will agree with me that industry does not care very much for the welfare of the people generally in Canada who have their labour to sell. The main object of industry is to see how little it can pay labour to get the most work out of it, and to accept very little responsibility for the welfare of the people as a whole.
Industry in Canada has failed us in times of peace. I refer hon. members to page 118, where they will find this:
... in February, 1934, the average wage rate for all male workers was 10 cents per hour; where 93 per cent of all male workers in 1934 were paid less than the minimum rate for female workers; where, on a 55-hour basis, the average full time weekly earnings in 1934 for male and female employees was $5.72.
The whole record of this book is an utter condemnation of the place industry has played in the life of Canada.
Again, referring to the operations of certain chain stores, it says:
In fact the absence of any personal relationship between the central management which determines operating standards, and the employees in the stores tends to render, the central management oblivious to the human element involved in their policies. This was made obvious by the evidence given before the commission by the chief executive of one of the largest chains.
And so on, all the way through the story of 4he tobacco industry, the lumber industry, the itextile industry, production and distribution.
For more recent evidence as to the conduct <of industry in Canada we need to go back no farther than 1939. At that time, when Canada was expressing a need for war equipment, the government placed on the statute books a bill limiting armament profits to 5 per cent. In September the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) made the statement that although the department had appealed to the

patriotism of industry, it had been unsuccessful to the extent of being unable to place a single contract.
If we want something more recent respecting the attitude of industry, and particularly its attitude toward the very point with which we are now dealing, let me refer to information received from Kirkland Lake no less recently than last Friday, which tells of twenty-five ex-service men who have not been rehired merely because they took part in a strike to establish the right to collective bargaining through a union of their own choice. These men had had from two to eighteen years' service in the mine. Every one was an ex-service man, and in four cases their sons are in the army. I maintain and I repeat that I do not think industry has proved itself fit to solve a problem as important as this.
What we need is a complete survey of the raw materials and resources of this country and what the nation is going to need. That should have been taken before because we need it badly now, but we shall need it even more during the reconstruction period. Some form of planned economy should also be provided with the object of finding out what the main needs of the people of Canada are, what they are going to require in the way of food, clothing and shelter, and the making of decent homes. To correlate these two ideas may require some change in the status quo, perhaps some change in the motive which is the driving force of our economic and industrial life. The motive of service rather than of profit is one that should present itself to the government at the present time. Some privileges will have to be surrendered.
Labour will have to have its share in the industrial life and1 the machinery of production of this country. Labour must feel that the plant and machinery of production are something which it owns in part and that the resources of this dominion are the birthright of the Canadian people, not merely some privilege to be handed over to groups of selfish people to be exploited for profit. This bill does not begin to approach the large subject that lies underneath it. I do not blame the minister altogether for this. I think it is a sort of anaemic foundling which he found on his doorstep when he came into office.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I want to take exception to that statement.


George Hugh Castleden: That is merely my opinion.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not my opinion.

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment


George Hugh Castleden: I have the floor and I have just about finished. Reading the preamble of this bill is like approaching a dinner when you are very hungry. You find a lot of gravy and a lot of dressing, and you think you are going to have a fine dinner, but when you dig into it you find nothing but tripe. I repeat that the people of Canada are looking to this house for a proper approach to this matter of reestablishment which is so vital at this time. The men in the army and the people at home depend upon the vision and the leadership of this house, and they deserve something better than what is being presented in this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Interpretation.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This section reads:
In this act and in any order or regulation made thereunder, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a) "service in his majesty's forces" includes service since the commencement of the present war in or out of Canada in any capacity, in pursuance of any enactment relating to the naval, military or air forces, except service during a definite period of military training in pursuance of the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940, and shall include service in the Canadian Women's Army Corps or in the Canadian Women's Auxiliary Air Force.
I drew the attention of the minister the other day to the fact that this bill would not cover those taking training under the National Resources Mobilization Act and he pointed out that the regulations governing that training provided for that. I want to point out to the minister that this is another illustration of the point I was trying to make the other day. One man who has taken his training, has had a few months garrison duty and has been discharged, will find, when he wants redress under this legislation, that he will have to go to the minister who will be responsible for this legislation, that is, the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie). Another man who has been taking training but who has been discharged before his training is completed, or at the completion of his training, will find, if he wants redress, that he must take action under the regulations of the National Resources Mobilization Act and go to the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson). Two men wanting the same thing should be able to go to the same agency. I notice in the order in council upon which this piece of legislation is founded that there was no such provision. Order in council P.C. 4758, reads in part as follows:
(a) "service in his majesty's forces" includes service since the commencement of the present
war in or out of Canada in any capacity, in pursuance of any enactment relating to the military, naval or air forces.
I wonder whether it would not be better from the point of view of administration to take out that clause and to have this apply to any man or woman who is connected in any way with any of the armed services. If you do not do that, you are going to have one man applying to one minister, and another man, under different circumstances, applying to another minister.


Humphrey Mitchell: That matter was considered, and it was decided that under section 21 of the national war services regulations the machinery was provided to enforce the employers' liability. This measure covers a much broader field in that it applies to the navy, the air force and the men in what might be termed the permanent forces rather than those called up for the four months' training.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A good illustration was the one I gave the other day. A letter concerning the discharge of a man who was in the middle of this training was sent across the floor to the Minister of National War Services, and nothing was done. It was sent to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), and nothing was done. It was passed over the other day to the Minister of Pensions and National Health, and I want to thank him for taking immediate action. That is an illustration of how a thing may get a runaround. It would be much better to have it all under one minister.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) quoted one order in council, but the other day I referred to supplementary order in council, P.C. 7680, of October 7, 1941, which brings the men under compulsory training within the provisions of the compulsory reinstatement order, P.C. 7458. The statute as proposed does not go as far as the two supplementary orders in council.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is what he said. He said men would have to go to different agencies.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was merely making the point that it should all come under the one minister rather than two. Irrespective of whether a man is in the process of training or has finished his training, he should be able to get redress from the same minister. One man would apply to the Minister of National War Services for redress, and another would make application to the Minister of Pensions
1156	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
and National Health. There ought to be just the one agency operating under one piece of legislation.


Mr. POULIOT:: I have just one question to ask the minister, and then after that I may have to have further details. Upon reading this section I wonder whether a distinction is not being established between men and women. The men who will come under this section are those who are serving in his majesty's forces anywhere, in any country. Looking closely at the section it means that men who enlist in the British army, in his majesty's forces anywhere in the world, will be able to take advantage of this legislation. Is that right or not?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is right.


Jean-François Pouliot: I consider it a shame. Under previous legislation it was required that a person should have resided in Canada for some time prior to the great war to enjoy a preference in appointment to the civil service, and under that legislation the civil service has been filled with people who were not bom in this country and who are now occupying the finest positions in the land. Canada has become the dumping ground for all the nations of the world.
There is a distinction made in the legislation before us-and the minister was honest enough to admit it-between men and women. Men may come from all over the world to take advantage of this legislation and get something from this government, but for women service in his majesty's forces shall include service in the Canadian Women's Army Corps or in the Canadian Women's Auxiliary Air Force. There is a distinction clearly made between men and women, and how the minister can bring legislation like that before this house and this committee I cannot understand. He is a new minister, and I was quite open-minded because he was my colleague in the house for a certain length of time, but I cannot conceive that his idea of Canadian citizenship is that this country shall become the dumping ground of all the nations of the world and that it is to be enough for a man to get into his majesty's forces anywhere, in central Africa or anywhere else, to be entitled to the same privileges as a red-blooded Canadian who enlists in the Canadian army. This I cannot conceive to be right, and I do not know any Canadian citizen, born in Canada, who would pilot legislation like that through this house. I do not know any member who is not enough of a Canadian to protest strongly and bitterly against it until it is defeated in this committee and in this 
house. I have never before spoken like this, but it is time that we opened our eyes and stopped making fools of ourselves.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Sit down then.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask the hon. member to keep quiet while I am speaking. If he has anything to say he can say it afterwards. I shall not use any stronger language than he did. He interrupts continually, but I am addressing him for the first time, and I use the third person in addressing my hon. friend. It is never too late to tell the truth.
I find this legislation scandalous. It is time that we stopped making Canada nothing more than a dumping ground for all the nations of the world.


Humphrey Mitchell: In reply to my hon. friend the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), who has talked about Canada being a dumping ground, let me say that the Minister of Labour is one of those who were dumped, and I am proud of it.


Mr. MacNICOL:: The minister is a credit to Canada, too.


Humphrey Mitchell: I might add that I have recently been through a by-election in Welland, and in speaking to the good people of that constituency I dwelt on the difficulty of governing a nation made up of all of the finest blood streams of Europe, including my own and my hon. friend's blood streams. My grandfather was a Frenchman and I am proud of it. At this very difficult time through which we are passing, when the very life of our institutions which it has taken centuries to build up is at stake, I do not think it is well that utterances should go forth from this House of Commons which would have for their purpose the splitting of this nation, not into two racial groups only, but into dozens of racial groups.
Whether my hon. friend likes it or not, the democratic nations of the world are in the most desperate position in their history. If we win this war it will be a miracle. But miracles have been performed by our peoples before and they will be undertaken by them again. In this very difficult period I do not think it lies in the mouth of any member of this house to rise in his place and cast reflections on men and women who have made a distinct contribution in building up this Dominion of Canada. I do not take second place to my hon. friend or anyone else in this house or in this dominion in loyalty to our institutions. I have been around this old world and have seen the institutions which have been built up by the British peoples. I believe that the science of government which

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
has been handed down to the rest of the world by the British peoples has been the greatest contribution to government in the whole history of the civilized world, and I hope that everyone in this dominion, irrespective of race, religion or colour, will do everything he can to help weld us together so that we may move forward through these difficult times to preserve and maintain our freedom and, when the war is over to extend the blessings of democratic government as we understand it.
I think my hon. friend misunderstands the tenor of the particular clause to which he refers, because it provides that a man must have worked in Canada before he can get the benefits of this legislation. I know some of our finest Canadian boys who at this moment are serving in the Royal Air Force and with the British navy and I think it is only right that these young men after they have completed their term of service should receive the same treatment, if they come within the four corners of this legislation, as those Canadians who join a distinctly Canadian force. That is elementary justice. We have always been credited with fairness and surely to God we are going to be fair to our own flesh and blood. We are not going to differentiate between them simply because some of our young fellows are serving in the British forces. If it were not for these young chaps up in an aeroplane to-day, this house would not be in session and probably I would be dead; I do not know what others would be doing. I think it is absolutely sound that we should treat these young men the same as we treat the young fellows who join distinctly Canadian forces, whether on the land or on the sea or in the air.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I am glad
to see that the minister is applauded by the Tory members of the house. I have been a member of this house, for seventeen years; the members know very well that I have never spoken of race or religion in this house, and I am not to do so now.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What are you doing now?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am going to teach my hon. friend a lesson in Canadianism. It is true that we are two races in this country, and the only way to have a perfect understanding between them is to believe in equal rights. In my humble view those who were born in Canada and those who have lived here for a long time, whether they speak English, French or any other language, provided that they have taken the oath of allegiance to His
Majesty the King and are loyal citizens should have a preference over anyone who comes here from outside. That is my humble opinion. It is time to remind the Minister of Labour-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This does not apply.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is quite appropriate, because it relates to the very section.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It does not apply.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask the minister to keep quiet. He knows very well that I make an exception for him, and that I have said concerning him, that there were some people who were not born in Canada who are better Canadians than some who were born in this country. In that I referred to him.
I want now to continue and finish what I have to say. I will not be hard upon the Minister of Labour, because he has been out of the house for a long time. But when he referred to his election in Welland, let me say I am sure that the present legislation was never mentioned to the good electors of that constituency. I should1 like to have known their verdict if it had been.
I want everyone in this country to be just as happy as possible under the present dire circumstances which we have to confront; and after the war I want every Canadian to have an opportunity to live and not to be the servant of anybody who comes from anywhere else.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
about Hitler?


Jean-François Pouliot: That is my humble point of view. Whether it is to be explained to the electors of York-Sunbury, where the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), resides, or to any constituency of the city of Toronto, let me say that I am ready to have a joint meeting with the Minister of Labour in his new constituency of Welland, in York-Sunbury where my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has his residence, or in any constituency in Toronto and discuss the matter with any member of the House of Commons. What I want is that every Canadian citizen shall be given the first opportunity in this country.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I should like to know what this discussion has to do with the bill now before the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman-


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have asked the Chairman, not the hon. member.
1158	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask my hon. friend-


George Alexander Cruickshank: I asked the Chairman, not you.


Jean-François Pouliot: I ask the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) to take the trouble in the first place to read the rules of the house.


The CHAIRMAN:: Does the hon. member for Temiscouata wish to speak on the point of order?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Thomas Vien: Well, then, speak.


Jean-François Pouliot: Section 2 reads thus:
2. In this act and in any order or regulation made thereunder, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a) "service in his majesty's forces" includes service since the commencement of the present war in or out of Canada in any capacity, in pursuance of any enactment relating to the naval, military or air forces, except service during a definite period of military training in pursuance of the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1910, and shall include service in the Canadian Women's Army Corps or in the Canadian Women's Auxiliary Air Force;
The second part of this section, paragraph (b), refers to employers.
My argument, sir, was that the people mentioned in the first place could have been non-Canadians excepting for a short residence in Canada, and the point was confirmed by the Minister of Labour himself when I asked him the question whether all those in his majesty's forces could enjoy the advantages of this legislation if they were men; his answer was, "yes." It was after that that I said that red-blooded Canadian citizens were entitled bo a preference over anybody coming from any other country to this country. That was my contention. At that point the hon. member for Fraser Valley-my good friend, except for five minutes a month-


Thomas Vien: Order. We are on a point of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: rose on a question of order and complained that I was not in order in discussing this matter. I claim that his objection is unfounded and, sir, I await your ruling with confidence.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I say one word? I am willing that the hon. member should proceed.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am dealing with a point of order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Let the hon. member talk. He will talk, anyhow.


Thomas Vien: Does the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) desire to speak on the point of order?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes. I a:m willing to withdraw my objection. The hon. member for Temiscouata is going to have his say anyway. Let him have it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say a word, Mr. Chairman, before you rule on the point of order? This is entirely on a question of viewpoint and policy. As I understand it, the hon. member for Temiscouata says in effect that if a person has been only a short time in Canada, even though in employment, if he enlists in the forces of his majesty he is not entitled to the benefits of this legislation. This legislation gives him the right to reemployment in Canada provided he has been in actual employment before enlisting in the service of His Majesty the King, and I believe the whole house will agree with that.


Thomas Vien: Does any other hon. member desire to speak on the point of order?
The point of order is that the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata were not related to the section now before the committee. The reference is, clearly, to standing order 58 of the rules of the house. Section 2 of the bill defines the classes of persons who will have the benefits given by the measure. As Chairman, I am not supposed to pass judgment on the merits of the submission made by the hon. member for Temiscouata. I would think that the remarks would 'have been more appropriate, perhaps, under section 3, where the privilege so created is enacted. But I believe that the definition of the persons who are to benefit under section 3, being a limitation of these persons, is sufficiently broad to justify the hon. member in discussing the matters which he has discussed, under section 2. I think there is a sufficient relationship between his remarks and section 2 for me to rule that his remarks were within the provisions of the rules of the house.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Chairman, section 2, as you have said, in my judgment very appropriately, enumerates the various groups or classes of the returning soldier workers who are to benefit under this measure; and it is about that that I wish to speak for a moment or two. I have not any fault to find with those who are enumerated but rather as to those who are left out. I would refer for a moment or two to the paragraph of section 2 which reads:
(a) "service in his majesty's forces" includes service since the commencement of the present war. . . .

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
Then it describes that service in Canada prior to or immediately following the outbreak of war, in subparagraph (i) and of paragraph (b), where it is stated:
(i)	had employee status on September 9, 1939.
Which means that any man or woman employed in industry prior to September 9 had what might be called a more or less permanent, or, as the bill says, employee status, and so comes under the benefits of this measure. Quite right, I support that. That means, when that particular group returns to Canada they shall under this measure be taken back into the factory in which they had been working when they enlisted, and if the old job is not in operation, I assume the bill says they are to have something equal to it. I agree with that. Then-
(ii)	having been hired after September 9, 1939, was employed for at least six months. . . .
That is the second group. It means that any soldier worker, man or woman, who had been employed following the outbreak of the war for a period of six months, returning to Canada, shall be eligible to be put back on the job he or she gave up in order to enlist, or an equivalent job in the factory in which he or she had been employed. I have no objection to that. But I am wondering what is to happen to the multitude of young men who did not have employee status on September 9, 1939, or did not have employment for six months following September 9.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Provision had been made for the cases mentioned under the terms of the order in council of October 1, 1941, under which it is not of any consequence whether or not employment was had before enlisting in the service. Whether he had employment before he enlisted or not, we are charged with the responsibility of trying to find employment for him, and there are six specified benefits, by way of vocational training, educational training, awaiting the return of crops and others, made available to him under that order in council. If we fail to find employment for that man through any of these other five groups or benefits, then he is entitled to out-of-work benefit for fifty-two weeks after his discharge within a period not exceeding eighteen months after the time of discharge.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is splendid news. I had not heard of that before. But why is that not in the bill?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This was introduced only as a result of a promise made. This was an order in council passed in June, 1941; subsequently to that several others were passed. It is a matter of
policy really whether it is wise to embody these orders in council in legislation during the progress of a war, because we may find it necessary to amend them from week to week and improve them. During the last war most of the legislation was deferred until the conclusion of the war. In regard to the provisions of the order in council of October 1, 1941, we thought it wise not to implement it by legislation, but there was an objection raised by the hon. leader of the opposition, and quite properly so, that we should implement this particular order in council by legislation. At that time the then Minister of Labour promised that this bill would be introduced implementing the order in council.
I do not want my hon. friend to have the idea that this is considered to be allembracing; it is not. It is an infinitesimal part almost of the entire programme of reconstruction, and possibly it is unfortunate that it comes into the house at this time. I agree with the suggestion of some hon. members the other day that possibly the house would have a better conception of what is being done if we were able at the same time to take a comprehensive view of these orders in council before a committee. But this bill comes before the house as a result of a promise made and a promise kept. Its scope is very limited. It has been administered under order in council by my department for the last eight months, and although very few cases have come to our attention we have succeeded m every case in obtaining successful results. Therefore I would urge upon the committee again not to conclude that this is a major measure of reconstruction policy, because it is not.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I think the bill is even better than the minister says.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We think it is good as far as it goes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It touches only the
fringe, but it is a large fringe, because it provides employment for those who had employee status on September 9; that is not a small number-


Mr MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: It will become more important as the years go on.


John Ritchie MacNicol: -and it will provide employment for those who obtained employment in the following six months; that also will be a goodly number. It is a good start in the right direction; I would not minimize it. But there are many men coming home now who did not have employee status and whom I should like to see covered'. What is being done just now I do not know, but the
1160	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
bill does not provide for those who did not have employee status. I am glad to hear the minister say that provision has been made for them by order in council, but I should like to have seen a provision in the bill. Since, however, my hon. leader said something [DOT]about that, I would not for a moment differ from anything he said, because he has a great knowledge of law and the drafting of statutes and I have none, so probably the better way to do it is the way the minister has set out to do.
I think the minister has cleared up the question I wanted disposed of, concerning that large number of soldier young men who, through no fault of their own, never did a day's work because the work was not there for them to do, either before or after the outbreak of the war. I understand now that they are to be provided for, so I have nothing further to say about section 2.


Robert Fair: I should like the minister to give an outline or some definition of this. Paragraph (i) reads:
had employee status on September 9, 1939, or by reason of wage agreement or otherwise had a recognized position, other than a temporary position.
And paragraph (ii):
having been hired after September 9, 1939, was employed for at least six months in other than a temporary position (exclusive of any probationary period required by published regulation or agreement as of September 9, 1939) immediately before he was accepted for service in his majesty's forces.
At the present time and for years past I believe that in the civil service, for example, there are people who have been working for quite a long time but are still classed as temporaries. That qualification existing in that and other lines of business would perhaps deprive people who should be classed as having steady employment of benefits under this bill. Would the minister define what is meant by those two paragraphs which I have read?


Humphrey Mitchell: "Employee status" is generally understood in industry. Where there are wage agreements it is usually defined in the agreement. It differs from one industry to another. My experience has been, notwithstanding some hard things that have been said here to-night about industry, that there are decent, honest employers, and my view is that with this bill as leadership it will be found that the Canadian employer in the main and where it is practicable-there are always exceptions-will measure up to his responsibilities..


Mr. MacINNIS:: Such as the Kirkland Lake employers.


Humphrey Mitchell: We will deal with that when the time comes. You have your say and I shall have mine. We are dealing now with this particular bill. I believe this bill will give leadership to Canadian employers. For the information of the committee I might say that our two railroads have not only adopted the principle of this bill already but have done even better than this bill. I have heard many hard things said about the railroads of this country, so I think it should be fairly stated in this house when an employer does treat his employees decently. I do not think you should convict the whole of Canadian industry because some employers do not play cricket. After all is said and done, that is a two-way street too; there are two phases of that matter.


Mr. MARTIN:: The minister has forgotten the point raised by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. He pointed out that in paragraph (b) (ii), those holding temporary positions are not regarded as having "employee status", and then he goes on to point out that there are many people working in the civil service who are not permanent and who consequently could not take advantage of the provisions of this bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that not a very technical interpretation?


Robert Fair: That is what I want cleared up. We have civil servants who have been employed for the last five years, but who are still temporary. On the other hand, a man or woman may be in some other job for only a month, yet he or she would be regarded as having a permanent position.


Humphrey Mitchell: Would this not be a fair thing to say about the civil service, that in the main you can almost call them permanent temporaries? It is a technical point, I think, but that is what I would call them. Many of these people in the civil service have worked for the government for a number of years. I agree that it is a contradiction in terms, but I am told that this is how they are described in the civil service itself.


Thomas Miller Bell: Some of them have been temporary for twenty years.


Robert Fair: My reason for wanting these technicalities cleared up is in order that no one may be deprived of the benefits of this legislation later on because of the technicalities that may exist in the bill as it stands.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister one question, and then I will proceed with the remarks I have to make. Is

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
this bill intended to cover not only those who have enlisted to date but also those who may enlist hereafter?


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely.
Mr. D1EFENBAKER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I submit that it will afford no protection in securing reinstatement to any man who enlists after this date. As I understand the situation, this statute is based on an order in council, and I am going to point out to the minister that the bill as it is now drafted will not protect any man after this date. In order to prepare a foundation for my argument, I first point to line 6 of the preamble, which reads:
. . . and whereas many employers of persons who have enlisted to serve in his majesty's forces in the present war have voluntarily undertaken to reinstate in employment such persons . . .
Then at line 12:
. . . and whereas it is desirable that all persons who have left employment to enlist should be relieved of any cause for concern in regard to their reinstatement in such employment, and that there should be uniformity of treatment in the matter of reinstatement in employment of those who have so enlisted; and whereas it is deemed expedient for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada that provision should be made for the orderly reinstatement in their previous employment of such persons aforesaid . . .
In every case in the preamble reference is made to persons who have enlisted prior to this date. In no case in the preamble is there any reference to the necessity of protecting the men who enlist after this date. While ordinarily the preamble is not regarded as part of the statute, nevertheless it will be looked at in the matter of interpretation. The preamble definitely refers only to those persons who have enlisted to date.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Would that not be taken
to refer to the time at which they seek reinstatement, rather than the time of their enlistment?


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I will go on
now to the definition of service in his majesty's forces. It does not say what this means, but it does say what it includes:	It reads:
"service in his majesty's forces" includes service since the commencement of the present war in or out of Canada in any capacity, in pursuance of any enactment relating to the naval, military or air forces. . . .
That is service since the commencement of the present war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: At any time since the commencement of the war, up to the time of application for reinstatement.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I am just
pointing out the situation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no question about that.


John George Diefenbaker: It goes on to say:
. . . and shall include service in the Canadian Women's Army Corps or in the Canadian Women's Auxiliary Air Force.
Then I refer to section 3, which reads:
It shall be the duty of any employer by whom a person accepted for service in his majesty's forces was employed when accepted for such service, to reinstate him in employment after honourable discharge . . .
Reading that portion of section 3 with the preamble, and with section 2 (a), I say to the minister that in my opinion it refers only to those who have heretofore enlisted and does not cover those who maj' hereafter enlist, and as the matter stands at present I think it should be submitted to the law officers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I may inform my hon. friend that it has been very carefully reviewed by the law officers. The intention of the statute is most manifest, in that it relates to service at any time from September 9, 1939, until the soldier comes back and applies for reinstatement. This is only a bill concerning reinstatement in previous employment. It does not matter when the soldier comes back; his application for reinstatement is valid any time after he returns from service in 'his majesty's forces.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
like first of all to refer to the parentage of this bill. On many occasions the minister has said that this measure was brought down in response to a promise made to me. That promise was asked in order to give some permanency to this policy, because an order in council might be altered or rescinded overnight. So much for that.
I believe there is something more in the contention of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) than the minister appears to see. The interpretation of statutes is always a technical and difficult thing. If there is any doubt about it in the minds of legal men, it should be made clear. I must confess that I had not thought of the point mentioned by the hon. member for Lake Centre until he spoke to me about it, but I think it is a point that ought to be reviewed. On the spur of the moment the best thing I can suggest to the minister to help make it clear is to insert the word "shall" in line 13 of page 1, before the word "have" at the beginning of that line. Then it would read "shall have left employment to enlist." That might not have the effect I think it will
1162	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
have, but I was thinking quickly, and on the spur of the moment. The words "who have, or shall hereafter" would be still better.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have no objection to that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then, in line 17 I suggest the words, "those who have or shall hereafter have enlisted", or something like that. I would ask that those words be reviewed.
I have a question or two with regard to section 2. If I understood the minister correctly, there was a subsequent order in council which made provision for those who were not covered by the order in council which is being crystallized into this statute. Those who did not have employee status are being taken care of under special provisions, and under a special set-up. I believe that is a fair statement. Would it not have been well to have all the provisions incorporated in one statute, and one set-up, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Weyburn.
I have not heard any answer to that suggestion. The minister has made it quite clear that they have attempted to take care of the men by a different arrangement. I should think it would have been wise to place that arrangement in the same bill, and I ask that consideration be given the point. We all wish to accomplish the same purpose; it is a matter of method, more than anything else.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre)-: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the point raised by the hon. member for Temis-couata I would say that any man who left Canada and a job, no matter what his nationality may have been, should be taken back, just like any other person. I believe that upon reflection the hon. member for Temiseouata will admit that that is so.. When he first spoke I thought he had in mind those who had enlisted in the armed forces of the empire, but who perhaps had not employee status, or had not established residence. I do not think that can be so. I suggest, however, that he should not press the point, because it might raise a very unpleasant feeling throughout the country.
I have one further question with respect to section 2. Why in paragraph b (ii) do we find the expression "was employed for at least six months in other than a temporary position (exclusive of any probationary period required . . .)"-and so on. Why is there provision for a period as long as six months? If the person affected had a permanent job, is the element of six months important?

Then the effective date with reference to employee status is September 9. Does this not rule out that number of men who resigned their jobs and who enlisted between August 30 and September 9? They could not be said to have employee status, once they resigned their positions, a few days in advance of the war. Some people knew it was coming, and prepared themselves to go. There is a gap in there, and there does not seem to be sufficient flexibility. I would ask that the minister give - thought to these suggestions before the bill leaves the committee stage. Those people could not in law be said to have employee status on the day war broke out, if they had resigned before that with a view to enlistment, or taking up -war service.
I am not quite sure what is meant by the last part of subparagraph (ii). I have been trying to understand it, but I believe I cannot until I know something more about the circumstances. What is contemplated by lines 21 to 24 inclusive, where we find the words:
.	.	. or any person carrying on any undertaking or service with which such undertaking or service has been amalgamated or in which it was comprised when the employee's service in his majesty's forces began.
What is visualized by those words? I do not understand them?


Humphrey Mitchell: There are some people who, if they succeed in making a bill so complicated they cannot understand it themselves, decide it will work. This was drafted by the law officers of the crown. The intention of the subparagraph is that if a firm is absorbed by another firm, a man retains his employee status in the amalgamation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With the succeeding firm.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. If the firm should split up into a number of smaller firms or partnerships, in the break-up the man will retain employee status in that particular branch of the firm.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the intended meaning.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us suppose that Jones Brothers sold out, lock, stock and barrel, to Brown Brothers. Brown Brothers are then to assume the obligations of Jones Brothers. Is that the case it is intended to meet?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is the intention, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If it will work.

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is there not some merit in the suggestion of the leader of the opposition? I believe there is much merit in it. The important date in the bill is September 9. and yet parts of the British commonwealth were at war before that date. Many Canadians made arrangements for enlistment earlier.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To join
the Royal Air Force, for instance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Consequently, if they did
resign before September 9 they could not be brought within the section. Since it is intended that they should be, I believe the suggestion of the leader of the opposition should be accepted.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am inclined to agree with that, myself. Possibly the insertion of the words "or who before that date left their employment for the purpose of serving overseas in his majesty's forces" would be satisfactory. However, the section should stand for consideration along that line.


Thomas Reid: I was wondering whether this
section is all-embracing. I know the measure is designed to take care of those who enlisted in the active forces, either of the army, the navy or the air force. But I have in mind a number of citizens serving in the mercantile marine, which is not connected with the military organization, in the strict sense of the term, but who have given faithful service on the high seas. For instance, I have in mind a man who left employment in New Westminster, and who while serving on the seas since that time, has been torpedoed on three occasions. Yet he is not connected in any practical way with the army, the navy or the air force. There are also men connected with fire brigades, who have gone abroad.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As
civilians?


Thomas Reid: They have gone to London.
Will not those men upon their return look for the same consideration as the men who are being protected by this bill? I know the men in the mercantile marine lead hazardous lives, many of them serving on the high seas day in and day out. Will this section include those classes of persons?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would not take in the merchant marine; would it take in the fire-fighters?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Just the naval, military and air forces.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: If the section is to stand, I would suggest again to the minister, without appearing unduly to press it, that he give consideration to striking out the words between the word "forces" at the end of line 31 and the figure "1940" in line 3 on the following page.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To make it correspond with the previous order in council?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


Thomas Vien: The committee suggests that section 2 stands.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We are entitled to know the implication of the hon. member's suggestion. He does not speak very distinctly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: For the benefit of the hon. member I may say I am suggesting that the lines which debar men who were discharged while taking their compulsory training be taken out so as to allow them the benefits of this legislation instead of their having to avail themselves of section 21 of the compulsory training regulations. In that way all men making an appeal for reestablishment in civilian employment will come under one piece of legislation and under the administration of one minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend would not delete all the rest of the section; he would leave in the words-


James Lester Douglas: After the
figure "1940" of line three, page two.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That will be considered.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Will this cover the man who has worked as a hired man for ten or twelve years?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If he enlists?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Who enlists.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I certainly think it would apply to him. I thought my hon. friend meant a man who might be getting leave for work on a farm.


Humphrey Mitchell: It applies to everybody.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Supposing in the interval the farmer's son who was under age and could not enlist has taken the place of the hired man; what happens?


Humphrey Mitchell: I will take that hurdle when I come to it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will it cover the man who has worked for the government in a temporary position?
1164	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment


Richard Burpee Hanson: It does not
apply to the crown.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would think that the crown will be just as generous to its employees under this legislation as it expects employers in private industry to be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Technically it does not apply to the crown.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am referring to the men who work on the canals and who have employment for perhaps five or six months in the year. Many of them have been working for the government for fifteen or twenty years and they should be covered.


Angus MacInnis: I do not think we should take up too much time in trying to find out whether this is going to apply to government employees who enlist. It seems to me that this bill will come into operation only in certain specific cases. Where men are fairly well organized, such as in the railways, mentioned by the Minister of Labour, there will be no difficulty in regard to reinstatement. That would be arranged before they enlist. Employees know that they will maintain their seniority, and the companies will agree that they may come into their positions as they were when they left. This bill will apply largely to men who are not organized. That is the way the government could deal with their temporary employees. The government should decide what it is going to do; it would not need a bill of this kind. I think it would be rather an anomaly to put conditions like that in a bill. This is a very restricted bill and we should consider it in that way.


Mr. WHITE:: The definition of "employer" in section 2 is any person carrying on any undertaking or service. Does the minister not think there should be some other definition to include corporations, companies and partnerships?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Under the Interpretation Act, "person" includes corporation.


George Stanley White: This is the interpretation. If an action is taken later on, it may be found that a corporation is not covered by this definition.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The phraseology is exactly the same as that in the order in council, but that point will be considered with the law officers before the bill is disposed of in committee.


Mr. HAZEN:: The leader of the opposition has suggested that lines 21 to 24 should be redrafted. I am sure that no one in this committee can interpret what those lines mean.

They should be clear in the bill and I think they should be redrafted.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Would the minister indicate what benefit would accrue to a man who had enlisted, served in England for one or two years, and then was discharged within the last three, four or five months?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This bill only covens reinstatement in civil employment, and that would mean only a small fraction of those coming back. There are other provisions, as I explained earlier in the evening, which are quite widespread in scope and which deal generally with those who are discharged. In the first place, those who are discharged and pensionable-


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Not pensionable.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am coming to that class immediately. In connection with those who are not pensionable, there are various grants to cover reconditioning. If they can be reconditioned back to a better physical position for civilian employment, that is carried on and they can receive pay and dependents' allowances for 122 days for their families, when they are discharged while still in hospital. There are grants to cover those whose education has been interrupted and who may wish to resume their studies at college or university. There is a grant to cover vocational training for those who would like to go on and take courses in industrial training. If none of these other benefits are available, then there are what we call out-of-work benefits which are paid as a last alternative and which amount to $9 and $13 a week for single and married men respectively. These apply to those men who are coming back under the provisions of the order in council of October 1. This bill applies only to one phase of the matter-the reinstatement by compulsion of those who were in previous employment.


Charles Edward Johnston: Do I understand the minister to say that some provision will be made for, say a young fellow who had taken a year in a university and then joined the air force? What assistance will be given this man when he comes back if he wants to return to the university?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is all covered by the terms of the order in council.


Charles Edward Johnston: What number is that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I sent a copy personally to every hon. member
March 9,1942	ii65
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
so that he would not have to depend upon the Canada Gazette to find out what these provisions were.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am afraid they do not read them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are grants for exactly the type of case mentioned by my hon. friend. For those who come back and wish to resume their education which was interrupted by the war, subsistence grants are made to enable them to continue their course, and provision is made for paying the fees at the college or university while their education is being completed. That is one of the most far-reaching benefits that has been granted in any country.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I may be wrong, but as I understood the argument of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) the other night, he advocated that soldiers returning from overseas be treated exactly the same as men working in munition factories or shipyards. My question is, are the soldiers to receive separate consideration from those working in shipyards and munitions factories?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is a definite preference in the civil service already established by order in council for those who have served with his majesty's Canadian forces and were resident in Canada before going overseas. There is also a preference at the present time in government departments, particularly in the Department of Munitions and Supply and the Department of Public Works, for those who have served with his majesty's forces, and of course upon their return that will be a very substantial and far-reaching preference.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I understood from the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East that he objected to that. I am in favour of it.
Mr. MaclNNIS: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I never objected to a preference for the returned men in the way the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruiekshank) has put it. He wants to make a little political capital in Fraser Valley, but I am prepared to go to Fraser Valley and make out my case to the perfect satisfaction of every man in that constituency.


Mr. GILLIS:: Since this clause dealing specifically with the status of employees is to stand, I should like to make a few remarks now for the consideration of those who will be revising this clause.
As I see it, this bill has to do with one of the most important parts of rehabilitation,
how the man who leaves his job is to be placed when he returns. The minister of pensions said a moment or two ago that all or most of the legislation with respect to rehabilitation after the last war was left until the war was over. I know that many of us have grown old seeking legislation to try to cure some of the ills, physical and economic, suffered by the men who went through the last war.
What I am concerned about now is this. The economy of Canada to-day is geared to curtail as much as possible consumption buying and the production of consumer goods, in the course of which many peace-time industries are being legislated out of the picture. In the rubber industry, for example, I believe that thousands of workers will soon be out of work. These men will not have a job.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member would not blame this legislation or government policy for that?


Clarence Gillis: No; lam simply pointing out what is happening. Many men employed in the rubber industry will be without a job through no fault of their own and through no fault of the minister, because he has no control over the shortage of rubber. These men will then have no status as an employee. Numbers of them will probably go into the armed forces in order to get a job, and when they return after the war is over, they will have no status as an employee when they enlisted. I leave that thought with the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They have all the other rights.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They would have established employee status by being at work on September 9, 1939, or having been employed for six months after September 9.


Clarence Gillis: The retail gasoline industry is also being gradually legislated out of the picture. I know a lot of men who have enlisted and who had no status as an employee because the curtailment of their business forced them into unemployment. Having no status as an employee when they enlisted, they have no job under this bill when they return.
I have also in mind the men in Kirkland Lake who are unemployed to-day. Many of them since they became unemployed have perhaps already enlisted. They became unemployed because they obeyed the laws of Canada and accepted the government's proclamation by order in council that they had a right to do certain things and because the government urged them to organize and

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
cooperate with industry. Many of these men who will go into the armed forces have now no status as employees. As I pointed out in the few remarks I made on the second reading of the bill, I think it was a mistake to have separated this bill from the department of pensions. I think it should have stayed in that department and with the committee who have been working on rehabilitation in the past.
There is another class of worker for whom I would speak. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) referred to them a few moments ago. The men in the merchant marine are performing, I believe, one of the most essential war services to-day. We would have no war abroad if it were not for the service these men are performing. In the section from which I come many men have left industry and gone into the merchant marine. The}' have some protection if serving on a Canadian ship, but otherwise they have none. I have known of many ships which have docked in the port of Sydney and whose captains have had to go out and recruit men before they could take their ships out again. For patriotic reasons men have left their ordinary employment and gone into that service, and I think that under this bill they should have the same protection after the war as the men in the armed forces. There is not a man in uniform or out of it who is performing a greater service and getting as little for it as the men in the merchant marine. I take off my hat to them. They are performing one of the most vital services in connection with the war.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They saved the army at Dunkirk.


Clarence Gillis: Exactly, and they are now feeding the army, under difficult circumstances. It takes a lot of courage to get on these boats even when they are in harbour, let alone crossing the ocean. I make these remarks for the purpose of provoking the thoughts of the minister, so that when clause 2 is under revision consideration may be given to the points I haye raised.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: There is one point I should like the minister to clarify. He indicated very clearly the provisions of the order in council, but I have in mind several cases of men who enlisted one or two years ago in category A and have been discharged in category E. I referred one of these cases to one of the departments recently, but I do not know where it will be finally dealt with. These men will be going into hospitalization for six, eight or ten months, possibly a year.

When they come out, will they still be ' qualified to benefit under this bill, as and when it is passed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not sure whether I caught the point.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: It will probably be a year before these men have recovered their health sufficiently, to get- into employment again. Will their employer then have to take them back?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The point has not come to my attention before, but I would say yes.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: How can these men make application when in a state of convalescence except by anticipating their condition a year hence? The bill says that application must be made within a prescribed time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Were they demobilized or discharged?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The man I have in mind was discharged on the seventeenth of February.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It would depend upon the interpretation of section 4, which says: "within three months after discharge". I would imagine that would only apply within three months after discharge from the forces. On the other hand, if the man were in one of our own hospitals awaiting discharge, he would apply within three months after discharge from the hospital.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would he get hospitalization after discharge?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, then, he would not be covered.


Mr. GREEN:: Is that not a very important point, because many of these men who come back are not fit, and then they are discharged from the army and go under the Department of Pensions and National Health for treatment, and they are not able to work until they have completed that treatment? Surely section 4 should be amended to give the man three months, or whatever may be the time, after his discharge from the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have not yet reached section 4 of the bill. But I think the point is very well taken and that this should be clarified.
Section stands.

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
On section 3-Duty of employer to reinstate employee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is the section which provides for reinstatement. It sets forth the duty of the employer to reinstate the employee, and there is a proviso which deals with the question of preserving the established rules of seniority in the employer's establishment. And it- '


Paul Joseph James Martin: And it leaves out pension
rights.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It leaves
out pension rights. That is exactly what I am coming to. Suppose, for instance, a man has served for fifteen years in the employment of a particular firm and had established his right to pension in respect of that period of service; he then enlists, and at the conclusion of the war he returns to his previous employment. His pension rights are not preserved by the statute, and there is nothing in the statute which compels the employer to preserve the pension rights. He may have to begin over again. I do not know what the action would be on the part of an employer. To-day nearly every big establishment has some kind of a pension system. Some systems are contributory; some are not. I understand that all the railways now have contributory pension systems. A man has some vested rights there. I suggest that this section be redrafted to take care of pension rights just as much as seniority. It is very important to the men. I have often talked to railway men about their pension rights, and I do know that the older they grow, the more they value those rights. It is a kind of magna charta against old age. I should like to have the minister give attention to this question and let us have some undertaking with respect to it.


Humphrey Mitchell: The point raised by the
leader of the opposition is one to which I have given some thought. However, the phrase "conditions not less favourable" on page 2, line 30, of the bill, implies the retention of pension and other rights, and regulations can be made under authority of section 11, which could define conditions not less favourable, explicitly to include the retention of such rights. If the bill should specify the retention of pension rights, it might be construed to mean that other unspecified rights were not retained. It might, therefore, be advisable to leave such matters to regulations, especially since different arrangements would be necessary with respect to contributory and noncontributory pensions, sick benefit insurance plans and other plans. I think my hon. friend can rest assured that the matter will not be overlooked.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, if I were construing this, I would suggest that the clause in the earlier part of section 3 which the minister quoted, "and under conditions not less favourable to him than those which would have been applicable to him had he not enlisted", do not apply to questions of seniority and the like. They apply to his working conditions and his pay and emoluments, and contractual relationships which exist between the parties. Especially is authority given to that contention in the succeeding proviso, which is really not an overriding proviso at all, but is intended, I think, to be an extension of the clause that the minister quoted, "provided, that the right to reinstatement shall be subject to established rules of seniority in the employer's establishment". Under the ejusdem generis rule "pension rights" ought to go in there. I press for that. I am not sure that you can by regulation under section 11 force an employer to give the man a pension.


Humphrey Mitchell: I want to say this to my hon. friend, that he is no more insistent than I would be that these men shall retain their pension rights.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
important.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes; it is important. The lawyers tell me that if it is specifically mentioned there, you must mention all the other things like insurance and sick benefit funds.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I want to think about that a little. I want pensions in if I can get it in.


Humphrey Mitchell: As far as I am concerned it would be satisfactory to insert "pension rights" among the other rights specified.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, you had better consider it overnight.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 10, 1942