1943-03-29

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. P.HOWDEN (St. Boniface) presented the first report of the standing committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I regret that I cannot give consent to this motion, for the reason which I indicated in the committee itself when this question of sitting and having the report concurred in this afternoon was discussed. It would not be convenient for certain members of this committee to attend sittings of the committee when the budget resolutions and supplementary estimates are in the offing for discussion in the house. I desire to make some observations on both, and, if possible, to follow through with the budget resolutions. Therefore, I do not agree to this motion for concurrence. We should be given at least another afternoon in the house, I object to it.


Mr. HOWDEN:: The purpose of the motion for concurrence is to permit the printing of the proceedings. An understanding was arrived at that there would be no attempt to convene the committee without agreement with the opposition. We cannot proceed with the printing unless this report is adopted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Concurrence can be moved to-morrow. If the second part of the report is dropped, I should be agreeable to the printing being proceeded with, but I am not going to be hurried in this committee if I can help it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No. Under the rules it has to have unanimous consent.
Motion stands.
Questions



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Transport) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the table the annual report of the Canadian National Railway System for the year ended December 31, 1942; the annual report of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited for the year ended December 31, 1942; report of the Canadian National Securities Trust for the year ended December 31, 1942; report to parliament of George A. Touche and Company, auditors of the Canadian National Railway System, for the year ended December 31, 1942, and financial budget of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited for the calendar year 1943.
I move:
That the above reports and financial budget be referred to the standing committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government, together with the following items of the estimates for the year 1943-44:
385.	Maritime Freight Rates Act, Canadian National Railways;
386.	Maritime Freight Rates Act, railways other than Canadian National;
J,05. Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, capital advances;
1,06. Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals, deficit* 1943.
And that the resolution passed by the house on the 25th of February, 1943, referring certain items to committee of supply be rescinded in so far as the said resolution relates to votes 385, 386, 405 and 406.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many prosecutions by provinces have been launched by the wartime prices and trade board?
2.	What is the total amount of fines that have been imposed?
3.	What is the total amount of the legal accounts rendered by counsel for the crown in the said prosecutions?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Number of completed prosecutions, by provinces and by persons, instituted by the wartime prices and trade board respecting regulations of that board and regulations of Controllers of the Department of Munitions and Supply to February 28, 1943:

Nova Scotia, 119; New Brunswick, 54; Prince Edward Island, 11; Quebec, 707; Ontario, 705, Manitoba, 133, Saskatchewan, 248; Alberta, 76; British Columbia, 115.
2.	Total amount of fines imposed in these cases, 8137,830.59.
3.	Total amount of legal accounts paid to counsel for the prosecution respecting these cases, $50,'415.02.


UNEMPLOYMENT-SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: 1.	What is the total number of persons registered for employment in the province of Saskatchewan and in each of the cities of Regina, Saskatoon and Moose Jaw?
2.	What is the number of persons who are receiving unemployment benefits in the province of Saskatchewan and in each of the cities of Regina, Saskatoon and Moose Jaw?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Number of persons registered for employment: Regina, 905; Saskatoon, 862; Moose Jaw, 324-Total for province of Saskatchewan, 2,769.
2.	Number of persons receiving benefit as on March 15, 1943: Regina, 107; Saskatoon, 34; Moose Jaw, 13-Total for province of Saskatchewan, 187.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many unemployed are there in the country?
2.	On what date was the unemployment insurance commission established?
3.	Since then, (a) what is the total number of the personnel of the said commission, and (b) what is the total number of unemployed who have received a contribution in virtue of the Unemployment Insurance Act?
4.	From the date above referred to, (a) what was the total amount paid for the salaries and travelling expenses of all officers and other employees of the said commission, and (b) what was the total amount paid in virtue of the Unemployment Insurance Act for contributions to the unemployed?
5.	How many of those presently unemployed do not receive any contribution from the Unemployment Insurance Commission?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	4,079 persons were unemployed and receiving insurance benefits. There were 171,182 positions vacant in the Dominion and 78,343 applicants for these positions on March 18, 1943.
2.	August 7th, 1940.
3.	(a) 4,483 as at January 31, 1943, of whom approximately 2,000 are employed on the administration of national selective service

regulations, (b) Up to February 28, 1943, 14.222 persons had received unemployment insurance benefit. An additional 8,746 persons who claimed benefit were placed in employment before becoming entitled to receive their first payment.
4.	(a) Up to February 28, 1943, the salaries and travelling expenses of the employment service and unemployment insurance branch of the Department of Labour which administers unemployment insurance, employment service and national selective service totalled $5,591,845.57; (b) Benefits $548,620.19.
5.	Answered by No. 1 above.


SUBSIDIES ON BEEF SHIPPED INTO TORONTO
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: What subsidies or allowances, if any, in the form of freight rates or otherwise, have been paid or made on beef shipped into the city of Toronto since the first of December, 1942?


Mr. ISLEY:: None to date. * *
4.	Classi-
Name	fication
*L. D. McMillan	Asst. Eng.
*H. G. Riesen	Dist. Eng.
Patterson, D. A	Jr. Eng.
Wood, E. O	Inst'man
Nixon, E	Draft n
Ruecker, O	Rodman
Peace, M	Rodman
Krug, N	Inst'man
Mapes, Carl	Rodman
King, H	Rodman
Monteith, J	Rodman
Moller, R	Rodman
Moller F	Rodman
Norman, B. V	Rodman
Wiens, G	Inst'man
Pugh, R	Rodman
Mohr, C	Rodman
Farquharson, T	Rodman
Armbruster, W	Rodman
Lacina, C	Rodman
Yeo, L	Rodman
Kocher, W. J	Inst'man
Browne, H	Rodman
Shienfield, I	Inst'man
Ormiston, A. W	Jr. Eng.
Lamb, J. A	Jr. Eng.
Slobodian, P	Rodman
Nargang, J	Rodman
Ludwar, A	Rodman
Pattison, K	Draft'n
Webster, G	Inst'man
Haughian, F	Rodman
Questions


QU'APPELLE RIVER VALLEY SURVEY PARTIES
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What has been the total cost of the survey parties working under the Department of Agriculture in the Qu'Appelle river valley during each of the years 1941 and 1942?
2.	What amounts were paid to L. D. McMillan and H. G. Riesen in salary and expenses during each of these years?
3.	What number of persons were employed in this work?
4.	What amount -was paid to each individual so employed during each of the above years, by way of salary and expenses?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	1941, $33,927.93; 1942, $22,490.64.
2.	1941, L. D. McMillan, salary, $2,220; expenses, $1,764.29. H. G. Riesen, salary, $2,700; expenses, $1,195.85. 1942, L. D. McMillan, salary, $2,220; expenses, $1,34S.27. H. G. Riesen, salary, $2,700; expenses, $1,143.55.
This includes payments for other work
besides the	Qu'Appelle	river valley	survey.
3. Fifty-three.			
1941		1942	
Salary	Expenses	Salary	Expenses$2220 00	$1764 29	$2220 00	$1348 271620 00	717 51	1620 00	686 13485 73	361 22	932 73	643 17	1291 47	716 73648 82	396 42	852 69	648 12548 32	467 15	381 82	322 65	436 35	396 34523 82	411 37	333 00	295 95	255 06	237 85	248 62	230 25291 80	254 50	197 08	193 12	171 95	172 00	239 00	179 97163 08	161 50	410 73	238 49	183 40	164 46	158 02	156 59850 00	534 50	1195 47	577 84580 32	607 00	1015 80	455 3674 29	87 50	74 29	87 50	72 50	87 50	520 00	160 99	125 00	178 37	986 97	749 90	207 5S	90 22959 55	895 74	321 77	291 77	312 63	288 50	285 90	332 00	459 20	476 00	563 82	339 00	628 66	531 87	197 36	192 50	
Questions

4.-Concluded	Classi-
Name	fication
Garner, D	Rodman
Crepeau, J	Rodman
Rowand, A	Rodman
Huget, L	Rodman
Smith, R	-.. Rodman
Smith, F. L	Rodman
Moltz, R	Rodman
McWalters, R	Rodman
Stuart, R	Inst'man .
Whitworth, T	Rodman
Wood, D. H	Rodman
Bourett, D	Rodman
Bye, G	Rodman
Kennett, D. A	Rodman
Huddleston, W	Rodman
Halliwell, D	Rodman
Ellis, R	Rodman
Palmer, A	Rodman
Moller, E	Rodman
Zimmerman, C	Process Printer
Collins, R. L	Rodman ,
Where names are marked *, the expenses car or truck.
1941		1942	
Salary	Expenses	Salary	Expenses
163 91	158 00		
229 26	216 00		
171 13	191 50	437 23	336 95
169 26	186 50		
157 16	153 50		
45 53	44 50		
40 38	45 50		
		347 57	283 81
		1059 16	1066 62
		127 18	91 52
		82 92	44 88
		9 15	6 00
		73 34	69 75
		458 21	605 32
		322 66	338 11
		170 28	173 00
		331 64	336 75
		183 62	
		12 83	11 00
		30 38	34 79
361 24	354 50		
include the	cost of operating a		government


DUNDURN, SASK., MILITARY CAMP
Mr. BENCE:: 1.	How many men and officers are stationed at Dundurn camp, Saskatchewan?
2.	What is the full capacity in terms of numbers of men and officers of this camp?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	The number stationed at Dundurn camp as at 20th March, 1943, was as follows:
Male, officers 160; other ranks 2,272..
Canadian Women's Army Corps, officers 2; other ranks 96.
2.	The normal capacity of this camp is as follows:
Male, officers 200; other ranks 1,810.
Canadian Women's Army Corps, officers 6; other ranks 80.
Note: The overcrowding in this camp is caused by the presence of a unit which has been under orders to move at short notice. The situation should be relieved immediately this move takes place. While the situation may have led to slight discomfort and inconvenience in some cases, it is reported that it has not in. any way interfered with the proper functioning of the camp nor has it had any adverse effect on the health of the troops.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-INTEREST ON DEFERRED ACCOUNTS
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: _ 1. Has the wartime prices and trade board issued any order to the effect that not less than

a specified rate of interest may be charged on deferred accounts?
2.	If so, what is the minimum interest rate specified in the order?
3.	What are the reasons for the issuance of the order?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes. .
2.	The minimum finance or carrying charge is that referred to in board order 225 clause (a) subsection (2) of section 8 which reads as follows: "a finance or carrying charge of not less than three-quarters of one per cent per month on the total amount financed if less than $500 or at a rate of one-half of one per cent per month on the amount financed if $500 or over, for the number of months included in the period of credit, but in no case less than twenty-five cents." However, this minimum finance charge is subject to the provisions of the regulations outlined in subsections (3), (4) and (5) of section 8 which reads as follows;
(3)	"Any seller whose customary practice before and during the basic period was to sell for cash any of the goods included under this order at a cash price which was not less than the credit price thereof by the charge or amount mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of this section, may not add the difference to his credit price thereof permitted by section 7 of the wartime prices and trade regulations unless he first obtains the consent in writing of the director of consumer credit."

Questions
(4)	"Any buyer who pays any part of the credit price of goods before the time appointed for payment shall be entitled to a proportionate reduction or refunding of the finance charge included in such price."
(5)	"Any contract of sale may provide for the cancellation of the entire amount of the finance charge therein mentioned on payment in full of the cash price within thirty days after the making of such contract."
3.	In October, 1941, the wartime prices and trade board set up a consumer credit division and announced credit and instalment selling restrictions for the following reasons:	1. To
lessen demand for labour and materials so that they might be more largely available for war purposes. 2. To. lessen the growth of the individual's current obligations which compete with the government for funds. 3. To lessen the burden of private obligations which might be outstanding at the end of the war. 4. To create a backlog of demand for many industrial products. 5. To counteract an important inflationary tendency by preventing an already buoyant spending power from being multiplied by an easy extension of credit.


RADIO BROADCASTING-ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Is an alternative radio service throughout Canada being planned by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	If so, what is the nature thereof, and what change will take place in the setup of the present facilities?
Mr. LaFLECHE:
1.	The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is giving consideration to an extension of present arrangements whereby alternative programmes are already being provided as facilities permit over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation network.
2.	Plans are not yet sufficiently developed to give information.


DEFENCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED-TRANSCONA CORDITE PLANT
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What is the greatest number of employees employed at any one time by the Transcona cordite plant of Defence Industries Limited?
2.	What was the date of the above peak employment?
3.	How many are employed at the above plant at the present time?
4.	To what extent did the federal government contribute to the cost of establishing the above plant?
5.	What was the total cost of the same?
6.	In whom is the ownership of the above plant now vested?
7.	Is it intended to continue the operation of the above plant for the duration of the war?
8.	What plans have been made for the use of the above plant when the war ends?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	4,485.
2.	May, 1942.
3.	3,089.
4.	Nil.
5.	810,686,724 less $603,241 duties and taxes.
6.	His Majesty's government in the united kingdom.
7.	This plant will be operated as long as the need for its product continues.
8.	No plans have yet been made as to its peace-time function, but this is being studied.


WAR RISK INSURANCE-MUNITIONS OR EXPLOSIVES
Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	Is it considered that the War Risk Insurance Act passed in 1942 extends to cover loss resulting from the explosion of a concentration of munitions or explosives being lawfully manufactured, stored or transported for war purposes within the three- or twelve-mile limit of Canada?
2.	Does the War Risk Insurance Act extend to cover loss incurred in Canada as the result of an explosion of a concentration of munitions either on the American shore or being transported on any body of water separating the Canadian and American boundaries?
3.	If the said act does not cover such latter situation will consideration be given by the government to provide for such a contingency?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Under the War Risk Insurance Act war damage is defined as including " damage caused by the explosion of a concentration of munitions or explosives being lawfully manufactured, stored or transported in Canada for war purposes by any person other than the insured."
It is a question of law whether a given point is in Canada or outside Canada.
2.	Loss resulting from a concentration of munitions on the American shore is not covered and loss resulting from explosion of munitions being transported on any body of water separating Canada and the United States is not covered unless the explosives are within Canadian territorial waters or being shipped between two Canadian ports as provided by section 14 of the act.
3.	This question relates to a matter of policy and it is not the practice of the government to disclose matters of policy in giving answers to questions.


NOVA SCOTIA AIRCRAFT PLANTS
Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	What has been the cost to date of the plants of the Clark Ruse Aircraft Limited, at Lakeburn and Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia?
Questions

2.	What will be the total cost of each one when completed?
3.	Who are the contractors of each?
4.	Are the contracts let on a cost-plus basis?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The cost to date of the plant at Dartmouth is $1,149,870. The cost to date of the plant at Moncton is $881,250.
2.	It is estimated that the cost of the plant at Dartmouth when completed will be $1
150,000.	It is estimated that the cost of the plant at Moncton when completed will be $902,500.
3.	The contractors at Dartmouth are: Foundation Maritime Limited; T. C. Gorman Maritime Limited; Dominion Bridge Company Limited; Acadia Construction Company Limited.
The contractors at Moncton are: Ambrose Wheeler, Limited; Chris Keenan & Sons; Acme Construction Company Limited; Canadian Comstock Company Limited; "Automatic" Sprinkler Co. of Canada Limited.
4.	All contracts for both Dartmouth and Moncton were let on a competitive price basis with the exception of $248,700 at Dartmouth which is let on a cost-plus basis to the Foundation Maritime Limited, and $50,000 at Moncton awarded to Acme Construction Company Limited on a cost-plus basis.


WESTERN GRAIN CROP
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	How many grain delivery points in the west is it possible for the farmer to deliver the quota allotted to that point?
2.	What is the estimated crop production of the western provinces for 1942 of, .(a) wheat, (b) coarse grains?
3.	What are the approximate deliveries of, (a) wheat, (b) coarse grains, made in the west between August 15 and December 31, 1942?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Owing to the fact that not all producers deliver wheat on each successive quota established and owing to the fact that delivery quotas are established on the total authorized acreage at each delivery point, delivery quotas generally provide for the delivery of wheat moderately over space available. Where producers, for one reason or another, do not deliver wheat in accordance with the quotas established, the board follows the practice of making such space available to those producers who do wish to deliver wheat.
On March 18, 1942, about 800 delivery points had delivery quotas closely balanced with available storage. At about 1,300 delivery points, delivery quotas were moderately in excess of storage available and these points included:

(1)	All delivery points where all or part of the 1942 wheat crop is unthreshed. At these points wheat quotas have been advanced to permit the marketing of as much wheat as possible by those producers who threshed last fall.
(2)	All delivery points where available storage, which for one reason or another has not been used and where delivery quotas have been increased for the benefit of those producers desiring to deliver wheat.
(3)	All delivery points where authorized wheat acreage is such that a lower wheat quota would result in waste space. In these cases the quota is increased, even though the next highest delivery quota presses on available space.
(4)	All delivery points where outstanding car authorizations must be completed to permit the marketing of existing delivery quota,
2.	(a) Prairie provinces-wheat, 565,000,009 bushels; (b) Prairie provinces-Oats, 500,000,000 bushels; barley, 241,000,000 bushels; rye,
23,000,000 bushels.
3.	(a) Wheat -144.1721329 bushels; (b) Oats-47,111,072 bushels;' barley-40,357,191 bushels; rye-3,616,501 bushels.


ASSOCIATED CREDIT BUREAU OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	Has the Associated Credit Bureau of Canada, Ltd., a federal charter?
2.	If so, in what year was it incorporated and what are the names of its directors?
3.	Does it also possess a provincial charter?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Incorporated by letters patent under the Companies Act dated the 1st May, 1939.
According to the annual summary filed under oath by the company covering the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1942, its directors at that time were as follows: Thomas Downie, F. A. Matatall, E. L. Silver, H. O. Schultz, W. G. Murdoch, J. E. Shapland, I. H. Suydam, F. E. Womersley.
3.	No, so far as the Secretary of State Department is aware.


SMELTING OF COBALT ORES
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	Was the Canadian metals controller asked by Washington to express his opinion on the future of the Cobalt camp and the advisability of a smelter being constructed there for the treatment of cobalt ores?
2.	If so, what was his answer?
3.	Why is not John A. Reid's full and original report available to the public?
4.	Did Read in his report recommend to the government that a certain amount of money be advanced to further develop certain properties in Cobalt with a view to increasing production?

Questions
5.	Did Dr. F. W. James recommend to the Canadian metals controller that a certain amount of money be advanced or made available by the government for the same purpose?
6.	If so, what was the amount and which properties were recommended for such development and why were these recommendations not acted upon?
7.	Has the government knowledge that for many years a cartel or cobalt trust existed which completely controlled the market and price?
8.	Has the government knowledge that large German interests were part of this trust, and to a large extent controlled the smelting of cobalt ores?
9.	Has the government knowledge that the Deloro Smelting & Refining Company were a part of this trust or cartel?
10.	Has the government knowledge that this cartel existed and functioned as late as 1942?
11.	In connection with the survey being made to increase production of arsenic, what attention was given to cobalt and what were the results of such survey?
12.	Is there any one on the official staff of the metals controller who was formerly an employee of the Deloro Smelting and Refining Company; if so, who is this?


Mr. HOWE:: 1 and 2. In the spring of 1942 the Canadian metala controller effected arrangements with the Metals Reserve company of Washington under which the latter agreed to purchase the cobalt ores produced in the Cobalt camp up to the end of 1943. Subsequently the Canadian metals controller asked the authorities in Washington if they would be prepared to consider the erection of a smelter in the Cobalt camp for the treatment of these ores or an extension to the existing Canadian smelter for the same purpose, and was advised that the Washington authorities would not be prepared to finance or approve the erection of additional smelting facilities in Canada for this purpose.
3.	This report is the property of the Ontario government.
4.	No.
5.	Yes.
6.	(a) $100,000; (b) no specific properties were recommended; (c) the Canadian production of refined cobalt metal and oxides is approximately six times Canada's own requirements, the balance going to the United Kingdom under contract. The arrangement effected with the Metals Reserve was to provide insurance to the United States against a loss of supplies from Africa. Because the ores from the Cobalt camp were being purchased for the account of the United States government, it was felt that any expenditures for further expansion of ore production should be financed by the Metals Reserve. The Canadian metals controller made recommendations to the Metals Reserve, which, among other things, included the setting up of a fund of $100,000 to unwater and rehabilitate mines in the Cobalt area. The Metals Reserve did not approve these recommendations.
7.	8 and 9. No information.
10.	No.
11.	The ores being purchased for the account of the Metals Reserve, most of which have been stockpiled in Canada, constitute a possible source of arsenic if treated in Canada.
12.	No.


TAXES OX BEER AND SPIRITS
Mr. ROSS (Hamilton East):: What was the amount of tax collected in each of the calendar years, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942 on, (a) beer, (b) hard liquors?
Mr. GIBSON;
Excise duty collected on matured spirits, malt and dutiable beer, during the calendar years
1938	to 1942, both inclusive
Year	Matured spirits Dutiable beer	Malt1938	
$ 9,199,010 59	$273,911 20	$ 8,324,022 481939	
10,751,528	94	262204	15	9,918,936	181940	
14,851,809	00	314.117	22	15,996,630	901941	
18,925,353	98	390,157	96	23,051,539	031942	
31,992,894	80	561,169	61	33,965,086	88
Sales tax on any one commodity not available.


PRODUCTION OF SYNTHETIC RUBBER FROM INDUSTRIAL ALCOHOL
Mr. BENCE:: 1.	Was any of the industrial alcohol produced in Canada in 1942 used for the manufacture of synthetic rubber?
2.	If so, where was such synthetic rubber manufactured?
3.	Will any of the industrial alcohol to be produced in 1943 be used in the manufacture of synthetic rubber?
4.	If so, where will such synthetic rubber be produced?
Questions


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Present plans do not include the use of industrial alcohol for the manufacture of synthetic rubber.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-R. A. VIRTUE
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Is R. A. Virtue an official in any department of the wartime prices and trade board?
2.	If so, in what position?
3.	What salary and expenses does he receive?
4.	Is he an executive or other officer in Might's Directories Limited, Toronto? If so, what?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	No.
2.	See No. 1.
3.	See No. 1.
4.	No information.


SYNTHETIC VITAMINS IN MANUFACTURE OF FLOUR
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Has the dominion nutritional advisory council set up regulations establishing new vitamin standards for vitamin "B" white flour, Canada approved?
2.	Is the addition of synthetic vitamins,- such as allowed in the United States, prohibited in Canada in the manufacture of Canada approved white flour?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	The standards for Vitamin "B" white flour (Canada Approved), as established by order in council of the 22nd January, .1942 (P.C. 489), under the authority of the Food and Drugs Act, have not been changed.
2.	Yes.


WHEAT OF 1938 TO 1942 CROPS UNSOLD AND IN STORAGE
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many bushels of the wheat crops of each of the years 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942, remain unsold?
2.	How many bushels of the wheat raised in each of the said years are to-day, (a) in storage in Canada, (b) in storage in the United States of America?
3.	What amounts have been paid or are payable for wheat stored in the United States of America for each of the months from the first of January, 1942, to date?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1. Wheat of various crops loses its identity as it goes into storage. Owing to the multiplicity of ownership, it is impossible to know how much wheat is held by the ultimate consumer.

2.	There is no way of distinguishing the year of production of wheat in storage in Canada or the United States.
3.	The government has no knowledge of the amount of storage paid by owners of Canadian wheat stored in the United States.


CANADIAN WOMEN'S COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Is there a Canadian women's committee on
international relations?	.
2.	If so, was it set up by the government?
3.	Who are its members?
4.	What are its objects?
5.	Has it held any meetings, and if so, where and how many?
6.	Has it the sanction of the Canadian government?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	According to information supplied by the chairman, the committee consists of representation of the following national women's organizations: National Council of Women; National Council of Jewish Women; Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire; National Council, Young Women's Christian Association; Cercles de Femmes Fermieres; Toe H League of Women Helpers; Federation of Women's Institutes of Canada; Ukrainian Women's Association of Canada; Canada Branch King's Daughters and Sons.
4.	According to the constitution the objects of the committee are:
"1. To develop an alert and informed public opinion in the field of international relations.
2. To maintain faith in and work for a world in which responsibility will be accepted by individuals and groups for developing social and economic relationships which will make for enduring peace."
5.	It is understood that the committee has participated in the organization and conduct of certain conferences but the first general meeting is to be held in Montreal on April 17, 1943.
6.	The Canadian Women's Committee on International Relations is a private organization registered under the War Charities Act by the Department of National War Services.


CANADIAN CORPS OF LEGIONNAIRES
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 
Mr. McLARTY:: No application has been filed under the provisions of the Companies Act for incorporation of the Canadian Corps of Legionnaires. However, an unincorporated organization under the name Dominion Corps of Legionnaires Second World War requested of the Secretary of State Department instructions relative to the procedure to be followed in seeking incorporation. In reply it was intimated that in 1933 the government of the day adopted the policy of not granting letters patent of incorporation under the Companies Act to further organizations of ex-service men, which policy has been followed since that time. It is the policy of the Secretary of State Department that this should be continued at least until a greater number of veterans of this war have returned to Canada.


NEW BRUNSWICK OIL SHALE DEPOSITS
Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	Did the Department of Munitions and Supply or any other department of the government carry on any investigation of the oil shale deposits in Westmorland and Albert counties in New Brunswick during the past year?
2.	If so, what were the results and was a report submitted?
3.	What steps are being taken by the government to develop or aid development of such oil shale deposits in this area?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Reports have been and are being submitted and the results studied.
3.	Answered by 2.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY


Mr. MARSHALL:: Has the Department of Munitions and Supply received from companies and firms across Canada a memorandum on costing?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Munitions and Supply, through one of its crown companies, received from an association of forty-seven firms a memorandum dated February 15, 1943, covering the purchasing and costing policy of the department. Representatives of this association later met with officials of the department and after discussion expressed the opinion that they were satisfied with the departmental policies on purchasing and costing.


EXPORT OF FEED GRAINS TO THE UNITED STATES
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	How many permits have been issued since August 1, 1942, for the export of oats, barley or other feed grains to the United States?
2.	Who received these permits?
3.	What type and what amount of grain did each permit cover?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	A total of 1,014 permits including 781 permits covering shipments of oats, chiefly feed oats, 211 permits covering shipments of feed barley and 22 permits covering shipments of other feed grains.
2.	The information furnished by applicants for export permits is given in confidence, and the release of such information would disclose to -competitors the details of business carried on by individual firms.
3.	See answer to question 2 above.
Total shipments of various feed grains for which permits were granted were as follows:
No of permits
Type of Grain	issued	BushelsOats 	.. 781	39,836,966Barley 	.. 211	7,893,757Rye 	.. 5	1,031,800Buckwheat	.. 14	38,186Feed wheat	.. 3	9,154FOREIGN BONDHOLDERS	PROTECTIVE	COUNCIL


Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	Has Canada a foreign bondholders protective council?
2.	If so, in what year was this council created and at whose request?
3.	Who are the members of same?
4.	What remuneration does each member receive either by way of salary or other emoluments?


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


OGDEN SHOPS-CALGARY
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	Have any men been laid off at the munitions plant at Ogden Shops, Calgary?
2.	If so, how many, and are they still idle?
3.	What was the reason for the layoff?
4.	Why have they not been transferred to some other munitions plant?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Commencing November 25, 1942, and continuing through December, 160 employees were laid off and an additional 50 in February, 1943. A considerable number of these were placed locally, and others were secured employment in Vancouver. Efforts are continuing to place the remainder.
3.	Change in production requirements and production programme necessitating retooling.
4.	Answered by 2.

Questions as Orders for Returns


ANTI-FASCIST AND JEWISH REFUGEES
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	What steps has the government taken to expedite negotiations and arrangements for the provision of asylum by the united nations to anti-fascist and Jewish refugees endangered by the prospect of further nazi and fascist inhumanities?
2.	Has the government already signified its willingness to do its appropriate part in providing such asylum?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Renewed discussions on the serious problem of refugees have been initiated within recent weeks by the government of the United Kingdom and the government of the United States. The government of Canada has asked to be kept informed of the progress of these preliminary discussions. The government is prepared to aid in seeking a cooperative solution of the problem.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Does the federal government own property at the corner of Gottingen street and Prince William street, Halifax, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, (a) when was it purchased and for what purpose, (b) from whom, (c) how much was paid each owner, (d) what expense has been put on the property since purchase, (e) what was the total cost?
3.	What is the size of the property?
4.	What buildings are on the property?
5.	(a) To whom does the government lease the property, (b) what rentals are paid monthly, (c) to whom does the tenant pay the rent?
6.	Does the tenant have the privilege of subletting? If so, (a) to whom does he sub-let, (b) what rentals are paid monthly by subtenants?
7.	What taxes are paid yearly by the government to the city of Halifax on the property?
8.	Have requests been made to the government that the property be utilized for the armed services? If so, what action was taken?


CANADIAN ARMY-CATEGORY E
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	How many men who were taken on the strength of the Canadian army as being in category "A" have been discharged as category "E"?
2.	Of this number, how many became category "E" during service abroad?
3.	How many of the last mentioned group have been granted pensions?
4.	How many have been granted pensions who became category "E" during service in Canada?


Mr. RALSTON:: I want to mention to my hon. friend that, as he will see from the

form of the question and the information required, it will take a considerable time to answer this question. I suppose he has not in mind altering the question or curtailing the amount of information asked for. In allowing it to pass as an order for return I have the thought that I will see my hon. friend to see whether he cannot curtail the requisitions under this order, in order to save as much clerical work as possible.


Mr. GREEN:: I shall be glad to discuss it with the minister.


CONTROLLERS, BOARDS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many controllers are there in the Department of Munitions and Supply and who are they?
2.	Which of said controllers have set up advisory committees or boards?
3.	What are the names of the members of each of the said committees or boards, and what compensation does each receive?
4.	How often has each committee or board met in the past twelve months?
5.	Which of said committees and boards have, (a) administrative, (b) regulatory, (c) adjudicative powers?
6.	Is there any appeal by aggrieved persons, or recourse to courts of law, from decisions rendered by said committees or boards?


CANADIAN RECRUITING OFFICES IN THE UNITED STATES
Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	Has the government any recruiting offices in the United States?
2.	If so, where are they located?
3.	What has been the total cost of each office to date?
4.	What are the salaries of the staff in each office at present and what has been the total amount paid in salaries and other expenses to members of the staff in each office to date?
5.	How many recruits have been obtained from each office to date?


COMMODITY PRICES STABILIZATION CORPORATION- YUKON TERRITORY-FUEL WOOD
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Is there an office or representative of Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation in Yukon territory?
2.	At what addresses are the offices of said corporation in Canada?
3.	With what official of said corporation may wood dealers in Yukon properly communicate concerning bonus on wood and what is the address of such official?
4.	Will dealers who are also producers of firewood, dealing in this product, produced by themselves or by their employees, be paid subsidy on such wood?

' Questions as Orders for Returns
GIMLI AIRrORT-FUEL


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	How much coal has been supplied to the Gimli airport prior to March 15, 1943?
2.	What was the total cost thereof?
3.	What types of coal were supplied?
4.	Has any other type of fuel been used in
the said airport?	[DOT]
5.	If so, what quantity was used?


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-NUMBER EMPLOYED AS OF MARCH 15, 1943
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	What was the total number of persons employed by or engaged in any capacity with the wartime prices and trade board or in any agency thereof as of March 15, 1943?
2.	On what date was the wartime prices and trade board established?
3.	How many of such number were males?
4.	What was total sum paid to such persons referred to?


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-EXPENDITURES FOR PREMISES, OFFICE EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	What is the amount of money expended by the wartime prices and trade board from date of creation to March 15, 1943, for (a) rent of premises, (b) purchase of premises, (c) office equipment, (d) stationery and other office supplies?



WAR CONTRACTS AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. O'BRIEN:
1.	(a) What is the total value of contracts (not including ordinary peace-time expenditures) let by the Department of Munitions and Supply since September, 1939, (b) what is the total value of the capital assistance let bjr the said department since September, 1939, (c) what is the total value of such contracts and capital assistance to contractees with the department allocated by provinces?
2.	(a) What is the total value of contracts (not including ordinary peace-time expenditures) let by the Department of National Defence since September, 1939. for (1) army, (2) navy, (3) air department; (b) has any capital assistance been extended by the said department; (c) what is the total value of such contracts by provinces?
3.	(a) What is the total value of contracts (not including ordinary peace-time expenditures) let by the Department of Transport since September, 1939, for (1) airports, (2) seamen's branch, (3) national harbours board, (4) Canadian National Railways; (b) what is the total capital assistance granted by said department, if any; (e) what is the total value of such contracts and capital assistance by provinces?
4.	(a) What is the total value of contracts (not including ordinary peace-time expenditures) let by the Department of Public Works since September, 1939; (b) what is the total capital assistance, if any, granted by the said department; (e) what is the total value of such contracts and capital assistance by provinces?

Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	Were any teen-age boys from Alberta sent overseas between January 1, 1942, and January 1, 1943?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	How many had received less than, (a) six months' training, (b) less than five months, (e) less than four months?



CONTRACTS WITH EASTERN WOODWORKERS, NEW GLASGOW, N.S.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland);
1.	What is the total amount of the contracts entered into and materials supplied by Eastern Woodworkers, New Glasgow, for the construction of prefabricated houses at, (a) New Glasgow, (b) Pictou, (c) Amherst, (d) Dartmouth, (e) Halifax, from January 1, 1940, to date?
2.	What is the total amount of additional contracts entered into and materials supplied by Eastern Woodworkers, New Glasgow, for the construction of staff houses and buildings and other work, in (a) New Glasgow, (b) Pictou, (e) Amherst, (d) Dartmouth, (e) Halifax, from January 1, 1940, to date?
3.	What is the total value of contracts entered into with the Eastern Woodworkers for the manufacturing of, (a) landing scows, (b) other shipping and naval craft, stating number and value of each?
4.	What quantity of lumber and other materials, the unit price and the cost of same has been supplied by Eastern Woodworkers to the government in connection with the military training centre at New Glasgow, from January 1, 1940, to date?
5.	What is the total amount of all contracts entered into and materials supplied by the Eastern Woodworkers from January 1, 1940, to date, (a) by tenders, (b) awarded without competitive tenders?

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What departments of government purchased or subscribed for copies of the Canadian geographical society magazine, (a) in the fiscal year 1941-42, (b) in the fiscal year 1942-43?
2.	What was the aggregate number of copies of this magazine purchased by all departments and what was the total cost?
3.	How and where were the magazines distributed by the various departments?
4.	Were purchases or subscriptions made direct or through agents?
Censorship



CENSORSHIP


Richard Burpee Hanson: On a question of privilege, and arising out of answers to questions on the order paper, I desire to say that some days ago I framed certain questions with respect to an incident which occurred in the city of Halifax a few weeks ago and resulted, I am advised, in the loss of lives of certain members of the Royal Canadian Air Force. These questions have not appeared on the Votes and Proceedings and they are not on the order paper. I have not been approached directly or indirectly by anybody with respect to these questions, but I understand by the grapevine route that they are now in the hands of the censor.
I desire to know whether questions submitted by members of parliament from their places in this house are to be a subject of censorship. If questions are improper, I suggest the head of the department get in touch with the member submitting them to discuss the matter. If there is a reason for it I am sure there is no hon. member but will conform to the course which is desirable, but I do not propose to have any board of censors censoring my utterances in this house or what I shall put on the order paper.
While on this subject of censorship, may I say that I have again been subject to censorship of correspondence addressed to me as a member of the House of Commons by a citizen of this country. I object to that. I took the matter up with the assistant deputy postmaster general, with whom I discussed the matter on previous occasions and with whom I had made what I considered was a very satisfactory working arrangement, but to my surprise I found that the censorship has been transferred from the post office department to the war services department, presumably to give it something to do and justify its existence. I thereupon addressed a letter to the minister, and that letter remains unanswered. Perhaps there has not been time to obtain an answer and submit it to me; I am not complaining about that; that is merely incidental.
My purpose in rising is to say that I have been deprived of a privilege by a board which is not responsible to this House of Commons and I do not propose to stand for it if I can get any support in this house. No board of censors has any right to say that I shall not ask certain questions in this house. The liberty of parliament and of members of parliament is at stake. If we have got to have a fight over this thing, let us have it, for

there is a great principle at stake. I appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I am not very fussy as a rule about these things. What I think ought to have happened is this: if answers to these questions involved the giving of information which would be of aid and comfort to the enemy, it was only necessary to mention it to me. I have a mind and heart and conscience just as keen as that of any other hon. member. But the questions had nothing to do with aid and comfort to the enemy. I will tell you what they had to do with: they had to do with negligence in the operation of the air force, a dereliction of duty, malfeasance on the part of somebody whereby certain young members of the Royal Canadian Air Force lost their lives. The whole thing has been hushed up. Was there a court of inquiry? Was there a coroner's inquest with regard to this incident? This information came to me from one of the most responsible citizens of Halifax, and I want an explanation from somebody. I do not want Colonel 0. M. Biggar or anybody else to say he has authority over what I shall ask. I object to that in the strongest possible terms; and I want the matter looked into and investigated.


James Layton Ralston: I happen to be at the moment acting Minister of National Defence for Air. I assure my hon. friend and this house that this is the first I ever heard of the incident or of my hon. friend having presented a series of questions in connection with the matter to which he refers.
I deprecate the action of my hon. friend in going to such lengths on a question of privilege as to deal with the whole matter-


Richard Burpee Hanson: How else can I raise it?


James Layton Ralston: -before he has had information regarding it. But he has seen fit to do that, and that is his responsibility. So far as the Department of National Defence for Air is concerned I will immediately look into what was done with these particular questions and as to their status at the present moment. I assure him that neither the head of the department nor myself had any knowledge of the questions or as to the references which my hon. friend has made to them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I accept the minister's statement. I do not think the minister knows anything about it. But what about the principle involved? I want the minister or some member of the government to say something about that. There is a principle involved here which must be dealt with.

Censorship


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: May I say to my hon. friend that I agree with him when he says that when he submits a question, and the question is not properly worded, he should be communicated with in the first instance by whoever receives it. I might add to what my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has said, that I had not seen his question, and I do not think any member of the government had any knowledge of the question-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I accept that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -until my hon. friend raised the point to-day. But I have since been sent the question which was asked by my hon. friend and, looking at it, I think I should be able in conversation with him to indicate wherein the first question is not one which should appear on the order paper.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should be glad to agree to that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was sure that my hon. friend would be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But I am not going to be ignored.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no doubt that the reason why the question has been withheld until now from the order paper is the circumstance I have just mentioned.
As to the censorship of questions, there have been at this session a few questions asked by hon. members and which were replied to by the government to which the attention of the government was afterwards drawn by the censors, who expressed the view that they should not have appeared or been answered.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that not a question of judgment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; but I must say that I think the judgment of the censors in that matter was right. Unless care is taken with respect to information which may be made public on certain questions, some injury might be done which would be irreparable. * I do not think that in this case there has been an intention to do other than to avoid the asking of the first part of the question, but I agree that my hon. friend should have been communicated with and an [DOT]opportunity given for him to revise it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will see the Prime Minister about it.

On the orders of the day:


James Layton Ralston: I should like to refer to the matter mentioned a few minutes ago by the hon. member for York-Sunbury in connection with the Royal Canadian Air Force. I think I ought to state and I think it ought to be on record that I find that this question has never been referred to the air force or any officer of the air force. That is my information. My hon. friend certainly left the impression in my mind that the question had been referred, or at least that he thought it had been referred, and that somehow or other it had been then referred to the censors with the idea of hushing it up. I want the house to know that the officers never knew of the question and that this instance to-day is the first knowledge they have of it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There was not a single sentence in my observations that would indicate anything like what the minister has said, and I cannot understand the circuitous operation of his mind that would lead him to interpret them in that way.


James Layton Ralston: I certainly got that
impression.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The impression is wrong. I did not blame anybody but the censors.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The censors, so far as I know, had nothing to do with it.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: This morning I received through the mail from a constituent of mine a letter which had been opened by the censor. I should like to know if there have been any new instructions issued in this regard; who gave the instructions that the mail of members of this house should be censored, and what does the censor expect to find in the mail of hon. members that is objectionable or important.
Hon. L. R. LaFLECIIE (Minister of National War Services):	I should very
much like to be able to answer all the questions .asked by the hon. gentleman, but I cannot, particularly the last one in which he inquired what one expected to find in his letters. I do not know. However, to answer what I think is really the hon. gentleman's question, no new instructions on this point have been issued to the censors, certainly not by the Minister of National War Services. Therefore I must say that I will make inquiries and let him know at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. H. R. JACKMAN (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question of privilege in connection with the opening of
Censorship

members' mail. I have found on a number of occasions that constituents and others in Canada are apprehensive about sending letters to members of parliament because they fear they may be opened and their contents revealed). On more than one occasion I have been asked to deliver letters to various people because it was felt that they might be opened. I would ask the government to be good enough to say whether members of parliament and their constituents will be allowed complete freedom in regard to mail. I should like to address a question to the Minister of National War Services in this regard. To whom is the information from the censored letter conveyed? Members of parliament must know what becomes of the information contained in a letter that is censored.
Mr. LaFLECHE: May I assure the hon. member for York-Sunbury and the hon. member who has just spoken that this matter will receive very careful attention. May I suggest to hon. gentlemen of this house that it might be well to wait until one knows before attacking publicly gentlemen who are doing the extremely difficult job of censorship. If my letters had been opened and I thought an injustice had been done to me, I would hold much the same views as certain hon. gentlemen have expressed, but I think realizing the difficult task that these censors have to perform I would first make inquiry. Then if I were not satisfied, I might let go, but it would be after and not before. I shall look into the matter.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Would the minister be good enough to declare the policy of the government, and tell us what instructions if any are given to the censors? Is it simply a case of their occasionally opening letters by inadvertence? Do we members of parliament have complete secrecy in connection with our mail? What is the principle involved?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I shall look into the matter and acquaint the hon. member fully with the results. I think that is the only fair way to deal with the question.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: This matter was before the house last year. I have had the same experience as my hon. friend. Persons have told me that they have not written to me on certain matters, that they waited until they saw me personally because they saw that my mail was being opened. It is a serious matter and one of which the house should take cognizance.
TMr. Jackman.]
Mr. LaFLECHE: This is the first time that I have come face to face with this particular question. I shall look into it.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I do not think we should rest content with that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: On the question of privilege, we are considering whether or not members' mail is going to be tampered with. I am not asking what the mechanics have been in the past or what they may be at present; what I want to know is what is the principle that governs. AVhat has the government done in regard to any change in the fundamental principle?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I made a statement on this matter at a previous session, but I have forgotten the details at the moment. As I recollect, what I then said was that there were certain areas where it might be thought advisable that censorship should be exercised and from which if letters were mailed they might be opened. I am speaking subject to correction, but my recollection is that I said that special word had been given to the censors that where communications were to members of parliament they should) exercise particular care in the matter and not to censor those particular communications. I may be wrong in that, but I think that was the case. There is no more desire on the part of the officials of the government or of the government itself to censor members' mail than there is to censor the mail of any other person in Canada. If members' mail is being censored there must be some special reason why it has come under some general category other than that which applies to members of parliament. I shall inquire of the censors and ascertain exactly what course they are following and an answer will be given to my hon. friend in due course.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No censorship should occur with respect to letters to members of parliament from any part of Canada. That is the only answer that will be satisfactory to all of us.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that when he is looking into the whole matter of censorship he also review the situation with relation to the censorship of proceedings in the House of Commons, such as questions on the order paper and the matters to which the hon. member for York-Sunbury and the Minister of National Defence

Motions for Papers
referred a few moments ago. I think that comes within the purview of any review that the Prime Minister might desire with a view to censorship.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would certainly regard it as part of my duty to do all in my power to protect the privileges of hon. members. Might I suggest with respect to this somewhat difficult subject of censorship that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) and the leaders of the other groups meet together with myself to consider matters of censorship as pertaining to members of the house and have before us the officials who have to do with these matters. I suggest that my hon. friend and I might confer with respect to that later.


Gordon Graydon: I certainly think something should be done about it.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I do not object to my letters being censored, but I do object to the time it takes. In one case it took four or five days beyond the usual time for a letter to reach me.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: For a copy of all correspondence and communications between Mr. A. S. Nicholson, former associate timber controller, and the Minister of Munitions and Supply or any official of that department, since December 24, 1942.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This order has already been
passed by the house, and the documents which are not privileged have been tabled.



PRODUCTION OF OIL-BEARING FLAXSEED

Mr. BENCE:: For a copy of the report dated September 18, 1942, by the Minister of Agriculture to the committee of the privy council with respect to the production of flax seed of oil-bearing type.


Mr. GARDINER:: 

NATIONAL WAR LABOUR BOARD-FRENCII-CANADIAN REPRESENTATION

Mr. DORION:: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, correspondence, memoranda and other documents, exchanged between the provincial government of Quebec, public bodies and individuals, and the federal government, relative to the appointment of French-Canadian representatives on the national war labour board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no
objection to my hon. friend's seeing all of the correspondence and asking to have brought down that portion of it he may wish to have. I should not like to have the order passed however in the form in which it appears, because it asks for copies of all communications from public bodies and individuals. When my hon. friend looks at the correspondence he will see that large numbers of persons have been circularized and have sent in pretty much the same message. It would not be desirable to have all that material copied. It might be understood that the complete return will be made available in the Department of the Secretary of State; then if the hon. member will look over the files and indicate what papers he would like to have copied and brought down that will be done.



OFFICE ECONOMIES CONTROL-COLONEL JOHN THOMPSON

Mr. TUSTIN:: For a copy of all orders in council, correspondence and other documents passing between the Prime Minister and/or any member of the government and Col. John Thompson before and since his appointment as director of government office economies and up to and including March 20, 1943.	.



MILITARY HOSPITAL FACILITIES IN GREATER WINNIPEG

Mr. KNOWLES:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged since the beginning of the present war between the government, or any department or official thereof, and the government of Manitoba, or any department or official thereof, officials of Deer Lodge hospital, officials of Winnipeg General hospital, and officials of Manitoba Medical college, relating to proposed additions to Deer Lodge hospital, or to other means of increasing military hospital facilities in Greater Winnipeg.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Subject to the usual reservations in regard to communications from provincial governments, there is no objection to the order passing.
Motions jar Papers


Major James William Coldwell: What is the status of correspondence with provincial authorities? This is something new which has been injected into the procedure of this house, is it not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As I understand it, the practice has been that any communication addressed by a provincial government to any member of the federal government can be produced only after the consent of the provincial government has been obtained for the production.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that not an understanding which has never obtained heretofore?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, it has obtained.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, it has not. Hon. gentlemen are making the rules of the game as they go along. I have been in the house a good many years, and this is the first time I have heard about reservations with respect to communications with provincial governments.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was done this session.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am told it was done earlier this session. That is making new rules of the game as you go along. I object to it, and hon. members of the house ought to object to it. We are entitled to those letters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With reference to what my hon. friend has said, as a matter of courtesy, if nothing else, I should think provincial governments would expect to be advised before any communications they may have sent, and which may or may not have been intended as confidential communications, should be brought down. There is no desire to do other than give the house the fullest information. As my hon. friend knows, some provincial governments are particularly sensitive about what is done or left undone with respect to matters to which they attach importance. In this instance the government is erring on the side of caution and prudence.


Angus MacInnis: I have been in the house for thirteen years, and the first time I had heard this point raised as to why correspondence from provinces could not be tabled was only a few days ago. The correspondence between provinces and the dominion is certainly information hon. members should have. Otherwise how are they going to deal with matters which come before us here? This is an outrage.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I have just said, there is not the slightest desire to withhold correspondence. It will probably not make a difference of more than a day or two in the production of documents. We might have more difficulty if we presented documents from another government without having their consent in advance.



VULCAN, ALTA., FLYING INSTRUCTORS' SCHOOL

Mr. HANSELL:: For a copy of all letters, communications and other documents in possession of the department, in respect to the sale or disposal of any and all materials, property, machinery, equipment or anything else whatsoever, arising from the building or salvage in connection .with the flying instructors' school at Vulcan, Alberta, together with a statement showing, (a) the names of all persons, companies or corporations offering to buy such materials, property and so forth, with prices offered; (b) the names of all persons, companies or corporations to whom such materials and property were sold, with the prices paid; (e) the names of all contractors and sub-contractors, stating the nature of the work done by each.


James Layton Ralston: I should like this passed subject to the usual reservation with respect to communications with and from departmental officers and staff.



INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, on March 25 the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) asked a question concerning the status of international discussions on post-war currency and exchange questions. I now wish to give the formal reply I promised I would give him.
I have been asked a similar question on two previous occasions during this session. In the interval, nothing has occurred which would require any change in the replies I gave on those occasions. I stated previously that- Informal discussions on post-war economic and financial questions have taken place from time to time between Canadian officials and experts from the United Kingdom and the United States, and these discussions will doubtless continue.
Post-war currency, and exchange questions are among matters that have been under discussion. The high commissioner in London,

Right Hon. Anthony Eden
Canadian officials in Washington, and experts from Canadian government departments have participated in these discussions.
I must emphasize again that these discussions are purely informal and exploratory. Their purpose is to bring about an exchange of information and a consideration of problems of mutual interest by experts and officials of the governments of the united nations. Nothing in the nature of a formal conference has been held, and no inter-governmental negotiations have been entered into or are likely to be entered into in the near future. Nothing has occurred which could be construed as in any way binding the Canadian or any other government.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Will he inform the house if the transportation tie-up in Montreal has been brought to his attention and, if so, what steps he has taken to restore this essential war service to that community?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Before the transportation
tie-up occurred in Montreal I endeavoured to compose the differences between the parties. It was only yesterday that the Department of Labour knew the dispute existed. It is one of those disputes known to us as jurisdictional disputes, which are very difficult to settle. These are disputes where one organization already holds an agreement, and another organization is trying to get it away from the first one. I think there is less justification for that strike in Montreal than for any other strike that has occurred since the war broke out. I sometimes wonder when people "go on the street," as we put it in the labour movement, under such conditions as they have done in Montreal, whether they ever think of those youngsters in Tunisia and the men on the sea and under the sea, and what would happen if they acted in the same way.


Mr. MacNICOL:: And in the air.


Humphrey Mitchell: And in the air. This House of Commons could not exist. My friend can rest assured that so far as I am concerned everything that can be done will be done to get these men back to work so that normal work m Montreal can go on.



RIGHT HON. ANTHONY EDEN VISIT TO OTTAWA OP THE BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Gordon Graydon: On Friday afternoon when the Fume Minister was unavoidably absent from the house I asked the acting leader of the house for a statement with respect to the plans for the visit of the Right Hon. Anthony Eden. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for Great Britain, who will be in Ottawa this week. I understood from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who was at that time leading the house, that perhaps the Prime Minister would have a statement for the House of Commons this afternoon. If lie has, would this be an appropriate time to make it?


Right. Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I am happy to be able to sa\ that Mr. Eden expects to arrive in Ottawa some time to-morrow afternoon. On Wednesday morning Mr. Eden will be meeting with the war committee of the cabinet, and on Wednesday afternoon will be having conferences with myself and other members of the government. On Wednesday evening the government will be entertaining him On Thursday morning or Friday morning, I am not quite sure which, Mr. Eden will be having a conference with the press. On the afternoon ot Thursday he will address members of this House of Commons and hon. members of the Senate, both houses of parliament.
I am also pleased to be able to say that Mr. Eden has indicated his readiness to make a broadcast some time during the evening of Thursday; I am not in a position at the moment to announce the hour. It will be a brief address, broadcast, however, over the whole of Canada. Mr. Eden plans- to leave on Friday.
W ith respect to the proceedings in the house on the afternoon that the Secretary of State lor Foreign Affairs will address parliament, the government proposes to follow the same course as was followed when the Right Hon. Air Menzies, Prime Minister of Australia addressed hon. members. We shall meet at the regular hour and when we reach the orders of the day, after words of greeting have been extended to Mr. Eden, there will be a motion foi the house to adjourn the proceedings to permit, of Mr. Eden speaking to hon. members from the floor of the house. After the adjournment the house will reconvene and continue with its regular business.

Customs Tariff
Members of the Senate will be accommodated in their gallery and also on the floor of the house in such seats as may not be occupied by hon. members. Special arrangements are being made for the accommodation of members of the diplomatic services and for the wives and members of the families of hon. members of both houses and for a limited number of officials. It is important, I think, that care should be taken that the public galleries are not closed completely; there may be reservations up to a certain point, but the house will be in session except for the period of adjournment, and the galleries should be kept open. Special accommodation will be arranged for additional members of the press who may be here.



CUSTOMS TARIFF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Revenue):: On Thursday last the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) made a statement to the effect that he had received a parcel of pamphlets from the British Ministry of Information in New York on which he had been required to pay duty on an appraised value of S15. He went on to state that the impression given was "that it was an effort on the part of the government to stop British propaganda."
view of the fact that this statement was picked up by various newspapers, and was the subject of an editorial in the Ottawa Journal on Saturday last, I should like to make a statement in regard to the matter.
The material described by the hon. member as being pamphlets from the British Ministry of Information, of no commercial value and not for resale, is not subject to duty. As recently as February 18 the customs officers at our main ports were reminded that such material was entitled to free entry. On investigating the circumstances surrounding this entry I found that the parcel had arrived at the Ottawa customs office by express and was cleared on March 15. Many of our experienced customs officers are serving at the present time in the forces. The ofiicer on duty in the express parcels branch happened to be away on sick leave on that day. An officer from the customs freight branch was acting in his place and was not aware of the previous rulings that had been made in cases of this kind. As a result, he applied the duty applicable to printed matter 
and pamphlets generally. I regret very much that a mistake such as this should have occurred, and the hon. member will of course receive a refund of the duty and taxes that were paid.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not . the point.


Colin William George Gibson: At the same time I might point out that if the hon. member had seen fit to take the matter up with me or any senior official of the customs department the matter would have been investigated and adjusted without giving rise to any unfounded rumour that this government is endeavouring in any way to suppress British publicity in this country.


Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West):: In reply to the minister may I say that I did take the matter up with what I thought was a senior official of his department at the time.
I definitely questioned the charging of duty.
I said that it was British propaganda, addressed to me as a member of parliament. Another reason why I brought the question up last Thursday was that the nomenclature on the Canadian customs form (appraisal note for small collections) was "Library of Information", which was the German terminology for their propaganda headquarters, 17 Battery Place, New York. The British form is "Ministry of Information". I questioned this at the time. I made no attempt to bring the matter up until I had taken it to the senior officer at the customs branch and got his stamp on the form. The customs officers discussed it together and it seemed to me that this was a definite ruling of the department, so I brought it up in the house.
I am glad now to have the minister's statement in that regard.



FARM DEBT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: On March 2 I brought to the attention of the house the question of debt adjustment legislation, its urgency and importance to the prairie provinces, and the necessity for a decision being arrived at before seeding operations begin. A date was set by the Prime Minister for discussion of the subject, and later, on March 5, he stated that a decision of the government in respect to the matter could not be given until after representations had been received from the representatives of western provincial governments.

Wheat
Those representations were received by the government about March 15. I wish now to ask the Minister of Justice whether he is in a position to inform the house, in view of the urgency of this matter, whether legislation in regard to this question will be introduced before the Easter recess, and before the spring operations begin.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Representations were made to a committee of the cabinet on March 15 and again on March 20 with respect to the facts involved in this matter of debt adjustment. Since that time further representations have been received in w'riting, and the matter is still under consideration.- When a decision as to the policy to be followed has been reached, it will be announced in the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there any possibility of having it before the recess?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The hon. member
knows the extent to which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has been burdened in recent days, and this is a matter of such consequence that before any policy is determined his judgment upon it is required by the other members of the committee of the cabinet.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: The farmers are burdened also, and unless they are given some relief soon it will be too late.



DISCUSSIONS WITH WHEAT BOARD-PRICES- PREMIUM ON FEED WHEAT-PERMITS FOR EXPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: In view of the reports which appeared in the western newspapers on March 13, and on two occasions since that time, that the wheat board was in Ottawa conferring with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) in regard to ways and means of making it possible for the western producers to receive at least a portion of the recent increase in the price of wheat, is the minister now prepared to inform the house what policy or plans have been agreed upon? I may add that I conferred briefly with the minister, and I think he is in a position to make a statement to-day. Perhaps at the same time he will deal with the matter of the eight cent premium or subsidy on wheat sold by the producers for feed purposes, and he might also say a word with regard to the permits that have been issued for the export of our wheat to the United States.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am afraid I shall have to disappoint the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) if he expects me to-day to answer all the questions he has raised. However, I did intend to make a very brief statement, a progress report, on discussions which the government have been holding with the members of the wheat board and others during the past week or two.
During this time the government has been giving consideration to a number of matters in connection with the marketing of grain and I should like to inform the house of two decisions which have been made to date. The government has instructed the Canadian wheat board to permit the marketing of all durum wheat produced in 1942 in the west. As the house knows, marketings of wheat in the west in 1942-43 are restricted to 280,000,000 bushels, which will work out at fourteen bushels per authorized acre. Owing to the shortage of durum wheat the board has permitted the marketing of fourteen bushels per authorized acre since early in the crop year. Under the fourteen bushel limitation a little over two million bushels of durum wheat have been marketed in the west, but this has not been sufficient to meet national requirements. By removing the restriction on the marketing of durum wheat for the balance of the present crop year it is expected that an additional two million bushels will be delivered in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
Perhaps I should give some further explanation of the reason for this decision. Durum wheat is used principally for the manufacture of macaroni, which is in demand for both civilian and military use. At this time macaroni is especially important not only because of its value as a food product but because in its use it becomes a substitute for meat. The government therefore decided to keep up the production of this food product made from durum wheat. I might add that durum wheat is not a bread wheat and therefore is in fact a different product from the bulk of the wheat produced in the west. The relaxing of the restrictions on the marketing of durum wheat is for the balance of the present crop year only, and the restrictions on wheat marketings announced for 1943-44 will apply to durum wheat as to other varieties on and after August 1, 1943.
I now come to a matter which affects a small proportion of the wheat producers of the west. During the past few months a considerable number of producers who were operating farms in 1942, and who held 194243 permits to market grain, have enlisted in

Mobilization Act

the armed forces. In some cases producers of 1042 have been drafted for military service. In a large proportion of these cases where producers who operated farms in 1942 have entered the service of this country, there is a balance of grain which cannot be marketed during the present crop year under restrictions now in effect. In many cases this grain would be left without adequate protection during the owner's absence on military service. The government has decided to authorize the Canadian wheat board to permit delivery of the balance of the 1942 crop belonging to 1942 permit holders who have joined the armed forces within the crop year. This instruction to the Canadian wheat board will apply only to the permit holder's grain and not to any share of the crop which may belong to anyone else interested in the farm. For instance, if the permit holder rents a farm on a half-crop share basis, only the balance of the permit holder's grain will be deliverable on his entering military service. The landlord's share of the crop will continue to be subject to the usual restrictions.
Not a great many producers will be affected by this ruling. Most enlistments in the west in rural areas are young men of farm families who do not operate farms of their own. Where farm operators of 1942 holding 1942-43 permits do enter the service of their country, the government feels that it should cooperate in leaving their affairs in as good shape as possible by giving them the opportunity to market the balance of the grain, which is legally their property, on their farms.
Other decisions in regard to grain are being formulated and will be announced to the house at a very early day.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: If a producer already has marketed fourteen bushels, does this mean he can market the remainder of his durum wheat over and above that limit?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is my understanding. I am quite sure the answer to that question is in the affirmative.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do I understand that when a man joins the service he will be allowed to deliver up to fourteen bushels, or all the wheat he has on hand? Can he deliver all the 1942 wheat he has, or only up to the deliverable quota?


James Angus MacKinnon: Up to the deliverable quota and the entire balance of his own wheat.


Ernest Edward Perley: I mentioned the fact that
I had conferred with the minister, and at that time I spoke to him concerning the eight cent premium on wheat for feed purposes. He

indicated to me, I thought, that he was prepared to make a statement on this and the other matter I mentioned. I am disappointed that his statement is not as complete as I had expected it would be. When will he be able to answer the three questions I asked?


James Angus MacKinnon: I
cannot add anything at the moment to the brief statement I have made already. However, these matters are being discussed and an answer will be given in this house just as soon as a decision is arrived at.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to suggest
that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and the minister might bring this private debate between the two of them into the House of Commons for the information of us all.



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for Lake
Centre had1 a motion for the production of papers on the order paper of March 1, reading as follows:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents received by the Minister of Labour or by Mr. MacNamara, in answer to mobilization act interpretative letter No. 1, dated February, 1943.
Last Friday the hon. member for Lake Centre made the statement that the return made was not complete. The motion called for a return of answers to interpretative letter No. 1, dated February, 1943. The hon. member spoke specifically of a communication mentioned by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) and referred to on page 738 of Hansard of February 26. Officials preparing the return saw the reference made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury and ascertaining from him that he was referring to a communication from Mr. T. C. Crosbie, special representative, national selective service, Saint John, New Brunswick, which communication was written by Mr. Crosbie prior to the receipt by him of a copy of interpretative letter No. 1. Accordingly Mr. Crosbie's letter was not properly returnable in answer to the motion. Nevertheless, I did send a copy of Mr. Crosbie's communication to the hon. member for York-Sunbury in order that there should be no misunderstanding about the matter.
Those who were preparing the return took the precaution, in their anxiety that nothing should be overlooked, of communicating with

Western Grain Crop
each board from which no letter of acknowledgment was on the file. Those boards from which no letter is included in the return stated that no acknowledgment was sent. To the best of the knowledge and belief of my officials and1 to the best of my knowledge and belief the documents which could be properly returned under the motion have been included.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I
discussed the question of Mr. MacNamara's letter with a member of the board after it had gone out and he exhibited to me for my perusal a copy of the Crosbie letter. I was not supplied with a copy of it, nor did I take a note of the date. However, it was part and parcel of the same discussion and I assumed that it was a letter that went from that board in reply to Mr. MacNamara's letter. On that assumption I may have misinformed my colleague. After all it is not an important matter whether the letter was written after Mr. MacNamara's letter went out or before. The fact is that it was written on the same subject matter, and I think the minister will agree that it contained a splendid statement of the position and ought to be included in the file, if technically it was not included.



MARKETING OF WESTERN GRAIN CROP-AMENDMENT OF MR. WRIGHT ON MOTION OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: Western Grain Crop
which might be detrimental to them. I then put a question on the order paper asking for the amounts that had been exported. This question was made an order for a return, but so far it has not been brought down.


James Angus MacKinnon: I think it was tabled to-day.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am glad to hear that. These are questions which the western farmer wants to have answered, and I do not want to return to my constituency for the holidays without having the answers. That is one reason why I am rising to-day. I think the government should give us the answers.
Food is becoming more important in the war effort. Two years ago there was no idea that we would face a food shortage either in Canada or in the United States. The situation has changed and we may be facing within the next year a real food shortage. I do not believe that the policy outlined by the Minister of Trade and Commerce with regard to western grain is one which will tend to increase our food supplies. I have in my hand the last issue of Maclean's magazine, of April 1, which contains a whole editorial dealing with this matter of food. The article is headed "Food may win the peace." I quote from it in part:
To-day, in both Canada and the United States, the warnings are up. A food shortage is not only possible, it is inevitable unless exceedingly rapid action is taken to remove the cause.
Britain, in spite of the tremendous advances in her own agricultural production, in spite of mounting shipments from this side of the ocean, during the winter had to dip into her reserves.
I shall not quote further except to add that the editorial says that the main cause is the man-power shortage. I agree that that is one of the causes, but I should like to go a little more deeply into the present man-power situation in relation to agriculture. The manpower shortage on the farm exists not solely on account of enlistments, but because there has been during the last two or three years an exodus of farm help and small farmers to manufacturing centres to work in industries because they can get much better remuneration there than on the farm. Prices of many manufactured articles have been fixed on a cost-plus basis. The first war contracts for ships, aeroplanes and other equipment necessary to the war were let on a cost-plus basis. Wages were allowed to rise in those industries to eighty and ninety cents an hour, which is a higher rate than agriculture can possibly pay. With present prices of agricultural products all that the farmer in western Canada can afford to pay is from forty to fifty dollars a month.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) has stated that he expects to return as many as 200,000 men from manufacturing industries to the farms. He will experience a great deal of difficulty if he expects a man who is receiving eighty or ninety cents an hour in industry to go back to the farm to work for forty-five or fifty dollars a month. Until prices of agricultural products are brought into line with those of the products of industry in this country and the farmer enabled to pay his labour the same wages as industry pays, we are likely to' have serious difficulties in maintaining our present rate of production. And feed is necessary. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), speaking in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, said that feed was the determining factor in the amount of agricultural produce which we could raise in Canada, and I believe he was right. It is impossible to produce milk, beef, butter and cheese unless we have feed. His statement was that in August, 1942, we had only one month's supply of feed on hand, and that therefore it would have been impossible, no matter what action the government had taken prior to that, to produce more agricultural products than were produced. If feed is the determining factor in this respect, we in Canada need a policy which will facilitate provision of the largest possible amount of feed. I do not believe that the policy outlined by the minister and brought down in the first days of this session is such a policy, and I intend to compare it with what has been suggested by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Before doing so, however, I shall give a few figures as to the production of grains in this country during the last year or two. I do not think the government can take credit for the large additional production which we had in 1942. Credit must be given to the government for the increase in acreage, but not for the per acre production. Here are comparative figures:
		Production
	Oats	per acre
	Bushels	Bushels
1941			 305,575,000	24-9
1942			47-9
	Barley Bushels	
1941			20-8
1942			 272,910,000	39-1
	Flax seed Bushels	
1941	
6,566,000	6-61942	
16,981,000	11-4
These figures furnish proof positive that it was climatic conditions during 1942 which gave

Western Grain Crop
us the additional production. It is my contention that we shall use a large part of this production during the coming year in the feeding of our live stock. We shall not have a very large carryover of coarse grains at the end of the year. There will be a considerable carryover of wheat and flax, but we would not have it if we were able to export to the United States the coarse grain for which they are asking. Something will have to be done to get greater production if we are to have the necessary supplies.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture made certain definite recommendations to this government for a grain policy for 1943. The federation is not composed entirely of westerners; indeed they are in a minority in it. It includes representatives of the dairymen of Quebec and eastern Canada, the apple growers of Nova Scotia and British Columbia, poultry producers, live stock breeders, and cooperative organizations. The federation is thoroughly representative of Canadian agriculture, and its recommendations are not those of one section or group but of national agriculture as a whole. It is certain that the federation does not agree with the policy which the government brought down. The best expression I have seen of their opinion is contained in the March issue of the Country Guide. This magazine is the official organ of the grain growers association of western Canada, in which the present Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) obtained his start in life; and they have not been-to say the least-against the government. Nevertheless they have this to say;
If a satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming of the slap in the face administered to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture by the federal government it has not come to the attention of the Country Guide. The federation was in the second day of its annual meeting at Calgary. When the afternoon papers came out they carried the announcement of the government's wheat policy for the 1943 crop. This national farmers' organization, representing every important branch of the industry across Canada, had every reason to believe that it was recognized by the government as the authentic voice of Canadian agriculture. After its annual meeting two years ago its delegation was received by Mackenzie King and 11 members of his cabinet. Last year, its spokesmen received the same respectful hearing. The federation expected, and had a right to expect, that, with respect to the greatest agricultural problem in Canada, the government's announcement would be withheld until it had had an opportunity to present its views, as on former occasions.
Instead, the federation was completely and rudely ignored. The government waited until it was in session so that there would be no doubt about it. It was a piece of studied, cynical insolence. It was also a display of blundering politics. The government has been in trouble enough with the farmers. It should invite their cooperation and good-will. One way
to get it is to show respect for their national organization, an organization which has a larger affiliated membership, and is more representative of every phase of Canadian agriculture, than any other organization of farmers in Canadian history.
I should like to compare the policy laid down by the minister with that suggested by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The first point in the policy announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in this chamber on January 29 was this:
1. The fixed initial price of wheat under the Canadian Wheat Board Act will remain at 90 cents a bushel for No. 1 northern wheat basis in store Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver.
The suggestion of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in this regard was as follows:
We reaffirm our recommendation of last year that the initial price to be paid by the Canadian wheat board for wheat should not be less than one dollar per bushel basis No. 1 northern in store at lakehead or Vancouver. We recommend that for the benefit of the producer all wheat sold for domestic consumption should realize not less than $1.35 per bushel.
There is considerable difference there. A special advisory committee has been appointed to advise the wheat board with regard to the marketing policy in western Canada. We have never had a statement from the government as to what that board's recommendations were. In making his statement I wish the minister would indicate what the recommendations of the advisory committee were. It seems to me the farmers of western Canada have a right to know about those recommendations; otherwise they have no knowledge as to whether or not the committee is really representing them.
The second point made by the minister was with respect to the quota. He stated the quota would be 280,000,000 bushels as of last year, and that the delivery would be on the basis of fourteen bushels per acre. This is the one point on which the federation of agriculture agreed with the minister. They agreed that in western Canada we should have a quota of 280,000,000 bushels, and that it should be allotted as formerly among the farmers in western Canada. There is this point, however, that if there is a failure in certain sections of the west the government will not be accepting 280,000,000 bushels, in connection with its announcement in whereby it makes provision for fourteen bushels per acre, for seeded acreage. But I doubt whether that will be the case, because I believe there will be a carryover of this year's wheat sufficient to fill the quota, despite any failure in crop we may have this year.
The third point outlined by the minister had reference to payment for storage for grain
Western Grain Crop

on farms. He made it clear it was the intention of the government to cease payment of Storage for grain stored on farms. The recommendation of the federation of agriculture was as follows:
We regret that the government did not accede to the request of western farm organizations to continue this year the payment of farm storage on a basis corresponding to that of the previous year, and believe that such payment should be a continuing part of the government's wheat policy.
Speaking in the house before, I said I did not believe the reasons given by the government were sufficient to warrant its stopping payments for storage. The chief reason given was that the farmers were not bringing forward their wheat, and that there was empty space available. It was pointed out that to have the wheat moved in the proper season, so as not to have a congestion around the first of August, when the new crop was coming on, the government would have to cease payment of storage, and more or less force the farmer to deliver his wheat. I know from personal experience that in many parts of western Canada wheat was not being delivered because the space available in the elevators was not for the grade of wheat the farmers had on hand. In many places there are only two or three elevators, in which would be bins for No. 3, No. 4 or No. 2 wheat, when the farmer might have No. 5 or No. 6. In those circumstances he could not make delivery. Much wheat was held back on that account.
I know, too, that a considerable amount of wheat was held back so that the farmers could make delivery to their own elevators. They may have been accustomed to delivering to the pool, and they held back their wheat until space was available in pool elevators for them to make delivery, despite the fact that there might have been other elevators with available space. This payment for storage of grain on farms should be continued. It is one of the government's policies which I believe was good. It tended to encourage farmers to hold their grain off the market during the rush season in the early part of the year, thus obviating a procedure which has always been detrimental to farmers' interests in western Canada,
The fourth point in the minister's policy as outlined in the house was with respect to the fixed price on flaxseed. He said that the fixed price for flaxseed in 1943 would be continued at $2.25, basis in store Fort William, Port Arthur. The recommendation of the federation of agriculture was as follows:
In view of the hazards associated with flax production the guaranteed price for flax should be increased from $2.25 to at least $2.50 a bushel. We feel that the objective, announced

at the conference last December, of a transfer of one million acres of western land from wheat to flax should be maintained. Any flax production in excess of available crushing capacity could be stored in one-half the space which would be required for the product of a corresponding wheat acreage. Any surplus of flaxseed production which might arise would simply mean a desirable transformation of a portion of its surplus into a more desirable form.
Production of flaxseed in Canada this year is approximately 16,000,000 bushels. One return I received showed that we have a crushing capacity for 5,000,000 bushels, and another showed that it was for 6,300,000 bushels. That means we shall have approximately 10,000,000 bushels of flax in Canada this year for which we have no crushing capacity. The only available mills I know of are in the United States, and I suppose that flax will be exported to the United States for crushing. The price of flax in the United States is $2.98 a bushel; and when we add to that the exchange the price is brought up to approximately $3.25, or $1 over the Canadian price.


James Garfield Gardiner: Deliverd where?


Percy Ellis Wright: Delivered at Duluth.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are no crushers available in that area.


Percy Ellis Wright: Wherever crushers are
available, then. I do not know just where crushers are available. But I do know that $1 a bushel will transport flax a considerable distance. There is this profit to be made out of the export of flax, from which the western farmer is not receiving any benefit at the present time. I do not know how much has been exported, but I have asked for that information in a question on the order paper. Certainly if the wheat board is handling and exporting our flax it must be making a nice profit, and the producers in western Canada want to know why they should not receive the benefit of that price.
The sixth point in the minister's programme had to do with the payment of the acreage bonus. His suggestion was that $2 per acre should be paid on the basis of the acreage taken out of wheat, using the 1940 acreage as a basis. The recommendation of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in this respect is as follows:
We recommend that a bonus of $4 per acre be paid on land taken out of cultivation and seeded to grass and continued at $2 per acre per year for two additional years provided this land remains in grass.
The federation had a further proposal with regard to advances for grain in storage. They
say:
The federation regrets that the government has not acceded to the request of grain producers that provision be made for a system of

Western Grain Crop
advances against deliverable grain in store on the farm. Lack of such credit facilities have imposed undue hardships in certain sections and in anticipation of similar conditions occurring the coming crop year, we suggest that further consideration be given this recommendation.
In the United States they have had such a system working successfully for a number of years whereby on grain stored in granaries which are locked advances are made to the farmers. Such a provision would be of benefit in'Canada in the financing of a crop.
There is a question arising out of the statement the minister made a few moments ago with regard to the quota. What share of the quota of fourteen bushels per acre belongs to the landlord? If a man has bought land on a one-third crop payment basis, does he have to deliver one-third of fourteen bushels per acre to the landlord or may be deliver the full fourteen bushels himself leaving the landlord's share in the granary? I do not think there is any decision on that point, and it is one of considerable interest and should be clarified.
When we compare these two policies it is easy to see how during the next year we may get a considerable reduction rather than the increase that we desire in the production of food in Canada. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) said that these continual pressures being brought to bear against the price ceiling are injurious to the country. I would point out that if prices of agricultural products had been frozen at a fair level, these pressures would not be brought to bear. I would point out two or three ways in which prices for western agricultural products might be increased without affecting the price ceiling. Take barley, for example. At the present time we have a premium of 5 cents a bushel for malting barley. The premium in the United States and Great Britain is much greater than this. In Great Britain, according to one of the agricultural papers in western Canada, the price paid for malting barley is 35 shillings per long hundredweight, which amounts to something like $3.36 a bushel. I can see no reason why a premium of 15 cents a bushel would affect the price ceiling in this country. In fact, according to a statement made in this house by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) some two years ago, there are thirty-five to thirty-six pounds of malt in each bushel of barley. The government collects 12 cents a pound excise tax on that malt, or about $4.20 excise tax on every bushel of barley malted in Canada. In view of that I do not see why the farmers should not receive a larger premium than they are getting to-day.
Then, in regard to the ceiling on flax, I do not see how a better price for flax would seriously affect the price ceiling in this country, though it would put greater purchasing power in the hands of western farmers. As to the use they would make of that money I do not believe it would tend toward inflation. There is a tremendous debt burden in western Canada, and that additional money would be largely used for retiring debts, leaving the farmer in a better financial position after the war and enabling him to buy a few war bonds.
It appears to me that the farmer has been left to bear too large share of the load. Present prices of beef are out of line with prices in the United States. The price of beef cattle in the United States to-day is $16 per 100 pounds; in Canada it is $1125. Dressed hogs in the United States are $19.50 to $20; in Canada, $16.15.


James Garfield Gardiner: Where are these prices?


Percy Ellis Wright: These are the quotations in Chicago and Winnipeg, taken from the daily papers. As a result of the export of beef cattle to the United States, the producers in this country are having to subsidize the consumer, and again the growers of feed and feed grain in western Canada through the lower ' prices they are receiving are having to subsidize to a certain extent beef producers in this country. They are selling their grain at less than cost, and thereby carrying an unfair burden.
In view of these facts and in view of the necessity for greater production of feed in this country, the government would be well advised to reconsider its policy as announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the first day of this session. To that end I move an amendment seconded by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas):
That all the words after "that" he struck out and the following substituted:
"This house desires to record its opinion that before the marketing policy announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on January 29 with respect to the 1943-44 crop is put into effect it be revised to bring it into conformity with the needs of agriculture so that the latter may be enabled to make its full contribution to the war effort."
I have just a few more words to say in regard to inflation. I believe that shortages in this country are more likely to produce inflation than higher prices to the farmers.
If we are to be short of many food products, it will be much harder to control inflation than under conditions whereby you are giving to the people who produce the food of this country their cost of production, thereby enabling them to produce more food than at the present time.
Western Grain Crop


Mr. WARD:: I should like to ask the hon. member a question, and it is not with any wish to embarrass him because I agree very largely with what he has said. However, I have before me to-day's newspaper, and I notice that May futures are quoted on the Winnipeg market at $1.01%, while at Chicago the same grade for the same month is quoted at $1.45. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) suggested the figure of $1.60 for wheat at Chicago, and I wondered what market he was quoting.


Percy Ellis Wright: I quoted the figures mentioned by the hon. member, but the figure of $1.66% was for cash wheat on the primary markets in the United States. That figure will be found in the Chicago newspapers. The prices quoted by the hon. member were May futures, which I also quoted.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: In rising to support what the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) has said, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize one particular point. Apparently as far as agriculture is concerned the policy of the government has been that we cannot have guns and butter. It is time the government changed that policy and realized that you must have butter before you can have guns. Bread and butter are just as necessary as anything else in the production of guns, just as important as aluminum and oil in producing the munitions of war.
We in this group have constantly urged the government to attack this food problem on this basis, to take into consideration the man on the land, and in these days the women on the land who are doing a great deal of land work and getting no reward for it. Food is the life-line of war, and the sooner we realize that fact the better. It is too bad it has not been realized much sooner.
There is every evidence to-day that we are facing a critical food shortage. Last year about 450 people representing one of our greatest agricultural provinces came here to plead their case. They asked for justice; they asked to be allowed to continue their work in order to make their contribution to the winning of the war. They realized the necessity of food apparently to a much greater extent than the government realized it, to judge by the actions of the government subsequent to that time. That deputation received very little encouragement, but they went back home and kept on working. They overcame obstacles that seemed insurmountable, and at times it almost seemed that these obstacles were being deliberately placed in their way. They carried on without parity prices, without sufficient labour, without

consideration from the government. They had to face mounting costs in every field. If they went to buy machinery they found that the cost had increased. The cost of repairs also continued to increase, in spite of what was supposed to be a price ceiling throughout the country.
One of the basic mistakes in connection with the freezing of prices in Canada at the beginning of the war arose from the fact that prices of agricultural commodities were completely out of line with agricultural costs of production. Had this difference been levelled off, there would have been very little trouble by way of demands of this kind, and the farmer would have "been able to carry on without having to face this particular problem. The farmer is compelled to accept certain price ceilings, but he has not been guaranteed any bottom to prices. In many instances he has been encouraged to go into the production of such commodities as eggs; then, after prices have risen to & fairly decent level, suddenly those prices drop and he is left holding the bag. The farmer himself usually asks- for direction; when the government said, "We want flax," the farmer got busy and produced it. In 1942 the government told the farmer, "Go out this year and produce coarse grains. We will take all you can grow. We need them in this country for the production of meat and dairy products. They need them in the United States; in fact the world is short of coarse grain." Accordingly last year the farmer went out and, aided by favourable weather and good growing conditions, produced one of the greatest crops ever harvested in this country. Then the government put it under a quota.
That crop has harvested in the face of tremendous difficulties. I personally visited a number of farms last year and saw what was going on. I recall that on one farm I visited there was a threshing crew consisting of one man and five women. Another threshing crew was made up of two men and three girls of about sixteen or seventeen years of age. I assisted in combining a field, and the boy who wras driving the tractor was only twelve years old, but making a splendid job of it. These people have been carrying on in the face of difficulties, and they have been producing to a remarkable extent. Their efforts have not been appreciated. I am of opinion that when the food shortage strikes this country, as apparently it will, Canada will suddenly realize the great job the farmers have been doing and the many difficulties they have had to face in order to carry on.
Our production of wheat in 1942 was in excess of 560,000,000 bushels. According to the

Western Grain Crop
bureau of statistics, up to about February 25 last some 164,500,000 bushels had been delivered, leaving about 400,000,000 bushels in storage on the farms. Last year at this time they were storing only some 130,000,000 bushels; and there is still a portion of the wheat that has not been threshed. According to the hon. member for Melfort the production of oats for 1942 amounted to 616,000,000 bushels, and up to the present time only about
63.090.000	bushels have been delivered. According to the hon. member the barley production was 272,000,000 bushels, of which only some 47,000,000 bushels have been delivered. This all means that to-day the farmer is carrying stored in his bins over 1,000,000,000 bushels of grain. Under the policy of this government he is not to be granted any payment for that storage. He is growing this grain at a loss, and he is being compelled to store it without payment. Consider the position of a man engaged in the production of munitions. What would happen to that man if, after manufacturing his products, the government said, "Well, we have no room for your goods. Our boats are all full, so that we cannot take what you have made. We have not enough shipping to carry it away, so that you will have to store it yourself, and we will not pay you for it." How long could any war industry carry on under those conditions?
I should like to mention a typical case in order to illustrate what I mean. Here is a farmer who for obvious reasons we will call Mr. Sharp. He has a section of land, with 520 acres under cultivation. He knows that Canada needs food, and he knows all about the shortage of beef and dairy products. He has fifty-three head of pure-bred beef cattle, six milch cows and twelve brood sows. He has more than enough feed to finish off this number of cattle and twice the number of hogs he will raise. This year he threshed
5.000	bushels of wheat and 4,000 bushels of coarse grain. On the farm there is this man, fifty-eight years of age; two sons, twenty-four and twenty-six years of age, and his wife and daughter, who also assist in the work of the farm. He and the boys are expert farmers, capable of doing everything required on that farm. He has the labour; he has a tractor, and all the other farm machinery. Here is a complete plant, with experienced, technically skilled labour to carry on the big job of producing the food we need in this country and overseas. He has everything essential for the production of beef, pork, butter, dairy products and bread. This man must have a certain amount of cash in order to carry on his business. Anyone who knows anything about
agriculture or any other business knows that a cash return is essential in order that operations may be carried on.
This man has a note of S800 to meet at the bank, and he must pay taxes of over S300. He has a large threshing bill to pay; he must buy his oil and gasoline and pay for repairs on his tractor and farm machinery. He has a balance due on his tractor, and he must pay also for operating his house and the cost of medical and dental services. He will require approximately
82,000	in cash as income for the year. In a return tabled to-day it is stated that at 1,300 delivery points the quotas are in excess of the storage facilities available. I have come across this fact quite frequently. These men say that while there is a quota of fourteen bushels, there is no room in the elevators for more than five bushels per acre. Many of them I find have not been allowed to deliver more than the first five-bushel quota. How can they meet their expenses when they have no other means of obtaining cash? They are being pressed by their creditors. What are they to do?
There is only one thing for a farmer to do. He must turn around, as this man did, and sell forty head of his stock, milch cows, calves, feeders, the very basis from which the future meat production of this country should come. He has had to sell these cattle at a time when he has feed grain stored on his farm, when he has his boys there to do the work. He had his herd in production, but he was forced to sacrifice the meat production of this country as a result of the marketing policy of this government. He kept only three brood sows and got rid of the other nine.
What is the policy of this government with regard to food? What are they doing about such situations? We are told that they have the matter under consideration, but the farmer is starting his 1943 production. Has he any policy upon which he can work? None whatever. There are several problems mixed up with this matter. One is the question of debt, with which I hope we shall deal shortly. The other is the matter of manpower. In this particular case, one of the boys was anxious to do his bit and tried to enlist in the air force. He was told that they had no room for him but that they would call him just as soon as there was room. He went back to the farm to wait for his call from the air force, and in the meantime both sons received calls to report for compulsory military service.
They made application for postponement, but they were refused. What is the position of that father, the man in charge of that farm? These refusals have placed him in a position

Western Grain Crop

where he has lost all hope of being able to carry on. He told me that he would just about have to quit and fold up. After considerable correspondence we were able to get one postponement granted until further notice, but that still leaves the father in a position where he does not know what will happen. He does not know whether the boy will be called up on July 1, after the crop is in or whether he will be allowed to stay on until the crop is harvested.
The farmer in the west is storing a considerable quantity of this grain which will be used in this country in the near future. Of the
560.000.	000 bushels of wheat we had last year, the government will take only 280,000,000 bushels, and the farmer is storing the other
280.000.	000 bushels. If this grain were held in the elevators at the head of the lakes the government would be paying storage, but apparently 'no storage is to be paid to the man who has grown the grain and is storing it in bins which he has built himself. That is the present policy.
I advocate that storage should be paid on the undelivered fourteen bushels per acre quota. This would be paid, provided that the farmer stored it in bins which could be inspected and sealed. They would have to be inspected to make sure that the rain was kept out and that there was no leakage. The government would then pay the farmer an advance of seventy cents a bushel at the farm. That wheat would be the property of the wheat board, and the farmer would be paid the difference when it was eventually delivered.
This would provide the farmer with the cash he needs. At the present time he cannot deliver his grain because there is no room in the elevators. The government have told us that transportation difficulties prevented them from hauling the 50,000,000 bushels, for which I understand they have space. But that is not the fault of the farmer, and he should not have to curtail his whole production scheme on account of that shortage. As I say, if the suggestion I make were carried out, the farmer would have sufficient cash to meet his obligations. He would not have to sacrifice his hogs and herds. He would be able to continue to produce the meat and dairy products that are required. The government has been very short-sighted. Looking over at the treasury benches I see about twenty members there. I suppose the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) are the ones who are responsible for a policy for agriculture.
rMr. Castleden.]


James Arthur Ross: There are only ten
over there, you are too extravagant.


George Hugh Castleden: We will say, of the cabinet, then.	.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the
undersecretary for agriculture here?


George Hugh Castleden: He has not been
appointed yet.


James Arthur Ross: Both candidates are here.


George Hugh Castleden: Whoever is supposed to be looking after this food matter is failing in his job. The people of Canada demand that something effective be done now for the
3,500,000	agriculturists who constitute the very life-line of our war effort. If the present policy is continued it will seriously endanger Canada's great part in winning this war. I urge strongly that immediate action be taken to solve these pressing problems.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: 
An hon. MEMBER:: What is sugar selling at to-day?


Robert Fair: It is not selling as high to-day as in the last war, but give me $3 a bushel for wheat and I would gladly pay $26 a hundred for sugar.
Let me now give a few figures on the prices of farm machinery. In the fourth year of the last war an 8-foot binder cost $194. This year the price for the same binder is pretty close to $400. At that time, in the last war, we were getting two and a half times as much for our wheat as we are getting to-day; yet to-day the price of binders is up 200 per cent over what it was during the last war. I ask the Minister of Finance, what is his price control doing about that, and what is he, as the minister in charge, doing to see to it that these things are evened up?
We are told that we are getting a subsidy. I do not like the word as it is applied to agriculture, because we are not receiving a subsidy; we are receiving only a small portion of that to which we are entitled. The government for some reason or another calls it a subsidy, but it is not a subsidy. We are receiving only a small portion of that to which we are entitled.
Instead of doing something to help the farmer get what is coming to him another department of this government is trying to make our wheat pools pay income tax. On another occasion I shall have something to say about that. Away back last session, on July 30, the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) made an attack on our wheat pools, urging that they pay income tax. At that time we had in the Chair an hon, gentleman who has since been relegated to another corner of this building. He did not object to the hon, member for Wood Mountain speaking on the wheat .pools, but as soon as other members from this group tried to defend the pools we were denied that right, and consequently no proper defence has yet been made
Western Grain Crop

against his charges. Again the other night the hon. member for Wood Mountain came to the chamber and attacked the pools in the same way. I do not know just what headway he made., but as far as I am concerned he made none whatever. He tried to make out quite a case in dealing with the pools. He quoted the evidence of two lawyers who were before the grain commission inquiry to the effect that the wheat pools were paying income tax to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta but were not paying income tax to the dominion. For the benefit of the hon. gentleman let me say that the income tax laws of the provinces and1 of the dominion are not the same, and the wheat pools were complying with the law in both cases, as the pools always do. The hon. member went on to say:
This is sworn evidence. Besides that, our pools have promised us many things. They do not want to pay any income tax to the federal
Government, but they pay it to the provinces.
imilar cooperatives or pools pay taxes in the old country just the same as any other company. I defy anyone to tell me in what way a pool operating an elevator in the country is different from any other line elevator.
I see the hon. gentleman is not in his seat at the moment. That is not my fault. For his benefit I will take up his challenge and tell him the difference between these two organizations. If he wants to challenge what I say, I shall be ready to meet him on another occasion.


Ernest George Hansell: Hear, hear. Put the
gloves on.


Robert Fair: I am taking them off in this case.
I have here a little piece taken from the Western Producer, of November 3, 1942. It puts the case better than I could do in the few moments at my disposal. I am reading it for the benefit of the stooges of the grain trade who may be here.
First they should go over their records for, say, the last thirty years.
This is dealing with the grain companies. From these a list of all their patrons together with the amount of grain each delivered can be drawn up. From the data thus assembled shares in the company proportionate to deliveries may be issued to all the patrons. (There would be some adjustments for those who had died, retired or moved away, but these details would be easily adjusted.) Next the company officials should mark out suitable geographical units and notify the new shareholders in each to call a meeting to select a specified number of delegates to assemble in Winnipeg on a certain date. When that meeting had been called to order the president and general manager of the company should ascend the platform and, first of course having acquired

the consent of the old shareholders, should ceremoniously burn all the old shares in full view of the assembled farmers. Then in due and correct legal order they should transfer sole ownership and control over all the properties and vest them in their former patrons as represented by the delegates assembled in the hall. That done, all former officials should remove themselves from the premises and property of the company for ever unless their services are requested by the new owners. Then, after a few years' experience in the technique of operation, the new company would be a fairly close approximation to the existing wheat pools.
This is a simple procedure and it has behind it that element of equity and fair dealing without which any enterprise has little merit. For it is a fact that the farmers by their patronage have paid for the elevators and for all the other properties of the private companies. They have also paid the salaries and the profits. How then could justice be better served than by handing over to them that which is theirs by right, if purchased two or three times over?
In connection with the wheat pools, let me say that, contrary to a charge made by the hon. member for Wood Mountain on July 30 last, they would never be owned by four or five people at the top. The charge he then made I want to refute now, and to state that the pools have been, are, and will be owned by those who patronize the elevators. My experience has been that if you want to get a square deal when selling your grain, take it to your own pool elevator.
Speaking in this chamber on March 22, the hon. member, as reported in Hansard, at page 1448, said:
I wish to refer to something that has happened to myself and several others in Saskatchewan in regard to this cooperative elevator matter. When the Saskatchewan cooperative elevators started, in order to build elevators, they took two cents a bushel from all the people who gave them wheat to handle, . . .
That is nothing new. We had to have money from some source to build elevators or purchase them; this is the means which was taken, and all w'as going well up to the time of the 1929 man-made depression. I say "manmade" because it was not natural; it was planned some time ahead, and farmers and others were the victims.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Did my hon.
friend say the Saskatchewan cooperative elevators?


Robert Fair: Saskatchewan cooperative.


John Gordon Ross: The Saskatchewan cooperative elevators?


Robert Fair: Saskatchewan wheat pool elevators. It is a cooperative, anyway. The Saskatchewan cooperative wheat producers.

Western Grain Crop
In connection with this, I might say that it was and is the intention of the pools to pay back all of this as business warrants, and I do not think anybody will be denied that to which he is entitled. But it would seem that a number of enemies of the pools joined the organizations, and when they could not destroy them from the outside they tried, as has been credited to the communists, to destroy them from the inside. This has not worked and will not work as far as a number of us are concerned.
As regards what has happened to the pools, let me point out that a number of other grain organizations have been hit just a little harder than the pools were, because we find that a number went out of business after the 1929 crash, while the pools are still operating and, I hope, will continue to operate for quite a long time to come.
I had not intended to say much, because most of what I have said this afternoon has been said during this session or previously. But I wanted to emphasize that the farmers of this country are not receiving any subsidy, they are not receiving even what they are entitled to for their grain; and before you can have a prosperous Canada you must have a prosperous agriculture. I trust the government will change its policy to bring it into line with the policy of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which has been advocated in large degree also by the Alberta Farmers' Union, the United Farmers of Alberta, and other organizations.


James Arthur Ross: I had not known that we were going to discuss the present topic this afternoon; but in view of the statement which has just been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) I wish to say something.
If anything has proved to this house the entire lack of agricultural planning by the government, it is the announcement which was made this afternoon as to durum wheat. Remember that people were asked to produce this year 280,000,000 bushels of wheat, which works out to fourteen bushels per acre quota, and now those who happened to grow durum wheat in a big way, and also hard wheat, and have marketed their fourteen bushels to the acre quota, are entitled to market also all the durum wheat they have on hand. Due to speculation on the Winnipeg grain exchange the open market for wheat is now a fraction over $1-1, while the price set by this government for Canadian wheat was 90 cents a bushel basis Fort William, so that there is now a handsome profit to those people who happen
to have durum wheat. Certainly, had many producers been told last spring that this concession would be granted, they would not have operated on the plans which they followed during 1942.
Moreover, as has already been pointed out this afternoon, many producers of hard wheat have stored it for the benefit of the people of Canada, the people of the united nations and the inhabitants of the overrun countries who will need it in the future, and they have done so at their own expense on account of the fact that the government refused to allow them for storage on the same basis as they pay the elevators who are carrying the same type of wheat for the government.
It was pointed out that a few million bushels of this durum wheat may now be marketed. The people who are in the position I have mentioned stand to make at least eleven and a fraction cents over what they have received for their hard wheat. This will be a handsome hand-out to some persons in this country.
This afternoon I received certain information in answer to a question which I had on the order paper concerning coarse grains. The question was as follows:
1.	How many permits have been issued since August 1, 1942, for the export of oats, barley or other feed grains to the United States?
2.	Who received these permits?
3.	What type and what amount of grain did each permit cover?
Here is the answer:
1.	A total of 1,014 permits including 781 permits covering shipments of oats, chiefly feed oats, 211 permits covering shipments of feed barley and 22 permits covering shipments of other feed grains.
2.	The information furnished by applicants for export permits is given in confidence, and the release of such information would disclose to competitors the details of business carried on by individual firms.
3.	See answer to question 2 above.
Total shipments of various feed grains for which permits were granted were as follows:
Type of	No. of permits
grain	issued	BushelsOats	
781	39,836,966Barley	211	7,893,757Rye	
5	1,031,800Buckwheat	14	38,186Feed wheat	3	9,154
48,809,863
I do not know what the average profit to the exporters would be under the prevailing price in the United States, with relation to the ceiling price set in this country. But if there were five and a fraction cents a bushel-and I am satisfied it would be more than that on an average-then, on approximately 50,000,000 bushels it would run into millions of dollars of profits.
Western Grain Crop

It has been pointed out in debates in the house that the ceiling prices for which producers in Canada have been asked to produce oats, barley and feed grains are considerably below recognized parity. I was amazed that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) did not give at this time some statement to the effect that the government and the wheat board had decided that this profit should go back to the producers, and that they had set up machinery to ensure that this wras done, in respect of any grain exported at this time.


James Angus MacKinnon: I
do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but I should like to say before six o'clock that the point raised by him has been seen and taken care of by the government, through the wheat board.


James Arthur Ross: It has been?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: Arrangements have
been made?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: How?


James Angus MacKinnon: Because of the way in which it has been taken care of up to this date, and further because of the way in which it will be taken care of, I shall be in a position to make an announcement in the house within the next day or two, in reply particularly to the question asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley).


James Arthur Ross: Will the minister not
make it during this debate? It is pertinent, and the minister should have been able to make it before now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is too long overdue.


James Angus MacKinnon: I
doubt whether I can make it to-day; in fact I am quite sure I cannot. I expect, however, to be able to make it within the next twenty-four or forty-eight hours.


James Arthur Ross: When I was discussing the marketing of wheat and the racket which might easily develop in the marketing of durum wheat at this speculative price, I should have pointed out further how unfair this situation is to many people who planted and produced large crops up to almost harvest time last year. I know of a large area in my constituency, running back into Saskatchewan, an area about ninety miles by four miles, in which the people lost their entire crops. Those people, with their harvesting machinery,
IMr. J. A. Ross.]
went back to assist their neighbours in harvesting operations. I do not have to tell farmers here about the difficulties they had in paying their harvesting expenses, under the then existing quota set-up.
I consulted members of the wheat board at Winnipeg on behalf of those people wanting to know if they could take in kind for their threshing grain, and turn it in on their delivery permits, a provision they had been extended with respect to the 280,000,000 bushels. That was distinctly refused. Picture the hardship some of those people had to undergo in arranging to pay for help, and for the usual operations of their machinery, for gasoline, and so on. They certainly had great difficulty in financing their undertaking. Yet under this scheme, in which they should have been allowed to sell their fourteen bushels to the acre, which they would accept on threshing deals, they were not allowed to turn it in to the wheat board. After all that, the other man, who was able to sell fourteen bushels is allowed, as stated this afternoon by the minister, to sell an unlimited quantity of durum wheat he may have grown or purchased over and above that. Certainly this adds to all the confusion our farmers are experiencing at the present time. And when one thinks that within less than thirty days in many places the people will be on the land attempting to produce another crop, we must conclude that that is not what they arc entitled to.
On other occasions I have spoken about the on-again off-again policy of the government concerning flax production. A statement was made last December, and was contradicted in January-both statements made by the same minister. A statement was given to the public by a group of experts, who met in Winnipeg early in March, to the effect that the requirements are much greater than asked for by the Minister of Agriculture in his last statement. As far as I know, no member of the government has yet made any statement to the farmers pointing out what they are expected to produce, as far as flax is concerned.
As has been already said flax has been quoted as of March 26 in the United States at $2.98 a bushelj plus United States exchange. In the past year the price of flax in Canada has been set by the government at S2.25 a bushel. I say the amendment is timely, and that the people are entitled to some sort of proper announcement of policy, even at this very late date. We realize that the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a statement with respect to wheat and coarse grains at the opening of the session, but-

Western Grain Crop


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was just to forestall criticism.


James Arthur Ross: As the hon. member says, that was just to forestall criticism. That policy is now completely out of date. It has become to a greater extent out of date during the winter months.
The question of farm debt legislation was raised by my colleague the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) on March 2. The government seemed a bit bewildered when the question was raised, and promised that a statement would be made within the next few days. In that same week, namely on March 5, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) rose in his place and said that in view of the fact that he' expected a delegation representative of the three prairie provinces, within the next few days, he did not think he should make his statement for some time.
In due course that delegation, consisting of representatives of the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, came to Ottawa. I believe they met the Prime Minister, and other ministers of the cabinet concerned with this matter. This happened on either March 15 or March 16, perhaps on both dates. The matter was raised again this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre, and I was amazed by the attitude of complacency shown by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) in answering the question. This is the most difficult problem confronting agriculturists in many parts of those prairie provinces. In some instances they do not know whether they will be allowed to remain on their farms, whether they will be allowed to retain the equipment necessary to produce the foodstuffs so badly needed by the united nations in 1943.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Too little, too late.


James Arthur Ross: Too little, and too late again. The matter must be faced by this government, as long as they retain office, no matter how-


John Gordon Ross: Any more this year than any other year?


James Arthur Ross: No; the government are going along just about the same.


John Gordon Ross: No more of these cases this year than any other year.


James Arthur Ross: Yes. It was pointed out by an hon. member this afternoon that it was surprising to see government supporters hurrying out of the house when this discussion on agriculture developed. I am glad to
see some ten or a dozen of them remained to listen to or take part in the discussion. I am glad, too, that the two candidates for undersecretary of the Minister of Agriculture remained; and I trust we shall hear something from them, as well as from the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, with respect to this vital matter, before we are called upon to vote. That is the least we should expect from the government.
Other hon. members speaking with respect to agriculture have touched on the matter of taxation of cooperatives and wheat pools. This is an important matter. There is no hon. member in any group who will rise in his place and say he believes the agricultural producer is receiving what he considers to be a fair share of the national income. If that is granted, then let me say the wheat pools of the prairies are simply organizations of farmers who already admittedly are, in many instances, producing below cost of production and are now to be taxed further, and this government is very lax and is not doing justice to these cooperatives as their members have a right to expect.
I do not wish to take up any more time; I just wanted to make these one or two points during this discussion on agriculture.


John George Diefenbaker: I, in common with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) who has just taken his seat, had no idea that this motion would be made to-day. But representing as I do an agricultural constituency, it affords me an opportunity to place before the house some of my views in regard to the agricultural situation.
The other day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) saw fit during the course of the budget debate to deal with the question of the price ceiling in reference to agricultural products. He castigated the members of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition for indulging in sniping against the government's policy of fixation of prices. As I listened to his remarks in that connection I thought of a debate that was taking place in the legislature of Saskatchewan at about the same time. A motion was introduced there and voted upon on March 18 last. That motion was unanimously supported by every Liberal member in the Saskatchewan legislature. I read the pertinent portion of the motion having to do with the question of the ceiling on farm products:
That this assembly, recognizing the important place of the province of Saskatchewan in food production necessary to our war effort, strongly recommends to the federal government;
1. That further increases in prices paid to producers for essential food products be recognized as the most effective method of assuring production of necessary supplies.
Western Grain Crop

I pause to point out that that particular clause represents the idea which the Minister of Finance condemned in the most measured terms in this house the other day.
2. That appropriate action be taken to guarantee that the present general level of prices of meat animals, dairy and poultry products be maintained as minimum prices for the duration of the war and two years thereafter;
5. That, in view of the excellent prospects for sales of Canadian feed grain in the United States, we urge upon the federal government the desirability of removing existing maximum ceilings from these grains in order that prevailing prices in the United States may be fully reflected in prices paid to Canadian producers and that everything possible be done to facilitate the sale and transportation of Canadian feed grains to the United States.
It was a motion that directly attacked the price ceiling as far as farm products are concerned.
The names of those who voted for it, thereby calling upon the government to grant a higher level of agricultural prices, to grant parity prices for agricultural products, include every minister of the crown in the Saskatchewan legislature, many of them former colleagues of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in this government, a number of them members of the cabinet when he was premier of Saskatchewan. The Minister of Finance has condemned various members for asking that the farmer receive the same consideration as other industries, namely, a price that will pay his cost of production, give him a reasonable profit, and put him on a parity with the prices of the things he purchases. Most surprising of all, one of those who voted for the motion was Mr. Taggart, the former food administrator of Canada, who recently had control of food production in this country, and who more than anyone else should be in a position to speak with authority as to whether or not it is necessary in the interest of the prosperity and continuance of agriculture as a great influence in the war effort to have higher prices fixed for Canadian agricultural products.
To-day in Saskatchewan, with a provincial election in the offing, I presume the only discussion in connection with parity prices and the increase in agricultural prices above the present ceiling will be a reference, not to what was said recently by the Minister of Finance in this house, not to the attitude of the government of Canada, but to the attitude taken by the various ministers of the crown in the province of Saskatchewan on that motion.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: It does not cost anything there.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, it does not cost anything there. It represents to the 'people of

Saskatchewan that the Liberal party stands for one thing in the province although the federal party is diametrically opposed to it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: One thing in one place, another thing in another.


John George Diefenbaker: In other words, consistency demands that the Minister of Finance in this house shall uphold the orders made by the wartime prices and trade board, but in Saskatchewan expediency demands that the ministers of the crown there shall take a contrary attitude.
That motion was passed to emphasize that in order to ensure the necessary food production a course of increasing prices must be followed. The demand this year is for increased production in many lines. The Canadian farmer has made a tremendous contribution and is entitled to take pride in the contribution he has made. The fact that never has there been a suggestion by the Canadian farmer in the dark days of low prices which did not give him a fair and proper return that he would strike or do anything toward reducing production is something for which he is entitled to praise. It seems almost a truism to say that Canadian agricultural production must be increased and that the farmer is contributing much to the war effort of Canada and the united nations. If witness is needed to that fact, I refer to what the President of the United States said on January 12 last.
These were his words;
In spite of the handicaps under which American farmers worked last year, the production victory they won was among the major victories of the united nations in 1942. Food is a weapon in total war-fully as important in its way as guns or planes or tanks.
His words apply with equal force to the Canadian farmer.
At the same time the secretary of agriculture of the United States, Mr. Wickard, in speaking to the farmers of that country, is quoted as follows;
"You people are helping to bring victory sooner as you meet with your neighbours to-day." He added that farmers won the food production victory last year in spite of shortages of help and machinery and vexing but necessary government regulations.
"The devotion and determination and achievement of farmers was wonderful last year," he concluded. "This year the men on the battle lines are depending even more on American farmers. I know you will respond to that call."
The call that was made to United States farmers applies equally to Canadian farmers to-day. Increased production is necessary now in order to feed the nations. It will be needed

Western Grain Crop
in greater measure when the war is over, for then it will devolve upon Canada to assist in feeding a hungry world. Wheat will be in greater demand than ever before. Russia has had her granaries overrun. The Russian steppes must be rehabilitated before it will be possible for them to again produce wheat; and I believe that wheat properly stored to-day for the to-morrow that will come when this war is over, may very well be one of our greatest assets and one of the most important contributions Canada can make to the rehabilitation of the post-war world. To produce what is needed will require man-power, and I have no apology to offer for saying that at all times I have advocated a system of selective service that will ensure that every phase of the war effort receives its fair proportion of man-power. I repeat that food is important to-day. There is a terrible food shortage in Russia; according to a recent issue of the magazine Fortune, as long ago as last August and September there was no meat or butter in Moscow, and the average adult had lost fifteen pounds through inability to obtain nutritious food. Famine will soon appear unless food is sent to that country, and this condition prevails throughout Europe, where the nazis have adopted the policy of selective starvation of all the peoples who have come under their control. A revolutionary change is taking place in the economic set-up of Canada, particularly on the plains of the west, where coarse grains and pork products are being produced instead of wheat. After the war the changes which may take place in this economy must be carefully watched. Now is the time to plan to meet that changed economy.
In connection with the matter of price ceilings, the objection of the farmer is that agricultural prices were fixed at a time when these prices were below a parity level in regard to prices of other commodities. Prices of other commodities had advanced by the fall of 1941 to the point where there was a reasonable profit for those who produced them. I do not believe there is an individual who does not appreciate what has taken place under the system of price control in this dominion. Price control worked out in Australia, where it was adopted right at the beginning of the war. However, the farmer says that prices of his products are out of tune with prices received by other producers. The farmer cannot produce inferior farm products and get the same price he was paid for good products, whereas in many instances manufacturers are able to keep within the prices fixed during the basic period by turning out slightly different articles, of a lower or different grade
than produced in that period. That is the method by which, as the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) says, the prices of many products are kept within the ceiling. The farmer of western Canada believes that if there is to be a price ceiling at a time when he might expect to get much higher prices than he is now receiving, at least he has the right to demand the assurance that when the war is over, there will be a floor under the prices, in order to protect him against the lower prices which may follow as an aftermath of peace. Where is the policy of the government to-day in that respect? I have a great regard for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), but to-day he announced a policy of parts, of bits and pieces; some to-day, some to-morrow, and more is promised in forty-eight hours. That is the criticism one hears with regard to the agricultural policy of this government. It changes daily, weekly or monthly; and when an announcement is made by anyone in connection with agriculture, there is an immediate suspicion that some further change will be made which will be inconsistent with the announcement. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that fifteen days before butter rationing was brought into operation, the official in charge of the administration of the Department of Agriculture said there would be no butter rationing.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, prior to the dinner recess I was dealing with the necessity of planning in the Department of Agriculture. I come now to the next phase in connection with this matter, the production of flax. In the fall of 1942 the farmers were urged by the Department of Agriculture to aim at a higher flax production in 1943. As a matter of fact, at the dominion-provincial conference held in Ottawa in December it was recommended that there be a sixty-eight per cent increase in production. The farmers made plans to meet the demand, but in the month of January they were advised that that had been an error. The Minister of Agriculture then stated that the government would have to revise its plans and ideas in connection with the production of flax because there were not enough seed crushing plants in Canada and the United States to crush the surplus production over that of the previous year. It was only after a meeting with representatives of the United States that this fact was ascertained.
Western Grain Crop

This shows the lack, not only of long-time but of short-time planning in connection with agricultural production.
Last year the farmers were urged to sow coarse grains, particularly barley and oats. Naturally they believed that there would be a market available in Canada and the United States for that portion of their crop over and above that which might be fed in the production of hogs and live stock. As far as my own constituency is concerned, at the present time there are large quantities of these grains on hand. The farmers cannot dispose of them, and large quantities are still out in the field. Elevators are supposed to accept up to twenty bushels per acre, but they are refusing to make purchases because they have no space. In many instances no cars are available. There is a policy in effect to-day to provide for the shipment of a portion of this feed to eastern Canada, and I suggest that that policy should be extended. Something more should be done before it is too late, in order to assure these farmers, who relied on government promises that a market would be available and in consequence entered into greater production of oats and barley, shall not suffer. Those who relied on the government promises last year are now in a desperate position.
Most of the large farmers and many of the smaller ones cannot sow wheat in 1943 on account of the fourteen-bushel limit which has been imposed; they cannot do so because of the quantities of wheat they have on hand from the 1942 crop. They cannot sow coarse grains and the flax question is still in doubt. If there is any failure in production in the dominion as a whole, it is due to the fact that the farmers cannot place any reliance upon the announced plans of the government. When the Minister of Agriculture spoke in Saskatoon on January 15 he announced certain plans in connection with the production of wheat, oats, barley and rye. There was to be a decrease in the production of all these grains, but an increase in the production of mixed grains. There was to be no increase in the production of flax, but there was to be an increase in the production of hay and clover and a pronounced increase in the production of alfalfa. According to the news report of the British United Press, the minister went on to say:
Mr. Gardiner stated that the price inducement to meet these goals and acreage payments will be revealed to-day.
The Minister of Finance takes the stand that there shall be no increase in prices of agricultural products, and warns that if there is an increase or if more purchasing power is made available to the farmers, the price ceiling will be destroyed. On the other hand, as I

have pointed out, we have the legislature of Saskatchewan and the ministers of the crown of that province unanimously supporting a proposal and resolution to increase the prices for farm products. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that any lecture he has in mind to give with reference to those who support a policy of increased prices for agricultural products should be given to the Hon. Mr. Taggart and to the other ministers of the crown of Saskatchewan who support the party that he represents. Let me follow this a little further. These responsible men in the Liberal party in Saskatchewan voted in favour of the following resolution:
That in implementing the foregoing policies, we recommend to the federal government the payment of subsidies where, necessary to maintain price ceilings on consumer goods.
The payment of subsidies to the producer will increase the purchasing power in the hands of the farmer. If this policy has been found efficacious in so far as such goods as coffee, tea, oranges and the like are concerned, why should the subsidy system be restricted to industry or to the producers of these commodities and be denied to agriculture?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not.


John George Diefenbaker: The principle is the same.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not restricted to industry. There are subsidies payable to agriculture amounting to at least $100,000,000 a year.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate that, but further subsidies are recommended by the legislature of Saskatchewan for the purpose of increasing prices paid to producers of essential food products. They suggest that such policy be recognized as the most effective method of assuring the production of necessary supplies. I would remind the Minister of Finance that the records show that agriculture progresses through a series of ups and downs; at one time prices are high and at another they are low. During the up periods the farmer has an opportunity of earning sufficient to tide him over the periods when his profits will be reduced to nil. If the government adheres to its policy that it will not increase farm prices to the level of the prices of other commodities as of the basic period, then I suggest that the farmers of Canada have a right to demand that when the war is over, the prices they will receive will be no lower than the present price level.
I mention in that connection that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, whose desire it is to serve the people of Canada and to improve and enlarge Canada's war effort, came to Ottawa during the month of February and

Western Grain Crop
made certain representations to the government. According to the press reports they were received by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and other members of the cabinet and were assured that their representations would receive earnest consideration. The Prime Minister expressed the government's appreciation of the efforts of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to cooperate in the agricultural war effort, but as yet nothing has been done to carry the recommendations that were made into effect.
I submit that the time has come for the guaranteeing of live-stock prices for the duration of the war and two years thereafter in order to ensure continued expanding production, and that there should be a resumption of operations of the Wartime Food Corporation on the same lines as were followed during last July and August in order to- ensure that beef cattle in Canada shall bring prices reasonably related to prices in the United States. It is impossible to explain to the farmers of Canada, with a joint board on agriculture composed of representatives of Canada and the United States, why it is that there should be such different prices in Canada and the United States for farm commodities. Furthermore, I think the time has come for the inauguration of a comprehensive soil conservation survey as a national responsibility. The government should encourage cooperative enterprise in order that a larger portion of the consumer dollar shall be returned to the producer than would otherwise be the case. A time like this when the farmer is being asked to contribute to the war effort, and is doing it so willingly, is, in my opinion, not the time or occasion for the government to interfere with the growth of cooperative enterprise in Canada by the imposition of income taxation upon cooperative farm institutions.
The attitude of the Progressive Conservative party is set forth in its platform, and is that the farmer has a just cause for complaint in the prices that he is receiving. The Searle index shows, .starting with an index number of 100 for 1913-14, that 147 items representing commodities that the farmer buys are now 53-7 per cent higher than in that year, while the price of wheat is now only 5-5 per cent higher than it was in the same year. The purchasing power of a bushel of wheat is therefore only 68-6 per cent of what it was in 1913-14.


John Gordon Ross: The Searle Grain company's most- recent figure is 78 per cent.


John George Diefenbaker: What the hon.
gentleman says is perfectly correct. The figures I have here were those of some time ago.
I pass on to the question of man-power on the farms. Travel all over the prairie provinces to-day and you will find that most of the farms are almost depleted of man-power. The record of enlistments in the western provinces, as far as the farmer is concerned, compares with enlistments from any other class or group anywhere in this dominion. I know what numbers from my own constituency are listed from time to time in the casualty lists of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Canadian Air Force. I point this out, too, to those who say we need a united Canada in this war, that in these casualty lists of the air force will be seen many names of Ukrainians, Scandinavians and those of German origin who have enlisted from western Canada. These people have gone from our farms.
The objection which the farmer of western Canada has to the government's man-ipower policy is that it has no policy, that there has been no consistency, that the application of the National Resources Mobilization Act has been unfair in that it has in- many instances resulted in taking the last son from the farm from which the other sons have already gone overseas while in adjoining areas three and more brothers do not receive a call. To-day we are approaching a point where unless something is done agriculture cannot continue to measure up to its responsibility. What should be done?
In the United States Mrs. Roosevelt some time ago enunciated a policy which is now being applied, namely, the mobilization of a women's land army similar to that now working in Great Britain. Next, mobilization and training under government supervision of low-income farmers. They have mobilized in the United States an army of these men who have voluntarily assumed the responsibility of citizenship in assisting to keep u.p agricultural production. These men are given training and are moved back and forth during the seasons of maturing crops.
I do not think we have arrived at a point yet where it is necessary to follow the course that has been taken in the United States of bringing in labour from outside the nation. But I do believe that by now, in the month of March, 1943, sufficient time has elapsed since the beginning of this war for the government to be a-ble to announce to this house and the people of this country how many men there are available in Canada for agriculture. But a survey has not been made excepting on paper and in anticipation. I asked questions in the house on- March 1 in regard to the mobilization of our man-power and whether a survey had been made and
Western Grain Crop

have not yet received an answer. The reason must be that the government has no statistics on the subject to place before the house and the country. The first thing that must be done now, in my opinion, is to survey the situation. It is late, but let us do something now instead of postponing action until the day when we shall find ourselves in a dilemma of having no manpower on the farms. A step was made in the right direction early in February by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) when he sent out his letter of instructions respecting the call-up of farmers. But letters and instructions sent to boards and the like do not get results unless there is insistence on the part of the government that results be secured.
I hope that within the next week or so we can get a definite announcement of policy on this subject from the Minister of Labour. I know he is overworked, but I trust that an announcement will be made so that the farmer not only in western Canada but everywhere in the dominion will know what labour will be available to him during the coming summer. Furthermore I think, having regard to the fact that wheat and coarse grains farmers operate on a quota, something should be done to finance the farmers' crop while it remains on their farms. This was recommended by the Canadian Council of Agriculture. A system of this kind is being followed in the United States. To-day many farmers are unable to carry on because the quota which they have sold, perhaps no more than eight bushels to the acre, is insufficient to pay the cost of production, including labour, and to allow them anything over. In the United States, in order to encourage production, short-term loans have been established under the regional agricultural credit corporation, and $225 million has been made available at an interest rate of five per cent. I believe the same course will have to be followed in Canada if we are to secure the agricultural production which is necessary to ensure a continuing war effort on our part.
Furthermore, something should be done at this time in respect of the quantities of damp wheat which are to be found on farms all over western Canada. The wheat board should be urged to handle and dispose of this wheat in preference to wheat not in the same condition, so that spoilage and loss will be reduced to the minimum.
These are a few suggestions. I see that my time has almost elapsed. It is important to-day to realize that food is as necessary as other war materials are to the war effort; that without an adequate supply, the fight is hopeless.

The government has done much in connection with, and in the encouragement of munitions production. I ask that the same encouragement be given to agriculture as has been assured to industry producing other needed war requirements.


Thomas Vien: During the dinner recess I was considering the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). The motion was that I leave the chair for the house to go into supply; and the hon. member for Melfort moved, seconded by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted:
"This house desires to record its opinion that before the marketing policy announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on January 29 with respect to the 1943-44 crop is put into effect it be revised to bring it into conformity with the needs of agriculture so that the latter may be enabled to make its full contribution to the war effort."
The amendment refers to a statement which was made in the house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) and which will be found on page 11 of Hansard of January 29 last. The minister stated:
In order to make provision for the required acreage we are asking farmers to reduce their wheat acreage by not less than 3,000,000 acres. To encourage this, the Minister of Agriculture will submit amendments to the Wheat Acreage Reduction Act, 1942, to provide payment of $2 an acre on each acre by which land seeded to wheat in 1943 is less than land seeded to wheat in 1940 based on the same acreage. If there is new breaking involved, 80 per cent of it will be counted as wheat and 20 per cent as coarse grains. No payment will be made in respect of abandoned land.
The amendment contemplates a revision of the government's agricultural policy, which is part of its financial policy. It can be assumed from the terms of the amendment that it means an addition to the expenditures proposed by the government as I have read them from Hansard and1 as stated in the house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
There is another feature to which I must refer the house. As reported in Votes and Proceedings of February 23 last, page 93, there was an amendment moved to the address by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon):
And on the proposed motion of Mr. Graydon, seconded by Mr. Green, in amendment thereto: That the following words be added to the address:-
"We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed (a) to provide an adequate plan for the effective use of Canada's man and woman power; (b) to adopt and carry through

Western Grain Crop
a national labour policy which will ensure maximum production and give to labour its rightful position as one of the major partners in our Canadian democracy; and-
This is the important part.
- (c) to provide adequate measures whereby Canadian agriculture can make its maximum war contribution and receive a fair share of the national income."
The amendment, as I pointed out, though in slightly altered form and with slightly different phraseology, contains the same conclusion as was contained in the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition to the address in reply to the speech from the throne; and therefore citation 384 of Beauchesne will apply. The citation in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms provides as follows:
It is a rule in both houses, which is essential to the due performance of their duties that no question or bill shall be offered that is substantially the same as one on which their judgment has already been expressed in the current session.
The judgment of the house has already been expressed on the same question, as contained in the amendment of the leader of the opposition.
On the ground, therefore, that the proposed amendment involves an expenditure of money greater than that declared by the government for the purpose, and on the ground that the house has already expressed its opinion with regard to a similar proposal as contained in the amendment, I would have to rule it out of order.
I also refer the house to citation 559 of Beauchesne:
The constitutional principle which vests in the crown the sole responsibility of incurring national expenditure, forbids an increase by the commons of a sum demanded on behalf of the crown for the service of the state. This principle, however, is apparently disregarded when the recommendation of the crown is given to a resolution empowering the expenditure of public money which, framed in general terms, places no limitation on the amount of expenditure to be authorized by the resolution.
Here the amendment means an increase in the expenditure as stated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and therefore is contrary to that rule of the house.
I therefore rule the amendment out of order.
I may add that it seems to me that the amendment, while it is irregular, is also unnecessary, because the debate which is now taking place may continue on the motion to go into supply.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It does not stop the debate.


William John Ward: I was a little disappointed with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in that he did not give us something constructive by way of conclusion of his excellent remarks.
I believe it was Edward Blake who said that the duty of an opposition was to assist the government by constructive criticism. I take it for granted that constructive criticism would embody some help. The hon. member complained, as all of us who have our granaries full of grain, and some of it piled in the fields do, that we cannot get rid of it. He led us right up to the fourteen-bushel quota, and I thought he was about to tell us where we would go from there. At that point, however, he turned the whole matter back into the lap of the government, and said that the responsibility was theirs.
Then he dealt with the matter of damp grain. I agree that that is a real problem. But again he did not give us one word as to what he would do if he were dealing with damp grain. I am sure the wheat board is doing the best it can with the most difficult problem western Canada has ever known. When you find crops, such as we had in my district, ranging from 45 to 55 bushels of wheat per acre, barley running about 70 bushels, and oats at from 80 to 100 bushels, you have indeed an extraordinary situation, and a condition so different from any we have had in the past that naturally our problem is one with which no one can deal adequately.
In other respects I agreed largely with the hon. member's remarks. Something must be done to improve conditions in western Canada. I noted a few days ago in the press that the civil service is to be dealt with by way of bonus, and that incomes up to $3,000 are to be included. I have no particular criticism with regard to a decision of that kind, but I must say that a civil servant with an income of $3,000 is so much better off than the average farmer who has a lot of grain on his farm and does not know what he is to do with it, or whose grain may be out under the snow, unharvested, or who may have been subjected to the many other vicissitudes which beset the way of the western farmer, that I do feel if we can find money to pay bonuses to people with incomes of $3,000 we certainly should be able to find money with which to further subsidize the farmers. Long since have I argued, both in the house and out of it, that as long as we had a system of tariffs, and all those other systems which go with tariffs, and which taken together make
Western Grain Crop

up our present economy in which urban industries are supported by fiscal and many other arrangements not enjoyed by our farmers, we should subsidize agriculture up to the same level.
Where do we find all the good homes in Canada? Do we find them out on the farm where the people do most of the work? No, we do not. We find them in our cities, and very often they are lived in by parasites who make no particular contribution to the betterment of society. These are facts which cannot be refuted. Will anyone say for one moment that an accountant or a lawyer- and I am not pointing at the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier)-renders even twenty-five per cent of the service to the state rendered by the average good1 farmer? We have to revise our thinking in regard to agriculture or, before long, we shall not have any farmers.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member is making all the lawyers blush.


William John Ward: I said something about my hon. friend's city the other night, and perhaps I should say something more.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Start right in, any time you like.


William John Ward: I gave some figures a couple of years ago showing how Toronto had grown from a struggling little city of a few years ago to a city with a present population of between 600,000 and 700,000. It has grown up to a great extent on the backs of the western farmers, and the eastern farmer has made his contribution as well.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Nothing but clap-trap- if that is parliamentary.


William John Ward: However, I did not intend to say that, and I would not have spoken in that manner had the hon. member not interrupted. I received a letter from the manager of my farm who tells me that I must expect to pay not less than $65, and perhaps $75 a month for men this summer. That means an over-all cost of $100 a month for each man. Two or three men on a farm at $100 a month means an expenditure of $200 or $300 for hired help. I know from my experience that that cannot be paid. It is not possible, with dollar wheat.


Gordon Graydon: How large is the hon.
member's farm?


William John Ward: Six hundred and forty acres.


George James Tustin: The hon. member must be
a gentleman farmer.


William John Ward: Those amounts cannot be
paid on fifty-cent oats.
I should like to make a few suggestions to the government. I do not know whether my suggestions will register, but I believe that with wage levels as they are to-day, circumscribed as we are by price ceilings-with the principle of which I agree fully-we should have a guaranteed price on flax of not less than $3 a bushel. Less than $3 will not take care of the risks involved in the growing of that crop. I have been growing flax for the last twenty years, and I have found that its yield varies from five to twenty-five bushels to the acre. We had a twenty-five bushel crop last year, and it would seem likely that we might have a six-bushel crop this year. A six-bushel crop at $2.25 gross means about $1.80. It cannot be grown for that. I say it cannot be grown for less than $3 a bushel, taking the average yield of about six bushels over a long-range period. I do not think it will be possible to grow wheat this year for ninety cents a bushel-although I am not much interested in wheat. It should be at least $1.35.
Comparing our live stock prices with those of the United States I was surprised to find that the basic price of bacon hogs in Canada is exactly the same, dressed, as it is in Chicago, live weight, namely sixteen cents a pound. In other words, the United States farmer gets about twenty cents for his hogs, dressed, while we get only sixteen cents for ours. The same is true of steers. They sell for sixteen cents in Chicago, and bring only twelve cents in Canada.
Something was said this afternoon with regard to wheat. There is about a 45-cent differential between the price of wheat in Chicago and1 the price in Canada. Of course in any calculation one makes of prices in Canada and in the United States he must remember the duty of forty-two cents a bushel on- all wheat going to United States.
While I do not wish to take up much time to-night, I should like now to draw a comparison between that portion of the national income going to agriculture, and that going to labour. We hear a good deal about labour of late. They have their problems, yes. The farmer, about thirty per cent of the population of Canada, with all his investment, running to I think about $2-5 billion in 1942 got 15-3 per cent of the national income while labour got 63-1 per cent, or four times as much, with less than half the population.
Speaking of farm debt. While debt adjustment is not so important in the district which I represent, because we have greater continuity in returns than some other sections of the

Western Grain Crop
west, I believe that in the light of conditions in Saskatchewan and Alberta there is some need of debt adjustment. In some instances it may mean complete wiping out of the debt.
I wish now to refer to the income tax on cooperatives. I cannot believe that the government is serious in the thought of imposing income tax on cooperatives. If that is done it will just drive the cooperatives back to a purely cooperative basis to where they belong. Some have departed slightly; as an example in the drought and depression years the Manitoba cooperative elevator association, out of concern for the elevators in the dried-out districts, decided for the time being to form their association into what we call line elevator companies in order to pool the resources of all the elevators to maintain elevators in operation in the drought areas. It will just drive the cooperatives back to where they ought to be, and then there will be no profits to tax. I hope the government will think twice before attempting to impose income tax on something that is not there, because in a cooperaive there is really no residue on which to impose taxation.
Something has been said in regard to the need for fuller cooperation in respect of agriculture. It has been said that what we need in this country is political cooperatives. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have frequently urged that if the cooperatives would associate themselves with the socialist party of Canada, it would be to their advantage. A few years ago I had- the privilege of having lunch- with the minister of agriculture for Norway. I made good use of the two hours we were lunching by asking questions. I inquired how they had succeeded so well with their cooperatives in Norway. "I suppose you are pretty m-uch socialist?" I said. "Oh, no, no," he said; "we a-re the very opposite. Socialism would kill cooperation." I hope my hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation get that. He said, " We are all for private enterprise in Norway."


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did he not belong to this crowd once himself?


William John Ward: Not as far as I know. There was an organization known as the Progressive movement, of which my hon. friend and his friends have stolen the name-time is a great wonder worker, and it may be that my hon. friend and his friends will yet be in the C.C.F. movement down at the other end. The Progressive movement was very successful- in its day, ddd a great deal of good and justified its existence in this house. The minister of agriculture for Norway, a man
who should know, was most emphatic in his belief that the cooperatives could live and prosper only under a system of private enterprise.
I wish the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) were in his seat at the moment. I believe in his price ceiling; I am all for it. Probably no group of men could have done a better job than he and the prices board have done. But I do not think we should maintain stability and prevent inflation at the expense of one class only. The farmer to-day is paying the long price for his country's financial stability. That is not fair. We should lift the lid on some agricultural products. We should put the farmer at least on a par with others in the community, particularly organized labour.


Mr. SENN:: Has the hon. member the idea that the farmer is not getting a fair deal as far as the price ceiling is concerned?


William John Ward: I have just said so. I believe that flax should be not less than $3 a bushel, I do not believe it can be grown successfully for less. There should also be a higher price for wheat. I suggest $1.35.
If we are to maintain agriculture and keep the young people on our farms we must give greater attention to our farm economy. An hon. member in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group this afternoon, I think it was the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden), referred to the coming home of the soldiers after the war. That is something to which we must give some thought. The hon. member quoted a figure of eighty or ninety cents an hour for labour in the factories and the farmer getting twenty cents. Surely we should- do something about that.


George Hugh Castleden: Did the hon. member just find that out?


William John Ward: The hon. member came here just yesterday; if he had been here for twenty years as I have he would know something of the struggle to gain better conditions for the farmer.


George Hugh Castleden: I knew that much anyway.


William John Ward: When I first came to this house there was a difference of ten to twenty cents between street and track prices for wheat.


George Hugh Castleden: What is it now?


William John Ward: About three and a half cents, about as low as it could be thanks to our farmer organizations. Our cooperatives and
Western Grain Crop

farm grain handling institutions have gone a long way in ameliorating many of the problems of the farmer. I grant you we still have some problems. There is no reason why the farmer should be a war casualty any more than anyone else.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, too much cannot possibly be said as to the need for a long-range agricultural policy for Canada. This is the fourth session I have had the privilege of attending, and I do not hesitate to say that I have yet to hear a serious and an exhaustive discussion of the subject of agriculture. This question of agriculture seems to be kept in the background; sometimes in the dying days of a session hon. members may rise in their places and voice their patched-up opinions, and then we go home with no plans for the future and nothing to tell our farmers.
I should like to add my voice to those who have spoken already this afternoon and this evening, in expressing my opinion as to the urgent need of a long-range, effective agricultural policy for this country. I believe the farmer of Canada has been stabbed in the back. The government has stood by and watched as the farmer has been operated upon; and the government-this government and the one that preceded it-has done nothing to protect the very basis of our national economy. In my opinion agriculture in Canada must be placed upon a paying basis. No other industry has received such a set-back. The government seems unable to coordinate its agricultural policy, if it has one; it seems to be a matter of hit or miss, and the government does not seem to know where it is going. The farmers of western Canada want to know what will be the agricultural policy of this government not only for the coming year but for the years ahead. Why should the government not announce its policy for two, three or five years ahead? Surely that requires only a mathematical calculation. The government has all the statisticians, agriculturists, agricultural economists and so on that it needs, and with the experience we have had in agriculture so far, surely we should be able to draw some sort of a blueprint for a year or two ahead. Look at the situation that exists at present in the prairie provinces. The government has permitted the stock of the west to be sold and slaughtered, though it knows very well that four to five years are required to expand a herd of beef cattle, and it takes three years to increase the number of milch cows, and fourteen months to increase the number of hogs. If we destroy the farmers who for many years have operated independently, what will be the

end? Only a few days ago I pointed out that fewer than half the farmers of western Canada own the land on which they live. That is a serious situation. There is talk about socialism; there you have it. The farmers no longer have any say as to how long or how they are to operate their farms. Let me quote a sentence or two from a so-called extension agreement, because I believe it will indicate the situation that has existed for many years:
The mortgagor does hereby attorn to and agrees to become the tenant of the company of the said land at a yearly rental of a full one-third share of the whole crop of grain of every kind . . . the said share to be delivered by the mortgagor at his own expense.
I could quote at great length from agreements of this kind to show that farmers are losing their homes. Yet this afternoon when one hon. member asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) what will be done in regard to debt legislation, and whether the government had come to any decision in that regard, the answer was, as usual, "It is under consideration." That is not good enough. We are being pressed by the farmers; we are receiving letters almost by the thousands demanding that something be done, because these people are losing their homes, losing all they have built up in many years of hard toil. As I have said, the government does not seem to be able to coordinate the various problems that are facing us to-day. It is only natural that our people should look to the government for guidance, that they should expect at least an announcement of policy one year ahead. But we go on dragging along; now spring seeding is not far off and still the farmers do not know what the government wants, what the country will need, whether or not we can sell our grain this coming year, whether our hog production should be stepped up and maintained at that level, and so on. We do not know. To me this seems a hit-or-miss policy, if it can be called a policy at all. We on this side of the chamber can talk in this house until we are blue in the face, but the government seems just to float along and put off everything from day to day. Is it not about time we got down to business and placed agriculture on a paying basis, like any other industry? Personally I am surprised that the farmers have stood for this sort of thing so long. But why have they stood for it? The answer is simply this, that almost every farmer is indebted to some financial institution. If the farmer dared refuse to sell his grain, he would be sold out. He cannot afford that. He is forced, almost at the point of a gun, to produce wheat, whether he likes to do so or

Western Grain Crop
not. Otherwise he will be dispossessed of his land and thrown out on the road. That is the system that has been in force for so long.
At present agriculture provides about 17-4 per cent of our total national income, while more than one-third of our population are directly dependent upon agriculture. Farm products account for about 38 per cent of our total exports. Surely all we have to do is to put two and two together and realize that we cannot continue to operate unless agriculture gets a fair share of the national income. We cannot expect the farmer to pay his debts if he has no income. We cannot expect the farmer to be able to repair his machinery and keep up production if he has not the money with which to buy the things he needs. The following statement appeared in a non-political publication, Farm. Forum Facts:
Canada cannot play her full part in the war unless national unity is built up to a high point, and unity and a high morale cannot be attained while forty-five per cent of the people of the dominion who make their living from the agricultural industry are receiving less than a fair deal.
Canadian agriculture is facing two very grave problems at the present time-lack of working capital and a serious labour problem. The lack of working capital has been induced by low prices for many primary products, especially wheat, while the labour situation is definitely tending to lower farm production at a time when we should be increasing it.
Let me quote what the former President of the United States had to say about the importance of food in the war. Mr. Herbert Hoover, speaking in New York on January 21 on the food situation, stated:
Food supply has now become secondary only to military operations in determining the outcome of the war. And it will take first place in saving the world from anarchy after the war.
Further on he says:
The burden of furnishing food supplies to the united nations now and to a starving world after the war rests largely upon the American and Canadian farmer.
Agriculture simply must be envisaged as a munitions industry. The farmer must receive men and tools if he is to perform his part.
The news comes daily from all parts of the country that the farmer is sending his dairy cows to slaughter for lack of labour. And this is amply verified by the arrivals at the slaughter houses.
Those words of the former President of the United States are significant. We speak about remedying the situation as far as shortage of farm labour is concerned, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and other ministers tell us from time to time that the situation has been remedied and that things are working satisfactorily. At least they seem to be unconcerned. I should like to quote from a
clipping from the Edmonton Bulletin of November 18, 1942. This is an article written by Mr. Grant Dexter from Ottawa, and it states:
Apart from government departments, there is the field of policy. Here the government's action has been two-sided. To begin with there have been sweeping allocations of man-power. Agriculture was frozen on March 23, 1942. Except for voluntary enlistment no agency of government can touch farmers. They are deemed to be necessary to agriculture.
Surely everyone knows that that is not so, that that is not a true situation. I have in my hand a report of national farm forum manpower findings, dated November 30, 1942. A discussion was arranged with various groups in the different provinces of Canada, and the following question was asked and the following answer received:
In what ways have the man-power regulations and farm labour policies up to the present time affected your area in respect to:
(a)	freezing of men on the land?
British Columbia-Without exception British Columbia farmers have replied there has been no freezing as far as farm labour is concerned.
Alberta-Ten per cent said it had some effect; all others stressed ineffectiveness, or that it was too late.
Saskatchewan-Answers revealed that farm labour had not been frozen and that the order in council of last March had not been carried out.
Manitoba-The system of freezing men on the land has come too late.
Ontario-Almost every report was critical. Many said the ruling came too late. While regulations have kept some men on the land others are leaving for better paid work, even up to the present time.
Quebec-Freezing men on the soil on wages farmers can afford to pay does not work. Disgruntled help is useless.
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia-All groups feel regulations have not dealt with this matter satisfactorily, mainly because they came too late. Two-thirds of the groups say farm help is still moving to the armed forces and to war industries. Higher wages in other industries are attractive.
(b)	Method of military call.
British Columbia-Reports unanimous in disapproval of present system. Many farmers' sons have enlisted in order to avoid being called. Many others have not applied for postponements to which they were entitled. Postponement period is too short; it would be for one crop season or preferably for one year.
Alberta-Most said unsatisfactory or confusing. One said satisfactory, and two, fairly satisfactory.
Saskatchewan-Regarded as spotty and inequitable. Repeated calls to essential men, put these men in unenviable position in the community. Since efficient farming requires at least six months planning, many farmers are confused as to what lies ahead.
Manitoba-Methods of call are unsatisfactory, and postponement is too indefinite.
Western, Grain Crop

Ontario-Twelve per cent said satisfactory; eighty-eight per cent unsatisfactory and uncertain. Production could not be planned for short periods. Charges were made that in some cases the law had not been observed and men essentia] to farm production had been refused postponement.
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-Eighty per cent not in favour; 10 per cent feel it has some merits; 10 per cent think it satisfactory. Causes a great deal of confusion. Uncertainty of postponements.
My reason for putting this on record is simply to give the impartial findings of the national farm forum. Surely agriculture is important enough to Canada and Canada's war effort for the government and parliament to give it fairer consideration than it has been given in the past. Just the other day I received a letter containing a plea from one of my constituents who said that he had a debt, that the mortgage company wTas pressing him, and that all he could sell was fourteen bushels of wheat to the acre. I walked across the floor and asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) whether anything could be done and whether he would recommend that I write to the wheat board, because surely, Mr. Speaker, farmers cannot be allowed to lose their land and to be foreclosed upon and have to pay costs, expenses, and so forth when their production is so necessary to the war effort. The minister said; I am sorry; nothing can be done. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. If nothing can be done to increase the quota of wheat which the farmer can deliver to the elevator, surely the government has the power to say to the mortgage companies: You fellows had better stop for a while because the farmers cannot pay their debts if they cannot sell their grain ; you cannot squeeze blood out of a stone. It is nonsensical for the government to say that nothing can be done because the government has the power to do anything it wants and it can help the farmers.
This morning I received three or four more letters. One was from a man in the armed services who told me that he is being sold out. The mortgage companies care about nothing but their pound of flesh; that is all they are interested in. Surely conditions of this sort should not be permitted to continue.
I have no desire to speak about these matters. Members from the central provinces may speak favourably of the government's farm policies; but members from the west, whether they want to or not, are forced to rise in their places and defend the interests of the people whom they represent in this house. We cannot simply sit here and say nothing when we are receiving scores of letters telling us about the problems of to-day which must
(Mr. Hlynka.l
be solved. I wish to impress upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce that, coming from western Canada as he does, he should bring these problems before the cabinet to see what can be done. The government cannot let the farmers down at this time. The feeling that exists among these farmers is one that should not exist, especially at this time when we need unity. We need every Canadian to feel that he is being cooperated with and that the government understands his position and appreciates that the fanner is doing his fair share in Canada's war effort. Let us not hamper these men. We are going to appeal to them in the next week or two to buy victory bonds. How can the farmers buy victory bonds if they cannot sell their grain and cannot get a fair return for their products? Therefore I appeal to the government to get down to business and to coordinate these problems that are before the people of Canada with a view to improving conditions.


Ernest Edward Perley: Mr. Speaker, when I tried early this afternoon, on the orders of the day, to get a statement from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) I had no idea that the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) was going to bring in the amendment we are now discussing. But I think the hon. member for Melfort has made the right move, because it has brought on a discussion of very important problems affecting western Canada.
About a year ago the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) and myself on a motion for supply moved an amendment asking the government to consider the question of parity prices. All hon. members know what happened, and if no greater consideration is given to the present amendment it will be just too bad. It seems almost impossible for anything to jar this government into taking the action which I think it should. I have on numerous occasions this session endeavoured to get a statement from the minister in respect of such matters as are being discussed to-day. Only this afternoon I asked him whether, in view of reports in the western press that the wheat board had been in Ottawa discussing the marketing of grain and the price of grain, he was in a position to make a statement and whether anything would be done to allow our producers to get the advantage of the increase in price which has taken place within the last month. I also asked him to deal with the 8-cent premium on wheat sold by the producers for feed purposes. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, what the minister said. He was somewhat evasive in replying. He dealt with the marketing of durum wheat, which was quite all right, although durum wheat forma only a

Western Grain Crop
very small percentage of the wheat grown in western Canada, only some 2,000,000 bushels, as the minister said this afternoon, being marketed. He also dealt with producers who have enlisted in the armed forces and said that the wheat board had been authorized to permit delivery of the remainder of the 1942 quota in the case of those who are in the armed forces. That was quite right and proper. But on the whole we did not get a very satisfactory statement from the minister.
When I spoke in the budget debate on March 15 I made I think several constructive suggestions, and made them at the proper time and place, and asked the government to consider them. It has been most interesting to me to hear this afternoon many members enlarge upon those suggestions and ask the government to give them consideration. On that occasion I quoted from the platform of the Progressive Conservative party drawn up at Winnipeg, and I also quoted from a resolution now standing on the order paper in my name asking the government as a first step toward establishing a parity price for wheat to take into consideration the setting of an initial minimum export price of SI .10 a bushel, and to give consideration to making payments for farm storage and making an advance on the net value of grain remaining on the farms which comes within the deliverable quota. These are questions which have all come up in the discussion this afternoon. Hardly anyone is satisfied with the policies enunciated by the minister on January 29. As a proof of that, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) quoted this afternoon from the votes and proceedings of the Saskatchewan legislature to show what is going on in that province. We know also what the pool and the federation of agriculture think of these policies.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) took an opportunity the other day to give hon.. members on this side a sort of spanking, in that he said that we were advocating changes which might break through the price ceiling and cause inflation. But the hon. member for Lake Centre established quite definitely this afternoon that we are not the only ones to whom that verbal chastisement could be administered. The minister might include the members of the Saskatchewan legislature, and in particular the provincial minister of agriculture, Mr. Taggart, with whom no doubt he had several conferences before Mr. Taggart returned home. I understand that there was not the greatest harmony between these two gentlemen before the Saskatchewan minister gave up the federal position which he held.
I have here the votes and proceedings from which the hon. member for Lake Centre quoted. The contents of this resolution are very interesting to me, as embodying suggestions which on several occasions I have made to this house-for instance, on March 15. The hon. member might have cited that part of the resolution which deals with prices. The third suggestion was:
That it is essential to the economic welfare of Saskatchewan that production of wheat be recognized as our major source of income and the federal government be urged to accept through the Canadian wheat board no less than 280 million bushels of wheat at parity prices with an initial advance of not less than one dollar per bushel.
They do not say what the parity price should be. Let us accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward), that it be SI .35. I will quote that part of the resolution in which the legislature upsets the price ceiling:
5.	That, in view of the excellent prospects for sales of Canadian feed grain in the United States, we urge upon the federal government the desirability of removing existing maximum ceilings from these grains in order that prevailing prices in the United States may be fully reflected in prices paid to Canadian producers and that everything possible be done to facilitate the sale and transportation of Canadian feed grains to the United States.
Again, I call that to the attention of the Minister of Finance: he had better chastise his friends out there.
6.	That, in view of the large quantity of grain stored on farms in Saskatchewan which cannot he sold and delivered, we request the federal government to give urgent consideration to some method of permitting our farmers to finance on such grain.
I suggested that the farmer should be given an advance on the portion of the quota on the farm which he cannot deliver. It is not his fault that he cannot do so, and there is no reason why he should not have an advance on it.
7.	That, in view of the fact that prices paid to producers of coarse grains at local points have frequently been based on floor prices, thereby creating an excessive spread between street prices and quoted market prices, we urge the federal government to immediately take steps to rectify this situation.
Well, if this government does all that the provincial government of Saskatchewan asks them to do, it will certainly "bust" the ceiling price. So that I say again to the Minister of Finance, better go out to Saskatchewan and have a little talk with the legislature, which passed this resolution unanimously.
If we make comparison-one has been made here to-day-with the situation in United
Western Grain Crop

States, we shall find that the farmer there is enjoying much better conditions than we are in Canada. Cash wheat across the line is practically SI.66 a bushel; the May option is $1.45%; the cash price of oats is 76 cents, and the option is 63 cents. Here in Canada the board's price for wheat is 90 cents, increased two or three cents by the carrying charge since last August. But the May wheat is now Sl'.Ol; it has been a little higher.
I say that if our farmers were placed on a parity as far as storage and an advance is concerned, and, with the increase in price which has already taken place, if the wheat board and the minister, who have been conferring together for the last two weeks, work out a scheme whereby this increase in price will revert to the consumer, they will have accomplished something. I assume that is one of the things they are doing, because, according to an announcement in the Saskatchewan Liberal press, the wheat board is here for that purpose. So that it is high time that we had a statement from the minister. How long is it intended to go on considering this matter? Why do we not get a statement now? If the price and the marketing conditions are unsatisfactory, the desire of the producer to produce is weakened, and it is important that nothing of the kind should happen, especially in view of the man-power situation which has been discussed on many occasions in this chamber. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) should have made a definite statement before now with respect to his production policy, what he is asking the farmers to do. He will recall that last year it was well into seeding time before the farmers knew what was being asked of them, and it looks as though a similar delay will occur this year. Production and marketing must be considered together, and if the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) are working together, as I believe they are, the Minister of Agriculture should have been in a position before now to make a statement. Is there to be any change from what was announced early in the session? Will there be any orders in council? The farmer is willing to do his share at any time; he will perform what is expected of him; all he wants is to be assured that he will get proper consideration and a fair deal.
The matter of subsidies is something new; we do not know where we stand with respect to them. The Minister of Finance stated in his budget speech and, I think, to-day that over a hundred million dollars would be expended in subsidies for farm products and to the farmers

generally. There should be a definite announcement of policy in this respect before seeding time, which is rapidly approaching.
There is much talk about the surplus. We know there is quite a surplus; but I recall that in 1937 the carryover was the greatest in the history of the grain trade, and yet it disappeared. I am not worried about this surplus. When the war is over, world requirements will be so great that the surplus will soon disappear. The surplus may be a blessing in disguise; I believe it is; and if the government will give some consideration to the farmer and extend some encouragement to him to store the grain on his own land, there will not be anything to worry about. The farmers will store grain if they are to be paid for it on a basis equal to that on which the grain trade is paid. Farmers should be allowed storage.
For years I have endeavoured to put forth a long-range policy on prices. The hon. member who has just taken his seat has made reference to the fact that we should have a policy, not only for to-day or to-morrow but that it should be a long-range policy. I review to-day some of the things I said in 1938, and I find that at that time I went into the matter of prices when discussing a resolution before the house at that session. I placed on Hansard a record of prices for thirty-six years prior to 1938, and I have those figures before me now. They show that for those thirty-six years, including the period of the war between 1914 and 1918, we had an average price of $1.03. For the fifteen years following the war the price was about $1.15, and for the fifteen years before the war it was about $1.03.
I say that we must look at this problem from the long-range point of view, and that if we had a price of $1.10 or $1.15 fixed permanently we would not lose very much in fifteen years, and I do not think it would cost the treasury of the country anything. There is no doubt some difficulty in the present situation. We have reason to believe the board is having difficulties at the present time, because we know they are in Ottawa, in conference with the minister.
A return was tabled to-day showing that 1,015 permits have been issued for shipments of grain to the United States. That is a situation which has developed only recently, under which permits for the shipment to the United States of grain, including barley, oats and some wheat, have been issued. I w'as about to ask the minister to make a statement respecting how many permits had been issued, and to whom. I should like to know how many of those 1,015 permits were issued to producers, direct, the price at which the grain

Western Grain Crop
was sold, when it was shipped to the United States, and what portion of that price may come back to the producers. Owing to wThat has taken place on the Winnipeg market in the last little while it would appear to me that the board may be in some difficulty. No doubt they are in control of the wheat, however, because they took it by permit from the farmer last year. He had to have a permit to sell. The board is in full control and, as I have advocated on previous occasions, now when we are at war the board should take full control of the export and sale, and of the marketing and receiving of the wheat in the elevators. It should take control of the whole system.
What other industry in Canada is running wild, when dealing with millions of dollars and a great variety of products? The board is in full control. The wheat is delivered to them, and if a situation has been brought about, owing to a change in price, then I say the board is responsible because they had the wheat. They have sold it for future delivery. They have been paying storage on it ever since, and now they have to get it into shape to deliver on the option. Who has the option? These are matters about which we should know. If the committee on agriculture would meet, and call officials of the wheat board, giving us permission to bring the matter right up to date, we might get some very useful information.
The Turgeon commission which inquired info the grain trade said there should be proper control over the organization in Winnipeg, and that it could serve no useful purpose in periods of emergency. If we have not an emergency to-day, then we never had one. So that I say it is time for the board to bring the whole thing under its influence and control. If that were done we would not have a situation such as we have to-day, where there has been an increase in the price of wheat, and storage has been paid on the wheat, but none of it is going to the farmer.
Therefore I make a plea to have this whole problem of marketing and producing gone into thoroughly. We should have a definite statement from both ministers as to what they propose to do in 1943.
I do not think it is necessary to prolong this debate. It has served a useful purpose, and many worth-while suggestions have been brought to the attention of the minister. I am asking the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is at present in his seat, if he proposes to-morrow to make a statement to the house with respect to the whole policy, or as to any change in policy, and what he proposes to do to see to it that the greater portion of the increased price reverts to the
farmer. Will he see to it that the 8-cent premium on feed grains goes to the farmer; and will the Minister of Agriculture make a statement, too?
If the debate does nothing more than bring the minister to his feet to announce a clear-cut policy which the western farmer will understand, it will have served a useful purpose.


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, being a farmer, I think a debate of this nature should be right down my alley. I hesitate to prolong the debate, knowing there is some very important work to be dealt with, and dealt with immediately. However, I do not make any apology for offering a few remarks to-night.
I do not think there is much difference in the minds of hon. members from western Canada respecting the difficulties encountered by the grain farmers. I refer to the grain farmers, because they are the ones who are and have been in difficulty. I have followed diversified farming for thirty years, and I know I, and those who have followed the same line, have stood the shocks which pertain to agriculture much better than have the grain farmers. I am sure I am right in making that statement.
Nevertheless in western Canada we have many fanners who have no other means of support, and no other resources than those they derive from grain farming. Therefore it is the duty of parliament, of the government and of hon. members representing farming constituencies to point out the problems, and offer advice to the ministers who have this important work in charge.
The Canadian wheat policy looks anaemic compared with the policy in force in the United States. The United States encourages the storage of wheat on the farms, where it should be stored; our policy forces the farmers to move their grain to the public elevators. The huge storage charges which we pay to the elevators are a direct loss to the farmers and a burden to the taxpayers of Canada. The statement has been made in this house that we pay annually S50 million in storage charges. That is a burden on all the taxpayers of Canada. But I will deal with storage charges later.
I have every sympathy for the government in what they are trying to do in very difficult circumstances. The hon. member for Qu'-Appelle (Mr. Perley) said a few moments ago that we should have a long-range policy. Generally I would agree with that, but during these extraordinary times I do not think we can formulate a long-term policy in Canada in regard to agriculture, or anything else as far
Western Grain Crop

as that goes. But what caused the low prices now prevailing for grain in Canada was the establishment by the government of these fixed prices in the basic period when the price was away below parity. That is recognized by everyone. A mistake was made there. We should have had a higher price on grain in Canada before they established the set price; there should have been a nearer approach to parity, as they have in the United States. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) about a year ago took as the basic period for the price of wheat 1926-29, for which period the price was $1.41. The set price of wheat to-day is 90 cents, or a disparity of 51 cents a bushel. For oats the average during the same period was 59-7 cents; to-day it is 514 cents, or a disparity of about 8 cents a bushel. For barley, during the same period, the price was 73-6 cents; to-day it is 64-8 cents, or a difference of approximately 9 cents. These prices constitute an injustice to the farmer.
I have here some comparative prices between Chicago and Winnipeg which I should like to put on record. These are approximate; I am not giving fractions. The Chicago prices were taken from the Wall Street Journal, of March 20 I believe, and the Winnipeg prices from the Winnipeg papers.
For May wheat the Winnipeg price was 51 a bushel; 1,000 bushels would be worth $1,000. In Chicago the price was $1.46 a bushel; 1,000 bushels would be worth to the farmer $1,460, or a difference on that carlot of $460 in favour of the United States farmer.
For May oats the Winnipeg price was 51 cents a bushel; 1,000 bushels would be worth $510. In Chicago they were worth 62 cents a bushel; 1,000 bushels would be worth $620, or a difference in favour of the United States farmer of $110.
For May rye the Winnipeg price was 66 cents a bushel, or $660 for 1,000 bushels. In Chicago the price was 87 cents, or $870 for 1,000 bushels, a difference of $210 in favour of the American farmer.
For May barley the Winnipeg price was 64 cents. I have not the corresponding United States price, but I have Chicago May corn. We know that corn weighs more per bushel than barley, but feeders claim that a bushel of barley is equal to a bushel of corn for feeding purposes. May corn in Chicago was $1.01 a bushel, or $1,010 for 1,000 bushels, a difference of $370 in favour of the United States farmer.
Let me now give a comparison of live stock prices, Winnipeg and Chicago.
For top steers, Winnipeg, 12 cents a pound, or a 1,000 pound steer would be worth $120.

Chicago, 17 cents a pound, or $170 for a 1,000 pound steer. That steer is worth $50 more to the farmer in the United States than to the Canadian farmer.
For veal calves, Winnipeg, 154 cents, or a 200-pound calf would be worth $31. In Chicago the price was 174 cents, or $35', a difference of $4 per calf.
For lambs, 144 cents in Winnipeg, or S14.25 for a 100-pound lamb. In Chicago, 16J, or $16.75, a difference of $2.50 per lamb.
For dressed hogs, Winnipeg, 164 cents, or $24.50 for a 200-pound hog. In Chicago, 154 cents live weight, or $30.50 for a 200-pound hog, a difference of $6. In case some hon. members do not understand how I arrive at that difference, a hog will dress out 25 per cent. Therefore a 200-pound hog, live weight, will dress out only 150 pounds. That is how I arrive at the difference of $6 in favour of the United States hog.
I now come back to wheat. I have in my hand a resolution passed by the Marquette local of the federation of agriculture. This was sent to me some time ago. It reads:
That we, the Poplar Heights local of the M.F.A. hereby go on record as being strongly in favour of the wheat board accepting earlot shipments direct from the farmers, and that storage be paid to the farmers as well as to elevators as a matter of equity.
For a moment I wish to deal with the matter of storage. No one in this house can attack my constant plea that storage should be paid for grain stored on the farm, for just as many bushels as it is possible to store there. That is where the wheat should be stored, rather than in our country elevators; and it can be stored more cheaply on the farms. The old bogey was that the wheat had to be in the elevators because then it was in a position for export. Does anyone swallow that for a moment to-day, when we have hundreds of millions of bushels of wheat in Canada? It is in a good position when it is in the farmer's own granary, with our modern facilities by which we can load a car and get it out in a day. That is what the farmers can do, so that we should take it with a grain of salt when the grain men tell us-and it will be the grain men-that they want to get the wheat into the elevators because then it is in a position to be sold if a buyer is in the market. That argument does not hold good in these times. I have in my hand a letter from Mr. William McArthur, director of the grain division of the United States department of agriculture. I asked Mr. McArthur for certain information, and I wish to thank him for his courtesy in sending it to me. He tells me that in the United1 States they lend farmers money on the grain stored in the granaries on the

Western Grain Crop
farms, and they pay a parity price, which last year was SI .14. I should have said that they lend at the rate of eighty-five per cent of parity price, and that last year this came to $1.14 a bushel.


Ernest Edward Perley: Plus one cent a bushel per month for seven months.


Harry Leader: Then Mr. McArthur tells me what I think nearly every hon. member knows, that they paid seven cents a bushel for grain stored on the farms in 1942. They pay this seven cents a bushel when they lock up the granary and give the farmer his advance payment. They give the farmer seven cents a bushel in cash and say, "If you want to go ahead and build a granary, this will help you." Is that not a policy of which anyone should be proud? Last year in this house I read a letter from a similar source giving the opinion that the result of this policy had been the construction of a great many good, substantial granaries for the use of the farmers. These buildings are there for forty years; they are not dismantled in a year or two. This would be an encouragement to a farmer to go into diversified farming, which really would be the salvation of the farmers of western Canada, and when that comes about, the farmers of eastern Canada will have to look out, because we can produce equally as good hogs or cattle or any other sort of live stock and produce them much more cheaply.
Then I want to tell the house how many bushels of grain were stored on the farms of the United States last year on which this payment of seven cents a bushel was made. The total was 182,000,000 bushels, and the amount of eighty-five cents a bushel was lent on 404,000,000 bushels. In regard to the 1943 policy, Mr. McArthur says:
The wheat programme for 1943 has not been sufficiently developed to discuss in detail. It seems probable that it will closely resemble the programme of 1942, except loan rates which may be somewhat higher.
Recently the United States government removed many of the restrictions on growing wheat, and the farmers have been, given practically a free hand to go ahead and sow all the wheat they wish, within the prescribed acreage. I should like to quote something I saw in the New York Herald-Tribune of February 24 of this year, under the heading, "Wickard ends wheat quotas to ensure food." They are beginning to think there may be a food shortage in the United States. Many of the Canadian people are wondering if the same condition does not apply in this country. This article states:
Under marketing quotas farmers were free to sell, use or feed on their A-A-A allotments. Wheat from 1942 crops sold, used or fed from
excess acreages was subject to a penalty tax of fifty-four cents a bushel! The penalty would have been around sixty cents on the 1943 crop.
Under this change farmers who plant at least ninety per cent of their A-A-A may overplant their 1943 wheat allotments and still be eligible for benefit payments and wheat loans.
To-day's action releases for sale or use without penalty excess wheat from 1942 crops which farmers may be now holding in storage.
U.S.A. had in store last year a record crop of wheat-1,613,000,000 bushels, or more than enough for two years' supply, and asked at that time the lands be sown to other crops. The disappearance has been rapid owing to wheat used for alcohol production and feed for live stock, hence the removal of restrictions.
It may be that, as the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) said the other evening, we are threatened with a food shortage in Canada within the course of a year or two. That may be so, but I do not agree. I can see nothing but these hundreds of millions of bushels that are keeping the price of wheat down. I was never in favour of the bonuses which were paid to the farmers of western Canada. I have said in this house many times; I say it again, and I am ready to prove it, that we should pay the farmer a legitimate price for a certain number of bushels, tell him how many bushels he can sell for that year, and then say, "That is all the wheat we can take, but we will give you a living price for the wheat we can take." For the last three or four years I have suggested that this price should be at least $1 a bushel. "But if you want to grow more than that, you must look after it yourself." If that had been done, Mr. Speaker, we would have avoided payment of the $50,000,000 for storage which the taxpayers of this country must pay the elevator interests, and I believe that would have solved the problem of our surplus wheat, because no farmer will sow more wheat when he has a granary full of it which he cannot sell. That is the situation to-day as it affects hundreds of farmers in western Canada. I can speak with some knowledge, because I am one of them. I have enough wheat in my granary to fill my quota of fourteen bushels per acre for the next four years, and I cannot sell a bushel of it. I do not intend to sow more wheat in 1943, and I am advising all my tenants not to sow a bushel of wheat this year. What is the use? We are supposed to look after this wheat ourselves because the government are not paying any farm storage this year. I hope they will change their minds, because we did not go into this thing deliberately; we were led into it. In the future let us do away with this policy of paying bonuses and pay a legitimate price for what the government can accept. They can leave it to the farmer to decide whether he will grow wheat or coarse grains or flax.
Western Grain Crop

Some one said that there had been some change in the announcement made earlier in the session in regard to the 1943 policy. There may be more changes made. Some one on the other side said that he would like to know before the Easter holidays what the changes are to be. It would be profitable to know what those changes are to be so that we can take the information back to our people. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle said a few minutes ago that there are some things in regard to the grain policy that we should know. I have always been struck with the lack of information from the government with regard to wheat. We cannot find out what price we are getting from the old country, and I do not see how it would hurt us to know. We should have that information, and we should know how many bushels we sell each year and how many bushels are in storage. There is no reason for all this mystery. If the government would take us more into their confidence we would be more anxious to cooperate with their policies. I believe they are trying to do the best they can with a very difficult situation. I said that at the beginning and I wish to reiterate, but I do think some changes in regard to the 1943 wheat policy are desirable.


Alfred Henry Bence: Mr. Speaker, the subject now under discussion affects Saskatchewan more than any other matter which could be discussed in this house. Coming from the centre of that province, I wish to say a word or two about the grain policy of the government. One matter upon which I desire to comment has to do with wheat, and the other is in connection with flax, produced for oil purposes. Last year when wheat was being discussed in this house I protested against the price which was set on No. 1 northern at Fort William. I could not see any basis of parity for the price of 90 cents a bushel which was set.
There seemed to me some misapprehension in the minds of many hon. members as to just what was the actual wheat problem. They seemed to be impressed with the large carryover which we had. The fact is that the government neither last year nor this are paying for all the w'heat that is produced in the country. They are paying merely for that amount of wheat which they estimate they will use during the current year. I suggest to the government that they should treat the wheat they are willing to purchase on exactly the same basis as they treat other matters essential to our war effort. Last year I asked

the administration to give an explanation as to how they arrived at the 90-cent price, but as far as I know it has never been given.
In connection with the 280,000,000 bushels of wheat which the government proposes to take off the hands of the farmers this year and use for export and domestic purposes, we want a price which compares with prices being paid for other commodities produced in this country. Many figures have been given in this house in connection with parity. I do not propose to repeat them, but I suggest to the administration that it should have used the same basis for establishing the price of wheat as it used to establish wages, namely, the period of highest wages from 1926 to 1929.
The wheat farmer does not want charity; all he wants is a price which is equitable compared with what other producers are receiving. An attack has been made on the members of the house who have risen in their places to speak on behalf of higher prices for wheat and other agricultural products, the claim being made that it was an attempt to breach the price ceiling. It was nothing of the sort. The anti-inflationary measures were introduced by order in council, not by legislation, but I have always endeavoured in every way possible, both in and out of the house, to support those measures. From time to time I have drawn to the attention of the administration certain matters which I thought should be impressed upon the public of this country in order to make those measures effective.
I have pointed out before and I point out again that there seems to be undue emphasis placed upon the question of price ceilings, whereas in my opinion the important thing to do is to place the emphasis upon the draining off of excess purchasing power. There is no price ceiling scheme, no anti-inflationary measure that can possibly work unless there is an adequate system of draining off equitably from all the Canadian people that excess purchasing power which may be used in the purchase of consumer goods. If that pressure is allowed to stay on, then no price ceiling legislation in the world can, prevent the inflationary spiral from getting into the ascendence.
It seems to me that it must be evident to the administration that the whole system of anti-inflationary measures must necessarily fall down if the remuneration paid to one part of the producing population is out of proportion to that paid to other parts. We cannot possibly have our anti-inflationary measures work out if we do not have complete equity under our price ceilings. There must be a common relationship between all the producers of this country. They must be able to compete in the labour market and in other markets with

Western Grain Crop
the other producers. It seems to me that there lias not been sufficient emphasis placed upon that factor. Unless something is done about it we are bound to find that that portion of the producing public which is not receiving a return commensurate with that received by other parts of the producing public will necessarily fall down in its production. We shall then find that we are not producing the things that are so essential to our war effort.
In my opinion we are making a mistake by not tackling the problem of providing a proper and equitable system of rationing the purchasing power of this country. If the purchasing power were rationed on an equitable basis, we would not have nearly as much *trouble as we are having at the present time in connection with our agricultural population. It must be obvious to all that if you give more in proportion to some parts of the producing population than you give to other parts, your production will suffer, because that part which is not receiving as much will be unable to get labour and the other things to which I have referred. That is all I have to say in connection wdth the relationship of the price ceiling on wheat to the general anti-inflationary measures of the government.
I wish to go back to a problem I have raised in this house on three occasions this session, and I raise it again to-night in the hope that we shall get from this administration a statement of its policy. I refer to the production of flax for oil purposes. I am very sorry indeed that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is not in his seat at the moment, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) is here and I urge him before this *debate is concluded to let the farmers know exactly what is required of them in the production of flax. It is one of the most important things that is being produced by the agriculturists of this country at the present time.
I do not propose to reiterate unnecessarily some of the arguments I placed before the house on former occasions. The situation is just this. At the present time we are still standing on the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on January 29 when he advised the flax growers of this country as follows:
We are, therefore, not asking farmers to increase flax acreage over 1942. If there is any change in the requirements of flaxseed, farmers will be notified later.
Is the minister in a position to-day, or will he be shortly, to inform the producers what is required of them in this regard? Time is getting short.
I do not know wdiether the administration or any of its members has ever publicly asserted the importance of the production of flax for
oil purposes in this country. By inference at least they have given us to understand that it was very important that we should increase the production of flax for various purposes. In that connection I gave notice of motion the other day for the production of papers in this house. The motion came up for consideration this afternoon. I was very sorry I was not here when it came up. It was one of the few afternoons when I was not here at three o'clock. My motion, which will be found on page 16 of Routine Proceedings and Orders oj the Day, was this:
For a copy of the report dated September 18, 1942, by the Minister of Agriculture to the committee of the privy council with respect to the production of flaxseed of oil-bearing type.
I am advised that when the motion came up this afternoon the Minister of Agriculture replied that the report was privileged and he did not propose to bring it down. When matters of legislation are brought into this house it is usual for the minister concerned to give a statement of the reasons for the legislation. Even if he does not make such a statement, he is in a position to be questioned by hon. members as to the reasons. But the same is not true of orders in council. It is possible for the administration to do by order in council certain things which they wish to make the law of this land without giving to the House of Commons and the people of this country their reasons for the legislation. That is what happened in this case. On September 23, 1942, order in council P.C. 8602 was passed with reference to the purchase of royal flax seed. The first paragraph of the order in council reads:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report dated September 18, 1942, from the Minister of Agriculture, representing that there is an urgent need to increase the production of flaxseed of oil-bearing type to meet war needs.
That is the report I had in mind when I gave my notice of motion for the production of papers. I assert to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this house that the House of Commons and the people of this country, when a statement like that is made as to the reasons for the passing of an order in council, are entitled to know the details. When a responsible minister of the crown prepares for the privy council a statement-and it is apparently a written statement because it says: "report dated September 18, 1942"-in which it is said that there is an urgent need for increased production of a commodity in which a large bulk of agricultural producers of this country are interested, I say that that information should be given to this house in detail. It passes my understanding completely why a minister or anybody else would refuse to

Western Grain Crop

bring down a report which is related to something that is so important to the war effort at the present time.
In December of last year it. was decided by the administration, to increase the flax acreage in this country by 1,000,000 acres. Then, a month and a half later the Minister of Agriculture stated that the farmers were not required to increase their flax acreage, but that it was desired that they sow the same acreage as they did the year before. Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce made the statement in the house to which I have referred, which was to the same effect as the statement of the Minister of Agriculture. But subsequently to that there have been statements by men holding responsible positions in the civil service, technical men and women, who have stated that there was an urgent need for the production of flaxseed for various purposes.
Flaxseed is required, not only for the production of linseed oil, which is used for various purposes in connection with our war effort, but also for the production of a very necessary feed for live stock-oilcake. My information is that the producers in this country are clamouring for this oilcake, because with the increased live-stock production programme they require more and more of this nutritious protein. Yet, despite the fact that they are asking for the production of more and more of this oilcake the administration have not yet given a statement as to the requirements for this year. We produced approximately 14.000.000 bushels of flax last year. We can process only 6,395,000 bushels of flax with our own processing machinery. Despite the fact that there is a great need for this oilcake for the feeding of live stock, nevertheless during the last two or three months one of the large flax processing plants in this country was out of production for over a month because it could not get flaxseed. It seems to me that the Canadian people are entitled to an explanation of the reasons for this kind of thing.
There are certain questions which I wish to postulate to the ministers who are in charge of this matter.


Mr. HOMUTH:: That is a good word. They will never answer because they will not understand it.


Alfred Henry Bence: My first question is this:
I am informed-I do not know whether my information is correct or not, but the minister will be able to correct me if I am wrong- that last year, before the 1942 seeding of flax, certain interests in the United States offered to buy from this country 10,000,000 bushels

of flax from the 1942 crop, but that for some reason or another-I do not know what-the administration refused to enter into any agreement for the sale of this quantity of flax. I should like to know, if that is a fact, what was the reason for the refusal, and did the price ceiling set up in this country have anything to do with such refusal? Second, what offers have been received from the United States with respect to this year's crop? Has the government been asked by the government of the United States, or any of its agencies, or any private agencies there, to increase our flax production during 1943? I have heard that it has. But whether my information is correct or not, I ask the administration to inform the house within the next day or two what the exact situation is with respect to production this year. Do we anticipate exporting flax? Is there any intimation which the minister can give-I do not want anything which would be contrary to censorship regulations-as to approximately how much flax we in this country should produce in addition to what we can process?
To my mind this is a very serious problem, important not only from the point of view of the producers-and I come from a part of the country which raises at least one-fourth of the total production of Canada-who have to plan with respect to matters of seed, manpower and allocation of acreage, but important also from the viewpoint of the processors of this country and of those agriculturists who require this particular live stock feed which is so necessary for the raising of their product, and who wish to know whether they will be able to get it this year or not.


Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Chambly-Rou-ville):: I should like to say a few words on
this important question. I have listened with great interest to all the arguments advanced in favour of helping the farmers of this country, and I assume that all that has been put forward, by either one group or another, has been presented in the good spirit of constructive criticism.
With your kind permission and the permission of my colleagues, who, after all, will understand me just as well, I will say what I have to say, in French.
(Translation):	Mr. Speaker, the agricultural question, taken as a whole, is one of national importance. It becomes in war time international in scope, since, as Napoleon once said, an army fights on its belly. Notwithstanding the enthusiasm and zeal with which the military would send our young men on every war front of the world in greater numbers to meet the enemy whom all wish to destroy, I do believe that there is

Western Grain Crop
a growing scarcity of farm labour to a point where our farmers, especially such as live fifty or seventy-five miles from the main centres of population, will be forced to abandon their farms precisely for lack of sufficient help to carry on their operations.
It is well to remember that large families are to be found mostly in rural districts. Statistics for 1931-I have not those for 1941-show 28,796 families in Quebec province with six children, 21,000 with seven children,
14.000	with eight, very nearly 10,000 with nine,
6.000	with ten, 3,500 with eleven, and 16.000 with twelve children. As these large families are to be found mostly among farmers, the situation entails greater hardship and becomes all the more impossible due to the fact that too many farmers' sons are taken off the farm. Heads of families who had planned intensive market gardening, for instance, as exists in the vicinity of Montreal, or dairy farming with a large dairy herd, will find it necessary to reduce their herds, to limit their intensive market gardening or even to give up entirely.
Every hon. member in this house representing the farming population of this country is anxious, I am sure, to relieve the difficult situation in which the Canadian farmer finds himself, whether as regards wheat growing in the west or mixed farming in the east. It is evident that notwithstanding all that governments may have done to assist the farming community, much improvement is yet possible. When the wartime prices and trade board fixes ceilings for farm products in war time, it may happen, due to the lack of experience of otherwise well-meaning officials, that prices established are insufficiently high for farmers to meet their difficult situation. Taking, for instance, the maple industry: whereas the farmer who owns a maple bush could, in ordinary pre-war times, hire skilled hands at a monthly salary of from $30 to $35, now, due to the scarcity of labour, if he wants to take on skilled hands for the production of maple products, he must pay between $80 and $75 a month, and even at that high rate he will not easily find them. If, therefore, the farmer has to pay twice as much for his labour, it obviously follows that he will have to sell his maple products at double the price. But the fixed price is nothing like that. It is well worth asking the hon. minister concerned with those matters to cause the wartime prices and trade board to raise the price of maple products. The matter is highly important, in view of our present sugar rationing policy. Two farm products deserve encouragement: maple syrup and sugar, and sugar beets. I note that large-scale sugar beet production is being planned in various sections of the country. According to figures supplied by the "Farm Economist", a
72537-105}
dominion government publication, plans are being laid for 63,000 acres of sugar beets in 1943 and an increased production of refined sugar. If such an objective is to be reached, Mr. Speaker, the farmer will necessarily have to be encouraged to do so. I am sure that all hon. members who hear me will agree that the farmer, who plays a highly important part especially in war time, has a right to a reasonable return for the sale of his products.
It must be admitted that in spite of all appearances to the contrary the farmer is forced to pay innumerable indirect taxes. Moreover, the price of everything a farmer needs, including farm implements, is so high that after paying for everything he has not a penny left, if he does not show a deficit. It is unreasonable for the government of any country to countenance such a state of affairs. I am fully convinced that our ministers want to help farmers by every possible means, and no one would be more pleased than the member for Chambly-Rouville if the government decided to grant the legitimate requests of farmers in this country by granting bonuses, as they have done for milk, for cheese and bacon.
Since I am now speaking about bacon hogs, I must say that I am not satisfied with the treatment meted out to farmers in that connection. I understand that the government is not directly concerned with the operations of slaughter-houses. However, I feel that if the government knew the facts as they have been reported to me, they would endeavour to straighten out the situation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the bonus is paid on bacon hogs only if they weigh from 180 to 220 pounds, I believe. If a hog is one pound over or under weight, not only is the bonus not paid, but the hog is placed in a lower grade and such a low price is set on it that it does not pay the farmer to put it up for sale, considering what the farmer has to pay for the feeding and the care of those bacon hogs. I think that the government should appoint bacon hog producers as representatives of the farming community, who would be stationed at the slaughter-houses where they would check the weight of those bacon hogs, thereby protecting the farmer's interests. I do not mean that the abattoir owners rob the farmers, but I do say that the latter must accept the arbitrary decision of interested people. Were the government to hold an inquiry in this matter, perhaps they would find that even in the cattle trade, and in the abattoirs, there may be trust operators against whom the farmer should be protected.
When a farmer, through a trucker or a hog dealer, sends one hundred or one hundred and fifty hogs to the Montreal market, there is no
Western Grain Crop

one in a position to decide how many of them fill the conditions required by the government to warrant the payment of the bonus. The hogs are not weighed in the presence of the farmer or the trucker at the abattoir. They are told to return a week later and be told what amount they are entitled to, how many animals command a premium and how many are subject to a cut. When the farmer or his representative returns the following week, he finds out that, perhaps sixty out of one hundred hogs did not entitle him to the bonus but were subjected to such a cut that no profit can be derived from raising them. This condition should be remedied at once. On behalf of the agricultural population of Chambly-Rou-ville, I urge the minister to see that this intolerable situation be corrected.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to make lengthy observations at such a late hour but, to summarize, I am convinced that the agricultural class of this country deserves as much consideration as that of the United States. Comparing the rural population of both nations, I find that the conditions of the Canadian farmer leave ample room for improvement. For this reason, I should like to state that every step the government can take to help the farmer will promote the war effort and the consequent improvement in the situation will allow him to increase his production and ensure that- our soldiers being well fed will possess the stamina and strength necessary to prosecute the war to a victorious conclusion.


Ernest George Hansell: A good deal has been said this afternoon with respect to the failure of the government so far to announce an adequate agricultural policy for 1943. The criticism seems to relate to that part of agriculture involving beef cattle, and hogs, and I think flax came in for its share of discussion.
There are two commodities that are rationed more or less severely in Canada, one being sugar and the other butter, both essential to life, and both agricultural products. As far as sugar is concerned, the sugar beet acreage has been increased this year, but I am wondering whether in this long-range policy that we have been advocating so much the government has a long-range policy with respect to the production of sugar beets and the refining of sugar in Canada. We are not getting, through the medium of our own sugar beet production and our own sugar refineries, the sugar that Canadians require. There is no reason in the world why the agricultural industry of Canada could not do this. We have a surplus of wheat. I know of course that all wheat farms could not suddenly be turned to the production of sugar; for one 
thing the land may not be suitable. But it occurs to me that the government could very well search out that land which is most productive, according to type of soil, climate and so on, and say, Now we need more sugar; here let us raise more sugar beets. Let us pay some attention to the increase of sugar refining in Canada so that we can produce more sugar than we do.
We all know that we are going short of butter. As to how much there is in storage and for export I know little, but I know that the Canadian consumer is rationed and is short of butter. What is the position with respect to the production of butter or cream? I was talking to two men in my constituency not long ago, and one pointed to the other and said, "Our friend here raises cattle. He claims that he knows it is an advantage to him to let the calves run with the cows because the price of beef and calves is now a little higher so that pays him better than producing cream for butter. That being so, we can see at once that there is not an equilibrium of prices that would cause the farmers to level off and produce our entire requirements at a proper price for everything.
We hear a great deal with respect to parity prices. The continued demand that agriculture is making is for a parity price for all things, so that the farmer would not have to pay more for the commodities he requires and receive less for what he produces. That is a sound argument. It seems to me that the government could do much more than it is doing along that line. I am heartily in accord with the remarks of the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Hlynka) this evening when he said we can stand here and talk until we are blue in the face and it does not seem to matter much. Some of us have been here long enough to know that talking does not seem to be of much avail. We talk the best common sense we know, whether it is good or bad remains to be seen; we argue these matters out as we understand them, and yet no action is taken. I am alarmed sometimes when I see so many hon. members on the government side of the house representing agricultural constituencies, and yet when it comes to matters of agricultural policy they usually rise in their places in defence of the government. There are one or two exceptions. I was surprised-perhaps it is rather disagreeable of me to make this remark-to look over the house this afternoon and observe that out of all the agricultural districts represented on the Liberal side of the house there was only one western member in his seat when this important discussion was going on. I refer to the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw).

Private Bills


James Angus MacKinnon: That is, private members.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes; the Minister of Trade and Commerce of course was in his seat, because the whole discussion centres around his department. He was here and paid good attention; he is even paying attention to my speech. At the same time the minister comes from a city, although he does come from the west.


James Angus MacKinnon: It is part of the country, too.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, Edmonton is growing so fast it will soon be a city. However, there is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), representing a western agricultural constituency; the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), a western member representing an agricultural constituency, who has been here for many years. Here are all these other members on the government side of the house representing agricultural constituencies. Am I to understand that with all these hon. members, and with all those on this side representing agricultural constituencies, those of us who represent the farmers of the west and of the east-for what affects one affects the other -cannot reason with the government and bring to bear enough pressure to cause the formation of an adequate agricultural policy for this country? It seems that we cannot. It appears to me that some of these hon. members represent the party instead of the people.
I was dealing with matters of prices. We have a price control board in Canada. I will not criticize the work of that board, but when it was first brought into existence it more or less froze prices of everything as they were during a certain period. Perhaps they had to do that; I am not offering any criticism in that regard, but since that time they have made several adjustments. I see no reason at all why we could not have in Canada a similar board which would function in such a way as to bring about parity as between all prices, so that agriculture would be raised to the level of other industries in Canada. We have a tariff board in this country; I can use that as an illustration. Almost everything coming into Canada has a tariff on it; if it is free from duty that is so only because the tariff board lets it come in free. A thousand and one tariff items have been dealt with by this board over the years. It has functioned in such a way that it can put its finger right on the spot when it deals with any question of the tariff. There is no reason in the world why some body similar to the wartime prices and trade board could not go into the matter of parity prices and establish prices for all
things so that the farmers of both east and west would know exactly where they stand in relation to their business. If this could be done prices could be adjusted accordingly, and the farm debt problem could be brought into the picture. I do not know of a more effective argument along this line than the one advanced by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) the other day when dealing with this question of debt and production. He used a terse little illustration; he said that if a farmer owes a debt of SI,000 and wheat is fifty cents a bushel, it takes 2,000 bushels of wheat to pay off his debt; but that if wheat is $1 a bushel, it takes only 1,000 bushels to pay off the debt. That cannot be disputed. Yet when it comes to arranging prices, these matters are never taken into consideration.
I see it is nearly eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has something he would like to say before we adjourn. I suggest, however, that there is no reason in the world why Canada cannot have a balanced economy. We are not arguing for any favours for one industry at the expense of another. Let us have a balanced economy throughout the country, so that the farmers may be fairly dealt with, so that their prices may be adequate in relation to the prices they have to pay for goods and services. That can be done; to say it cannot is just the height of foolishness. I leave that thought with the government and with parliament to-night.
On motion of Mr. Douglas (Weyburn) the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 30, 1943