1942-06-02

RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.-Mr. Howden.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply arising out of a press dispatch from Washington appearing in this morning's paper. The dispatch states:
A production council to utilize to the limit the manufacturing facilities of Canada, Britain and the United States in fabricating the weapons required for the united nations on all fronts, will be set up here this week.
War Production

That is, in Washington. Would the minister tell the house whether or not that report is accurate. It then goes on to say:
Canada will not be represented directly on the production board, but its interests will be handled by Nelson.
That is Mr. Donald M. Nelson of the United States. Is this report accurate; and if 30, why is it that Canada is not being represented?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I understand that discussions will take place this week in the matter of forming a production council. I expect to join in the discussions myself. What will be done in any particular is a matter for those discussions to determine. I know only that the discussions are taking place.


Howard Charles Green: The report says:
Canada will not be represented directly on the production board, but its interests will be handled by Nelson.
Is that correct, or is it a misstatement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say. So far as I know, there is no production council at the moment. The matter for discussion is as to whether or not one will be formed, and it is a little difficult to say who will be represented on it.


Mr. CHURCH:: You are away behind in your contributions to Britain and Russia, and Washington is behind so far in production promised Britain and Russia for 1942.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. K. BLAIR (Wellington North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to lodge a protest against the foolish speaking that is going on in this house day after day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member may not make a speech at this time. There will be opportunities later in the day.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 1, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding $2,000,000,000 for 
the year ending March 31, 1943, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Vien in the chair.
John Knox Blair: Mr. Chairman, I regret I was a little previous.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: And you may be yet.


John Knox Blair: My attitude has been suppressed for a long time, but the foolish speaking in the house is a disgrace to the house.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


The CHAIRMAN:: In the first place, the hon. member's expression is not in order and, in the second place, we cannot discuss in committee the procedure that is followed in the house. The hon. gentleman is now suggesting that a procedure which is followed when the house is sitting should be followed now. The proper time to discuss that is when the house is sitting. The matter before the committee is a resolution for $1,500,000,000 to be granted to his majesty with respect to war expenditures.


John Knox Blair: We are wasting a great deal of money here day after day which could be put in the proper channels to aid the war expenditures. When we look at the galleries we see that the people there are disgusted with the house.


Thomas Vien: Order. It is not permissible in a speech to make reference to the people in the gallery. I am sorry to have to call my hon. friend to order, but he is making a reflection upon the house which is not permissible under the rules.


John Knox Blair: If this is to keep up I suggest to the government that they impose closure. That was done before by Right Hon. R. B. Bennett when the circumstances were not quite the same. I urge upon the government that it adopt some means of removing this bane of democracy. Talking incessantly is one of the things that destroys democracy. Some toleration should be extended; we all believe in freedom of speech, but this excessive speech-making takes up the time of the house and wastes the money of the country. I am sure it is the opinion of 90 per cent of the members of this house that this action should be taken.

War Appropriation-War Services
While I am on my feet I should like to suggest to the committee one way by which some of this money might be obtained. The federal government should suggest to the provincial governments that they do away with the traffic in liquor. Two hundred million dollars in the form of planes and guns for the front would do more good than it does the way it is spent now, especially in the beer parlours for the ladies. I know this is not under your jurisdiction, but if the provinces are not ready to abolish this traffic, the federal government has it in its power to abolish liquor completely.



NATIONAL WAR SERVICES

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Yesterday I asked the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) for some information which should now be available. This has to do with a matter that concerns not only this house but the country as a whole-the results of the survey made by the government of the number of men available in the various age groups. As was mentioned last evening by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher), the position to-day is that in certain districts men between the ages of twenty and twenty-four years are being called up, whereas in other districts the call has been extended up to the thirty-year-old group. The minister stated that so far as certain age groups are concerned, the point of exhaustion is being approached.
What I asked for yesterday-it was no fault of the minister that he did not then give an answer-was the number of men in the different districts between twenty-one and twenty-four years of age and between twenty-four and thirty years of age who are still available for war service. This information is in the possession of the government; for the minister was able to say that the number of men within certain groups is about exhausted, and also he admitted yesterday that the information is available on the basis of the national registration. I said as reported on page 2933 of Hansard:
The information must be available, on the basis of national registration, which will show exactly the number of young men in the various age classes and the records of the numbers who have been called up.
To which the minister replied, "Oh, yes." The country must have the information I am asking for in order to know the present position of our voluntary system of recruiting and the possibility of being able to secure the necessary men by the continuance of the
voluntary system. We would then be able to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the time has come to extend the age class beyond thirty years, possibly to thirty-five or thirty-eight for single men, as well as including married men. What was the nature of the survey made by the government? What has that survey shown? What pool of man-power is available for labour, as shown by the recent census? How many men are still available for service within the age groups twenty to twenty-four years and twenty-four to thirty years, according rto' divisions?
The calls being made to-day are made in a spasmodic, slipshod and unscientific manner. We are going into one part of the country and calling up men to the age of thirty years, while in another part of the country we are calling up men only to the age of twenty-four years. Surely the time has come when there should be equality in the calls. Unless we have this information, the debate on the necessity for changing our voluntary system to compulsory selective service will be based merely on individual impression. All we will have will be one man's against another man's opinion, neither of them based on statistical information.
Only yesterday we saw an example of the difference of opinion that can exist. The adjutant general gave certain figures which appeared in the press, in regard to the proportion of men called up as R recruits who ultimately find their way into the active army. At the same time and in the same paper there appeared a statement by the deputy minister of national war services which indicated different percentages. Surely the minister is in position to furnish the house and the country with the information I have asked for. Without this information each member will have to substitute his own opinion for facts based on statistics.


Mr. THORSON:: Mr. Chairman, I have already covered the ground in respect to which the hon. member for Lake Centre is asking for information in so far as it is possible to cover [DOT] it. I indicated that in one of the administrative divisions, Kingston, the point of exhaustion of the present age groups up to thirty was very close at hand in so far as the calling of men for military training and subsequent service in the army for the duration of the war is concerned. It is fairly easy to determine that that state of affairs exists because there will be no more men forthcoming in that area.
With regard to the other administrative divisions I indicated likewise that there were

War Appropriation-War Services
at least two divisions where we would soon be in that situation. With regard to other divisions I indicated that we would not know the real extent of the man-power reserve that still exists until we had felt the full impact of the agricultural and other regulations.
In each division we know the number of single men there are by age groups. We likewise know the number of men we have called. We know the number of men to whom we have sent notices to report for medical examination. But I could not give the figures at the moment by age groups of the number of men who have enlisted. That would involve a review of attestation papers, because, so far as I am aware, enlistments are not recorded by age groups. That information could be obtained but it would require a great deal of work.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister say there is no record kept showing by age groups the number of men who have voluntarily enlisted?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The number of men who have enlisted is certainly available.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Yes, and their ages.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not know that there is a record kept by the Department of National Defence of enlistments by individual ages. I do not see what advantage there would be in having such a record.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They do not take them under eighteen or over a certain age, so that they must have knowledge of their ages.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They have the ages on the attestation papers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And that is available to the minister.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have no doubt that that information could be obtained, but I imagine it would take a good deal of work and time to get it. I doubt very much whether the enlistments are recorded by individual ages.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Then how can the minister know that the numbers in a certain age group are almost exhausted? The minister knows the number of available men in the different age groups through the national registration; how can he say that the numbers in any age group are nearing exhaustion if he does not know the number in that age group who have enlisted?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is easy to see the situation when there are no more men available.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: How?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Because there are no more men to receive notices. It is one thing to know when the state of exhaustion has been arrived at in a particular division, but it is quite another thing to know how many men are still available in another division-quite a different thing. In respect of the divisions where there are still men available the information as to how many are available in those divisions cannot be given without an immense amount of work. Some divisions must reach a state of exhaustion of the man-power reserve before others. The divisions cannot all go forward at exactly the same pace. You may reach the stage of exhaustion in one division before you do in another.


George Russell Boucher: How does the minister arrive at the conclusion that the numbers of men within a certain age group in a certain district have almost reached the point of exhaustion?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Because there are no more cards and no more persons to send notices to.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: What are the two divisions that are practically exhausted?
Mr.	HANSON	(York-Sunbury):	And	the
other two which are approaching that position?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The other one that is very close to exhaustion is administrative division F, Quebec. Another one that is very close to exhaustion is administrative division K, Vancouver.
Mr.	HANSON	(York-Sunbury):	And	the
other two?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I mentioned only three. I have named administrative division C, and the other two I have in mind are administrative division F, Quebec, and administrative division K, Vancouver.
Mr.	HANSON	(York-Sunbury):	I understood the minister to refer to two other administrative divisions.
Mr.	THORSON: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I misapprehended. The information asked for this afternoon is of extreme importance. The minister has stated in reply to the hon. member for Carleton that by counting the cards it is easy enough to arrive at the situation in divisions which are near exhaustion. If I appreciate the machinery correctly, there is, to start off with, a given number of cards in a given administrative district, and they are divided into age groups. That is possibly the only visible result of the national registration

War Appropriation-Agriculture
of which the country is aware. The call for volunteers comes and certain numbers in those different age groups volunteer. That information filters through and their cards are eliminated from the records in the minister's department. Certain names are eliminated, and there are so many left. Surely by the process of eliminating those who have gone through the volunteer stage it is simple enough to count the number of cards left and determine the number of men available, by exactly the same process as that by which the minister arrives at the conclusion that in a certain administrative division, C, the reserve is near exhaustion.
We cannot accept the minister's answer. It does not make sense. It is an evasion of responsibility on the part of the administration to withhold this information from us. We shall insist on having it between now and the time of the debate on the mobilization act. It is our right to have the information. It is possible to get it, and we shall insist on having it. None of the difficulties to which the minister has referred is of any great importance.	.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: It was stated last night that to-day we might discuss the war appropriation bill under different departments which are indicated in Hansard, and the Minister of Agriculture said that he would be prepared to answer questions. I should like to ask him two or three questions regarding agriculture.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I wonder if we cannot by mutual consent organize this discussion to some extent. If agriculture is to be taken up now with the consent of the committee, and if the committee will stick to agriculture until it is through, I do not think there will be any objection.


James Arthur Ross: It is the first item there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a perfectly proper proposal; start on one and finish it.


James Arthur Ross: I was simply starting out in accordance with the procedure suggested by the minister last night at the adjournment.


Thomas Vien: The committee may make any suggestions as regards the procedure it will follow, but, as suggested by the Minister of Finance, it will make for greater clarity of the record if one department is finished with before.another department is taken up. If that is the pleasure of the committee we will follow that rule.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is obvious that we cannot take a vote as to which department we will go on with. It is the responsibility of the government, and the decision is that agriculture be proceeded with now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is settled?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.



AGRICULTURE

James Arthur Ross: The production of poultry and eggs affects more farmers than that of any other agricultural commodity in Canada at the present time. I believe the minister realizes that a great deal has been done to encourage the development and expansion of these products. It has been pointed out to me, by people who I think should know, that in the near future there may be difficulty in selling these products to Great Britain. They claim they have been told that the food ministry of Great Britain can procure these articles through the lease-lend law of the United States much more easily than they can get them from Canada. I think the minister should tell us what provision was made, respecting the billion-dollar gift to Great Britain, for the supply of agricultural products -not merely those I have named, but others as well-in order that the producers may have some idea as to what the marketing possibilities of these products will be.
On page 2921 of Hansard there is an item, under wartime prices and trade board, of administration, S3,380,000, and another item, subsidies under price ceiling order, $50,000,000. The minister might explain the break-down under those two heads.
It may be a little out of order, but I do not think it is premature to ask the minister if he has any thought of making provision under the price ceiling regulations for harvest wages this fall. We had some serious difficulties last fall in the harvesting of our crop. There were people going through the country who were not eager to work and were demanding rates of pay some of which were ridiculous. It has been pointed out here that when this price ceiling was set on agricultural products, many items were fixed at far below the cost of production. If agriculture must produce on that basis, surely the government should take steps to regulate wages in the production of those necessary articles. The people who are going to work on the farms this fall should receive fair remuneration, but the government should step in and set a scale of wages covering the services which these men will give in the harvesting of the crops.

War Appropriation-Agriculture


Mr. GARDINER:: I do not know whether I can keep in mind all the questions which were raised by the hon. member, but if I miss any of them he can ask them again.
I believe the first suggestion was that I explain to the committee just what is the position in relation to eggs and poultry. It will be recalled by hon. members that at the beginning of the war we set up the agricultural supplies board, which is composed of six of the officials of the department-the four heads of the different divisions, and the assistant deputy as well as the executive assistant. This committee has working under it special boards which deal with different products. We have the bacon board, which deals with pork products; the dairy board, which deals with dairy products, and a special products board, which divides its activities into two sections, the poultry products section and the fruit and vegetables section. They enter into negotiations with the British government with regard to the production and the marketing of the different products in Great Britain.
So far as poultry is concerned arrangements have been made for the marketing of eggs. Since the poultry section was created in April, 1941, the board has entered into contracts with the British Ministry of Food for supplies of Canadian eggs and has handled all shipments of eggs to the United Kingdom. Contracts and shipments of eggs are as follows:
In 1941 the contract was for 460,000 cases, and we supplied 457,451 cases.
In 1942 the contract was for 1,500,000 cases, and there have been supplied, of shelled eggs, 367,608 cases. On February 6, 1942, instructions were received from Britain to forward the remaining quantity, that is the remaining part of the larger order of last year, the 1942 crop, as dried eggs. Shipments in shell to that date totalled 137,630 cases, leaving 1,362,370 cases to be dried. We have three egg-drying plants, one at Toronto, one at Winnipeg, and one at Saskatoon. These were brought into immediate operation to dry eggs for the board. Milk-drying plants at Ottawa, Gananoque, and Belmont, in Ontario, were converted into egg-drying plants, and additional drying plants are being constructed under private auspices at Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton. The plant at Saskatoon is being enlarged. These plants are being constructed under agreement with the Canadian government. Their period of usefulness is expected to end at the close of the war. Certain assistance therefore has been given in connection with the setting up of those plants.

I think that is all that it is necessary to say with regard to the egg contracts. They have resulted in all the surplus eggs being taken from the Canadian market and sent to Great Britain.


Mr. SENN:: Are the returns from the dried eggs to the farmer as great as they were when the eggs were sold in the shell?


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is that they will be. The prices remain as they were arranged for in the contract.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister did not state the selling price of the eggs to the British board. Has he that information available?


James Garfield Gardiner: The original agreement was for eggs at 28 cents during the high production season and at 32 cents at another period-I have not the exact months before me. Later we arranged to add 3 cents to that price, the amount being taken out of the treasury of Canada, to make it up to 31 and 35 cents.


Thomas Langton Church: Would the minister care to make a statement on the beef situation in Toronto under this agriculture item, on the wartime prices and trade board-


James Arthur Ross: Could we have a little sequence to this? The minister has only started to answer the questions I asked.


James Garfield Gardiner: What was the next item mentioned by the hon. member?


James Arthur Ross: I asked if the minister could give us an idea as to the different types and amounts of agricultural products that have been or will be included under the billion dollar gift to Britain.


James Garfield Gardiner: The question is whether I can give the committee the different amounts of the farm products which will be supplied to Britain under the billion dollar gift. It would be difficult, because of the nature of the agreements themselves, even to make an estimate of what proportion will be taken care of under the billion dollar gift. For example, under the agreements in connection with bacon we enter into an arrangement with Britain as to what price she is prepared to pay for bacon, and then we proceed to supply bacon at that figure. A financial arrangement has been entered into between the Department of Finance and the treasury in Britain, with regard to the division of the billion dollar amount which is a gift by Canada to Great Britain. I am not in possession of the facts, and I doubt very much if the Minister of Finance would be able to say just what proportion of the amount which will be

War Appropriation-Agriculture
required to take care of the total payments for bacon will be charged up to the British treasury, and what proportion eventually will be charged to the government of Canada. I think a near approach to the position can be found by examining past agreements.
Our agreement of last year provided for payment on the basis of 80 shillings. I think if we leave out for the moment places at which payment was to be made, we can get our proportions a little more clearly. The agreement this year calls for a payment of 100 shillings. If we were to say that Britain is not prepared to pay more this year than she paid last year, then it would be obvious that about 25 per cent of the amount paid last year per hundredweight would be expected to come out of the financial arrangements with Canada for this year. But I am not at all certain that it can be stated in such definite terms. Britain was prepared to pay us and did pay at the end of last season 85 shillings, although she contracted to pay only 80 shillings; and there has been an increase therefore from 85 to 100 as compared with the end of last season. But the government here have agreed to advance a billion dollars to Britain which is to be expended for war materials, including food, and some agreement will be made as to the division of the amount as time goes on.


James Arthur Ross: Would wheat be included in that?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has not been, up to
date, and I am not sure whether it will.


James Arthur Ross: There was another
question-whether the harvest wages will be taken care of under the price ceiling structure.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can only say that
the prices board is under the control of the Department of Finance, and the labour situation is under the control of the Labour department. All we do in connection with agriculture is to make representations to them from time to time as to what the labour situation is in agriculture, and make any suggestions we can as to how it might be dealt with. I think this matter would be better discussed when one of the ministers is before the committee.


James Arthur Ross: Then there is the
850,000,000 subsidy under the price ceiling order. How is it divided? What products does it cover, and to whom are the different amounts paid?


James Garfield Gardiner: That comes not under
my department but under the Department of Finance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How much is going to agriculture? Does the minister not know?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount was stated in Hansard yesterday at page 2920. It is $11,042,281.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the
same page there is an item under the head of Finance, "Subsidies under the price ceiling order, $50,000,000." What proportion is to go to agriculture?


James Garfield Gardiner: Where does that appear?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Near the
bottom of the page.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is under the
Department of Finance. I have no knowledge as to what these subsidies are apart from what we have seen from time to time as applied to certain products. There were subsidies in connection with milk and certain juices and things of that sort. That is entirely under the war prices board and comes under finance.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Then there is an amount of $3,700,000 in connection with disposal of agricultural products.


James Garfield Gardiner: That has no connection with the other.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Assistance given in disposing of surplus agricultural products.


James Arthur Ross: I wish to urge upon the minister that heed be given to the suggestions which have been thrown out with regard to the harvest months this fall. The farmers are very much interested in this matter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will pass them on to the Minister of Labour.


Mark Cecil Senn: I suggest that the minister
should take each of these items separately and give an explanation. There are eight or ten items amounting to $11,000,000 and it would be better if, instead of his being asked a separate question under each item, he would make a general statement giving us an idea as to how the money is to be expended under the various items.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree
with that; it is an orderly way to proceed. I should like the minister to give a statement with respect to the $3,700,000 for the disposal of agricultural products rendered surplus by the war. There is still, I assume, an apple situation in Nova Scotia. This is a distressed industry owing, to the fact that we cannot find bottoms to ship Nova Scotia apples to the

War Appropriation-Agriculture
other side. It would be interesting to know whether the government is subsidizing farmers in the Annapolis valley to-day in a class of work which good apple husbandry requires them to do themselves. I am told that the farmers in the Annapolis valley are receiving a subsidy to take out the old mature dying and dead trees in their orchards. That is something they should do as a matter of course, but with respect to assistance in the disposal of surplus crop, this government has assumed an obligation and should continue to carry it until some other disposition of the crop is made. How far are we carrying this agricultural assistance? Members from the east would like to know.
There is a further question on the million dollars for fertilizers. I should like to know what is being done in that regard. I am told that not one dollar of it is going to the potato farmers; it is going among other farmers. Why the discrimination against potato farmers in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island? These are pertinent questions on which we should have some information.


Mr. REID:: I do not think there are any potato farmers getting a subsidy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that is so; but why?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is an explanation. Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury): There may be, but let us have the reason for it. There may be a good reason, but the farmers do not understand it. They think it is rank discrimination against them. I do not say it is, and I am prepared to wait until we hear the explanation before passing judgment.
I should like to ask the minister a question with reference to potato production in this country. According to a Canadian Press dispatch dated Ottawa June 1, entitled "Canada raises potato output for U.S.A.," it is announced that:
Joint Canadian-United States action to increase the Canadian potato production for sale in the United States and to step up Canadian output of hog products was announced to-day by the agriculture department.
The plans, which have received formal approval of the Canadian government, follow recommendations of the joint economic committee of Canada and the United States.
I am more particularly interested in the potato part, which follows:
The potato arrangement provides that steps will be taken to increase Canadian potato production, for sale as table stock in the United States in the event of a short crop in that country or for manufacture into starch for lease-lend shipment if United States production meets table needs.
The United States has undertaken to purchase up to five million bushels of Canadian EMr, It. B. Hanson.]
potatoes for conversion to starch. These will be purchased at the prevailing United States prices for starch potatoes in the area of processing.
That of course will be a low price.
Under the announced price programme the floor price for United States No. 1 potatoes at Aroostook, Me., is $1.25 a hundredweight sacked and loaded f.o.b. cars.
Present indications are that production in Canada and the United States will be below the domestic requirements of north America for seed and current needs, including starch.
Existing trade agreements provide that if the United States' production goes below 350,000,000 bushels, the Canadian quota admissible to the United States at a reduced rate of duty is increased automatically by the amount which the United States crop is below the 350,000,000.
Agriculture officials at Washington report it is likely that under this agreement between
9.000.000 and 10,000,000 bushels may be added to the Canadian quota this year.
That is very substantial. But this is the second day of June; this announcement is just out. Have our potato growers in Canada been apprised in advance in order that they may make preparation for this increase in production? I understand that the acreage in potatoes in New Brunswick has been substantially reduced and that no preparations are being made to meet this immense increase in our quota to the United States. I welcome it, make no mistake about that; for a long time we have wanted to get that market. We have always met resistance from the Aroostook farmers. They have been strong enough with their great fruit and vegetable growers' organization to keep our product out, whereas, per contra, their influence with their government has been strong enough to prevent Canada from imposing an exchange duty against their products. Hence we have no exchange duty against early vegetables coming to this country, and have been limited to a more or less miserable quota for good table potato stock going to the United States.
I welcome this reported arrangement. It is a fine demonstration of how people can come together during war time. Besides asking whether this report is true, as I assume it is, I should like to know whether the potato farmers of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have been notified in time to enable them to take advantage of what looks like a good opportunity for increased production. Have the agricultural supply boards been informing the farmers? I am afraid it is too late if the word has not already gone out. I read the local papers from my province every day and I -have not seen in them a word about this. It is

War Appropriation-Agriculture
now the second day of June, and if the farmers have not the seed and fertilizer and the ground ready, it is a month too late.


Mr. ROWE:: And this year's crop is all sold.


James Garfield Gardiner: The trade agreement between Canada and the United States, which has been discussed in this house, sets up the conditions under which we trade with them ir potatoes among other things. The recommendations of the international economic committee which was set up to consider matters of this kind were made about a month ago. That -was first considered here; then it had to go to Washington and be considered there, and there was no possibility of making an announcement earlier than yesterday. It will be realized that there is no possibility of either the United States government or the Canadian government determining at this time whether more potatoes will be required in the United States, for the very reason indicated a moment ago. We have just passed or are just at the seeding season for potatoes in many parts of the continent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The acreage is one indication.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and the weather is another. For the last two or three years, probably in any year, our potato acreage has been sufficient to supply our own market plus any other markets we could find. Our difficulty has been a surplus; it is not a matter of acreage. The United States people came to us with the suggestion that this year there is a possibility of an acreage shortage, or that even if they have as high an acreage as usual this was probably not going to be a particularly good potato year in certain parts of the United States, and they asked if this country would make whatever provision we could, without running ourselves into serious difficulties, to provide for the situation. We made a careful survey of the situation in Canada and we think the acreage being put into potatoes will take care of any possible demands, provided we have an average or better than average crop.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister indicate what that survey reveals? Is there a reduction in acreage? My understanding is that there is a definite reduction in New Brunswick.


James Garfield Gardiner: Possibly there is in New Brunswick. I am not certain whether there is a reduction across Canada. I do not think anyone can say definitely, because in certain parts of Canada we are just about at planting time; around May 24 is planting time for
potatoes. At any rate it was thought the acreage was going to be at a level which would produce the potatoes that might be required in the United States. I think the leader of the opposition will agree that it would put the Canadian farmer in as serious a position to have a production larger than the market could take care of, as it would to have the acreage a little below the average.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, he is used to that.


James Garfield Gardiner: You might run into more difficulty with the one result than the other. The opinion of officials, for what it is worth- and they are dealing with the problem all the time-is that we shall have sufficient acreage, if we have an average crop or better, to take care of the possible requirements indicated by the United States. They have not yet said they will require them, and it would not be good policy to start boosting acreage in Canada on the assumption that there may be a poor crop in the United States. But we welcome the suggestion of the United States authorities that if that does happen they will look first to Canada for their additional supplies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They have no other place to look. I am not raising this question in any querulous spirit. I am just suggesting that if they are looking for increased production in Canada we are too late, having taken a month to consider the position. The information I have is that the acreage is being reduced. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield) who is probably one of the biggest growers of potatoes in New Brunswick, has reduced his acreage this year by nearly 50 per cent. I understand from him that that is symptomatic of the whole position. If that be so, we will have just about enough potatoes for our own market, which of course is the position I have advocated for years. Until we have a better entry into the United States market we had better not have a surplus. The minister is on solid ground in suggesting that. But if it is probable that the United States will take more of our production, then the point I am endeavouring to make is that we are late in notifying the Canadian grower.
Would the minister mind saying a word with respect to fertilizers? There is some disappointment and misunderstanding in the country on that point.


James Garfield Gardiner: I wonder if the leader of the opposition would allow me to proceed in the manner he suggested at the beginning of his remarks.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right.
War Appropriation-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: He suggested that I follow right through the different items; then if there are any questions to ask we can have them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have finished, so far as I am concerned.


James Garfield Gardiner: If that is the desire of the committee I shall deal with the different items. The first is one of $34,502 for administration, made up of salaries, $18,000; cost of living bonus, $502; printing and stationery, $4,000; telephone and telegraph, $1,000; travelling expenses, $9,000, and miscellaneous, $2,000.
The first item following administration stands in the name of the flax fibre administrator.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: With respect to the salaries under the administration item, are those additional salaries?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, those are additional.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Salaries paid to personnel engaged by the board?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, those are in addition to the salaries paid to the regular staff. The members of the board itself are not paid any salary over and above what they get from the department.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: What is the beef situation to-day? Is there any chance of relief? I ask the question because in Peterborough and adjacent towns last Saturday there was no beef or lamb to be had. Not only the storekeepers but the people generally are affected.


James Garfield Gardiner: I again appeal to the committee to permit me to follow the suggestion made a few minutes ago, that I take this up item by item. I believe if that is done we can go through the list in a short time.
It will be recalled that at the beginning of the war we were asked to provide additional fibre flax in Canada. In order to avoid a difficulty experienced during the last war, when the seed went up to a very high price, we took possession of the seed and set up a fibre flax administrator under the war supplies board. That official makes provision for its distribution to increase our acreage in Canada. The remainder of it is supplied to Great Britain, to increase fibre flax supplies in the old country.


Mark Cecil Senn: Do these administrators come under the agricultural supplies board?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Who is the administrator?
[Mr. R. B. Hanson.3


James Garfield Gardiner: The head of it is Dean Shaw. Administration costs in connection with fibre flax are placed at $22,780.


Mr. STIRLING:: Does this deal with the disposal of the flax?


James Garfield Gardiner: It deals largely with the disposal of the seed, and it makes arrangements under which the fibre flax itself will go to the proper places. Under this item salaries stand at $11,980; senior flax inspector, $2,400; five regional flax inspectors, $7,500; one stenographer, $1,080; cost of living bonus $1,000; printing and stationery, $500; telephone and telegraph $300; travelling expenses, $9,500, and miscellaneous, $500.
The next item is for fertilizer and pesticides.


Mr. QUELCH:: What steps are being taken to utilize the straw of the flax being grown in the west? I understand it is too short to be used as fibre, but has great value as tow.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not just certain as to the value of the flax grown in the west, so far as its use for fibre is concerned. Hon. members from Saskatchewan and probably from some other parts of Canada will remember that for a long time in Saskatchewan we experimented with flax straw. A gentleman who was proficient in making a kind of twine and other materials from flax straw was engaged by the Saskatchewan government. The difficulty was that we were never able to produce it at commercial values; therefore we did not accomplish very much by way of giving assistance in the production of flax products. I do not know that the condition is different even yet. Flax in western Canada is grown in a dry climate, with the result that the fibre breaks into short lengths when handled. Those short lengths are not nearly as valuable for the making of linens or twines as are the long fibres of the fibre flax.


Victor Quelch: Does that apply to the irrigated areas?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; I think the climate is the important factor, rather than that the water is made available at the roots. At least that is my information, so far as my experience goes.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Flax grown in the west is not used at all in the manufacture of linens, because it is not suitable for that purpose. An entirely different seed is sown in Ontario and Quebec, where flax fibres are produced. There is no flax fibre in the west, and never was.


Thomas Reid: It is being grown in the Fraser' valley to make linens.

War Appropriation-Agriculture


Frederick George Sanderson: I am speaking of the
prairie provinces.


James Arthur Ross: It is grown in Manitoba, at Portage la Prairie.


Thomas Vien: Order. It has been agreed that the minister would be allowed to make his statement, and that questions would then be put, if he has not already covered the ground. I believe if we adhere to that agreement, arrived at by unanimous consent and therefore made a rule in this debate, we will make more progress.


James Lester Douglas: No ruling has been made.


Thomas Vien: Yes, there was an
agreement, by unanimous consent of the committee; and when there is unanimous consent of the committee it becomes a rule of the committee. It has been proposed, and no one has dissented, that the minister be allowed to make a statement, and that after that questions may be put if the minister has left any ground uncovered.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I suggest to the minister that if he goes over all the ground once, and then hon. members proceed to ask questions, it will take twice as long.


Thomas Vien: I am sorry, but that is not in order; that is my ruling. If the committee desires to appeal from my ruling, that is another matter.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Mr. Chairman, no one wishes to appeal from your ruling, but I submit there was not unanimous consent.


Thomas Vien: There was, because no hon. member objected to the suggestion, and if no one objects it becomes unanimous consent. Therefore by unanimous consent the rule in this debate is that the minister shall have the privilege of making his statement, and will then answer questions as they arise.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I suggest to the minister that if he goes right through and then we begin to ask questions, it will take a long time. If at the end of each item he would pause and answer the questions, . and then proceed to the next item, he would not have to come back. It could be done more expeditiously in this way than by having a general debate all over again.


James Garfield Gardiner: War Appropriation-Agriculture
Canada and in British Columbia in order that we might have a greater production of meats and fats and dairy products.
It was not thought wise to provide assistance in connection with commodities of which we have a surplus already. For example, since the war started we have been paying out money year after year to take care of our apple crop. A year ago we had trouble in carying our potato crop, but we did not have so much difficulty this past year because there was a poor crop. However, we are not expecting to have poor crops every year. In other words, it has not been necessary to increase our production of potatoes or our production of apples or our production of most vegetables in order to get the supplies that are required in connection with our war effort. So that no assistance is being given in that direction; the assistance is being given to get coarse grains, and the fertilizers provided for must be applied to lands on which coarse grains are being grown.
Since the beginning of the war we have had a seeds administration, which costs $9,498,
made up as follows:
Salaries	 $4,598
Printing and stationery	 COO
Telephones and telegraphs	 600
Travelling expenses	 3,000
Miscellaneous	 700
An order in council passed on January 16, 1942, authorized the appointment of a seeds administrator to regulate the distribution of field crop and garden vegetable seeds to meet present and potential needs. It will be recalled that before the war we were getting many of our garden seeds from European countries. Immediately the war started there was a blockade and it was impossible for us to obtain seeds from that source. This organization was set up to encourage the production of garden seeds in Canada, and we have experienced no difficulty in getting sufficient garden seeds to be able to carry on down to the present time.
Then we have a flour and feeds administration, at a cost of $55,000, made up as follows:
Salaries	 $25,000
Printing and stationery	 14,000
Travelling expenses	 6,000
Miscellaneous, including telephones
and telegraphs	 10,000
The greater part of the activities of the feeds administrator has to do with the shipment of feed grain from the prairie west into the eastern part of Canada, and from the prairie west into British Columbia. I think hon. members are fairly familiar with the provisions of the agreement. In 1940 provision was made for the payment of a proportionate cost to those provinces which 
undertook to apply the policy and pay the remaining part of the cost. Ontario was the only province that undertook that policy. In 1942 we agreed to pay the entire freight from Fort William east and from Calgary and Edmonton west on feed grain shipped from the prairie provinces into, other sections of Canada. Under that system all provinces have been importing feed grain from western Canada down to the present time. We have under consideration at the moment-and I say this because it is something which is of interest to farmers, particularly in eastern Canada and British Columbia-the question whether this arrangement will be renewed on the present basis. The present agreement terminates on June 30, and it will be necessary to inform business men in different parts of Canada whether or not it is expected to terminate it at the end of June. I hope to have a final decision on the question within a week, and to be able to announce what position we will be taking for the coming year with regard to the shipment of feed grains.
The next item is programmes to encourage the production of essential war supplies. It is estimated that these programmes will cost $230,000 this year. The first item is advertising, and the first item under advertising is the crop production programme for the prairie provinces for 1942. The purpose of that programme is to acquaint the prairie farmer with the government's crop production programme for 1942, which was framed according to the requirements of war conditions. This has been announced already and it was discussed quite thoroughly in the early part of the session. This advertising was put out in March and April, 1942, and the media used were the daily and weekly newspapers and the farm press circulating in western Canada, as well as posters and leaflets outlining the crop programme. The cost of that was S15,000.
Item number two is the bacon and hog programme. The purpose of this is to encourage and assist in the production of quality hogs in sufficient quantity to supply the hog products required by Britain. There was one advertisement each month, and the media were the farm papers of Canada and certain foreign news weeklies. The cost is approximately $6,000 per month. We were successful in each of the preceding years in obtaining for Britain all the bacon and ham we contracted to supply. During this present year we have contracted to supply Britain with 600 million pounds. The last reports I have indicate that we have secured-and I say secured, because it is not possible to keep shipments up with deliveries in view of conditions prevailing on the

War Appropriation-Agriculture
Atlantic-we have secured for shipment to Britain in the first twenty-five weeks of the present year 52 per cent of the total required to supply that 600 million pounds. The year began with the first of October last. It has just been suggested to me by my colleague that the agreement is not limited to 600 million pounds, but is not less than 600 million pounds, and we are well on the way towards the delivery of that amount during this coming year. We are hopeful that we shall be able to deliver the amount required to fill the minimum of that contract.
Then there is the farm women's campaign. We noticed that during the first year of the war and well on into the second year we had been paying much attention to activities on the part of the men who are providing labour for farms, but not so much to acknowledge and urge greater accomplishments by women who are providing labour on the farm. Every member of the house is aware of the fact that much of the work on every farm, particularly where it is a mixed-dairy or fruit-farming operation, is carried on by women. That always has been and probably always will be so, because of their activities not only in the home itself but outside the home in carrying on some kind of dairy operations, and often poultry and other operations. We have adopted a plan to encourage and assist farm women in carrying out their task in the war, particularly in the production of food. Advertisements commenced in the late May papers, and in the June issues. Six advertisements in the series are to be released at the rate of one a month. Selected farm publications having editors of women's sections are being used. The cost of this series is estimated at $30,000 for the present year.
In December, 1941, the agricultural supplies board secured authority under order in council to place in five Canadian plants already engaged in dehydration work-one in British Columbia, two in Ontario and two in Nova Scotia-the extra equipment required in experimental processing to the new specifications, and to have those plants purchase and process for government account, under supervision of the board's representative, certain quantities of vegetables of 1941 production. Our reason for doing that was this. The British government sent an agent to Canada and to the United States in the year 1940 to inquire into the possibilities of receiving more food products in dehydrated form, the reason being obvious -that you can ship much more in a given space of dehydrated fruits and vegetables than of fruits and vegetables in their natural state. If I remember correctly, dehydrated eggs, for example, take about one-seventh the space
required for shell eggs. The advantages of the dehydrated plan will be obvious in view of the shortage of shipping space caused by war conditions.
When the British agent was here first we had not developed processes which were satisfactory. The British agent went back to Britain and obtained from the records the processes that were being followed in Britain. He brought them back to this country and discussed the matter fully with the officials of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce. We developed in cooperation with them a process for dehydrating vegetables and fruits which was satisfactory to Britain, and that process is being applied now in plants across Canada. We have given assistance to the plants in putting in the kind of equipment required fpr this new process, and they are now operating under the plan which was evolved.


Grote Stirling: But you have not any
orders?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are sending over
the commodity regularly. Under this project approximately 170 tons of beets were processed, sixty-nine tons of turnips, thirty-one tons of carrots and thirteen tons of cabbage. Considerable quantities of these dried products were placed with the Canadian defence forces for use as emergency rations, particularly in connection with coastal defence work, and as the fiscal year ended attempts were being made to interest British officials in the products. As the member for Yale suggested, British orders are not available up to the moment, but there are not sufficient products available to make shipments in shipload lots possible in view of what we are using in Canada. It is estimated that approximately $225,000 will be expended to complete this work in 1941-42, most of which should be recovered by the sale of the products made. Of the $225,000 estimated to be expended, approximately $22,000 was used to purchase for the plants special equipment, which is owned by the government.


James Lester Douglas: What is the arrangement in that regard? Do the plants pay for it? Does the government take it over after the war?


James Garfield Gardiner: The arrangement is
contained in an agreement I have here, the terms of which I can read if desired. The proposal is to write off the amount at 20 per cent per year, which would mean a five-year arrangement. It is thought that some of this additional equipment will be useful later on.
The programme for 1942-43 is outlined in the order in council of May 18, 1942, for an



War Appropriation-Agriculture
expenditure of $500,000. It is expected that the programme will follow the same course as in 1941-42, the output being increased by reason of the increased plant equipment.
The purchase, storage and distribution of agricultural supplies is the next item-$1,405,583. Special measures were taken to insure supplies of certain field root and garden vegetable seeds. I explained, when I was dealing with the appointment of the administrator, the plan under which that was done. Provincial seed production committees were formed in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, and British Columbia, and the dominion and provincial governments concerned agreed to accept all seed grown on the acreage under contract of a quality equal to registered or certified seed grain. Under this arrangement more than 470 acres of various root and vegetable crops were contracted for, for seed purposes, in 1940. These measures were continued in 1941, and we propose to continue them further in 1942. Under these measures we have produced bean seed, also seed for potato^ cabbage, cauliflower, cucumber, lettuce, onion, tomato, mangel and other vegetables.
Among the other potential amounts required is the sum of $1,000,000 under the heading of purchase, storage and distribution of agricultural supplies, to provide for unseen contingencies in the field of agricultural supplies. An example of what might be needed was the necessity during 1939, 1940 and 1941 of purchasing and distributing fibre flax seed surplus to growers' immediate needs.
That, I think, takes us down to assistance in the disposal of agricultural products rendered surplus by the war-the item specially mentioned, I believe, by the hon. member for Weybum as well as by the leader of the opposition.
The first item mentioned by the leader of the opposition was assistance in apple marketing. In explanation of what has happened in the maritime provinces, in British Columbia, and to some extent in Ontario, I should say that the 1941 apple crop was smaller than that of 1940. It will be recalled that I stated here last session that in the first year of the war the British government were not desirous of taking any apples from Canada. Up to that time they had been taking 50 per cent of our crop. That required 80 per cent of the maritime province crop, about 50 per cent of the crop from British Columbia, but very little of the crop of Ontario, with the result that about 50 per cent of the apple crop was going to the British market. When war was declared Britain said that she did not wish to have any apples, because they took up too much shipping space and had little

food value compared with other foodstuffs. Finally however they agreed to take half the quantity of the preceding year. They did not desire to take any of the 1940 crop. Fortunately we did not have in that year as large a crop, and our difficulties in disposing of it were not quite as great. In 1941 again we entered into an arrangement under which the British government took part of the crop from Canada, and we had to take care of the remainder of it in this country. The 1941 apple crop was smaller than that of 1940, but since, early in the season, there was no indication that Britain would take fresh apples, arrangements were made to assist in the marketing of the Nova Scotia and British Columbia crop. In September, 1941, the British Ministry of Food decided to take 1,200,000 boxes and 110,000 barrels of Canadian apples in the fresh state. Owing to the export of these apples from British Columbia, Nova Scotia and to a lesser extent from Ontario, Ontario apple growers did not require any dominion assistance. They sold their apples at, as has been said, good prices in the central part of Canada. We had agreements with British Columbia. I do not know that the committee will want me to go into the details of those agreements. In 1941 we had no agreement with Ontario, but we did have an agreement with Nova Scotia. The agreement with New Brunswick involved 4,600,000 boxes; in Nova Scotia it involved 1,500,000 barrels. The total expenditures during the year ended March 31, 1942, were as follows: In relation to British Columbia apples, further expenditures under the 1940-41 agreement were $181,810.04; under the 1941-42 agreement, $311,230.68. In Ontario the expenditure for 1940-41 was very small, only $3,819.10. In Nova Scotia, further expenditures under the
1940-	41 agreement which had to be made in the succeeding year were $124,96124; under the
1941-	42 agreement, $1,649,160.92. Further expenditures under this latter agreement will have to be made.
An agreement has already been concluded with Nova Scotia somewhat along the lines of the previous agreements for the crop of 1942. We shall have negotiations with Ontario with regard to their position. An agreement is under discussion with British Columbia but has not yet been made.


Mark Cecil Senn: Were these net figures of expenditures on apples?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. These are the net figures which have been paid out under the similar vote in the preceding years, and this vote which is set up now will be applied to similar purposes.

War Appropriation-Agriculture


Mark Cecil Senn: After the evaporated fruit and other products have been disposed of?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. I think that is correct, but I will make sure.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I do not know
whether I am in order. Am I to understand that I must follow through the board administration, and so on down the line, and ask the minister any questions in that order?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think it. is
necessary to follow through item by item. That completes everything down to assistance in the disposal of agricultural products rendered surplus by the war. I think it would be just as well if we stopped there and had any questions which hon. members may wish to ask. The items below that are: bacon board, dairy produots board, special products board, freight assistance on western feed grain, and fertilizer assistance. These are special items which I think we can discuss by themselves, and it might be better to deal with each of them separately rather than fry to give an outline of them all.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is the reason I am asking the question. Naturally, coming from a British Columbia rural district, I am more particularly interested in the dairy products board, but I do not know whether I am in order in asking any questions at this time. There have been so many rulings.


James Garfield Gardiner: I suggest that we take the last five items one by one, and if there are any questions on what I have been discussing, they can be asked now. We will take the bacon board next, and then the dairy board, and have questions on each one.


Mark Cecil Senn: Under this item of assistance in the disposal of agricultural products, the minister mentioned only one article, and that was apples. It does not seem possible that all this money would be taken up with the disposal of the surplus apple crop. Are there not some other items for which assistance is needed as well?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the product
which has had practically all the assistance that has been given in the way of amounts paid out of this sum this year. The amount which will be required for dealing with the situation during this coming year will not, of course, total the full amount of this sum, which is S3,700,000. In round figures the amount which we have used in connection with apples during the last number of years has been about $2,000,000. The figures which I have given, it will be noted, are not complete. The sums paid out during the last financial
year partly had to do with the preceding financial year, and partly related to the last financial year, but the figures are not complete as at the end of the last financial year. Speaking from memory, the total amount spent on apples has been a little over $2,000,000.


Grote Stirling: With regard to this assistance which has been given, I think, the way it is put, it surely means that the government early realized that that was a war casualty.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Grote Stirling: That was the reason. The export was suddenly cut off; the producers of apples in the three provinces mentioned were without a very considerable slice of their market; it had to be replaced, and the dominion government recognized that fact. I have a question to ask with regard to the preceding item, having to do with assistance in dehydration to try to meet the British demand. I think I am right in saying that in the last war Great Britain had a pretty disappointing experience with the quality of the dehydrated products.
In order to overcome that difficulty the government established certain experimental works in five factories for the purpose of endeavouring to reach the high standard of dehydration which Great Britain demanded. Some of these experiments were carried on in my neighbourhood and I know how successful the result has been as far as it has gone; and the assistance given by the department has been I think very greatly appreciated by the industry. But the difficulty comes in with regard to what happens next. Two months ago the manager of that industry was in touch with me in an endeavour to find out what prospect there would be of marketing if he went ahead and grew vegetables himself and advised those who usually deal with him to grow vegetables, for the purpose of marketing the stuff under the agreement with Great Britain. I was not able to obtain any information with regard to the prospect of that marketing. Can the minister say anything about the difficulty which lies ahead? Obviously dehydration plants will not proceed to induce farmers to grow if they do not see ahead to the marketing of the product. For war purposes these dehydration products are wanted for the supply of Britain for the forces, and for our Canadian forces as well, and world markets are not open to them.


James Garfield Gardiner: The objective of the department so far has been merely to conduct this as an experimental undertaking.


Grote Stirling: To demonstrate that it can be done.

War Appropriation-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: To demonstrate the usefulness of the process by which dehydration is to be carried out. The hon. member is correct in stating that the experiences of the last war are still in the minds of the British government and of the Canadian government. An effort is being made to evolve a process that will satisfactorily dehydrate fruit and vegetables and place them over in Britain in proper shape. I think both the British government and the dominion government are well satisfied with the experiments that have been carried on this year, and as the hon. member has stated, those in his area are well satisfied. We think it will be a success. The amount of money provided this year is about double what was provided last year, but we do not intend to increase the output beyond what we have the means of disposing of at the moment. We can of course dispose of as much, with the Canadian forces, as we did last year and probably considerably more, but on the other hand if it is required in Great Britain, if the whole quantity is needed there, we can ship it and use fresh vegetables on this side. So that whatever happens in connection with it, I do not think there is much possibility of anyone taking a loss from the experiment. The experiment is worth carrying out in war time because of its usefulness at all times.


Mr. HATFIELD:: In accordance with the order in council of May 18, $50,000 was set aside for equipment assistance in dehydration plants. Will that be used to place equipment in new plants? Potatoes are the chief commodity, 75 per cent being dehydrated, and there are no plants in the surplus producing counties at the present time. I should like to know whether any of this money will be used to assist new plants in the potato producing provinces such as Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.


James Garfield Gardiner: The intention is of course to make the fullest possible use of the plants that have already been provided with special equipment, and it is hoped that we may be able to extend the activities this year to take in some other areas not covered by the plants last year. But I should not like to go on record with regard to the places at which they will be established, though I am quite sure they will be established to meet areas that have not already been provided with plants, at any time that new plants are put in.


Heber Harold Hatfield: It is not feasible to dehydrate potatoes in plants which are not located in potato producing centres, because you are only shipping 90 per cent water to the plants.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: Where are Prince Edward Island potatoes to be dehydrated?


James Garfield Gardiner: The only plant that is being operated at the moment to which they would likely be shipped is in Nova Scotia, but that is because there was a plant there to which equipment has been added.


John Knox Blair: I should like to know something in regard to the evaporating of eggs. Have we any hope of getting an export freight rate for crates going to the evaporating plants? We get an export freight rate from the plant to seaboard, but we pay domestic freight rates from our towns to the evaporating plants. On the American side they have an export freight rate from the towns to the evaporating plants-in some of the states, not all. I thought perhaps we might be able to secure that in Canada. We have our plants a considerable distance from egg centres and it costs 52 cents to ship the crate, 11 cents to return the crate, and a charge of 3 cents for the revamping of the crate. What price is given to the evaporated eggs when they are dried? I should like to know what assistance is given to the evaporating plants, such as Swifts of Toronto.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the agreement with me. It has been finally drafted within the last few days and I am not in a position at the moment to give the details of it.


John Knox Blair: Perhaps at another time.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only agreement which so far has been finally drawn is the agreement with the plant that is being enlarged at Winnipeg, and that is to be made the basis of other agreements that are entered into with other plants across Canada. I regret however that I have not the details with me. With regard to freight rates, there is quite a difference betvreen freight arrangements in the United States and those in Canada. As every hon. member knows, our rates are pretty much under the control of the transport board and have to be referred to them from time to time as changes are requested. I cannot give any information in that regard.


Thomas Reid: I should like to ask the minister a question regarding the freight assistance to the western and eastern provinces. The minister pointed out that he was considering, or some board was, the advisability of continuing that policy. If the freight assistance is discontinued it will greatly affect farmers in the Fraser valley. There is no doubt that the assistance given on mill feeds and

War Appropriation-Agriculture
grains has enabled them to carry on, and I strongly urge upon the minister that he continue that policy.
I am not sure whether the price of butter and cheese comes under the minister's department-perhaps it is under the Minister of Finance; that is one of those confusing things. But the price of thirty-five cents set for butter and fifty cents for cheese has reacted on the price of milk and is driving the farmers of the Fraser valley out of business. I am not going to deal with that now because it will come later-


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no set price of fifty cents on cheese.


Thomas Reid: For butter it has been set at thirty-five cents, and fifty cents is the equivalent for cheese. That has brought about a situation in Canada under which, according to the figures I have, this year we are already short something like 5,000,000 pounds of butter. In 1941 the consumption was 369,413,809 pounds. From January to April this year we produced 48,803,071 pounds. At the end of April we are 4,485,990 pounds short as compared with 1941. The minister of agriculture for British Columbia, speaking at a meeting a short time ago, said it was unfair that the dairymen should be required to carry such a load of sacrifice as they were carrying at present under shrinking incomes and rising costs. That I think bears out what I was saying a moment ago, that if freight assistance is not continued and no subsidy is given to the farmers, and the price of butter is kept at thirty-five cents, it will mean that the farmers will very largely go out of business, except those who are fairly well established or have considerable bank accounts.
I want to ask the minister what assistance has been given regarding flax. He mentioned five regional officers. I should like to know if one has been appointed for British Columbia, and what assistance is being given. British Columbia this year has contributed S3,000 to a cooperative organization of farmers who are endeavouring to produce a crop of flax. I am not giving it as my opinion, but it is the opinion of experts that they can grow excellent flax for linen in the Fraser valley.
I noticed the other day that Great Britain is sending one of her outstanding agricultural experts to this country, to be attached to the office of the high commissioner. It was stated that his duties in Canada would be to promote the growing of food crops required by the people of Great Britain. I am not questioning his coming here; that is Great Britain's policy, but I am wondering where he will fit
into the Department of Agriculture if his purpose is to promote among Canadian farmers the growing of crops for feeding Great Britain.
I ask the minister not to drop the freight assistance given the farmers of British Columbia on mill feeds and grain.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry I have not the names of the inspectors under the flax provisions, nor have I their addresses. I shall have that here when my regular estimates are under consideration, and if the hon. member will be satisfied to ask his question then I shall be glad to give it.


Mr. PERLEY:: Will the minister state the regions?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is one senior inspector and five regional inspectors. I am not in a position to give the exact regions at the moment.	_


Thomas Reid: Is there one for British
Columbia?


James Garfield Gardiner: I imagine one will be there from time to time.


Ernest Edward Perley: Will the regions correspond with the provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is unlikely that there would be a fibre flax man in the prairie provinces, because we do not grow fibre flax there. I presume they will be chiefly in eastern Canada and British Columbia.
As to the British representative, I may say that Doctor A. Scott Watson-I presume it is he who is referred to-arrived in Halifax from Britain two or three days ago. He did not go first to Washington but came direct to Ottawa and spent part of the day before yesterday and yesterday here. He may be in Ottawa still. When he arrived he naturally came to the Department of Agriculture. I take it his mission in Canada and the United States is to make known in these countries what Britain finds it possible to produce and how much of the different products that she requires during the war period we in Canada and the United States will be able to supply. I do not think there will be any difficulty in coordinating the work of the British representative with the departments of agriculture in Canada and the United States. It is simply a matter of getting first-hand knowledge of British conditions, placing that information before us and finding out what we can do in order to make up the shortage in Britain of those different products. He will of course acquaint his government with the facts, and if the total is not made up they may adjust

War Appropriation-Agriculture
their agriculture in Britain to try to produce more of certain things and less of others in order to fit in with our situation. I think that is the real object of his visit.
With regard to butter I think all who are familiar with dairy production in Canada agree that if we desire to increase production over that of last year the present price will not bring about that increase. There is some doubt in the minds of some whether the present price will produce even the quantity we had last year. The difference of opinion is based on certain facts. We have been in the habit in Canada of thinking that the greater part of the butter we produce, I think about five-sixths, must be produced in the summer months. During all the years we have been producing butter, we have been producing a very considerable part of it in the summer months, and we have had the idea that we can produce butter to good advantage only in the summer months. The result has been that a very considerable storage from the months of May and June is carried over into the winter months in order to keep up our supplies in those winter months.
Last year we had an experience which some people argue disproves our experience of the past. Last summer we had a price for cheese of 16 cents a pound, plus the premium paid by the federal government and subsidies paid by the provincial governments. That brought the price up to between 19 and 20 cents a pound. Under that plan we secured enough cheese to supply the British contract during the summer months, but we had nothing left for the home market. I think members of the committee who are familiar with the facts will agree that it was always thought to be more difficult in the winter months to produce cheese than to produce butter. Last summer cheese was selling on the market at, I believe, about 37 cents a pound. When the wartime prices and trade board established their ceiling prices last fall, that price was not acknowledged as the ceiling price, although cheese sold as high as about 37 c.ents a pound. The reason given for its not being acknowledged was that that was cured cheese, carried over from a preceding year, and sold at a very high price because of the shortage on this market brought about by the taking of all the cheese off the Canadian market last summer.
The point I wish to emphasize is that, with the facts before us last fall, after discussions between the prices board and the Department of Agriculture it was arranged to set a

ceiling price on cheese of 25 cents a pound for the winter months, and our cheese production in Canada increased by leaps and bounds during the winter months. I have not the exact figures before me, but I shall have them later, when we are discussing the . regular estimates. I should have had them this afternoon. However, there has been a remarkable increase in cheese production during the winter months. It goes without saying that the cheese will probably be not quite as good as the cheese produced in the summer months, off the grass. Nevertheless it is a very acceptable food product.
With that experience behind us some people are inclined to argue that we can have a ceiling price on butter of 35 cents during the summer months. I should like to say at this point that that is not a declining price. It is scarcely correct to say that we have had a declining return from farm products, and an increased cost; because, after all, the floor price for butter last year was 29i cents in May, 30 cents in June, and I believe in October it was 32 cents. While the price did not drop down to the floor, it was not quite as high as it has been during the early summer months of this year. The price has been hovering round 34 or 35 cents in May of this year, and I presume it will continue at about that level throughout the month of June. The argument of some is that we should start our increase in prices this year along about the month of September or October, and continuing on through the winter. It is suggested that instead of carrying so much butter in storage from the summer months until the winter, we might go into production of butter during the winter months, which would take care of our needs next winter. There are some agricultural experts who do not agree that we will get that result to the extent we hope to get it. But I am repeating to the committee the strongest argument I have heard from those who take the opposite position. The price as set at the moment is set by the wartime prices and trade board, and the Department of Agriculture is cooperating as far as possible to keep production as high as we can during the summer months. We are hopeful that if no change is made we can go on during the winter months and get greater production in the winter time. That again is an experiment with respect to which no one can exactly foretell the results.
If the argument put forth by the representatives of the prices board does not materialize, then we shall know that we have been wrong in taking that particular position this year in connection with butter, and probably will have to evolve some different plan for a

War Appropriation-Agriculture
succeeding year. We may find as we go along that some other action has to be taken even this year in order to make sure of our supplies -some action which will give further returns. At the moment, however, those who are arguing for the policy being followed take the position that they do not believe that will be necessary, and that we can take care of the situation.


Mr. RICKARD:: Before the minister leaves this subject may I say, with respect to the apple industry, that I am sure the growers appreciate what the government has done for them in the past two or three years. I understood the minister to say that there was only one dehydration plant in Canada, and that it was situated in Nova Scotia.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I thought I said we had five; but I believe the only one available to Prince Edward Island is in Nova Scotia.


Wilbert Franklin (Frank) Rickard: In the counties of Northumberland and Durham, I believe there are as many good apples grown as in any other part of Ontario. We are anxious to have a plant established in that district; and if it would be possible for the minister to consider that matter, it would be greatly appreciated. I do not believe there is one within a reasonable distance in that part of the province.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, listening to the minister say that what has been done may be wrong, and that we are more or less trying an experiment, it occurs to me that the agricultural war policy of the government has been pretty much one of experiment, trial and error since the war began. That has been the condition from the time we endeavoured to fix the price on bacon. There have been the fixing of winter prices in summer time, the fixing of summer prices in winter time, and a terrific effort to keep prices down.
I recognize the merit in the general principle the government is endeavouring to follow in connection with the price-ceiling policy, but it appears to me that it is almost impossible to carry it out properly. I believe it will prove to be merely an experiment to fix prices on agricultural products, without fixing farmers' costs. The farmer to-day is paying 50 per cent; yes, in many districts he is paying 100 per cent more wages than he paid prior to the war. I suggest there is within sound of my voice no hon. member representing an agricultural constituency who does not know that that is the condition. There have also been great increases in feed costs.
It is true that the government is experimenting with a price-ceiling policy to avoid
inflation in general industry. But those who are associated with industry know very well that wages were fixed. I say in all fairness to the labouring man that some effort should be made to keep his living costs at as low a point as possible. It will be remembered, however, that there is a cost of living bonus, and that wages were frozen and a cost of living bonus added in proportion to the change in the quarterly index. No such situation prevails with respect to agriculture. No wonder it has been said so often that the farmer is the forgotten man of this country. I do not blame the Minister of Agriculture alone for the somewhat economic tanglefoot in which he finds himself, because no doubt he is simply trying to coordinate his policies and efforts with the government's general policy to which I am taking exception at this point.
If we are going to increase agricultural production all along the line, the production of those products that require the most man hours of toil, such as foodstuffs, animal fats, butter, dairy products, meats and so forth, the products which cannot be handled by mass production methods, with the use of heavy machinery, but products which require constant attention in the winter months as well as in the summer months, we must leave some of the old element of chance for a reasonable period to the farmer. He has been living by chance almost since confederation as far as his prices are concerned. Hon. members know that a farmer must be something of a gambler. He must risk weather conditions, whether it will be too wet as it has been the last few days or whether it will be too dry, whether the prices he receives for the products he hopes to produce will pay for the seed, whether he will get less for the one or two offsprings of an animal than he has paid for the breeding animal. He has been forced to take these chances. For ten years the farmers, especially those who produce mixed farm products, have borne the brunt of our economic depression. In depression they were not protected by a floor, in prosperity they are hindered by a ceiling.
These men have not received much in the way of subsidy. For ten years they received only about fifty per cent of what they received in the more normal past for their products. They found it almost impossible to carry on. When war broke out they were appealed to by all of us to produce more. At one time the Minister of Agriculture told them that we did not need more bacon, that the price would be fixed at S9 per 100 pounds in order to keep the price down. When the war started, wages paid to the labouring men in industry were
War Appropriation-Agriculture

fixed, or frozen if you like, but in addition they are paid a cost of living bonus. One result of these higher wages has been that the boy who was working on the farm went to the factory. To-day the farmer must pay practically double the wages he paid in 1939, and there is no cost of living bonus.
Farmers are finding it almost impossible to get help and equally impossible to hold the help once they get it. There is nothing to hinder a neighbour from climbing the line fence and saying to a farm labourer-I know of instances of this-"You are doing a good job ploughing; how much are you getting?" The man might reply, "$55 and my board." "All right, come down the line and I will give you $60; my credit is a little better; where are you from?" "Saskatchewan." "The last man was from there and I understand he did not get his money." That is what happens. The man goes down to the next place, and the man on the next farm does the same thing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They are used to not getting their money in Saskatchewan.


William Earl Rowe: I do not want to reflect upon Saskatchewan. Many healthy fellows come from there. I have given much thought as has every person who has had anything to do with agriculture, to this matter of farm labour. Whether it be popular or unpopular I want to say that I do not believe in this price freezing of farm products, in setting price ceilings. I do not think it can be applied to agricultural production with success, even as a war time measure.
We are freezing the wages paid to our labouring men and giving them a cost of living bonus as well. Why are we paying a cost of living bonus? We are paying this to protect the labouring men against a rise in the cost of primary products, against rise in the cost of foodstuffs. When the Minister of Agriculture is fixing the price of butter at thirty seven cents a pound he does not know whether I shall have to pay $5 a day for labour, or whether the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) will have to pay $6 a day because he happens to be nearer to a factory. When men are able to go home and still work in a factory, the factory offers strong competition for farm labour. The farmer is not only unable to get sufficient help, but must pay a wage rate twice what it was in 1939.
I am not for one moment claiming that these men are getting more than they should. Even now they are not getting as much as the man with similar ability and initiative is being paid in industry. I have always felt that we shall never have a well organized

prosperity in this country until the farm labourer is placed on an equality with the industrial labourer. The farm labourer is entitled to a fair price for his toil. He should not be asked to work longer hours for shorter pay. I hope the day is coming when the farmer will receive the same for eight hours labour on the farm as is paid to the industrial worker for eight hours labour in the factory. The farm labourer has not reached that point even though he may be receiving twice as much as he received before the government tried in the summer time to fix the wintertime prices of the commodities produced by the farmer.
It is all very well to tell the farmer that he is a great fellow, that he is the backbone of the country, that what he does is just as important as what the soldier in the front line is doing. I know however, that the boy on the farm cannot satisfy his own conscience and feel that he is writing as much on the pages of history when he is standing behind a plough as his brother behind a machine gun. I cannot convince myself that the boy on the farm is as proud and as satisfied with the service he is giving, even though he may be keeping a widowed mother. He feels that service overseas, while more dangerous, is more glorious.
If we are to produce to the limit from the great agricultural resources of this dominion, this government must stop, look and listen. It must realize what is happening. Thousands of acres in western Ontario, thousands of acres in Simcoe county, thousands of acres in Duf-ferin county, thousands of acres in the county of the Postmaster General, York county, are idle to-day. They are idle because of the uncertainty as to what is to be paid for the products which can be raised on the farm. Ceilings are being placed upon what the farmer has to sell, and floors are being placed on what he has to buy. That is not sound economy. It will retard the production that we should be developing.
It is all very well to read a bulletin and say that we have produced much more this year than we did last year; it is all very well to say that we are getting higher prices, but I do not hear anyone say that the farmer is forced to pay twice as much in wages. I do not hear the Minister of Labour assuring us that these wages will be fixed for next year and that a cost of living bonus will be provided. I cannot hear anyone assuring me as to what I shall have to pay for harvest labour.
I am doubtful about the whole price-ceiling scheme and its effect upon our economic picture. The old law of supply and demand should

War Appropriation-Agriculture
be given more freedom, and it must be given more freedom if we are to meet the demand by an accelerated supply. The farmer is the forgotten man and has been placed in a most ridiculous position. The government praises him for his loyalty and coaxes him to produce for less; it tells him that his products are as important as bullets, and at the same time it tells him that it is going to put a ceiling on what he has to sell and a floor on what he has to buy. The government will not tell him what he will get next year for his products, but it gives him soya beans to sow and tells him that he will not get more than $1.95 a bushel.


James Garfield Gardiner: We guarantee him


William Earl Rowe: It is all very well to talk
about where prices went in the last war. I am of opinion that the rise in prices which occurred in the last war had more to d'o with keeping our troops from starving than any other single thing. Not only the soldiers but the whole of Europe will be pleading for foodstuffs. I realize, of course, the shortage of shipping, but after the war, all of Europe will be needing our foodstuffs.
At the present time we are giving the farmer only about 20 to 25 per cent more for his butter than he received when he was paying 100 per cent less in wages, and yet when he goes into town he is told he had better eat one piece of butter instead of two. The same is true of agricultural prices all down the line.
With reference to bacon production-let me say incidentally that I have not eaten a pound of bacon in the last two months, thinking it was loyal to refrain-I am to-day producing bacon for only about- 25 per cent more than I got when I was paying 100 per cent less in wages. In this connection I would urge the minister to raise the weight of hogs fifty pounds each. Let the farmers produce, not a 185-pound hog, but a 225-pound hog as we did in the last war.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what they are
now, 185 pounds dressed, 225 pounds on foot.


William Earl Rowe: Make it 225 pounds dressed.
May I say that I was docked one dollar the other day because my hogs were one pound overweight. These long, stream-lined, white Yorkshire hogs that we were urged to raise so that our bacon could compete on the British breakfast table with the lean bacon from Denmark, so that the girl who was tripping off to her office and wanted to keep her girlish figure would not have to eat too much fat, is not the size of hog we should be raising to-day. What we want now is more fats and more oils and more bulk. These
long, thin hogs can carry fifty pounds more weight, and1 the boys overseas and the starving people over there would rather have their bacon with a little fat on it than half as much pork with no fat at all. It is true that Denmark is now out of the picture. We might have to revert to the better grades to meet post-war competition, but what is wanted to-day is foodstuffs for an emergency, fats for a crisis, not stream-lined bacon for the woman who is working only a few hours a day.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sumbury):: And who
is thinking of a fashionable figure.


William Earl Rowe: Exactly. I urge the minister
to set aside for the time being these restrictive regulations which have only proved unprofitable and confusing to the farmer, and let him produce a hog weighing fifty more pounds. That would increase our production by hundreds of millions of pounds.
I urge the minister and his government to give consideration to the position in which agriculture in this country finds itself to-day. It has never been so confusing to the farmer. Never has there been so much uncertainty ahead of him, and never has he had a more important task to perform. Particularly do I urge this upon the minister now that the farmer has to pay 100 per cent more in wages and there is a ceiling on his products. What we should be doing is to put a floor on his products. Try giving him a fair price rather than a fixed price. I am not suggesting that our farmers want bacon to go up to $26 per 100 pounds or butter to 90 cents a pound or eggs to $1 a dozen. I know that within two miles of my home a farmer sold 100 good laying hens last winter because he would not produce eggs in winter at summer-time prices. He started in the business with the intention of having 2,000 or 3,000 hens, and he sold when he had 800 hens. Another neighbour with 300 hens sold all but fifty for the same reason. I said to one of these men, "Why don't you wait? The government is struggling with price ceilings, and there will be a demand for eggs. They are needed for war purposes." But he replied, "It is all too uncertain. If the government is going to fix a price where there is practically no profit in it for us, and adopt that as a policy, when we do not know what we shall have to pay in wages for help which I shall have to hire because our boys are gone to the war, I am better off without the hens." That is the position of agriculture all along the line. The government has no agricultural policy. I realize that they are confused, that they are trying to get out of a crisis, that they are trying to coordinate agricultural production with this novel price-ceiling policy. I realize the difficulties involved; but



War Appropriation-Agriculture
I would say, in conclusion, that you cannot fix a price ceiling on what an industry has to sell and a floor price only on what it has to buy.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to congratulate the previous speaker. It is the first time I have really agreed with him in this house. I do not think that is an unfair remark. We are on opposite sides of politics, but his was a good speech all round.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You are fair.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I try to be, and I try to pick up information as I go along. I have often wondered what the streamlined type was, but after hearing the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, I know now that it is a hog from Toronto.
The Minister of Agriculture said some time ago that farm labour came under the Minister of Labour and that the wartime prices and trade board came under the Minister of Finance. I want to quote what the Minister of Finance said as reported at page 2909 of Hansard. Among other things he said:
The subsidy was discontinued on May 1st, because effective on that date the board established a new scale of maximum milk prices and made provision for other adjustments in milk production practices, so that adequate prices may be paid to producers to enable them to continue production.
The Minister of Agriculture says that we must go to the Minister of Labour in connection with hours of labour, and that we must go to the Minister of Finance in connection with the wartime prices and trade board. I do not know how we can approach this question except through our Minister of Agriculture. We who come from agricultural ridings look to the Minister of Agriculture to do that very thing for us. I am inclined to agree with the last speaker; I have no more desire than anybody else to see inflation, but I think it is obvious that the last man to be hurt in Canada or in any other country by inflation is the farmer.
I consider it to be the duty of the Minister of Agriculture, on behalf of and representing a rural riding, to see that it is brought home to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance that we simply cannot continue to exist under the present financial and labour set-up. In British Columbia for the past two months dairy cattle have been disposed of at the average rate of a sale and a half a day. These dairy cattle, the finest we have in Canada, are being slaughtered for beef purposes because we cannot get milkers and other labour.
I am not contending that farm labourers receive too much. Nor can one blame any farmer's son or other working men for taking 
advantage of the high rates of wages in war industries. To my way of thinking, however, the Department of Agriculture should formulate some scheme, either of bonusing farm labour or seeing to it that the wartime prices and trade board allows us a sufficient price for farm produce to permit of our paying adequate wages to keep the men on the farms. It is not at all to the credit of one of the greatest agricultural countries in the world that our dairy cattle are being slaughtered for beef at the present time, and I think it is a condition which could easily be overcome-though here my hon. friends to the left will probably claim all the credit for the suggestion-by a little planned economy. Surely we can plan ahead a little bit. If we had adopted some system of planning our labour supply a few years ago, we would not have the condition that is existing on the farms to-day.
However, I am not quarrelling about that, but I am definitely objecting to what in my opinion has happened as regards setting the price of milk. It has been set on a cheese basis. I do not know the reason for that, but I venture the statement that no practical dairy man, unless he is also in the cheese business, is sitting on any of the wartime prices boards. It is obvious that if it is made so much more advantageous to produce cheese, there is going to be a reduction in our other dairy products. In the Fraser valley, where I come from 75 per cent of our milk is marketed throughout the largest cooperative dairy association in Canada. I am not exaggerating; the minister knows it is true. He may not know that there are only two larger dairy cooperatives on the north American continent. It is a very large organization. We sell on consignment 75 per cent of the milk produced in the Fraser valley, which practically means it is the milkshed of British Columbia. Of that, only 25 per cent goes on to the fluid market. Anyone who knows anything about dairying knows that his money comes from the fluid market. The wartime prices and trade board were going to permit us in Vancouver to increase the retail price of our milk one cent, on the 1st of May. Our settling rate was fifty cents a pound butterfat. If we took advantage of that, the price would be approximately sixty cents a pound butterfat; but if you follow it through, although we handle 75 per cent of the milk, only 25 per cent of it is fluid milk. We stand to gain two cents a pound butterfat as regards the 75 per cent of total production; but our competitors, who market 75 per cent of their

War Appropriation-Agriculture
25 per cent on the fluidi market, will gain seven and a half cents. I do not think the minister's department intended anything like that.
In my opinion, the sooner agriculture gets back under the Department of Agriculture and away from some of these wartime boards, the better for agriculture. I believe the minister will be fair enough to admit that he has not any more control over agriculture in the Dominion of Canada to-day than I, as a private member, have. Some dollar-a-year man or some such other unnecessary "critter on these boards controls the price the farmer is to get. The minister cannot deny that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not while the hon.
member is speaking.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not depreciating the minister's value, because I can say-and this is one way to say it safely and keep the friendship of my friends,-that there is only one other man in the House of Commons who I believe is capable of filling his shoes, and I am not going to say who that is.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon.
member is too modest.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There will be
plenty of applications; I know that. I am not going any further into the labour problem, but I believe the fact has been overlooked that everything the farmer uses and must use in his normal production has increased in price to a great extent, in some instances by 100 per cent. Take one so-called tool of the farmer, with the use of which some of these legal-minded farmers are probably not very familiar, at any rate since their youth-the manure fork. At the beginning of the war it cost $1.15; now it costs $1.95. But the price of milk and other products has not risen correspondingly. Potatoes rotted in the pits in British Columbia this year. I know it is very easy to criticize and to declare what the minister should do and what he should not do. But there is one suggestion I might make as far as my own province is concerned, and I think it affects parts of Ontario, certainly the city of Ottawa. On any street here where there is an apartment building you will find ten or fifteen or sometimes twenty milk trucks or carts delivering milk and cream to that building. There is one place that the minister might act, if he has any control over this agricultural set-up. At least he could write a letter to one of these boards and tell them to do something. They could dispense with many of these trucks by some system of consolidation of deliveries.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Some of the dollar-ayear men are doing that now.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, as usual, and as I have heard from my hon. friends on the left, they are doing it at the rate at which we are accused of carrying on the war effort; they are extremely slow about it. There is no question about that. I am afraid that the hon. member who has just spoken is never up early enough in the morning, unless he is going home, to know what is going on. If he would come around to-morrow morning I could show him places in the city of Ottawa where there are ten trucks delivering at one apartment building. That could be avoided by a system of consolidated deliveries of milk and other products.
There is another way in which I think we could assist the dairyman; it was touched on briefly by the hon. member for New Westminster. I am glad to hear the minister say that it is under consideration, and I am going to take it for granted that it is as good as accomplished, because when the minister puts his mind to anything he generally gets his own way.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is
having an awful struggle now with Mr. Gordon.


George Alexander Cruickshank: To continue this freight rate system will assist the dairymen considerably. It would also assist us in connection with our dairy production if the minister would see to it that the rural ridings get a fair deal on this system of gasoline rationing. I know it is not his branch, but as a rural member I deem it my duty to look to my Minister of Agriculture. He is the kingpin in the agricultural industry in so far as this parliament is concerned, and it should be his privilege as well as his duty to represent us in every way. As regards gasoline, the first man the wartime prices and trade board picked on was the farmer. They allowed the brewery salesman to go round with category C, but the farmer, whether handling dairy products or nursery stock or any other line, gets only category A. Probably hon. members do not know that. I think a considerable saving could be effected along that line.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The brewery industry has a doilar-a-year representative here.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think he comes from the maritimes too.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, nol

War Appropriation-Agriculture


George Alexander Cruickshank: There is another matter I would bring to the attention of the minister because I have received a letter in connection with it. I think the minister will admit that it must be hard on the farmer in the Fraser valley, working from five o'clock in the morning to half-past eight at night, to obtain, as this particular man did last month, 100 pounds of 4 per cent milk. A good many members here will say, "I was brought up on a farm and I love the land." Yes, but as soon as they get an opportunity to move away from the land they take advantage of it. I wonder how many members know how much milking one has to do to get 100 pounds of 4 per cent milk, and then he gets exactly SI.66 net for it on the farm. Is it any wonder that these people write to me or even borrow the money to pay for a telegram. In these days of speedy travel they can get newspaper pictures out west very quickly. Four days ago there appeared in the newspapers the picture of a handsome young man. He was really a fine looking fellow; indeed, I thought he was a moving-picture actor. As I say, he was young too. Well, to my surprise he was not overseas, under the splendid selective draft system which we have. No; he was an artist. Will anyone tell me, when there is a war on, and farmers are getting $1.66 for 100 pounds of 4 per cent milk, what on earth we need an artist for in the department? It does not make sense. I suggest this is one direction in which economy could be effected. Why do we want an artist working in connection with entomology; we have enough bugs without this man. If it is the intention of the department to let the dairy industry in the Fraser valley fall by the wayside, very well; they are proceeding in the right way. If, however, they want to maintain the dairy industry, then I suggest that they adopt a different attitude. There is no question about that. When auction sales are taking place continually in an area eighty miles long by thirty miles wide, an average of one and a half sales a day, at which the finest dairy cattle in Canada are disposed of, it will be realized that we are not doing anything to save the dairy industry. There are men who have been in that industry for fifty and sixty years, born and brought up in it, and yet they are selling every one of their cattle. In the face of such a situation, neither the department nor the government nor this parliament has anything to be proud of in the manner in which dairy farming has been handled in Canada.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Is that taking place now?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Absolutely; there is no doubt about it. All one has to do is look up the local papers in British Columbia and see the list of advertisements or go through the valley himself and see what is taking place. I am not suggesting that the farm labourer is getting too much money. In my riding they are receiving, in some instances, from $80 to $125 a month and board for milking. Well, one cannot pay such wages at the price of dairy products. Last month when they were getting $1.66 per 100 pounds of four per cent milk, day labour was receiving $3.60-and I am not quarrelling over the fact that the day labourer receives that amount. Probably they should get more. At any rate, they were getting $3.60; and if the farmer produced 200 pounds of milk and had a man working for him, he lost twenty-eight cents on the operation. That sort of thing cannot continue, and yet no effort is being made to alleviate the situation.
I suggest that the government should do something in regard to farmers' sons.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Some hon. gentlemen call me to order when I interrupt the member for Temiscouata, but they do not call anyone to order for interrupting me. In British Columbia, at least as far as my riding is concerned, we have never applied for exemptions for farmers' sons. I have never recommended a solitary one, because I do not believe in that sort of thing. I do not believe it is the prerogative of a member of parliament to do so. At the same time I submit that more consideration should be given to any bona fide farmer's son so as to allow him to stay on the farm. Here may I pay a little tribute to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). I suggest that sometimes, if we paid a little more attention to what he says, we might gain a little knowledge. I am not referring to his monetary system, because I understand neither his system nor the old one; but if we had given more attention to him we as a parliament- since I have been here at any rate-might have learned enough to wake up to a realization of the sugar beet situation. What is happening now? We are rationed on sugar because we were not longsighted enough to go in for the production of sugar beets.
The story has already been told by previous speakers with regard to labour, but it is the duty of the minister to impress upon the wartime prices and trade board the importance of this question. If he were free to tell us what he thinks of the board, he and I might agree. At any rate, we cannot continue

War Appropriation-Agriculture
production in British Columbia if conditions remain as they are. I do not profess to be speaking with full authority for my constituents, but I am certainly expressing my own opinion when I say that it is doubtful whether the price ceiling is of any material benefit to agriculture. I doubt very much if it is. I think it is a detriment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a detriment.


George Alexander Cruickshank: In my opinion it is. We are being penalized; the forgotten man is being penalized for the benefit of the rest of Canada as a whole. If we are to be penalized-possibly it may be for the good of the country in the long run-surely we should receive something to compensate us in that regard, so that the farmer may be allowed to carry on. There should be an ample subsidy, or he should be given a guaranteed price for his product. The manufacturer is guaranteed a profit on what he produces. I do not say he should not have that guarantee, but there is not a shell manufactured or any other manufactured article produced in Canada on which the manufacturer does not know in advance what his profit will be. On the other hand, there is not a solitary article produced by the farmer of which this can be said. The farmer does not know, before he produces it, what profit he will get on anything he produces. I am not saying that there are not certain articles produced by farmers on which a profit is made, but the producer does not know that beforehand, as the minister admitted in connection with poultry and potatoes. The producer does not know until after he has produced the cpmmodity. How many tanks or planes should we get produced at a loss if we said, "produce for victory, for patriotic purposes?" We would not get a wheelbarrow produced by that gang in Quebec and Toronto if we asked them to produce for patriotic purposes. We must be realistic; the farmers must be guaranteed a fair return for the energy and money invested.


John Horne Blackmore: I was not quite sure whether the hon. member said most of those dairy herds were being sold for slaughter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I would not say most of them. We found that there were auction sales at the rate of one and a half a day. We checked on one sale of splendid dairy cattle and found that within forty-eight hours 98 per cent of two herds were slaughtered in Vancouver.


Mr. FULFORD:: It is not my intention to argue the pros and cons regarding the wartime prices and trade board, nor do I wish to suggest that the price of cheese has been set too high. What I do say is that when the price of cheese was set the price of other dairy products was set too low. In other words, the butter price was set too low. One product of the dairy industry which I have not heard mentioned is condensed milk. At one time the constituency which I have the honour to represent was the greatest cheese-producing county in Canada. To-day we are one of the large cheese-producing counties. A great deal of the milk that formerly went into the production of cheese is now going into condensed and evaporated milk. In fact the farmers have become largely dependent on that outlet for the sale of their milk.
As matters now stand, the price for condensed milk has been set so low that the companies cannot meet the price paid by the cheese factories. Although I understand the minister's hands are tied by the wartime prices and trade board I should like to inquire whether there is any possibility of having the condensed milk business bonused as are a great many other industries. It is a very grave question with us. Even if the farmers should decide to stop selling to the condenseries, I am afraid they would be out of luck inasmuch as a great many cheese factories have gone out of business; some have been burnt; some have fallen into disrepair; others have actually had their machinery sold. As yet the condenseries are meeting almost the prices paid by the cheese factories; but this cannot go on, and in justice to our farmers some system must be worked out whereby it will be as profitable to sell milk to a condensery as to sell it either as fluid milk to a dairy or to a cheese factory. Even at the present cheese price the farmer is not getting what he should for his milk, although it is far better than it was. I cannot understand the prices quoted by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. Fortunately milk prices in eastern Canada are considerably higher than that, even if a bonus has to be paid in certain instances. One assurance that must be given-and I was glad to hear the Minister of Agriculture saying that consideration is now being given to the matter of freight rates on coarse grains to the'Pacific coast and the east-the farmers must be guaranteed a continuation of reasonably stable prices on feeds. Otherwise I can visualize a condition in this section of Canada such as seems to prevail in the Fraser valley. We are losing a great many of our high-grade registered cattle, not for slaughter purposes I am happy to say, but buyers from the United
War Appropriation-Agriculture

States are coming into Canada in large numbers and buying the very choicest cattle in our herds.


An hon. MEMBER:: At high prices.


John Horne Blackmore: A dangerous situation.


George Taylor Fulford: It is. The prices are high but not too high. I am not arguing that point. I am glad that for once the farmers are receiving something, but to me it is a serious matter that the very cream of our herds is being exported to the United States. Something must be done to keep these fine cattle in Canada. If they are not kept we shall be left with the stragglers, the poorest type. Before the war it was possible to import stock from Guernsey, Jersey, Schleswig-Holstein, but we do not know what the Germans have done to those cattle. We must keep our stock up to the highest possible level, and the only way I can see to do it is for the government to formulate a definite policy, bonusing the farmers if you will, to keep their herds at the highest possible level of quality.
I sincerely hope that the Minister of Agriculture can persuade the wartime prices and trade board either to raise the prices of butter and condensed milk or to pay a bonus so that the dairy industry will be once more equalized and not in a state of constant flux as it is to-day.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


James Arthur Ross: Why is there a disparity between cheese and butter prices? This afternoon the hon. member for New Westminster said that cheese products were in the ratio of fifty, as compared with thirty-five for butter. Throughout the country people who are in a position to deliver their milk products to cheese factories claim they are making better money than those who make deliveries to creameries. In my province and, I suppose throughout the prairie provinces generally, we have scarcely any cheese factories. Indeed, under the system of priorities it would be difficult to have cheese factories constructed in that area. I am wondering if the dairy products board could not guarantee to the dairy producers the same price for their butter fat, whether it is used for cheese or butter or whole milk. In my view the present position is discriminatory and I suggest that the minister should give some concrete explanation for this condition.

I suggest that the board should be instructed to pay these producers on a basis of equality for butter fat. Would the minister suggest that the board might do that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did give a partial explanation this afternoon. The explanation is provided not so much by the Department of Agriculture as on behalf of those who are establishing ceiling prices in Canada. The suggestion is that we can increase butter production by having a higher price during the winter months, rather than in the summer. That is one suggestion. The real reason for any disparity between prices of cheese and butter since the beginning of the war is that Britain desires cheese. Year after year she has been urging us to produce the greatest possible quantity of Canadian Cheddar cheese to be shipped to Great Britain. Last year we suggested that all we thought we would be able to get under the conditions then existing was about 112,000,000 pounds. We just managed to get that amount by refusing to permit the sale of any Canadian cheese in Canada. Cheese made between May 26 and October 1 of last year was all shipped to Great Britain; none of it was allowed to be sold in Canada. During the winter months we allowed a higher price, and did get a very considerable production of cheese in those months. It is argued that by the plan which is now being followed of having a thirty-five-cent ceiling in the summer months and a higher ceiling in the winter months we can get a considerable production of butter in the winter months of the coming year.
I said this afternoon I was not at all sure as to whether the results would be what are expected. Nevertheless that is being tried out for the time being, and we are cooperating in every possible way to bring about a favourable result. The suggestion was made this afternoon that a price of fifty cents for butter would compare favourably with the present price of cheese. But one would have to include with the price of cheese the subsidies paid by provincial governments and the premium paid by the federal government in order to raise the comparable butter price to that level.
The price paid for cheese exported to Great Britain is twenty cents a pound. We have always considered that two cents for butter to one for cheese would be about the proper relationship. Based on the actual price that would mean about forty cents a pound for butter. There has been a demand made to keep the price as nearly as possible at proportionate levels. The argument is put forth at the present that we may get all the

War Appropriation-Agriculture
butter production we require, and at the same time encourage a greater production of cheese for Great Britain by having the present disparity in prices.


James Arthur Ross: There is no great surplus of butter, is there? I read that there may be a shortage of butter. If there is no great surplus, I should think the argument should prevail that there should be as nearly as possible a parity on all dairy products.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think one hon. member this afternoon used the correct figure when he said that storages were down about 5,000,000 pounds at the beginning of last month, as compared with a year ago. If nothing else is taken into consideration, this indicates that there might be a shortage of butter at the end of this season. We have been accustomed to expect our peak production in May and June, the production then tapering off in July, and still further in August and September. This year it is hoped we shall have increased production next winter, with the higher prices, in order to make up for anything which drops off during the factory cheese producing months this summer.
I should add that we are hopeful at this time of being able to get the 125,000,000 pounds of cheese we have agreed to send to Britain; but we are not yet in a position to state with any assurance that we shall have the full amount of butter which will be required for consumption in Canada.


Mr. LECLERC:: I was interested this
afternoon to hear the Minister of Agriculture talking about butter and cheese. I have been in that business for about forty years and, although I am not an expert, I believe I know something about the industry. It would seem that the minister and his advisers are a little worried that we may run short of butter this year. The fiscal year, if I may so describe it, for cheese and butter, is from the first of May to the last of April in the following year. Last year we received 85,000 boxes of butter as compared with 50,000 boxes received this year. On the other hand, we received this year 150,000 boxes of cheese as compared with 50,000 boxes last year. There is no necessity for an expert to see at once that we are going to run short of butter before the year is over. Unless we can import some butter I would urge the minister to give serious consideration to the situation and not to wait until the first of October before he revises 'his plans. I know that after the first of October very little milk is produced, and unless a very high price is paid for butter, he wiU not get it at all.
I do not make this suggestion to embarrass the minister, because I always pity ministers when they are being grilled with respect to their estimates-although I know that the passage of estimates is almost a holiday for the present Minister of Agriculture. I do not believe any more milk will be produced this year than last because there is a scarcity of labour. Farmers' sons have been enlisting, and others have been drafted. Many farmers are reducing their herds. They cannot hire help; that is out of the question. The result is that for many reasons we shall be short of butter, because at this time there is a better market for whole milk, condensed milk and cheese. Consequently, if the production of milk is the same as it was last year we cannot expect any increased production. Last fall we had about 8,000,000 pounds of butter that we did not know what to do with, but the purchasing power of our people increased to such an extent that that butter disappeared diuring the winter and was practically all gone on May 1. This year we should have a greater production because we have the market for it.
I do not know that the minister can do much about this matter because we have the wartime prices and trade board. I wonder if that board knows anything about cattle. I wonder if it knows which end of a cow should be milked. I think the government whenever possible should take the advice of those who know something about this business. The other night the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) complained about not being appointed to committees where his advice on medical matters might be of value. I urge the minister to consider these suggestions carefully. I know he is a good listener. About a week ago I wrote him to urge that the butter fat content of ice cream be cut down in order to conserve butter fat. Before I received an answer an order in council was passed reducing the butter fat content to where I wanted it. I compliment the minister upon that action.


Mr. TUSTIN:: This afternoon the hon.
member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) wanted to know why the price of milk was always tied up to the price of cheese. The reason is that that is usually the lowest price paid for milk. At the present time a controversy is going on with regard to condensed or powdered milk manufactured in this country. The milk board of Ontario has set the price at 81.95 per 100 pounds for 3-5 per cent milk. That is 25 cents per 100 pounds above what the basic price had been for some time. In April the cheese factories paid $1.50 per 100 pounds or 47 cents a pound butter

War Appropriation-Agriculture
fat for 3-2 per cent milk. How can a farmer who must sell his milk to the butter factory continue in business when he receives only 35 cents a pound butter fat? There is a difference of 12 cents a pound between the price paid for milk to be manufactured into cheese, and that paid for milk to be manufactured into butter. There is a greater discrimination in connection with milk going to the condenser or powdered milk plants.
It is necessary that a great part of our milk should go into the production of cheese because we must produce 125,000,000 pounds during this year if we are to fulfil our agreement with Great Britain. I have no doubt that this will be done; in fact, our production may be greater than that if there is some coordination and control over the milk industry. The Minister of Finance is in his place, and I understand that the payment of subsidies comes under his department. I should like to draw something to his attention as well as to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture. Last December the farmer was selling his milk to the cheese factory when cheese at 25 cents a pound had the advantage, but the farmer who was sending milk to the condenser or powdered milk plant suffered to the extent of at least 40 cents per 100 pounds of milk, as at that time the ceiling on cheese allowed a price higher than the price being paid by the condenseries.
In April last the cheese factories were paying at the rate of $1.50 per 100 pounds for 3-2 per cent milk, or 47 cents a pound butter fat. At this time the basic price at the condenser for 3-5 per cent milk was $1.70 per 100 pounds. There was 40 cents per 100 pounds subsidy paid by the federal government, which brought this amount up to $2.10 per 100 pounds. I have a suggestion to make which might help to overcome the discrimination in favour of the man sending milk to the condenser or powdered milk plant. There should be coordination and control by the dairy products board so that each farmer will get approximately the same return for his milk. The flow of milk will always be to the point at which the highest price is paid, but this board should be given power to control and allot milk to the cheese factories in sufficient quantity to produce the 125,000,000 pounds of cheese required by the British government. Then the remainder could be allotted to the condensers and powdered milk plants. I understand there is a considerable demand overseas for condensed milk. The rest of the milk production could be allowed to go into butter channels. By the exercise of this control each and every farmer would get approximately the same return for his labour.

It looked as though the Minister of Agriculture had made a good bargain with the British government when he was able to get 20 cents a pound for our cheese. In April last, however, there was not much cheese shipped to Great Britain out of the make priced at $1.50 per 100 pounds for 3-2 per cent milk. That includes the premium paid by the federal government as well as the 2 cents a pound paid by Ontario. That did not give a large return to the farmer especially when one takes into account-this has been referred to so many times-his extra cost of labour and the extra cost of those commodities he must purchase. It is not in any way a parity price. I believe a great service could be rendered by the government of Canada by empowering the dairy products board to coordinate the supply of milk going into manufacturing purposes of all kinds.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I should like to support what has been said by the hon. member for Shefford. The outlook is not very promising for an increase in the production of butter. I do not think it is wise to wait until October to make this experiment, as the minister suggested to-day. I would ask the minister whether he does not think a slight increase in the price of butter fat would improve the situation. Over the week-endi I talked with people who manufacture butter and cheese in my constituency, and I find that they are paying thirty-eight cents a pound for butter fat which is used in the manufacture of butter, and fifty cents a pound for butter fat used in the manufacture of cheese. A five-cent increase in the price would bring the price of butter fat for making butter to forty-one or forty-two cents a pound. There are a great many farmers who consider that the skim-milk which is left is an asset that is worth something to them, and so in my opinion if that slight increase of five cents a pound for butter fat used in the manufacture of butter were made, it would divert to the butter factory some of the milk that is now going to the cheese factory. If, however, we wait until next October before we do anything, conditions are not going to improve.
In the break-down which was put on Hansard by the Minister of Finance I noticed an item of $1,514,950 for the dairy products board. I can recall when this butter and cheese question was up two years ago and the suggestion was made that there should be a dairy products board to regulate the production of butter and cheese, to keep the two commodities on an even keel, so that it would not be necessary to divert the butter fat from one product to the other. But now we are right back to

War Appropriation-Agriculture
where we were; only the picture is the reverse. We have plenty of cheese now, and not enough butter.
I would think the dairy products board could control to a certain extent the production of these two commodities, butter and cheese, and keep them on an even keel, and I believe the speaker who preceded me had the same thought in mind, so that it would not be necessary to be continually diverting butter fat from one product to the other. I should like to hear from the minister whether he thinks an increase in the price of butter fat would make some improvement at the present time.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I agree with the two
speakers who have preceded me. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox is very good with regard to stabilizing the price of dairy products right across the dominion. We in western Canada have been trying for the last several years to get away from straight wheat farming into mixed farming. There has been a greater percentage of increase in the quantity of dairy products produced in the west in the last few years than anywhere else in the dominion; and yet to-day we are receiving in my home town only thirty-three cents a pound for butter fat, whereas producers in other parts of the dominion are receiving approximately fifty cents a pound. That is too great a spread, and the result will be to discourage dairying in western Canada, where I believe it should be increased.
The marketing board should take under consideration the advisability of adjusting the price of dairy products across the dominion. Prices could not be exactly alike all over; there would probably be a differential between different districts, but there is no justification for that great spread of from thirty-five to forty per cent between the price paid to-day in western Canada and that paid in other parts of the dominion. Producers of butter fat in other parts of the dominion are receiving a certain adjustment with regard to freight rates on feed grain, and I believe that is all to the good. That is a very good policy and it should be continued. At the same time there- should be greater equality in the price of dairy products as between different parts of this dominion and different types of production, and that is particularly necessary at this time if we are to have increased production.


Mr. GRAYDON:: I was very much interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Davidson) who, if the facts were known to. all members of the
house, is, next to the breeders in the county of Peel, one of the largest Jersey breeders we have in eastern Canada. I know he will not think I am reflecting on him when I place those in the county of Peel a little ahead.
A discussion of agriculture under this war appropriation measure, and in its relation to our general war effort, is very much to be desired at this time, because it is impossible, as I see it, to visualize the broad scheme of the nation's war effort without bringing into the picture very solidly, firmly and in a conspicuous position agriculture's share in the supplying of food.
The position of agriculture in Canada upon the outbreak of hostilities left a good deal to be desired. Even during the period of the war agriculture has felt, and justifiably so, I think, that its position in relation to that of other industries more closely related to the war effort and to others not as closely related has not reached parity; in other words, agriculture has not been getting a fair return or its fair share of the national income. Those views have been advanced on a great many occasions, and I have no desire to-night to do more than simply reemphasize what has been so well said on previous occasions.
During the last few weeks, in addition to the great delegation which came from western Canada to Ottawa asking, not for concessions because they would not call them that, but that the rightful position of agriculture in the general economy and in relation to the war effort should be recognized, another important group made representations to the government of Canada, and many of us who represent rural constituencies in Ontario were privileged to sit in at that gathering. That was when the agricultural council of Ontario came, representing, as hon. members who are familiar with its activities know, many of those who are prominent in the agricultural and municipal life of the province. They presented several resolutions to the government, and I think members of parliament could very well take a leaf out of the book of these farmers for the brevity and clarity and orderly way in which they marshalled their arguments from beginning to end. I believe the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance will agree with me when I say that within the short space of an hour and a quarter the whole argument on the five resolutions had been well and truly presented to the government by the agricultural council, and they were highly complimented upon their presentation.
War Appropriation-Agriculture

I have no intention to-night of dealing with all the resolutions they presented, but I should like to touch on one or two which have particular merit with respect to the present situation. One was this; and while the Minister of Agriculture may be able to say that this is a matter not completely within the scope and sphere of his department, I believe he has a wide influence in the cabinet, and I hope, indeed I know, that he will use it to have this rectified and remedied. Many farmers during this war-time period have had to change in many respects their style of operation. The fact is that, as most rural members realize, farm help is not only a matter of wages; you cannot get experienced help in a good many areas no matter what you pay. That being so, the farmer has had to turn, where he could, to an increased use of machinery. In my own county a considerable number of milking machines have been installed since the war began. The reeve of one of the municipalities in my constituency, speaking on behalf of the agricultural council when they met here two or three weeks ago, stated that he had increased his flow of whole milk for the Toronto market some 30 per cent by installing milking machines and using less farm labour.
That being so, the supply of electrical equipment and power comes in a very important manner into the picture. In many instances the farmer, in attempting to put in a milking machine, a cooler, or some other modem machinery or equipment so essential in these days to the whole milk trade in that particular area, finds that, even where a hydroelectric line passes right by his gate and it is only a matter of bringing the power in from the gate to his stable or other buildings, one of the government boards which are so popular with the hon. member for Fraser Valley, in exercising its authority with regard to steel and power control, will not make the necessary power available. So the farmer, even though help is so scarce, has this obstacle, though perhaps inadvertently, placed in his way at a time when he requires extra machinery to carry on; all this by virtue of the regulation of some board which, I quite believe, has not one farmer on it. The orders of the power controller are affecting very many farmers in Ontario. Perhaps I should not mention figures, but there are dozens of farmers in the area from which I come who have been trying for a considerable time to obtain permission from the controller to get electric current just from the roadway into their bams. Some of them have even the equipment but cannot connect up with the current. I am not suggesting that the Minister of Agriculture is 
responsible, because he is not, but I would like to see him take, in this connection, the aggressive stand which he does on many other matters, and see that some concession is made to the farmer who is attempting to substitute farm machinery for the human help he cannot get at this time. It is not impossible, I am told, for those in residential sections in urban centres to get some types of installation, even to-day; and since this equipment is part of the tools of the farmer in his business, he ought in fairness to be able to install power machinery which means so much to the operation of his farm.
I have said on a previous occasion, but I want to stress the point again, that before we go much further in this war effort I believe we are going to suffer a grave and acute shortage of agricultural supplies. The minister and the government have been somewhat remiss in not exercising the foresight to plan for agricultural supplies in the same manner as they have planned for other types of wartime production and activity. I know it is not always easy to foresee future trends as regards farm products; but even to the average layman it must be abundantly clear that, if farm help continues to be hard to get, if as many farmers are holding sales as we were told this afternoon are being held in the Fraser valley, and if so many are going into other types of industry as we have been told repeatedly in this chamber is a fact, only one result can follow, having regard to the fact that there is more demand for agricultural products than there was when we had a greater number of farmers and more help to man the farms. I would therefore suggest to the minister that this government should at once give deep and serious consideration to planning its agricultural policy with a view of avoiding and averting what I think will otherwise be a grave shortage of farm products and farm supplies within the next year, if this war continues at its present tempo.
Some reference has been made to the whole milk industry. Perhaps it does not cover as wide a territory geographically as that of some other lines of dairy production which have been mentioned here to-day, but it is a tremendous industry and, with respect to the metropolitan area of Toronto has been-


James Garfield Gardiner: I wonder if hon. members would agree with me if I were to say that since the dinner recess we have been discussing the dairy products board and its activities, which we had agreed before the dinner recess we would leave until we were dealing with the last five items. Could we not clear up the general remarks with regard to agriculture which were to come in on the

War Appropriation-Agriculture
above items? Up to the moment the hon. member has been dealing with the general items, but it appears that now he is going into the matter of the dairy products board. Perhaps he would confine the discussion to the upper items, and we can deal with the other items when we come to them.


Gordon Graydon: Yes. Unfortunately I
was not in the chamber when the arrangement was made, and I apologize to the minister. I should like to continue my remarks when we come to the dairy products board item, because there are one or two observations I wish to make.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I notice in the war appropriation estimates before us an item of $230,000 for "programmes to encourage the production of essential war supplies." In view of the foresight which the Minister of Agriculture has shown and is showing, it is quite possible that what I am about to say may be like carrying coals to Newcastle. But I wonder whether the minister has, in collaboration with his colleagues, canvassed the extent to which agriculture can contribute to the production of rubber, which to-day is an essential war product.
A few nights ago the hon. member for Parry Sound gave us some facts regarding the production of rubber from grain alcohol. I believe it is a well-known fact to-day that much of Russia's rubber supply comes from potato alcohol. I was surprised this afternoon to hear the minister express fears that we in this country may have a surplus of potatoes in the fall. There is abundant evidence to show that grain alcohol can be used for the production of rubber in half the time and apparently at approximately half the cost of synthetic rubber made from petroleum. A report of the United States senate committee on agriculture gives figures from which I deduce that our present carryover of wheat is sufficient to provide all the rubber that is necessary to supply the military needs of both the United States and Canada. These figures are given by a committee of the United States senate exploring ways and means of assisting agriculture. Furthermore, it is a well known fact that there are at least four commercial plants operating in the United States to-day making synthetic rubber from milkweed. There are at Akron three commercial plants actually producing rubber and supplying it to the United States military forces-rubber that is made from the latex produced by milkweed. There is also, I understand, a factory in California. There is also available at the present time a fairly large supply of milkweed seeds and plants for the production and growing of milkweed on a
commercial basis. What heretofore has been known as a weed can now be grown in about five or six months on arid land where there are two or three inches of soil. It can be grown very cheaply, and rubber can be produced from that plant at a price much lower than that of the product obtained from either petroleum or the para tree. Has the minister investigated the possibility of opening up a new source of revenue for our agriculturists, giving us an industry that, when the war is over, will keep the production of synthetic rubber out of the hands of the great oil monopolies which exist at the present time?


Victor Quelch: This afternoon the hon.
member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) and the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford) stressed the fact that in their districts a number of sales were being held at which valuable dairy stock were being disposed of, and a large percentage of that stock was finding its way into the slaughter houses and being exported. I think the majority of western members can duplicate that statement. Last year I attended many sales at which valuable stock was sold and dragged away to the slaughter houses. I believe, as one member stated, that this could be very largely overcome if a higher price were paid for butterfat. The same applies to poultry. We are given to understand that there is an urgent need for a greater production of eggs, and yet I received word1 the other day that the price received for eggs was around 10 cents a dozen on the average. We cannot expect the farmer to be enthusiastic about keeping poultry in the month of March when he gets only 10 cents a dtozen for his eggs. Last fall I saw pullets and yearlings being shipped to the packing plants. The hon. member for Fraser Valley emphasized the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was not to blame for the present standard of agricultural prices. The hon. member blamed the wartime prices and trade board, and I shall discuss this matter at greater length when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) is before the committee. The question I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture is this. Surely when the wartime prices and trade board set a ceiling on agricultural prices they consulted the minister and his department, or are we to understand that the wartime prices and trade board set this level of prices against the recommendation of the Department of Agriculture? In other words, is the. Minister of Agriculture himself opposed to the price of agricultural products being held to the present level?

War Appropriation-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Before the dinner recess one or two questions were asked me with regard to flax in relation to British Columbia, and before going on to deal with the general questions put within the last few minutes, I should like to answer the questions that were asked at that time. The question was asked whether one of the seven inspectors was assigned to British Columbia, and a further question was asked as to what assistance was given in British Columbia in connection with the production of fibre flax. The answer to the first question is that there is no inspector assigned to British Columbia. There are no flax mills in that province. Inspectors are appointed to go to the flax mills and grade the product there. Any inspection there is of a field crop nature is done by the regular field men of the department. When we started the flax production programme in cooperation with the provinces, British Columbia asked us for 500 bushels of seed. We supplied them with 500 bushels, but they used only 135 bushels, and we had to ship the rest back east where there was a demand for it. I think it will be agreed, therefore, that the government went as far as they could be expected to go when they shipped all the seed west that was requested by that government, and then had to ship part of it back where it could be utilized by farmers in other parts of Canada. Only thirty-five or forty farmers undertook to grow flax in British Columbia. There is no flax mill there, and they are producing only seed now, although a cooperative is being formed, and it is the intention to erect a mill in that province.
, Mr. REID:	I understand they are doing
that now.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are 200 acres in
flax in British Columbia this year. The inspectors referred to in this vote are fibre inspectors, and they work only at the mills. There are thirty-three mills in Canada located in Quebec and Ontario, and these men divide their time between those mills. They are each responsible for about six mills, and their work is to grade the fibre. This can be done only at the mills. That answers pretty well in full the question with regard to British Columbia.
The general question with regard to agricultural policy was discussed at some length before the dinner recess, more particularly by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), and has been referred to by others since then. All I wish to say at this moment is that earlier in the session we had a lengthy discussion regarding the matter while certain bills were before the house. We also had quite a discussion with regard to it a year ago 
when we were considering the estimates of the department. I thought I had been fairly successful in convincing the house, and if not the house those outside the house, that the government has had a policy, not beginning with the day war was declared as was the case in connection with some other activities in Canada, but beginning a considerable time before war was declared. The result was that we were producing very much more of most farm products in the last year before the war than had been produced in the immediately preceding years. We had considerable surpluses of farm products in Canada for which we were having some trouble to find markets because of conditions then existing in the world. It will also be remembered that during the first year of the war we had an unprecedented increase in the production of products such as bacon, ham, and dairy products of different kinds, necessary for the feeding of the British population under conditions then existing. This increase was a direct result of the policies carried out in the months immediately preceding the war to encourage greater production in agricultural lines.
That policy, I repeat, was carried out in years when there was a lessening of the market for the products of many sections of Canada. Prophecies were made from all sides of this house that markets outside Canada for agricultural products would be smaller and smaller rather than greater and greater. We made that effort largely because we were keeping in touch with authorities in Britain as to what was being done there in order to make sure that if difficulties did arise, food products would be available. I need hardly say that Britain did not begin in the year that war was declared to produce food supplies. One has only to go back and check the records to know that for five or six years before the war Britain was proceeding as though, while they hoped there would be peace, they rather expected they would be involved in difficulty on the European continent. In all their -activities in relation to agriculture they were carrying out a policy based on that idea. We were not without information gathered from Britain in regard to the matter. I myself and other ministers of the government went to Britain in 1936 and discussed the whole matter, and from the time we returned we set up the present organization of the department to promote not only the production but the marketing of farm products. It is not necessary to say that the government expected war in order to give reasons for following a policy of -that kind.
If there had been no war, it would have meant the establishment of confidence -among the

War Appropriation-Agriculture
nations which would have restored that degree of international trade which would have given a market for at least the amount of commodifies which we produce from our agricultural land in normal times.
It has been interesting to listen to hon. members saying that there have been auction sales. I would be very much surprised if there had not been auction sales. There are 70,000 farms in Canada operated by men and women over sixty-five years of age, who have no families to assist them. I venture to say that at least 75 per cent of those men and women have been waiting for a time to arrive when they could sell their land to younger people who could operate it not only to their own satisfaction but to the advantage of this country. Better returns are making sales possible. Of course sales are being held. I know also that not all the sales being held are of farms operated by old people. Many of those sales are of farms of individuals who have been looking for an opportunity to leave agriculture, either because they feel they are not suited to it, or because they have made preparations for doing something else.
An hon. member said to me this afternoon, *"You and I could go out into certain sections of Ontario to-day and buy farms at S3,500 to $4,500, which men and women have spent whole lifetimes in building into comfortable homes." No doubt that is true. But I know also that if a person who really likes agriculture, who is in it because he wants to make of the farm a home, can buy a good farm in Ontario at $3,500 to $4,500, he is making about as good an investment as any he could make in Canada at the present time. More particularly is that true if he can pay cash for the farm. Farming in Canada, as in any other country where it is made an individual enterprise, is best carried on with land that is actually paid for. It is a most difficult thing for a person with only a family-sized farm to carry on that farm with a huge debt upon it, equal to, say three-quarters of its actual value, and try to build a home and maintain a family and carry on as people would like to in any home no matter where they may establish it. But people who inherit farms paid for, or who are able to pay for the farm when they take it over, and who are suited to life on the land, are able to make comfortable homes on farms in Canada even when conditions are not as good as they are at the present time. When I use the term "good" there, I hope I shall not be misunderstood. Any peace conditions are better than present conditions, no matter what the price level may be. Present conditions, no matter what the returns from the land may be, as such as to make people dissatisfied, looking at the past and looking into the future.
Having said that, let me say that, in spite of the fact that there are sales and that hon. members have been saying that there are farms here and there across Canada that have gone out of production, the remarkable thing is that the net returns from farms in Canada to-day, when you take the total returns, are about as good for a twelvemonth period as they have been at any time. That is due to two causes. The first is that there is a market for everything that can be produced in certain well-defined lines, the staple products of the farms of this country. We can market at the present time every hog we can raise of a certain standard, every beef animal, every pound of cheese and every pound of butter that we can produce.


George Alexander Cruickshank: At what price?


James Garfield Gardiner: We can market every pound of whole milk that we can produce. My hon. friend asks, at what price? I will tell him, at a better price than he could have got at an}- other time since 1930-and that covers quite a period of time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In a very abnormal period.


William Earl Rowe: That would be expected.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; that would be expected. The price is not high enough from the farmers' point of view, but the higher return is brought about by a combination of a price which is being paid for farm products, and a greater market available than farmers have had at any time since 1929. Those two factors combined have brought back better returns in dollars and cents for the farmers, with the result, as I said a few moments ago- and the statistics bear me out-that the actual total net returns across Canada from farm lands compare favourably with what they were in the average year from 1926 to 1929, which is looked upon as the best period in agriculture over a long period of years.


William Earl Rowe: What about their proportion to national income in the same year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe asks about the proportion to national income. I would much rather leave the discussion of that question until the time when the general estimates of my department are before the committee, at which time I shall have the information before me. But I would say this at the moment, that I find it difficult to follow the argument of hon. members who come from the Fraser valley if you like, or from areas surrounding Toronto,
War Appropriation-Agriculture

or from areas surrounding Hamilton, or from any other of the industrial areas in the dominion. Whether they intend it to give this meaning or not, when they say that the men who lived on the farms in those communities should not have gone into the industrial-


William Earl Rowe: I did not say that.


James Garfield Gardiner: It could have only
that meaning.


William Earl Rowe: No; I never said any such
thing.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And I never said
that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, put it this way:
We should get a return for the farm production which would keep the men on the farms.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Absolutely.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, how can they be
in the plants and on the farms too?


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is a different thing altogether.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the same point.
I quite understand it is a rather difficult point to have nailed.


William Earl Rowe: I do not propose to permit
the minister to nail on to me what is not true. I do not mind a reference to what I have said, but not to what I have not said. I did not imply this afternoon that I censured any farmer or any hired man for leaving a farm and going to a factory; I only pointed out the difference in the wages received.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, the argument has been brought out all through the discussion, before the Easter recess, and even during the last session that men have gone off these farms and gone into the factories, with the result that the farms are not occupied as they might be.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: In other words, that
you ought to have a man on his farm, and producing more on his farm.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Certainly.


James Garfield Gardiner: All I wish to say with regard to that is this:	If those boys had
not been in the plants, and if the women from those farming areas had not been in the plants, it would not have been possible for a thousand men to be over Essen last night with aeroplanes; nor would it have been possible for 1,250 men to be over Cologne two nights earlier.


William Earl Rowe: That is beside the point
altogether.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is not correct.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says,
"that is not correct."


William Earl Rowe: It is beside the question.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not beside the
question, either.


William Earl Rowe: The minister is skating well.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a well known fact that the armies of the empire, including Canada, were unequipped when the war began. It is a well known fact that one thing which had to be done, if there was going to be equipment, was to have as many men as possible, as soon as possible, in every plant in this country, to increase the sizes of the plants, and to man them with men and women who could produce the necessities of war.
That has been done. Might I add this, that in the years immediately preceding the war we were listed as having over a million men unemployed in Canada, and even yet we are sometimes told that they are not quite all employed. However, many of them are. Well, if we take the size of our armed forces in the navy, the air force and the army, and take, in addition to that, the men who have gone into our plants across Canada, we have a figure which is not very far removed from the number who were unemployed before the war started. When we add to that this further fact, that we are to-day turning out twice as many hogs from our farms as we did in the last year before the war; that we are turning out possibly this year 40 per cent to 50 per cent more cheese; that we produced 20,000,000 pounds more butter last year than we did the year before; that we are producing more wheat than we know what to do with, and that we have, as a matter of fact, increased our farm production all along the line, I find it difficult to understand how these cows could be slaughtered, those sows sent to market and those sheep driven off the ranges when we are increasing the production of every farm product in Canada by leaps and bounds, and have been, ever since the war started.
Of course there will be a time when we shall have to say that we must balance our agriculture-


George Alexander Cruickshank: When?

War Appropriation-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: -against our production of munitions and armed forces. My hon.
friend asks, when? He had better read the record.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It does not read very well.


James Garfield Gardiner: If he reads he will find
that it is much better balanced now than it has been at any other time in the agricultural history of Canada, since the years immediately following the last war.


William Earl Rowe: That is not right.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Not in British
Columbia.


James Garfield Gardiner: Let me go back to the point with which the hon. member for Fraser Valley disagreed a few moments ago. He still holds that men in British Columbia should be on the farms, rather than in the shipyards or in any other industrial operation being carried on near the city of Vancouver. After all, the agricultural area in that section of Canada is not so big that it cannot be covered by the hon. member's seat, and one or two others. There is not a great area. I can quite understand that when you take so many people away from the Fraser river valley it will affect the agriculture in that particular section of Canada. But when you are fighting a world war, and when you take the province of Alberta along with the Fraser river valley

and realize that the Fraser river area never did produce enough food to feed the people of Vancouver-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, just a minute.


James Garfield Gardiner: "Just a minute," you say. It is an absolute fact that in order to get enough pork, enough butter, and enough beef to feed the people of Vancouver they have to import from Alberta. When we as a national government are dealing with agriculture we are dealing with it right across this country. When we are dealing with it in war time we are interested in getting the highest possible production in order to send to Great Britain all the products she requires.
* The areas around Vancouver are not producing surplus products to go outside Canada. Apart from fruit, milk and eggs they are consuming some of the surpluses being produced in other sections of Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Does the minister
mean to say that we are not shipping surpluses of milk, butter and eggs to Great Britain?


James Garfield Gardiner: For a long period
Vancouver has been importing a great part of her food supplies from the area over the mountains. What we are concerned about is getting our production across Canada up, and we have that production up. Our hog production is double what it was before the war. Some hon. members have been saying to-night that we are going to get 125,000,000 pounds of cheese this year to be sent to Great Britain. During the year I became a minister in this government, we sent 54,000,000 pounds, and we are told that this year we shall be able to send 125,000,000 pounds. These figures indicate that there has been an increase in the production of that commodity which is needed greatly overseas.


William Earl Rowe: Was it not that much thirty years ago?


James Garfield Gardiner: We used to send far
more than that forty years ago, but, as a result of some of the policies carried out by my hon. friend's friends toward the end of the last war, we lost our market.


William Earl Rowe: It was the minister's government that lost the market.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are attempting at
this time to win them back by giving service.


Ernest Edward Perley: What did Mr. Dunning
say in his May day budget about British markets?


Thomas Vien: The minister has the
floor.


Ernest Edward Perley: He should not make
political speeches.


James Garfield Gardiner: Two or three political
speeches have been made, and I ought to be allowed to make one.


William Earl Rowe: Then the minister should not mind a little interruption.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not mind interruptions; I rather enjoy them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the
minister discuss with the committee the question of the net return to the farmer at the present time, and how much of the national income the farmer gets? It is what is left that counts.


James Garfield Gardiner: I put the figures on
Hansard before the Easter holidays, and I expect to put them on again when I am discussing my estimates. I do not think I should be required to put them on the third time, particularly when I have not the actual figures in front of me. When I put them on the record I want them to be correct.

War Appropriation-Agriculture


William Earl Rowe: Nobody knows them better
than the minister does.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I have a fair
idea of what they are, but I do not think this is the occasion to put them on Hansard.


William Earl Rowe: They do not fit this occasion.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is one other point upon which I think I should toucli in view of the discussion that has taken place this afternoon and evening. I refer to the matter of prices established by the prices board and their relationship to farm products.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister tell us about his struggle with the board?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it was the hon. member for Fraser Valley who said that I should put forward the cause of agriculture in the government and elsewhere. Not all the members of the government are here this evening, but I think those who are will agree with me when I say that there were not many opportunities for putting forward the case of agriculture of which I have not taken advantage. That is evidenced by the fact that right from the beginning of this war we have had something that no other government in Canada ever had before-we have had floors under farm prices. A floor under the price of hogs was established by the British agreement in the fall of 1939 when war was declared. That floor under the price of hogs kept hogs in Canada from three to five cents a pound higher throughout that year than they were in the United States. Our farmers reaped the advantage of that agreement.


Percy Ellis Wright: Was not that floor placed
under the price of bacon?


James Garfield Gardiner: The price of hogs to the farmer was from three to five cents a pound higher in Canada than it was in the United States. That is the price for hogs, not bacon.


Percy Ellis Wright: Nevertheless the floor was not under the price of hogs, but under the price of bacon.


James Garfield Gardiner: The people eat the bacon and other pork products, and the prices were set under those.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The packer had the floor, not the farmer.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the hon. gentlemen who are making remarks have had more friends among the packers than I throughout the years.


William Earl Rowe: The minister has not offended them very much.


James Garfield Gardiner: The position in connection with prices is that in the fall of 1939 we established a floor under the price of hogs. In the spring of 1940 a floor was established under the price of cheese. That floor has been raised year by year, until at the present time it is twenty cents a pound. When hon. members recall that we started at ten cents a pound in the year before the war, even at the time war was declared, I think they will agree that to have raised it to twenty cents a pound plus the premium and plus the subsidies is not doing so badly.


William Earl Rowe: Who raised the floor under beef?


James Garfield Gardiner: The floor under beef was established by the trade agreement made with the United States, and that trade agreement had not many friends among my hon. friend's friends. That floor was so high this year that people in Toronto found themselves a little short of beef because it was going to the market that paid the best prices. People in Montreal found themselves a little short of beef, but one did not hear any farmer kicking about the price of beef in the United States. The farmers were quite prepared to send their cattle where they could get the best price, provided we were not prepared to pay a similar price for the same product in this country.
When any one of these products was up for discussion, the Department of Agriculture and the Minister of Agriculture put forward the position of the farm population of this country. I did succeed in having an agreement entered into, and agreed to by both the Department of Agriculture and the prices board, which raised the selling price of beef across Canada and which made certain arrangements for the regulation of the shipment of cattle into the United States. At the same time it maintained the United States price for the full quota allowed under the arrangement, and maintained the ceiling price for all other cattle sold in Canada after the United States quota was filled. That arrangement established a floor under beef prices. It is true that a ceiling was also established, but to date the price of cattle has been above even what anyone would attempt to figure out as being the ceiling which would be allowed based on the beef prices that were set last fall.
As I say, floors have been placed under the prices of hogs, beef and butter. We have had a floor under wheat, but I shall not discuss

War Appropriation-Agriculture
that tonight. It is higher now than it was at the beginning of the war, and more satisfactory. Who put the first floor under butter? We had a floor under butter prices in the summer of 1939 before there was any prices board.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who put the skids
under butter?


James Garfield Gardiner: If hon. members want
to know who put the skids under butter, I would ask them to go back to about 1932. They not only put the skids under butter; they greased the skids with butter. It could scarcely be given away in 1932. At the present time butter is at least 35 cents a pound in Montreal. In the year before the war and in the first year of the war it was down to 20 cents a pound. So that something has been done by somebody to increase the price to its present level. One of the things done was to establish a floor under the price of butter last year, which maintained the price above 30 cents all last summer.
That covers most of the products of which we have been speaking. When my hon. friends say that they are not satisfied because butter is not up to the same level as cheese and whole milk, I can only say to them that it is not the fault of those who represent agriculture in this house, whether it be the minister or others, that the price is not higher. I do not think a single man has risen in his place in this house since this debate started and discussed ceiling prices without prefacing his remarks with the statement:	I
want it to be fully understood that I am in agreement with the policy.


William Earl Rowe: No, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With the
objective, not with the policy.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then they are in agreement with the objective, which is to prevent inflation, which is to keep down prices.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are
opposed to the method.


William Earl Rowe: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Vien: What is the point of
privilege?


William Earl Rowe: Perhaps I should say a point
of order. The minister has stated that no one has risen in his place and said that he was against the policy of price fixing. Just before the dinner recess I doubted the government's policy and referred to it as this policy of price fixing.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. gentleman
before the dinner recess was doubting the policy of the agriculture department. This is the policy of the prices board.


William Earl Rowe: I doubted that too, and still
doubt it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Possibly as applied to
farm products, but I think most of those who have taken part in the discussion either to-day or yesterday with regard1 to the prices board have prefaced their remarks with the suggestion that they did not want to be understood as criticizing the attempts that are being made by the prices board to control inflation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Nobody
said that. That is the minister's interpretation.


William Earl Rowe: We agree with the objective
but not with the method.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not particularly methods of mine.


William Earl Rowe: The minister is none too
proud of them.


James Garfield Gardiner: On each occasion when
the setting of the ceiling prices has interfered with the returns which the farmers could obtain from the floors which have been set under the prices, the Department of Agriculture has taken issue with those who desired to set ceiling prices and has usually succeeded in having them rearranged to meet the situation created by the fact that we have floor prices. I state that only to indicate that the one set of products in the Dominion of Canada that did have a floor put under them before 1941 was agricultural products. While I agree that prior to 1941 those floors were not high enough, I call the attention of the committee and this country to the fact that those floors have been raised from year to year under the pressure of those representing agriculture in this house, on all sides of the house, I might say. They have been increased from year to year and are to-day at a level which, while not entirely satisfactory, is fairly satisfactory. I am quite sure that to compare the attitude which was taken in farm meetings and farm gatherings anywhere and by hon. members on the floor of this house prior to the last session with the attitude at present existing in Canada and in this house would convince any hon. member that something has been done in relation to farm prices which has made them more satisfactory than they were two years ago.


William Earl Rowe: There has been a war since then.

War Appropriation-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: We were in a war even before that,


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not much before.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not much before, my hon. friend says. I am sorry if there is anyone in this house who thinks we have not been pretty much in a war since the fall of 1939.
_ Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury): The minister said in March, 1940, that we would take the middle-road course.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that but I will discuss that with my hon. friend when he leads his party in the next election.
_ Mr. ROWE: The minister discussed it during the last election.


James Garfield Gardiner: But not from the point of view my hon. friends think.


William Earl Rowe: From the minister's point of view.


James Garfield Gardiner: The position of agriculture is pretty well understood. If we could pass these estimates, taking up the item of $5,400,000 which we began to discuss this afternoon and then go on to the different boards that have been set up under the agricultural supplies board, we might make some progress.


James Arthur Ross: I take it that when the minister was telling us the policies of the department as a part of the war effort he was not one of those whom the Minister of National War Services classed on Friday as isolationists. The minister skated very nicely round the question that was asked him by the hon. member for Acadia. I am very much interested in hearing the answer to that question, because, this afternoon, when the Minister of Labour was not in his plape, I tried to deal with the question of farm wages, especially for harvest time, and the Minister of Agriculture said that that came under the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Agriculture did not say whether he was in sympathy with the government doing something to stabilize farm wages, especially harvest wages. When he was asked about ceiling-price control, he stated that that came under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance, not under his department.
The hon. member for Acadia asked the Minister of Agriculture the direct question whether price-ceiling controls were put into effect in opposition to the minister's stand,
, whether the minister was consulted on the matter and, if so, what was his stand pertaining to agriculture. I am very much interested 
in hearing the minister's answer. I think the minister should give us some lead at this time. It is only two months to harvest, when we shall be faced with a serious labour problem in western Canada, and we are entitled to some statement from the Minister of Agriculture. He has made a fine statement on the problems of agriculture. But we have not yet national selective service in operation for agriculture, and we have not parity prices for farm products in the third year of the war.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want to be led away from answering the question and to be diverted into a discussion of parity prices, because that already fills two or three pages of Hansard of our earlier debate. To answer the question asked-I did not avoid answering it intentionally but did so inadvertently- the position last fall when ceiling prices were established was that prices of most farm products, in the form in which ceiling prices were set upon them, were considerably higher than they had been for some time previously. As a matter of fact, they bore a much closer relationship to the prices for the period from 1926 to 1929 than has been admitted to-night. The reason for stretching the basic period over a month was in order to take in agricultural products which were at some date in the period at the highest price levels they had been over a considerable period of time. It was quite understood then, and was so stated by the Prime Minister in announcing the policy, that certain farm products were affected by seasonal conditions; that others were affected by other conditions, and that further consideration would have to be given to them. Some of them have had further consideration. Further consideration was given to wheat during the early part of this year. Further consideration was given to beef during the last two or three weeks. Further consideration has been given to cheese since the time of the setting of that price. Consideration is still being given to butter. Wheat and other farm pro- ' ducts including butter had not in that period reached parity levels, that is parity as it is understood by farm organizations across Canada. Further consideration has been given to those different farm products since that time.
I would say in answer to the question asked, that in so far as I am concerned personally I accepted the policy-I would not be in the government if I had not-with the understanding that these commodities would be further discussed, and they have been. With regard to some of them satisfactory arrangements have been reached. With regard to others, more discussion and considerations are still required and will certainly be given

War Appropriation-Agriculture
to them by the prices board. In this, like everything else, there is no complete agreement on anything so vast as a price policy. You cannot get any "two men to sit down and agree on the price of every commodity, and more particularly you cannot get farmers to sit down and agree as to what the ceilings ought to be under existing conditions. The thing has happened which always happens. We have discussed the question. If we could not agree on the first discussion, we discussed the matter a second or third or fourth time, and finally a plan has been worked out which as nearly as possible suits all the conditions. That has been done in connection with price levels on farm products, and it is still being done.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister will agree, will he not with this theory, that when the price level was frozen it was frozen on an uneven basis qua primary products generally? That is really the accepted fact, is it not? The minister himself has spoken many times along that line and I am glad to hear that the government has some flexibility in this matter.


William Earl Rowe: Not much solidarity.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I am not trying to make a political speech. I just want to point out that when the price ceiling structure was set up, for some reason or another it had to be frozen from a definite period of time. That was in the fall of the year, and the new crops were coming on. With respect to certain products in my province, when the price was at its lowest point in the whole twelve months those products were frozen. That, I think, has been generally true all along. It is not quite a fair statement for the minister to make that we never objected to the policy. I have always felt that we could not allow the price structure to get out of hand, but I do object to the method that is being adopted. I say this further to the minister, that in order to maintain this structure all the way through, there is one complementary feature which will have to be adopted if he wants to have this thing rationalized, and that is a complete system of rationing. It cannot be complete without it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think that is a discussion which can much better take place when the minister to whom the board is responsible is here. I simply wanted to make clear the position as far as agriculture is concerned in relation to the board.
To answer the question which was put by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), I can only say that we have been following very closely the investigations which are being made in the United States with regard to the making of rubber from wheat and from other plants that may be grown on farms. I believe it will be within the memory of every member of this committee that prior to the war an international bureau was set up on which all countries were represented, so that countries like ours which are not carrying on investigations in connection with certain matters should have available at all times the information that is gathered in other countries. While this bureau cannot operate with the same freedom during the war as it did before, perhaps there is a greater exchange of information as between two countries like Canada and the United States than there was through the bureau before the war. We are getting whatever information is available in the United States from time to time. We have not yet gone to the expense of duplicating the experimental work which is being carried on there.
I have not any doubt that if the development in the United States comes to the point that they use a considerable quantity of surplus wheat, a very considerable quantity of the wheat in this country will be required as well.
While I may not have all the information,
I have not understood that it has as yet been definitely decided in the United States to proceed with a method of developing rubber from wheat. My understanding is that those who claim that they have developed a plan, and have placed that plan in general terms before a committee of the United States congress, have not yet demonstrated the feasibility of the plan in its entirety, and it is not yet being put into effect even in the United States as a practical method of producing rubber. But I think I can say this, that if it does become a means of producing rubber, and if conditions remain as they are in the world to-day, the people of the United States will be the first to want Canada to turn a very considerable part of her wheat into rubber. There is no commodity which is running short faster on this continent as a result of war activities than rubber, and any method which can be found in either Canada or the United States to produce more rubber on this continent will certainly be utilized by the governments of the two countries at the very earliest possible moment.


James Arthur Ross: I asked the minister
if he as Minister of Agriculture would express an opinion as to the matter of agricultural or

War Appropriation-Agriculture
farm wages being included under the price ceiling. While realizing that this is a function of the Minister of Labour, I think the Minister of Agriculture might give us some lead in this respect if he cares to do so.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can only say this, that up to date no government anywhere in Canada has undertaken to control farm wages. I am not at all sure as to what this or any other government will do in the future, but I know there are extreme difficulties associated with setting wage levels for farmers, particularly at a time when, of necessity, there must be bidding for men in 'other places. I quite realize, of course, that if you want to go into planned, selective distribution of employees and tell everyone where he is to go, you can overcome that to a certain extent. But I have always wondered just how you will make a man hoe turnips on a farm if he does not want to hoe turnips. You may assign him to a farm and send him to a field, but there are some difficulties about directing men to jobs like farming and saying, "You must go there and farm", jobs that are not associated with the operation of a plant, where all men are working side by side at machines.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
there is a good deal of common sense in that. You cannot make a man work if he does not want to work.
_ 'Mr. ROSS (Souris): They are controlled for industry, are they not? Organized labour is controlled.


Mr. WOOD:: I should like to make one
or two observations. This debate has been going on for some time, and I have noticed that not all the men who have been participating are farmers, although they seem to have a very wordy knowledge of the industry.


Gordon Graydon: Do not criticize the
minister in that way.
. An hon. MEMBER:	It is the lawyers he
is thinking of.


Gordon Graydon: And the schoolteachers.


George Ernest Wood: I listened with interest to the observations of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, who seemed to be really concerned about the national income.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He is a real farmer.


George Ernest Wood: Yes, he is a real farmer, and I like to talk to a man who understands my language. He was waxing eloquent about the national income of the farmers. If he will go back to 1492, in which the same figures are used as in 1942, so there may be some relation, he will find that the total national 
income was almost purely an agricultural income. The party to which the hon. member belongs has always waxed eloquent on what a tariff would do to develop secondary industry. There has been a great development of secondary industries in this country and naturally, in consequence of that, agricultural income will not be as high as it was in relation to the national income. It is not many years ago that the total production of our mines was only $100,000,000. To-day it is $600,000,000. Take pulp; this industry to-day represents $250,000,000 of our income. The same thing is true of other industries. Possibly when the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe was a beardless youth in knickerbocker trousers the total national income of Canada was much less in these secondary lines, and therefore I do not think the argument we have heard is a sound one. If agriculture has been able to maintain its income, we must remember that there is only one-third of the population of the dominion engaged in that industry, and therefore the national income derived from agriculture is divided among only one-third of the population whereas formerly it had to be divided among two-thirds. Therefore I am still inclined to the view that the average income of our farmers to-day is higher than it has been in the past ten or twelve years. I used to read Hansard when I was back on the farm, and I cannot recall that the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe was ever in the least concerned in 1932 when I sold my eggs at 8 cents, wheat at 42 cents, hogs at $3.25 and butter at 14 cents. He was not concerned then about the national income from the point of view of agriculture.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member did not read Hansard closely.


George Ernest Wood: The hon. gentleman ought
to be fair enough at least to say that we have gone a long way forward in the last ten years.
I was interested in the remarks of some hon. member with regard to farm sales. I am inclined to think that when a number of farm sales are taking place it shows a generally healthy condition in the community.


William Earl Rowe: Not if you close the farm.


George Ernest Wood: In the last ten years there
were few farm sales, for the reason that any man with anything at stake had not sufficient courage to call a sale, because he did not know whether he would get enough buyers.
I am of opinion that it is a fairly healthy condition.

War Appropriation-Agriculture


George Alexander Cruickshank: I was the one who brought up the question of sales. What would the hon. gentleman suggest doing with a dairy cow if one could not get a milker to milk that cow? Would he sell it, or what would he do with it?


George Ernest Wood: I would get a milking
machine.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Where would you get one, with priorities?


George Ernest Wood: 
George Alexander Cruickshank: To the dairy
farmer?


George Ernest Wood: A fair amount has gone to
the dairy farmer.


George Alexander Cruickshank: For summerfallowing.


George Ernest Wood: That might be a good thing, too. I repeat, this government has had a reasonable amount of sympathy with agriculture when we realize that it has assigned, of the taxpayers' money, about $100,000,000 to 728,000 farmers, which means over $100 for every farmer. I still think there is something that can be done, and I rather approve what the hon. member for Stanstead said. The butter price is too low. But if the argument is that the price of milk for producing butter, the price of processed milk and the price of city milk should all be on the same basis, then I do not agree.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Who said that?


George Ernest Wood: Some members have done so.


George James Tustin: I made the statement, but I said "manufactured milk."


George Ernest Wood: Well, I use the words "processed milk" and the hon. member says "manufactured milk." I would say that if there is a difference of fifty cents between processed milk and city milk, and fifty cents still less for milk on the basis of butter, keeping the skimmed milk at home, that is somewhat on a parity. In the supply of milk to the city trade a great deal of expense is involved in the production for this trade. I have had experience of it. I know it takes more to maintain the standards for the city trade and it is worth practically fifty cents per 100 pounds and more. But I think the price of butter at thirty-five cents is lower than it should be, and I believe the consumer should pay the farmer for that product. It should not come out of the taxpayer, and my view is that we should eliminate subsidies as far as possible and see that the consumer pays for the products of the farm.
Another matter that was mentioned this afternoon is the fact that so much of our breeding stock leaves Canada and goes to the United States. We farmers in Canada are rather too modest, and possibly one of the difficulties from which our own industry is suffering is the fact that the man engaged in farming is too ready to damn his own profession, so that if there is any reason why he cannot sell his farm it is that he has advertised to the whole world that there is no money in farming. That may be the reason for lower prices of farms. As regards selling our breeding stock, I think that is a splendid market to have, for this reason. The average Canadian farmer is a better live stock man than the average United States farmer. That is because the Canadian farmer has more of the old British blood in his veins. The fact is that we compete with our United States neighbours in the large shows and bring back the red ribbons, and we can do so because we have superior cattle. We Canadians have built up a reputation for good stock. In spite of the fact that the United States is an immense agricultural country, they have never produced one breed of cattle there. The British breeder has produced about twenty breeds; we in Canada have produced one, which is not too bad.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What breed is that?


George Ernest Wood: One in Quebec, the Canadian; it is one with purely Canadian characteristics at least.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What is the name of that breed?
War Appropriation-Agriculture


George Ernest Wood: I say the Canadian. I believe they have a herd book; it is a distinct breed in Quebec.
We ship stock to the United States continuously, and that is a market we have a right to guard jealously. They pay us good prices. There is in my community a breeder of shorthorns, who sold over forty head to the United States at a price averaging over $560 each, which is an indication of the quality of the stock many of our farmers in this country breed.
We should not overlook the good things the minister has done in directing the policy of agriculture in this country. No matter how much we have we always want more, but I should not like to think the solution of our great problem to-day of winning this war can be achieved only by having high prices for our products. I believe every effort should be made-and I think this government has been reasonable in trying to safeguard the interests of the people in this matter-that we should not have our prosperity in time of war. Let us postpone that until peace time, and let us all share alike in the difficulties of the boys at the front. They are not asking for increased wages.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Are the manufacturers?


George Ernest Wood: If we can maintain a condition of affairs during war time that will not create the disasters that happened through the wild inflation which took place after the last war, then I believe our interests will be better protected and there will be less suffering while the war is on.


Mark Cecil Senn: I have listened with a good deal of interest not only to the Minister of Agriculture but to the hon. member for Brant, whose home is close to mine. Hon. members on the other side of the house always like to refer to the times of depression in the thirties. They would lay all the blame for low prices on the government in power between 1930 and 1935. The minister to-night has patted himself on the back and blown his own horn to quite an extent in regard to present farm prices. It is a peculiar thing how, if the present administration is trying to raise prices and give the farmer a better deal, there was any need to impose a price ceiling. The minister has talked pretty well-around that question; he has taken credit on the one hand for better prices received by the farmer-we all admit he is getting better prices than prior to the war-and at the same time he tries to justify the imposition of a price ceiling in order to keep prices 
down. I do not see how he can have it both ways. Then he spoke about the floor that the present administration had put under farm prices. If I might venture a suggestion, I would say that it is always the history in war time, as it was in the last war, that as soon as war is well under way, prices of farm products, as well as other products, rise to very high levels. I go further; I speak for myself only when I say that I have always doubted whether it was really necessary to impose the price ceiling at all. Looking back over the last war-and I lived through it; I was on the farm all that time-I have yet to learn where the rise in prices at that time did any particular harm. I know that to the farmers it did a great deal of good, because many farmers at that time laid by sufficient funds to carry them through the period of depression, without which funds they would have been in a grave state indeed.
Something was said about the national income. I am sure the hon. member for Brant will not say that while the farmers comprise some 35 per cent of the population of this country, they are entitled to only 10 or 12 or 14 per cent of the national income. Yet that is the situation as it exists and has existed for some time past.


George Ernest Wood: Is the hon. member prepared to say that all the income the farmer gets is from agriculture, that he may not get part of the income from other industries?


Mark Cecil Senn: I say that looking over the
figures given in the Sirois report for many years past, when a farmer on 100 acres of land gets only $400 to $600 actual annual income from his farm he is not getting sufficient to keep him and his family. It is not a fair balance between agriculture and other sections of the community.
I have no wish to carry on the debate, but I think the minister should not have taken quite so much credit for the higher prices which exist, because they would have existed in any event. I am certain that if there had been no price ceiling on farm products, there would be closer parity to-day between prices of farm products and prices of other commodities that the farmer has to buy.
There is no doubt that the labour situation on the farms to-day is serious. Recently a survey was made in my own county by the federation of agriculture assisted by officials of the provincial government. I have just received a second report which shows that out of 1,207 farms in the county, averaging 130 acres each, there was only an average of 1-2 male adults on each. That is a mixed farming community, and I say without fear of

War Appropriation-Agriculture
contradiction that with practically one man to a farm it cannot be operated successfully to get the largest production that we should be getting in war time.
Moreover, the average age of those males was fifty-three years, showing, as the minister mentioned, that there is a large number of farms where the sole operator is between sixty and seventy years of age. In times of peace it may be that we have kept up production through having implements and mechanized farming and have been able to increase production along certain lines; yet that cannot continue indefinitely. The harvest is coming, and it is going to be very hard indeed under conditions as they are to-day. The minister and the government will be well advised to give careful consideration to means to remedy the labour situation at least during the period of harvest. After all, we are all anxious to see that production is carried on. We do not want to have it fall down, particularly in war time. I am afraid, however, there will be a good deal of waste on the farms in Canada this summer, and particularly in harvest time, unless the labour situation is remedied in some way or another.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Would the hon. member permit a very friendly question? I sympathize with a good deal of what he has said. What would he suggest as a remedy for the shortage of labour on the farm?


Mark Cecil Senn: I am not prepared to say just what that remedy should be. Perhaps the time has to some extent gone by when the remedy should have been applied. I do not agree with the minister's statement, made a little while ago, that if there had been selective service at an earlier stage, men could not have been induced to stay on the farms to carry on operations there. I know a great many of them would be more useful on the farms than they would be in any other place they could be put.
Farming has become an industry where skilled labour is needed, just as much as it is in the factory or anywhere else. One skilled labourer on the farm can do more work by far, and do it more efficiently than two or three unskilled men can do. I do not wish to go back to discussions which have taken place earlier, but it seems to me that while perhaps the voluntary system of enlistment has not fallen down in getting men to enter the active service, it has fallen down very badly in taking men out of more industries than agriculture- although I may be speaking of agriculture particularly at the moment. It has taken men out of those industries who would be more useful in industries than they are to-day in the active service.


Mr. McNEVIN:: With respect to the matter of boards, which includes the dairy products board-


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member suggests that we are now dealing with boards. Is it understood that we are now to proceed to the five boards, one by one? I agreed this afternoon that we would deal first with the item of $5,477,760 contained in the upper items, and that when we had completed those we would proceed to the others.


Frederick George Sanderson: This afternoon I asked one or two questions in connection with flax. At that time the chairman thought my questions were not in order. I should like to put them now. The minister stated that there were twenty-five or thirty flax mills in the combined provinces of Ontario and Quebec; is that correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: That was my statement.


Frederick George Sanderson: Has the minister the number for each province?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; I have not.


Frederick George Sanderson: Would he get that information for me, and communicate it to me by letter?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will do that.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is there any price set for flax seed?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; there has been since the beginning of the war. I cannot say exactly what it is, but it is around $5 and up, depending upon the grade.


Frederick George Sanderson: I understand that some arrangement has been made to finance those who own flax mills so that they may purchase modern machinery and equipment; is my information correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: The facts are that we did assist two or three persons or companies -one in Quebec, I believe, and two in Ontario-before the war, to get certain equipment for their plants. But since the war started we have taken a machine, of which I believe there was only one in the country, dismantled it and made drawings of the parts. The Frost and W]oodl company are now making those machines for us, at a cost of about $10,000 each. Ten of them have been made up and are in use, and five others are to be put into use. We have about fifteen at the present time. The government has the machines made, and they are sold to the companies desiring to use them.


Thomas Reid: Are they pulling machines?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; scutching machines.
War Appropriation-Agriculture


Frederick George Sanderson: Is the department registering a claim against those scutching machines?


James Garfield Gardiner: Where possible, the machine is being sold outright, and in other places it is sold :on terms.


Frederick George Sanderson: Are there any flax companies or individuals operating flax mills, and owning this modem equipment, which have been financed by the minister's department?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should think some of the machines in use by certain companies have been perhaps partly financed by the department, but I am not in a position to give full information to-night. I can get that information. If the hon. member would put a question on the order paper, I would be pleased to answer it.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would be satisfied if the minister would be good enough to write me a letter setting out the information.


James Garfield Gardiner: Very well.


George Russell Boucher: Before turning to a discussion of boards under the Department of Agriculture may I draw to the attention of the committee one or two points which occurred to me while the minister was speaking this evening. If I understood the minister correctly, he stated this evening that those who could fully pay for a farm, or those who inherited one free of debt, could maintain an honest living, but that those who were obliged to pay off a substantial debt on their farms were in an entirely different position. I should not want the feeling to be created outside the house that such was the view of hon. members, or that we believed that the farmer must have a big capital investment, with his stock and machinery all paid for before he can make a subsistence, or live on the farm. I consider that the farmer to-day, and particularly the farmer in eastern Ontario, has been handicapped in a very great way in the past ten or fifteen years by virtue of the falling down of the net revenues on his farm and of the increasing of the debt.
The mere subsistence of the farmer in Canada is not good enough at this time. Only yesterday the Minister of National War Services stated that in eastern Ontario his department had had to raise the quota because the supply of available men between twenty-one and twenty-eight, and even up to thirty years of age, had been just about exhausted.

The hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) inquired about a cure for the shortage of farm help. I believe his question was partly answered by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn), when he pointed out that to-day the farm helper is not an inexperienced or unskilled labourer, but that he is one who to a very great extent must be an expert in his own occupation. He must be accustomed to agricultural work and agricultural management.
Throughout eastern Ontario and most definitely in my own constituency the drawing of men into the army and the volunteering of men to serve in* the army have left an acute shortage of labour. As a matter of fact, many of the auction sales in my constituency are on the properties of people of mature age whose young sons have gone into the army, whose daughters are active in war services and who are left with their herds of dairy cattle, beef cattle, hogs or flocks of poultry without sufficient help to carry on. If that situation continues for any length of time, it will prove a serious detriment to the whole agricultural industry. I believe the minister has the interests of the farmer at heart, and he should put forth greater efforts to keep on the farm those who will be the farmers of to-morrow. He has said that we could sell more bacon, more eggs, more cheese, more butter and more beef if we could produce these commodities. Is that not proof that conditions of agriculture are not such as to induce our young people to stay on the farm and produce in the quantities required?
I should like to refer briefly to the priceceiling policy. These price ceilings were set in the fall of the year, at a time when the farmers had disposed of large portions of their bacon, of the bulk of their production of eggs and almost all of their production of cheese and a great percentage of their production of butter and beef. There could hardly have been a less advantageous time at which to set prices than immediately after the farmer had sold his commodities and before the middleman, the wholesaler, the retailer and the broker had disposed of theirs. I think more will have to be done to reconcile the farmers of this country to the advantages of the price ceiling.
More attention should be given to the possibility of advancing agricultural pursuits so that we can live up to the requirements of quality which are required for the export markets. We should strive to hold the markets that we may obtain by reason of the war, and one way of doing that is to maintain the quality and quantity of our production at the highest possible level.

War Appropriation-:Agriculture


Ernest Edward Perley: I believe we might say
that this has been a field day for the farmer. As the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) has said, this afternoon and evening we have heard some interesting discussions as well as the statements made by the minister. Some constructive suggestions have been made. Reference has been made to the sale of farms, and in this connection I agree with what the minister has said. I am one of those who believe that a good farm-500 acres or three-quarters of a section in the west or two or three hundred acres in the east-will prove to be one of the best investments a man could have after the war, should the war continue for another two or three years. Much will be expected of our farmers in the reconstruction period. The minister gave some interesting figures which go to show that the industry will be in position to meet its obligations at that time.
We have been discussing that portion of the $2,000,000,000 appropriation which is to be devoted to agriculture. The greater part of this amount of $11,042,281 is to be used to encourage diversified farming in Canada. We must encourage that type of farming, even in western Canada. Our climatic and soil conditions vary, and this type of farming could be made successful. Other suggestions have been made with reference to the stabilization of the prices of dairy and other products. This is a splendid principle to apply to the prices of all farm products in order that the producer may know where he gets off at, so to speak, and have some assurance that he will get a fair return for his labour. It is agreed that agriculture is as much a war industry as any other industry. We have been asked to increase our production to meet the demands of Great Britain. The minister has a most difficult task, and I have no doubt that he must face some difficulties even in the cabinet. This setting of war-time prices has aggravated the situation and no doubt has increased his difficulties.
There has been a considerable amount of repetition in the discussion to-day. When the billion dollar gift was before the house questions were asked of the minister, and to-day many of those questions have been repeated. I have no doubt that when the minister's estimates are before the committee there will be further repetition. I do not think that $11,042,281 out of a total appropriation of 82,000,000,000 is too much for agriculture. There are only three or four of these items that need much explanation, and the minister has explained them. The amounts required to carry on the different administrations are, I 44561-190
think, a little out of proportion. The minister's department is so -organized, with experts at the head of the different branches, that this work could have been done in the department, perhaps with some increased office staff. The minister gave a most interesting statement in trying to justify these expenditures.
Another item is to provide for a programme to encourage the production of essential war supplies. The minister referred specially to the amount used in advertising in order to encourage production. This advertising was done in the daily and weekly newspapers, but in my opinion the best medium of advertising to encourage production is the price obtained for the product. If you have a parity price, production will be increased. But I believe we can leave that problem to the minister to overcome.
Commodity costs to the domestic producer are too high to-day, and labour is out of line. I am not saying that labour should not have just treatment and a fair price, -but I have figures here published by the Searle Grain company showing that labour costs are altogether out of line with the price the farmer is receiving for his products, and some adjustment must be made. Wheat at ninety cents is 30 per cent below the parity price, while labour is 42 per cent higher, taking the year 1913-14 as the period for index prices, so it is obvious that some adjustment must be made.
We are taking a register of the unemployed between the ages of sixteen and seventy, and when these figures are compiled as at May 31 I trust that the minister will make use of them to organize labour to take care of the harvest requirements this fall, so that the farmer will no longer be worried over a possible shortage of labour. The minister this afternoon referred to the encouragement that has been given to farm women's organizations to carry on their work, and the other day in the house I discussed the part that women and girls are playing in farm production and the greater part they could play. But to-night I want to stress the importance of the minister working in close cooperation with the Department of National War Services, so that when the unemployed register has been completed, the man- and woman-power that is available and not required in the production of essential munitions of war will be organized in order that there will be no shortage of labour in harvesting this year's crop. I am getting letters daily, and I know the farmers are beginning to worry over labour, particularly for harvesting; It may be a difficult matter to deal with, but I know the minister will take

War Appropria tion-Agriculture

it in hand, and I trust he will give the farmers assurance that there will be no shortage of farm labour this fall.
I have a great many questions to ask but, as the ground has been pretty well covered this afternoon, I shall postpone them until we come to the other items.


John Horne Blackmore: Just a word or two before we close the night's work. After the minister finishes giving one of his fine outbursts, everything looks so rosy that one might believe that the situation in respect to agriculture in this dominion was perfect. But it is far from perfect. I think the minister himself recognizes that.
There were two or three thoughts which came to my mind while the minister was speaking. The first was this. Does the minister and do those who are around him have any conception of how much agricultural production they really want in Canada? Have they any idea how many hogs they would like to see Canada produce, and how many cows, and how much butter and cheese? Have they any idea of the limit of Britain's potential consumption, and whether or not Canada could fill the needs of Britain if she set herself about it, in addition to what Canada would herself need? Have they any idea how much Canada would be short of her maximum production after supplying all potential British needs and all potential Canadian needs?
I know this question is not easy to answer, but it does seem to me that with the number of skilful experts who are at our disposal we ought to be able to come somewhere near to forming an estimate of Canada's potential capacity, considering the law of averages. Of course we do not know whether we are going to have a wet year, for instance, which will destroy a large part of our production, or perhaps a dry year which will destroy much of our production, but there must be a law of averages covering a period of ten or fifteen years, by reference to which it ought to be possible to estimate with some measure of accuracy the potential capacity of Canada to produce. If it is found that Canada's capacity to produce wheat, after we have allowed for the production of all the oats, barley, flax, rye, and all the other things we need exceeds what Canada requires to supply the British market, the Canadian market and any other markets that may be available, considering the question from the point of view of resources and man-power, has the minister taken any steps whatsoever to decide how many men he could spare off the farm?
Word coming to me from my constituency and other parts of western Canada alarms me

because of the number of men who are being taken off their farms, men who are A-l producers. Right now I am working on five distinct cases, in each one of which the production of probably a 300-acre farm is in jeopardy this year, and probably will continue to be so for two or three years. Five cases do not sound very much, but I presume that is only one-tenth of what is actually going on in my constituency.
If that is going on generally, and if what the member for Fraser Valley said with respect to the slaughtering of cattle and what the hon. member for Leeds pointed out applies to many other parts of Canada, there is going on over this countiy a destruction of our capacity to produce which is alarming. We cannot allow a good dairy cow to be slaughtered and recover from the effects of that slaughter perhaps during this war. I laid it down as a principle two years ago that the government should be seeing to it that there is no further slaughter of female breeding stock, and that should apply not only to cattle but to hogs and sheep unless we are sure that we have a greater productive capacity than we need. It is a very, very serious matter when a herd of dairy cows are sent to the slaughter and destroyed when we are in danger of a shortage of butter, for we cannot replace them in three years, and probably never. If there is a large number of farms that are going into semiproduction; if good men are being taken off the farm who know how to run a farm and love the farm and are trained to it, men who cannot be replaced, and if we are losing by the destruction of a good deal of our live stock here and there, then it is a very serious matter. If demands should be made upon us, by reason of intensified submarine warfare in the Atlantic or from some other cause, to increase our production within two years, it would then be just too bad.
All the wringing of foolish hands would not do a bit of good. We have enough to wring foolish hands about in this country already. As the hon. member for Fraser Valley pointed out, w'ith almost unbelievable stupidity we have neglected the development of our sugar production, with the result that, in one of the best sugar-producing areas on earth, we have had to ration sugar. That is to the credit of this government and its wonderful foresightedness. The government can very easily run into a good many other shortages because of the lack of foresight to look ahead. I am alarmed at things like that occurring.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe mentioned chickens. I cannot understand, if the

War Appropriation-Agriculture
need of eggs were as great as I was led to believe it was, how we can afford to have a single pullet in this country not producing.


James Garfield Gardiner: How would you get
the eggs over?


John Horne Blackmore: In the first place,
you have to have the eggs. It is certain you cannot get them over if you do not have them.


James Garfield Gardiner: We can get the eggs.


John Horne Blackmore: Can you get all that are required?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are getting them,
and at prices which most farmers do not think are high enough, simply because there has been at times a surplus.


John Horne Blackmore: I am afraid the price is not high enough. There may be a surplus one year, and the next year there may be a shortage. Our whole method of approach with respect to agriculture at the present time seems to be hit or miss. As the hon. member for Fraser Valley or some other hon. member pointed out this afternoon, no man knows where he stands.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are sending fortyfive times as many eggs to Britain as we did in the year before the war.


John Horne Blackmore: That is not the question. The question is, are we sending as many eggs to Britain as Britain needs?


James Garfield Gardiner: We may not send as
many as she needs, but we are sending as many as we can arrange to ship.


Mrr BLACKMORE:: If we do not have
them, is it not time that we got them?


James Garfield Gardiner: If you cannot send them over, or consume them here, why waste your time in producing something that cannot be sent over there?


John Horne Blackmore: How do you know
that you will not be able to send them over in a month or two?


James Garfield Gardiner: We know by experience.


John Horne Blackmore: Surely we do not
expect to have this Atlantic war remain static, do we?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


John Horne Blackmore: While I do not wish
to be too critical, I think we are drifting too much in agriculture, and I am in close contact with a good deal of agriculture in my own constituency.
44561-190*


James Garfield Gardiner: We have drifted very
close to that top line the hon. member was .talking about a few moments ago.


John Horne Blackmore: There is a great
shortage of eggs in Britain.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course. There is a
shortage of wheat in Ireland, too.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not think the
minister needs to worry about sending the eggs over. If I conceive the minister's task aright, it is to get the eggs, and leave it to somebody else to send them over. If they have not the ships to take the eggs over, that is somebody else's worry. While we are discussing eggs, it is our worry to see that we get the eggs, and then to see that we have the means of processing the eggs, so that they can send them across. Have we that? If we have that, all right; then probably, as far as we are concerned, our egg worry is over.
As I say, I believe that we are drifting too much. There is too much uncertainty. I think it was a year ago that I argued that the price of eggs should be fixed at a figure which would be remunerative to the farmer and that he should be guaranteed that price for two years. Someone will ask "Where is the money coming from to pay for that?" Well, that is another matter, but the important thing for us is to get the eggs, to be sure we are going to get the eggs, plenty of them, not only for Britain but for ourselves. We will take care of the rest of it after that.
From the remarks the minister made I was a little uncertain as to whether he had an idea of how many eggs and how much butter and how much cheese and how much of various other things he really wanted.


James Garfield Gardiner: I gave the figures this
afternoon.


John Horne Blackmore: You really wanted
them?


James Garfield Gardiner: We want 1,500,000 cases of eggs for England this year.


John Horne Blackmore: But you are not sure that you are going to get them?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are pretty certain
we can get them, yes. Britain cannot ship them as shelled eggs; we have to dry them.


John Horne Blackmore: If you wanted a
third more, could you get them?


James Garfield Gardiner: Britain has not said
that she wants a third more.


John Horne Blackmore: I got a statement
from the minister; it is difficult in a long speech like that to recall all he said, but
War Appropriation-Agriculture

lie gave me the idea that he could sell all we could produce of a number of commodities. I believe he named about seven, including-eggs, cheese, butter-


James Garfield Gardiner: Not butter. We are not selling any butter in Great Britain.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister named
a number of commodities of which, he said, we could sell all we could get. That is fine. If we can sell all we can get, let us get all we can sell-which is an entirely different matter, and I say that we are falling down in the matter of getting all that we can sell.


James Garfield Gardiner: Will you produce all
that you can sell without putting any men in the army or any men in the munitions plants?


John Horne Blackmore: Well, now, the minister's question has raised the matter I started talking about at the beginning. The very first thing for us to know is, taking eggs for instance, how many eggs do you want in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: One million five hundred thousand cases.


John Horne Blackmore: Will you be content
to stop right there and produce no more than that for next year?


James Garfield Gardiner: We do not expect to
ship any more this year.


John Horne Blackmore: But if you can get
more next year, you will take them?


James Garfield Gardiner: We will find that out
when dealing with next year.


Mr BLACKMORE:: You see it is all
uncertain. As long as you do not know how many eggs you want, how do you know how many people should get to work producing eggs? The same is true with respect to selling butter and cheese. How do you know how many men you can spare from the farms; and if you do not know how many you can spare, how do you know when you have taken the limit?
As I have sat here and listened to the discussion on the statements of the Minister of National War Services, the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the Minister of National Defence, and various other ministers,
I have been impressed with the fact that nobody seems to have any idea definitely where we are going. We seem to be getting the whole set of ministerial departments interlocked and dovetailed with each other until there is just a sort of run-around and nobody knows where he stands. That is bad business.
I think something ought to be done before very long, or we are going to suffer. We do not know how many farmers we can support.
As I said a minute ago, I am alarmed at the number of first-class farmers who have gone out of my constituency, men who cannot be replaced in ten years. If they are needed in the army more than they are needed on the farms; if they are needed in the munitions plants more than they are needed on the farms, all right; it is good business to put them there in the army or in the munitions plants. If that is not the case, it is bad business to put them there. If no one is at work determining how many can be spared for these purposes and how many are needed on the farms, the whole country is adrift with respect to its economy. That is just the impression I have of our agricultural situation in Canada to-day. It is adrift. We do not know where we stand.
The minister says that we are getting much more production, but one thing he did not allow for, in his fine speech-and he gave a very fine speech-is the tremendous amount of production the farmers are bringing forth for patriotic reasons.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I have said that
many times.


John Horne Blackmore: But there is no way
of telling how long that patriotism will last.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have answered all
these questions, too, twice this session.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, and probably we shall ask them a great many more times, because we are far enough from a satisfactory answer yet. The amount of suffering which is going on in various parts of this country in agriculture is much more than there ought to be. The fact mentioned by the hon. member for Acadia, that ten cents a dozen is the price of eggs, first-class eggs, in many parts of Alberta, in a country which is at war, and needs food, is almost unbelievable. I have a statement from Saskatchewan to the effect that in many rural areas in that province the price to the producer at this time is ten cents. What conceivable encouragement is there for a man to raise chickens? We are adrift with regard to eggs. I am not sure about butter, but it seems to me the price is altogether too low. I have not been following .in detail the prices, but from what was said this afternoon, there must be grave discontent in the matter of butter; all too soon it will take the form of a lack of butter production. That is the danger. Farmers will have to quit producing butter.

War Appropriation-Agriculture
If I gathered rightly, these would be the criticisms I have to offer. In the first place, no one seems to know where we are going and what we want, and no one knows how to arrange our man-power so as to get what we want. Furthermore, there is lack of organization. The farmers, I find, do not know-


James Garfield Gardiner: They have produced what we have asked for every year since the war began, and they are doing it this year.


John Horne Blackmore: The average farmer is figuring this way. He is trying to keep his head above water, and whatever looks as though it might give him a little more income he will produce. Naturally he depends upon what the minister says, with regard to the production which he needs, as to what he should produce. In many instances, however, as someone said this afternoon, the farmer does not know whether he will make a five-cent piece from his production after he has accomplished it. He simply makes the attempt reaching out like a drowning man; and that is true respecting a good many types of production. As to flax, I have not gone into the matter, but I have seen plenty of flax produced in my area. Whether it is the kind the minister wants I do not know, but certainly we can produce flax here. Perhaps it is just for seed, but it is not conceivable to me why we could not produce all the flax needed in Canada, or all the soya beans we need, if we went about it properly, paying such a price to get the flax or the beans that the farmers will feel safe in devoting themselves to the production of these com- -modities. I would say, therefore, in spite of what the minister said, that there is not enough coordination and not enough certainty as to what we want, where we want our man-power, to what extent we want it replaced by woman-power, how we shall organize our woman-power in order to bring the forces of that power to bear where we want it to be effective. The Department of Agriculture is likely to be one of the great sufferers. The first thing we know, we shall have gone too far and we shall be short of agricultural products in Canada, one of the richest countries in the world in agricultural capacity.
One other thing is important in summing up. The minister's statement that we can sell all that we have of certain commodities does not show the right attitude. I say that the attitude should be to produce all we can sell. One further observation. From what I hear across the floor of the house, the government seems to have too much anxiety
as to what it will do with a little extra agricultural production if it gets it. The whole Department of Agriculture seems to be terrified for fear it will have a little too much honey or sugar or wool or some other product -apples, for instance. It does not know what to do with any extra product if it cannot sell it abroad. That thinking is Rip Van Winkle thinking.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is certainly a lot of it in Alberta.


John Horne Blackmore: It is high time the minister gathered round him a number of men who have the capacity to see to-morrow instead of the day before yesterday. There must be a reorganization. The minister must be listening to the Prime Minister quite often indulging in those beautiful outbursts of his about the new order. Does the minister believe in a new order? If he does, what does he conceive that order to be like?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not Social Credit.


John Horne Blackmore: That is exactly why the minister is a Rip Van_Winkle. He will sit in the presence of a solution of his problems; he will sit with the remedy before him, and die from the disease rather than take the medicine. I have seen people just as simple as that. There has to be a new order, and in the new order we are not going to be worrying very much about having more of a certain commodity than we need. Our only anxiety will be to be sure that we have enough. So I say that the whole attitude of the Department of Agriculture must be changed. It must stop worrying about having too much and having the capacity to produce too much. I think the minister should advise his advisers to keep that in mind. If they do not, they will be faced with a situation similar to the one with which we are confronted with regard to sugar, and they will be doing it over a wide area. It looks impossible; people say it cannot happen here. Well, the first thing we know it will have happened here; but what to do about it the government will not know. Let the minister be wise and look into the future. Let him not be afraid of producing too much.
The secret of getting plenty of production is to be found in the application of four principles. The first is a fair price, -one at which a man can make a profit, and that price should apply to every single needed agricultural product in this country. If we do not want any more eggs, let' us forbid people to produce eggs; let us refuse to buy them. But if we want eggs, then let us pay for them a proper price so that men can afford to produce them.
War Appropriation-Agriculture

The same is true of butter and honey and each of the other commodities we want. Let us determine the price at which a man can produce goods, live by his labour and pay his debts and his obligations, and then let us pay him that price. If we cannot sell the product, never mind; it can be paid for. All we have to do is to look into the future a bit. We can see how it can be done.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Rip Van Winkles again. We are afflicted with the Rip Van Winkle mentality in this country and in this parliament. After we have a fair price, the next important thing is a sure market. A sure market has to be guaranteed by the government. You are never sure that you will be able to sell to England or to Ireland, but you are sure that the dominion government can take the product. New Zealand is doing it. New Zealand is not as strong economically as Canada, and if she can do it there is no reason why Canada cannot. The next thing is the guarantee of stability for two or three years. If a man is to put his money into dairy cows, for instance, he must have some guarantee of prices for two or three years; otherwise, how has he the assurance that he will not lose his money? The fourth important thing is a line of credit with which he may buy the means.of production. If a man is in a good position to produce dairy products, for example, he should be enabled to get dairy cows and establish a daily farm. Those four principles will guarantee production, and anything short of them will not.
First, the government must find out just where it is, to learn what it wants, when it wants it and how to get it, in agriculture, industry and the army; work the problem out in an accurate way. Second, it must not be afraid of overproduction. Third, it should set up such conditions in this country as will bring about maximum production. Men are prattling in this house and in the country, over the radio and through the press all the time about mobilizing Canada's resources; we have not scratched the surface of Canada's resources, and while we follow the policy being followed at present we never shall. It is possible, however, to organize for complete mobilization if we follow the right method. Let us determine what that method is and apply it.
I shall reserve what else I have to say , until a future time.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: When the minister is making his statement will he include, among the information to be given, a statement as to the extent to which the government is controlling the packing industry to see that

there is no undue exploitation of those who produce? We understood from the minister this afternoon that he was supplying machinery to companies throughout the country to carry on the process of drying eggs; are the prices paid to the processors in line with the prices they are paying to the producers?
The whole matter of agriculture, as has been said several times this evening, requires the very best thought that can be given to it. Coming from Saskatchewan where we know the dire condition of the farmers with regard to the debt situation, one is alarmed to find that in the eastern provinces, as in practically every province across the dominion, even in the heart of some of the finest agricultural areas, for example the Niagara peninsula, farmers are still labouring under a load of debt which makes it almost impossible for them to carry on. This nation is failing its agricultural people, and a nation that is doing that is heading in the wrong direction. We are beginning now to see evidence of a great and world-wide scarcity of agricultural products; and unless we prepare our house now, we shall be found very much wanting in the days immediately ahead.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Would the minister include in his answer a statement of what progress has been made with regard to sunflowrer seed and sunflower seed oil?


James Garfield Gardiner: As members of the com-mitte will recall, we agreed earlier in the discussion to deal with all matters that come under the last five items. The questions which have been asked come under one or another. The questions asked by the hon. member for Yorkton come under the special products board, which is the third item. If we could pass the $5,477,760, all the other matters come under the last five items. We could discuss those to-morrow.


Joseph Henry Harris: This item would come under the special products board?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Joseph Henry Harris: Perhaps the same statement- would include flax seed.


Thomas Vien: It is agreed that the discussion will be closed as far as the agricultural expenditures detailed by the Minister of Finance yesterday with respect to the first series are concerned.


James Garfield Gardiner: Down to the five and a half million item.
Progress reported.


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

Questions
Wednesday, June 3, 1942