1944-05-22

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often in the history of a leader of an opposition that he can speak on behalf of the whole parliament in which he sits, and at the same time be reasonably sure of unanimous support for what he says. I feel in this particular instance, however, that I am in that position.
Because of the war and the serious matters connected with it, there is not much time left for pleasant occasions such as that which is afforded now to members of this house. Therefore this occasion stands out in bold relief; because after nearly four full and very strenuous weeks in which the Prime Minister has dealt with important commonwealth, international and war-time business for Canada overseas, he has returned to our midst, again to take his part in the affairs of parliament.
One of my words at this time should be an-expression of gratitude and appreciation to His Majesty, to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, to the members of the United Kingdom cabinet, to the members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons at Westminster-indeed to the entire people of Great Britain-for the spontaneous and open-hearted welcome they extended to our Prime Minister while he was there, a welcome which we in turn, as a nation of Canadian citizens, are pleased to share.
The general tone of the welcome the Prime Minister of Canada received in that overseas domain was an indication of how the nation he represents is held over there. I fancy the gesture of good will and affection extended to the Prime Minister on behalf of himself and the people of Canada will remain long with him as a treasured and prized memory, as it will for the rest of us in Canada who share it with him.
May I say this to the Prime Minister: We are glad you are back. We are glad your journey was a safe one, and that you have been able to maintain and to preserve that measure of good health in which you left and which, apparently, is unabated on your return. We hope, too, that in the near future we shall be able to welcome two other leaders from the sister dominions of Australia and New Zealand. We shall welcome them not only on their own account, but because of the splendid achievements of their respective nations, both
Welcome to Prime Minister

in war and in peace. They stand high in the esteem, the admiration and the affection of the Canadian people, and I think it well that we pay this public tribute to them.
And so, if I may, on behalf of the members [DOT]of the house, I extend to the Prime Minister the very warmest and most cordial of welcomes upon his return, and I say to him: We are happy indeed to have you with us once more.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure every member of the house, regardless of party, will re-echo the words of the leader of the opposition (Mr. [DOT]Graydon) on this occasion. It was indeed kind of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Ralston) yesterday to let us know that the Prime Minister was to arrive last evening, so that we might be present and see him land safe and well, and apparently not too tired.
We feel, as I think all the house feels,
[DOT] regardless of our political affiliations, that the Prime Minister on his recent trip represented 'Canada with distinction to himself and honour to our country.
Mr. J. Id. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, members of this group are glad to welcome the Prime Minister home. We feel it is a cause of satisfaction that he was able to make the trip safely, over there and back, and we shall be glad indeed to see him ready again to take his part in the government *of the country.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members will not be surprised when I say that it is with great difficulty I find words wherewith to express my appreciation of the welcome extended to me this afternoon, as I return to my duties in the House of Commons.
May I say to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr, Graydon) that it was particularly pleasing to be welcomed by him, both as an old friend and as leader of the opposition in the house. There are times when, I imagine, my hon. friend would not welcome my return as cordially as he has this afternoon. But may I say to him that I have never come into the House of Commons at any time when I found myself more *pleased with having that opportunity. I thank him for the exceedingly generous and felicitous way in which he has extended a welcome on behalf of his party, and I thank too, my hon. friends, the leaders of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the Social Credit parties for the equally felicitous and generous manner in which they have extended their good wishes, and those of their t{Mr. Graydon.]
followers. I shall ever remember with gratitude as well as pride, the welcome accorded from all sides of the house.
May I say to all hon. members that at no time have I been insensible of the burden of responsibility which was mine. If I have been fortunate enough not to disappoint too greatly any hopes or expectations they may have been kind enough to entertain of my representation of this House of Commons in Great Britain, I cannot be too grateful. The welcome which I received in Britain, which as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition quite rightly says was a welcome of the entire people of Britain, from their majesties the king and queen to those engaged in humble but essential tasks in that country at this time was certainly a welcome to the representative of the people of Canada and an expression of the feeling of the heart and mind of Britain toward the Canadian people. My visit afforded me an opportunity to realize how deeply the people of the United Kingdom feel toward the people of Canada. No words could begin to acknowledge the expressions that came from all sides as to the war effort of our country, and what it meant to have Canada and the other self-governing nations of the commonwealth represented at the side of the British government and people, at this of all times in the history of the world.
Had time permitted, and had I not just concluded a journey of over four thousand miles in one day and night, I should have liked to say something to the house of the many impressions gathered while in the United Kingdom, but doubtless I will have other opportunities for doing so. I shall accordingly make but a reference or two to those impressions. First, I should like to say that I think the conference in every way was a very great success, not only in what it. disclosed of unity of purpose, unity of feeling and unity of action on the part of all who were there, but also in what it represented, in a symbolic way, to other parts of the world of the complete unity of the British commonwealth of nations and their high purpose at this time. It would not be possible to overestimate the value which the discussions at the conference were to all present. We had the privilege, the very great privilege, of having the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Churchill, preside over practically all the meetings. It was an inspiration to have his leadership. I am sure hon. members will be pleased to know that the Prime Minister of Great Britain was never in better health and never displayed more vigour than at the present time. During the last few

Welcome to Prime Minister
years I have seen him on many occasions; at Washington, here in Ottawa and also in Britain, but I can say that I do not recall ever having seen Mr. Churchill display the vigour, the energy, the tirelessness and the utter freedom from fatigue that he displayed throughout the entire conference. This means a great deal to all of us.
The discussions were free, frank and friendly. I could not honestly say that there were material differences between us on any questions. There were shades of opinion; there were points of view that were perhaps different, arising out of the different geographical positions of the different nations of the commonwealth, and the local situations they must necessarily take into account, but there was no difficulty whatever in arriving at a convergence of view with respect to all matters that were discussed. The programme itself was very full. It covered a variety of subjects, dealing of course primarily with matters of defence, with plans of the whole war, but dealing also with questions of foreign policy, matters related to the period of transition, to post-war reconstruction, and to the fashioning of a new world order. In the nature of things the proceedings of the conference were very secret, and one has to be doubly careful at this moment to disclose very little of what took place within its secret councils. These are moments when the enemy is more active than he has been at any time. He would be quick to piece together remarks that might be made in different parts of the world as to what had taken place, and turn them to his own advantage. But I can say, and I am proud to say, that its entire proceedings were marked by a degree of unanimity and determination that it would be impossible to exaggerate.
I believe the house would be interested were I to give just a line which might come to hon. members as from Mr. Churchill himself, for it, better than anything else I can think of, describes wThat the conference meant not only to him but to all of us who were present from the other nations of the commonwealth. I give the words as spoken by the Prime Minister at the opening of the concluding session, at the time the representatives signed the declaration which was subsequently published. Mr. Churchill said:
We have found comfort in hours of stress and anxiety. In days when great military operations are proceeding with vigour, and, at last, not uncheered by hopes of success, we have found pleasure in meeting men whose companionship is .a comfort, whose comradeship is strong as a rock. . . . My confidence in the future is enormously strengthened by all that lias passed around this council board, and I am sure that
this meeting will in future years be looked back to as one of the important milestones in the history of our united association.
My hon. friends have been kind enough to make reference to my part in the proceedings. May I say to them and to other hon. members of the house that, if it was in any way satisfactory, that was due to the circumstance that I had the privilege of giving expression to what I believe to be feelings and sentiments which are held in common throughout this dominion. I sought to avoid' making reference to matters which might represent differences of opinion on any question.. The things that we all hold in common are so much greater than the things that divide us-that it was not difficult for me to feel that, when I spoke, I was speaking not for any particular party, not for either side of the-house, but for members of all parties in this House of Commons and for the people of Canada as a whole.
My stay in Britain over the past three weeks and more has permitted me to gain exceptional information from the inside, from those-who know more about the position of affairs-in Europe and throughout the world than-any other men; to obtain information from-those in the highest positions on the military side as well as from those in the highest positions on the civil side. I have been permitted, also, to see something of the tremendous developments that have taken place in preparation for the final great task which may come at any moment. As a result of what I have seen and heard, I feel more reassured than I have felt at any time as to the certainty of ultimate victory. But may I say also that I feel more deeply than ever that the struggle is going to be very much greater and more difficult than any of -us begin to comprehend!.
I believe it is going to be longer than perhaps most of us imagine. As to its being a difficult struggle, a hard and severe struggle, a stupendous struggle, there -can be no doubt. It will be the greatest conflict in arms that has ever taken place in the history of the world. We must be prepared, all of us, everywhere, to hear from time to time of situations that may cause us, for the moment, great concern. But let me say to the people of Canada, when that moment comes, have nodoubt whatever as to what the ultimate outcome of the struggle will be, for I believe, knowing the plans of the united nations and what is being done to give effect to them, that there can be no question at all as to what the ultimate outcome will be.
I should like to add a further word as a result of what I have heard and seen- and felt. I do not believe that this war is going to end
Welcome to Prime Minister

the conflict between the different classes and races of men. The enemy of to-day must be completely destroyed, but forces of evil have been let loose in this world which it is going to be difficult indeed to bring to bay. These forces of evil are going to continue to destroy much of what is best in the world, for many *days, I am afraid, possibly years, after the main struggle is over. In all of our deliberations here, as I am sure will be the case in the deliberations of all other assemblies of free nations, we must never lose sight of the fact that our greatest work may still lie ahead in seeking to trample under foot and slay the dragon that to-day is seeking to destroy humanity itself.
I have been impressed more than ever with the truth that Britain holds the gates of freedom for the world. She has carried a great burden through the years, almost through centuries, in keeping open those gates of freedom. She has been hard pressed, very hard pressed in recent years in keeping those gates ajar. I believe that if the nations of the commonwealth had not found it possible in their hearts, from aheir love of freedom and sense of justice, to *come immediately as they did to the side of Britain when this great struggle broke out, she herself might not have found it possible to keep those gates open. If those gates are * ever closed there will be no more freedom for men in this world, I believe, for a thousand .years to come. So I say that our task should :go beyond this war and that we must continue tto share with all freedom-loving peoples the igitaat task of keeping those gates of freedom, which Britain represents, open to mankind.
I should add that I never was so proud of Canada as I was in Britain when I saw what our armed forces meant to the people there, and what they are accomplishing. It was not my privilege, obviously, to witness our naval forces in action, though events took place at the time of my visit which caused us all to realize their service and sacrifice as perhaps they have not been recognized at any other moment. But I did have the privilege of [DOT]visiting our bomber group at one or two of its stations and of seeing something of the army and of its extent and work. I felt a pride in Canada's effort greater than any I have ' hitherto known or expressed. On some other *occasion I shall have a chance to say a word about that and about the work people on the farms and in industries in Canada are doing to keep Britain supplied with the food and the war materials she so greatly needs.
Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I was never more proud to be a Canaj
dian than I am at this hour, and I was never more proud to be a citizen of the British commonwealth.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	Has an order in council been passed dealing with those who buy land which Japanese subsequently occupy?
2.	Has the government of British Columbia made representations to the Minister of Justice advocating ithe amending of the regulations covering the sale of land to Japanese with a view to having the penalties for infraction apply to those who held land for Japanese as well as to those who conveyed it?
3.	If so, (a) when were such representations made; (b) has such action been taken; (c) is such action contemplated?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	Yes.
2.	The Attorney General of British Columbia has made such representations.
3.	(a) March 27 and April 14, 1944.	(b)
Yes. (c) Answered by (b).


SENTENCE OF ALBERT VICTOR WESTGATE
Mr. DORION:: 1.	Has Albert Victor Westgate recently been sentenced to hang?
2.	Had this man been sentenced previously before a court of justice?
3.	If so, (a) for what offence; (to) what was the sentence; (c) was he set free before the expiration of his term of imprisonment; (d) upon whose recommendation was he set free?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	A Canadian press dispatch, dated May 8, 1944, from Winnipeg, reported Albert Victor Westgate sentenced to be executed on July 24, 1944.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) Murder, (b) Sentenced to be hanged on June 5, 1929, which sentence was, on June 1, 1929, commuted to life imprisonment, (c) On June 3, 1943, released on licence, under Ticket of Leave Act. (d) Representations were made to the Department of Justice by the warden and the chaplains of the penitentiary, by many outstanding citizens of Manitoba, by the Canadian Legion, Dominion Command, by the Canadian Welfare Association, Manitoba Branch Prisoners' Aid, and by a prospective employer; careful investigation in respect thereto was made by the remission service of the Department of Jus-

Questions
tice, and on its report as to merits the recommendation was made by the Minister of Justice.


QUEBEC TRUCK CONTROLLER-J. K. SMITH
Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	Is Mr. J. K. Smith, truck controller for the province of Quebec, an employee of the dominion government or a' dollar a year man?
2.	In either case, since when?
3.	What was his previous occupation?
4.	Will a bilingual employee be appointed in his stead?
5.	If not, why not?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	An employee of the dominion government, wartime prices and trade board.
2.	May 1, 1942.
3.	From 1900 to 1920 Mr. Smith was engaged in various phases of freight traffic handling, becoming in 1918 assistant to the general traffic manager of the freight tariff bureau of the Canadian National Railways. In 1920 he joined the Acadia Sugar Refining Company, Montreal, as traffic manager, and in 1922 was appointed manager of the transportation bureau, Montreal board of trade, from which organization he is presently on loan to this board.
4.	No appointment is necessary as the position is now filled.
5.	Mr. Smith's services are quite satisfactory and he has several French-speaking assistants.


HOUSING-ECONOMIC COUNCIL OP CANADA
Mr. BENCE:: 1.	Has the economic council of Canada been required by the government to make a study and report upon housing conditions in Canada, pursuant to the Dominion Housing Act, 1935, chapter 58, section 3?
2.	If so, has a report been given to the government by the said council?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	No. The Economic Council of Canada Act, 1935, was repealed by chapter 5 of the statutes of Canada, 1936.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


REPARATIONS
Mr. WRIGHT:: 1.	What was the total amount of reparations paid by the German government to the Canadian government after the war 1914-1918?
2.	What is the total of these reparations .paid for the purpose of reimbursing individuals who had suffered injuries because of mistreatment or neglect by German nationals?
3.	What were the names of and amounts paid to such individuals?
4.	How much remained in this fund after ah claims had been disposed of?
5.	What final disposal was made of any amounts remaining in this fund?
6.	What were the names of the members of the committee that handled the fund?
7.	How many claims were made against this fund for which the claimants received no reimbursement ?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	826,672,246.06.
2.	The reparation payments were not paid under any particular heading of the treaty of peace, since under article 232 compensation may be claimed from Germany in respect of damages under the following categories:
(1)	Damage to injured persons and to surviving dependents by personal injury to or death of civilians caused by acts of war, including bombardments or other attacks on land, on sea, or from the air, and all the direct consequences thereof, and of all operations of war by the two groups of belligerents wherever arising.
(2)	Damage	caused	by	Germany	or	her
allies to civilian victims of acts of cruelty, violence or maltreatment (including injuries to life or health as a consequence of imprisonment, deportation, internment or evacuation, of exposure at sea or being forced to labour), wherever arising, and to the surviving dependents of such victims.
(3)	Damage	caused	by	Germany	or	her
allies in their own territory or in occupied or invaded territory to civilian victims of all acts injurious to health or capacity to work, or to honour, as well as to the surviving dependents of such victims.
(4)	Damage caused by any kind of maltreatment of prisoners of war.
(5)	As damage caused to the peoples of the allied and associated powers, all pensions and compensation in the nature of pensions to naval and military victims of war (including members of the air forces), whether mutilated, wounded, sick or invalided, and to the dependents of such victims, the amount due to the allied and associated governments being calculated for each of them as being the capitalized cost of such pensions and compensation at the date of the coming into force of the present treaty, on the basis of the scales in force in France at such date.
(6)	The cost of assistance by the governments of the allied and associated powers to prisoners of war and to their families and dependents.
(7)	Allowances by the governments of the allied and associated powers to the families and dependents of mobilized persons or persons serving with the forces, the amount due to them for each calendar year in which hostilities occurred being calculated for each
Questions

government on the basis of the average scale for such payments in force in France during that year.
(8)	Damage caused to civilians by being forced by Germany or her allies to labour without just remuneration.
(9)	Damage in respect of all property wherever situated belonging to any of the allied or associated states or their nationals, with the exception of naval and military works or materials, which has been carried off, seized, injured or destroyed by the acts of Germany or her allies on land, on sea or from the air, or damaged directly in consequence of hostilities or or any operations of war.
(10)	Damage in the form of levies, fines and other similar exactions imposed by Germany or her allies upon the civilian population, and the total amount paid represented an insignificant percentage of the cost to Canada under the above ten headings.
It is assumed, how'ever, that the question relates to awards made by various reparations commissioners, the last of whom was Errol M. McDougall, Esq., K.C., who submitted his final report in March, 1933. All payments based on reports of the various reparations commissioners were provided by funds appropriated by the Parliament of Canada and the total amount distributed out of the appropriations provided by parliament was $8,580,245.88.
3.	The reports of the reparations commissioners were made to the Governor General in Council and were printed in blue book form and placed on the table of parliament. These reports deal with the cases submitted and the decision in each case and cover more than 1,700 printed pages.
4.	Since the funds were appropriated by vote of the Parliament of Canada and the last commissioner submitted his final report in 1933, no balance remains in the funds so appropriated.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	There was no committee dealing with the funds, but commissioners were appointed under the Inquiries Act to deal with claims submitted. The appointments of these commissioners were as follows:
The Hon. Chief Justice Sir J. D. Hazen, 31st October, 1921, who asked to be relieved of his duties and did not deal with claims.
The Hon. William Pugsley, 13th March, 1923, who died before making his report. James Friel, Esq., K.C., 19th June, 1925. Errol M. McDougall, Esq., K.C., 6th September, 1930.
7.	It appears from the reports that 3.194 claims were submitted and 2,025 claims allowed in whole or in part. This would mean that 1,169 claims were rejected.


GRADES OF HOGS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What are the several official grades of hogs in Canada, and the particulars of each?
2.	What are the differentials in price in respect to each of said grades?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1. There are no official grades for hogs but following are the official grades for hog carcasses and the particulars of each:
(a) Weight ranges and carcass measurements
Grade "A"	Class	1Weight	lb.	140-170Minimum length	
29"Maximum shoulder fat	
2"Maximum loin fat	
1J"Grade "B"	Class 1 Class 2 Class 3Weight	lb. 135-175 125-134 176-185Min. length according to weight...	28"-29"	27"	30"Max. shld. fat according to weight... 2"-2f"	2"	2j"Max. loin-fat according to weight...	14"-	2"	14"	24"Grade "C"	Class	1Weight	lb.	120-185Max. shld.	fat	according	to	weight...	2J"-3i"Max. loin	fat	according	to	weight...	14"-24"
Grade "D"-Class 1:
Weight-120-185 lb. and underfinished rough, soft or oily carcasses, of any weight.
Lights-weight 119 lb. and under.
Heavies-weight 186 lb. to 195 lb.
Extra heavies-weight 196 lb. and over.
Physical injury-all weights.
Ridgling-all weights.
Stags-all weights.
Sows-Class 1-all weights.
Class 2-all weights.
Note:	Rejected or condemned carcasses
shall be graded in accordance with the above grades, and in addition shall be shown separately on the grading certificate.
(b) Grade standards
Grade "A"
All carcasses shall be of best quality. Shoulder shall be balanced in weight in relation to the ham. Belly-thick and of even width throughout with full flank. Ham-full-fleshed, evenly covered with fat, of good shape. Back-fat firm and of even thickness within variation allowed.	Quality-fat firm
and white with proper balance of fleshing and fat in carcass throughout. Skin shall be smooth and show no marked evidence of dark hair roots or pigment.

Questions as Orders jor Returns
Grade "B"
Grade "B" may vary from grade "A" in carcasses of similar weight as follows:
Classes 1 and 3:
Shoulder, slightly heavy or slightly fat.
Belly, slightly thin or fat or wide.
Ham, a little thin or slightly fat.
Back, fat slightly uneven on back or slightly deficient or a little overfat throughout the carcass.
Quality-fat a little soft or somewhat out of balance between lean or fat.
Class 2:
Shoulder-slightly heavy.
Belly-thin or uneven.
Ham-a little thin.
Back-fat slightly uneven on back or slightly deficient.
Quality-fat a little soft.
Grade "C"
Shall be well finished and of good quality of fleshing, but may vary from grade "B" by including a greater degree of fat to lean, softness and unevenness of fat, heaviness of shoulder, and roundness of rib.
Grade "D"
May contain overfat, unfinished, rough, soft or oily carcasses.
Lights
This grade shall include all carcasses of reasonable finish and quality within the prescribed weights, but shall not include thin or underfinished carcasses.
Heavies
This grade shall include all carcasses of reasonable finish and quality within the prescribed weights, but shall not include thin or underfinished carcasses.
Extra heavies: This grade shall include all carcasses of reasonable finish and quality within the prescribed weights, but shall not include thin or underfinished carcasses.
Physical-injury: Carcasses that have suffered serious physical damage.
Ridglings: Carcasses from ridgling pigs.
Stags: Carcasses from boars which have been castrated and healed.
Sows: All females that have raised one or more litters.
Class 1: Carcasses of good fleshing throughout.
Class 2: Carcasses that are overly fat or very thin.
Rejected or condemned: Carcasses that are rejected or condemned by the veterinary inspector on account of disease.
2. There is a dominion government premium of $3 per head for grade "A" carcasses and $2 per head for grade "Bl" carcasses.
Following the discontinuation of the packers premium of $1 per head on A grade carcasses as at April 10, 1944, a differential of 40 cents per 100 pounds between A grade and Bl grade carcasses was agreed to, with prices paid for other grades to be determined by, and based on, actual value.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BENCE:: 1.	What is the total amount of loans made by the Canadian government under the authority of the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, S.C. 1938, chapter 33?
2.	What is the distribution of such loans, by provinces and municipalities?


Mr. ABBOTT:: Return tabled.



MR. JUSTICE MCTAGUE

Mr. WRIGHT:: What was the total amount of moneys paid Justice McTague by the dominion government during the calendar year 1943 under, (a) salary; (b) per diem allowances; (c) travelling or other expenses ?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, memoranda, reports and other documents in the possession of the Department of Mines and Resources or any other department of the government relative to the tar sands sent to Great Britain for experimental purposes in 1920 and 1922.


Charles Edward Johnston: I a,sk that this motion be dropped.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.



WAR LABOUR BOARD-APPLICATION OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES

Mr. TRIPP:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and reports in regard to the application of Professor John L. McDougall to make representations before the national war labour board in regard to the application now before said board of the Canadian railway employees for an increase in wage rates.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Return tabled.



DOMINION ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in .a measure to provide regulations enabling persons (to
Prime Ministers' Conference
[Stage Direction]
be described as Canadian war service electors) to exercise their franchise and the Canadian prisoners of war to vote toy proxy at any general election held during the present war; and also to provide amendments to the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, consequential to such regulations; and to provide further that any expenses incurred in the carrying out of the said measure shall be paid out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I have a question to direct
to the Prime Minister. Perhaps I should preface it by saying that in his absence an inquiry was directed to the acting leader of the government with respect to the prospective visits of the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand. The acting leader of the government at that time was not in possession of full information with respect to the details of the projected visit, but indicated to the house that the invitation extended by the Prime Minister to the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand had been accepted. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to give us any information with respect to the visits of these two prominent gentlemen?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am happy to say to my hon. friend that both Mr. Curtin, Prime Minister of Australia, and Mr. Fraser, Prime Minister of New Zealand, intimated to me that they were much looking forward to being in Canada in the course of the next few days, or at latest the next few weeks-they were not quite certain as to the particular date at which they would leave London. I rather expect that Mr. Curtin will be here very soon, and Mr. Fraser immediately after. I should like to say to the house that I mentioned to Field Marshal Smuts how delighted we would be if he could find it possible to visit Canada at this time, but his house is in session and he will be returning to South Africa. The other gentlemen are each fortunate in having concluded a session.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON PROCEEDINGS IN LONDON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I have a further question to
which, perhaps, the Prime Minister may not be able to reply at this time, but as to which the house, I am sure, will be glad to have information at an early day. No doubt he will be anxious, perhaps in the immediate future, to discuss the matters which relate to his visit overseas. Is he in a position to indicate whether these will come up in the usual way wrhen the war appropriations for the Department of External Affairs are before the house? If so, is it anticipated that they will be brought up this week, or at a later time?
Right Hon. W. L, MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): As I remember, there are two or three items relating to external affairs which appear in the war appropriation. Personally I should be pleased if they could be discussed by themselves and not as part of a general discussion on external affairs, but I would be prepared to take up the main estimates of the department within, I hope, a fortnight. I say a fortnight at least because there are many matters to which I have to give consideration as a result of my absence for a time, and some others which have grown out of subjects which came up for discussion while I was abroad. I shall try within a fortnight, or very shortly after, to be prepared to take up the external affairs estimates and to have discussed on those estimates matters related to the recent meeting of prime ministers, in so far as they can be discussed, and any other questions which may come up under external affairs.


Gordon Graydon: That means that the Prime Minister would prefer to have the two or three war appropriation items discussed having regard only to the matters related thereto, and then later, when he introduces his civil estimates on external affairs, the general discussion will take place which I mentioned; is that the understanding?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is it. The items under war appropriation are small ones and might be disposed of in short order; but the others, if so desired, might be discussed at length.



WORLD MONETARY CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Will the Minister of Finance

Selective Service
inform the house if the government has been consulted with respect to the reported calling of a world monetary conference to consider plans for stabilizing international finance and promoting post-war world prosperity? If so, is the government in a position to indicate under the auspices of what nation the conference will be called, and the date and place of the meeting; also whether Canada will be represented at this proposed gathering?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: There are two questions, and the answer to the first question is in the negative: this government has not been consulted with respect to the reported calling of a world monetary conference to consider plans for stabilizing international finance and promoting post-war world prosperity. We do not know whether such a conference is to be called.



MAILING OP PRODUCERS' CHEQUES FOR 1940-41 PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES-CONFERENCE OF FOOD SUPPLY BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I would ask the Minister of Justice to translate into French what he has just said.']
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, based on a recent report in the western press that the chairman of the Canadian wheat board had just returned from Britain, where he had attended a conference of the food supply board in Britain. Is the minister prepared to make any statement as to when we can get a report, or shall we get a report, on what took place at that conference, and whether there is to be any change in the system of supplying food to Britain? Also will he indicate to the house to what extent payments have gone forward on the 1940 wheat participation certificates?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I do not think any report in which the public would be interested will be available shortly with reference to the visit to the old country of the chief commissioner of the Canadian wheat board.
In connection with the distribution of participation certificate cheques, I have not heard recently, but I know that ten thousand cheques went out in the course of the first day and a half, and they are in substantial numbers.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I
had hoped that the Minister of Pensions and
National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) would be in his seat, but I observe that he is for the moment absent; therefore the question I propose to ask, if permitted, may be treated as a notice. I understand that the policy has been announced of erecting five convalescent homes for returned men, three in Ontario, one in Quebec, and one in British Columbia. I might point out that the number of voluntary enlistments for the three services from the maritime provinces is equal to if not better than that of any other part of the country, and I wonder why the maritime provinces are being by-passed.


SELECTIVE SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: On Friday last the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) and the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Laeombe) raised the question of farm workers being called for medical examinations under the National Resources Mobilization Act. I promised that I would look into this matter to see what could be done to prevent these men at this time from being taken away from their farms for several days in order to have these examinations.
As I explained to the committee of the house when the war appropriations of my department w-ere recently discussed, a constant check-up on the status of individuals under the mobilization regulations is made by selective service. National registration took place in 1940, and there have been many changes in the status of individuals since that date Divisional registrars of the mobilization boards are required under the regulations and present instructions to send calls for medical examination. Unless these calls are sent, no one would report.
We have been greatly concerned not to interfere with farm operations, and farm workers are at present instructed to go to the nearest doctor available, generally involving not more than one day's absence. No request for postponement for taking medical examination is refused where the applicant states that, to report immediately would impede seeding operations.
No further orders-medical will be sent out until after June 1, at which time more men become callable.	,
Munitions and Supply


MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	'
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). (Translation):	Can the minister tell us now
whether two members of the R.C.M.P. have been arrested and charged with manslaughter by the attorney-general of Quebec in connection with the death of young Guenette, of Saint-Lambert de Levis, who was fatally wounded by the federal police? Has the minister been informed of this matter?
(Text)
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, this is the third or fourth time recently that the hon. gentleman has chosen to ask me questions without any previous notice whatsoever. I might be in a position to answer the question as put to-day, but I do not think I should do so.


Liguori Lacombe: I would ask the Minister of Justice to translate into French what he has just said.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I have here the latest press release of the Department of Munitions and Supply wherein it is set forth that four zinc and lead mines operated in this country ' for the Metals Reserve corporation are being closed down or suspended, "so that labour and materials involved may be put to better use." I would like the minister to say how many men are employed in these mines and what is the better use to which their employment will be put.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: The four mines referred to were opened under an arrangement with the Metals Reserve Corporation of the United States. The Department of Munitions and Supply merely acted as agent in the transaction. Recently the supply of zinc and lead has been easier and the contracts have been cancelled by Metals Reserve Corporation, with the resultant cancellation by the department. The production is not required.


John George Diefenbaker: It is stated here that the labour involved may be put to better use. The question is, how many men are employed and to what better use will the labour be put.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not the employment figures, but I suppose the better use would be to have those men who are producing something that is not required put to work producing something that is required.


INTERNMENTS
Liguori Lacombe: :	Mr. Speaker, I should like to
direct another question to the Minister of Justice, not on the same subject. (Translation) : Could the minister tell us on what day of the current month the advisoiy committee called upon to consider the application and the case of Mr. Camillien Houde will sit, at Fredericton?
(Text)
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, I had understood that it was the practice of members of this house,, when they wanted to put any questions, to give some previous notice to the minister to whom the question was addressed. I have not received any previous notice of this question and I do not think that without notice I should try to answer it at this time.


Gordon Graydon: With reference to what the minister has said, I do not think he should carry that principle too far. I suggest that it is a courtesy to the ministry which is very often exercised but it is not one of the conditions precedent to the answering of a question, by the minister. It does help the ministry considerably in making the answer on the particular day on which the question is asked, but I would hope that the ministry would not take this suggestion made by the Minister of Justice as a precedent for the future. I think most hon. members will want to be free to use their own discretion as to whether that courtesy should be extended to the cabinet or not.


Thomas Vien: The only objection I
have to the asking of questions such as are being put before the orders of the day are called, where a member takes refuge in the fact that he has sent a notice to the minister concerned, is that an attempt is made to have questions answered which should be placed on the order paper-and some of the questions asked to-day should certainly be put on the order paper.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 19, consideration in committee of a resolution to [DOT]

War Appropriation-Agriculture
grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Agricultural supplies board-administration, $51,300.
Mr. SENN:: This appropriation calls for 151,300 for the administration of the agricultural supplies board, which was set up, I understand, in September, 1939, under order in council P.C. 2621. The duties of the board are clearly set out in the order in council. They are very wide and comprehensive. There are a number of them, but I think I should place on Hansard the first duty of the board as it is laid down in the order in council:
To direct and regulate through the various dominion and provincial agricultural services and through advisory boards representative of the industry which are already constituted or which may be established, the production, preparation and conservation of farm products.
A little farther down it gives the board power:
Subject to the approval of the governor in council; to deal with matters pertaining to the purchase of agricultural products.
I believe that opens up in a general way the whole question of agricultural production and of the collection, processing and marketing of farm products. I should like therefore to take this opportunity to deal for a few moments-and a few moments only

with the agricultural situation in Canada as I see it. It is true that these estimates relate closely to the civil estimates, some of which have already been discussed. It is however very difficult, as I pointed out when the civil estimates were first being discussed, to separate the two; therefore if in the course of my remarks there may be some overlapping or some repetition I am sure that the committee and the minister will consider that it is unavoidable.
I believe that everyone in Canada, and particularly the farming population, should view with a good deal of pride the high level which our agricultural production has reached. There has been a steady increase in that production each year since the war began. On several occasions the Minister of Agriculture has presented figures to the house showing this to be true. I think it is only fair to say that in the course of his remarks he has sought to give credit for that increase in production to the Department of Agriculture and to the government generally. In doing so he has been backed up more than once by hon. members on the government benches,
who have from time to time sought to attribute the increase in agricultural production to the minister's activities and to government policy.
When the civil estimates were before the committee on February 18, I recall that the hon. member for Moose Jaw, the hon. member for Macdonald and the hon. member for Brant made statement to the effect that this increase in agricultural production was largely due to government policy. In fact, their remarks were so flattering that I could not help thinking that a parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture may be appointed at some future time and hon. members were vying with each other as to who would have the best chance of getting the position.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Too many applicants.


Mark Cecil Senn: The second difficulty under which the farmers have been labouring ever since the war began is that of insufficient prices. I will admit immediately that prices are somewhat more favourable to-day than they were at the beginning of the war, but there has been and there is still an improper relationship between the prices of the farmer's products and the prices of the goods and services that he has to buy. This is due in no small measure to the policy of the government and to their attitude with regard to the price ceiling and the application of this price ceiling not only to farm commodities but to what the farmer has to buy. The lack of parity between farm prices and other prices results from the wrong foundation laid by the wartime prices and trade board when price ceilings were established. No one will deny that the price of farm products went out of line with other prices during that period. The period chosen was October 15 to November 11, 1941. The price ceilings have been calculated on that basis ever since; therefore the farmer has been at a decided disadvantage so far as the price structure is concerned.
The third difficulty I should like to mention is that of labour shortage on the farm. It is true that the farmer's efficiency has been greatly enhanced by the increased use of power machinery, but here the farmer has again been at a disadvantage because often he has not been able to procure the machinery he needs. There has been a dearth of supply. Sometimes priorities have been to blame. It is an open secret among the farmers of Ontario that they have not been able to purchase the supplies that would have been available from the United States because of government and board interference.
No one will deny that there has been a labour shortage; it still exists. Just the other day I read in one of the labour reviews that between March 1939 and March 1943 over 100,000 men had left the farms to go into the army, the navy and the air force, and over 250,000 men had left the farms to go into industry of all kinds. In spite of this drain, however, agricultural production in Canada is some thirty per cent higher than it was in 1939. It is interesting to note that agricultural production per worker in Canada is over fifty per cent higher than it was in 1939, owing, of course, partly to the bountiful harvest which we have had, but as well to the increased labour of the farmer. This increase in agricultural production has been brought about often at great sacrifice, not only on the part of the farmer himself, but

on the part of his wife and family who have perhaps done from time to time more than their share.
Another factor in the labour situation is the increased cost of labour on the farm. I have already mentioned that the prices of agricultural products are somewhat higher than they were at the beginning of the war; but it is also true that the price of labour on the farm has gone up to a far greater extent than the price of farm products. To-day labour on the farm, when it can be found, is enjoying wages twice and sometimes three times as high as it was before the war began.
I have often wondered why it is that farmers are expected to carry on and to prosper without a fair share of the national income. I have often heard it said that if farmers were to keep books as other industries do, and provide for depreciation, repairs, wages and all other incidentals, they would never put a plough into the ground because they could never show a profit. That fact is all the more deplorable, because Canada, with her vast agricultural areas, is and must continue to be an agricultural country. Prosperity of the farmers is the key to national prosperity. I believe that is a statement with which everyone will agree, particularly in a country such as this. Therefore too great consideration cannot be given, in any scheme for reconstruction, to the welfare of agriculture.
Another disturbing consideration in our national economy is the fact that although agriculture is so important, our farm population is gradually declining. As we look at the census figures for different decades we find there has been a steady decrease. The 1941 census shows 45 per cent of our population classed as rural, but of that percentage only 27J per cent consists purely of those who are on the farms and are classed as farmers. The other 18 per cent is vitally interested in and closely connected with agriculture, of course. The 55 per cent who are not at all classed as rural are also vitally interested in the farmer's prosperity.
In 1940 our capital investment in agriculture in Canada amounted to about four and a half billions of dollars, made up of land, buildings, equipment, and live stock. The outlay of the farmers for building materials, equipment and repairs affects to a great extent the welfare of all the people. Everybody is vitally interested in the ability of the farmer to spend. The other day I found a paragraph in the report of the advisory committee on reconstruction, dealing with agricultural policy,

War Appropriation-Agriculture
which I believe would be of interest to hon. members. This is what I find at page 8, relating to volume of business:
Closely related both to the number of persons engaged in agriculture and to the capital investment in the industry is the volume of business, or the proceeds from the employment of labour and capital. In 1942 the gross value of Canadian agricultural production was $2-1 billion. Of more significance, however, is the cash income from the sale of that portion of the output that eventually reaches the market. This figure, $1-1 billion, represents the amount the farmers of Canada had to pay their hired help, maintain or improve their plant and equipment, pay taxes, and provide for the well-being and education of their families. Most of this money is spent immediately-much of it, in fact, was actually spent before it was received-and its contribution to rural and urban development is both direct and significant.
I read that because I believe it bears out what I have been trying to convey to the house, namely, that upon the prosperity of the farmer depends the prosperity of a country such as Canada.
When the Minister of Finance spoke, closing the debate on the Bank Act, he mentioned that there have been in Canada cycles of prosperity and of depression. This is true, and it is a condition which I believe will always remain. It is unfortunate however that the farmer is usually the first and greatest victim of depressions. In support of that contention I point to a fact which in my opinion is important. Distribution of national income varies as between times of prosperity and times of depression. When we compare the farmers' share of the national income in the basic year 1926, which is often used as a basis for comparison, with the farmers' share of income in depression years, we find that during the depression, farmers' income was only 45 per cent of the share which they held in 1926.	.
If we take the group of salary and wage earners we find that the share of the national income they enjoyed in the depression years amounted to 91-6 per cent of that enjoyed in good years. The investment income group were even better, at 94 per cent. It is clear therefore that during depression years the farmers' share of income dropped 56 per cent, while that of other groups dropped only six per cent or nine per cent. I believe this condition is to a great extent responsible for lengthy depressions. When the farmer cannot purchase consumer goods the result is unemployment of other groups in the community. There is no doubt in my mind that the purchasing power of the farmer cannot be as effective as it should be until a proper relationship is developed between agricultural income and the income enjoyed by other groups. Despite any increase there may
be in farm prices, and despite what may be contended by members of the government, that relationship is not satisfactory to-day. And if we need any proof we need only look at an item further down in the estimates where we see the government has provided $47,000,000 for farm subsidies.
After the price ceilings were established in 1939 it was very soon found either that the ceilings must be changed or prices to the farmers must be supplemented. The government-the wartime prices and trade board, or whoever was responsible-decided to provide subsidies. For some time those subsidies were meted out by the Commodity Prices Stabilization corporation. Last year-I believe it was either May or June-a change was made, and this work was given over to the agricultural food board. The minister might very well explain why the change was made. Although I have no doubt he has a good reason for it, I should like to know what the reason is.
I have already pointed out that, in the last census, farmers constituted some 27i per cent of the population. But their percentage of national income was much lower than that. Figures received recently from the bureau of statistics show that despite their percentage of population, in the four war years the farmers' share of national income amounts to only 13-4 to 14-5 per cent. I cannot use the figures for 1943, because they are only estimated, and I have been asked not to use them. But if we take the figures for 1942 they show that the national income was some seven and a half billions of dollars. Of that amount the farmers' share was $1,084,000,000 or 14-5 per cent. If we add to that the whole $47,000,000 provided in the estimates for farm subsidies, we find that farmers' income amounts to only about fifteen per cent of the total income. I want to emphasize as strongly as I can the need for some action which will provide more equitable distribution of the national income as between agricultural and other groups.
Farmers are looking forward with a good deal of hope and expectation to the action announced by the government in the speech from the throne to provide floor prices for agricultural products. In the past it has been the practice to accept the consumer price as the basis for the farmers' price structure. From the consumer price must be deducted profits of the retailer, the wholesaler, the processor and the collectors of farm produce. The farmer -the primary producer-has had to take what is left.
In support of the point I am making I wish to refer to a statement made by Mr. Stanley McLean, head of Canada Packers. When he
War Appropriation-Agriculture

appeared before the price spreads committee he bore that statement out to the full. It seems to me the time has come when the system should be entirely reversed. In my judgment there should be a producer price based upon the cost of efficient production. The profits of middlemen, such as collectors, processors and distributors, should be sufficiently liberal to provide an incentive for them to operate, because we must have them to process and distribute our goods, but I believe there should be government interference if their profits are exorbitant or there is evidence of speculation so that they exploit either the producer or the consumer.
As we go through the estimates I shall have an opportunity to discuss other matters, but at the moment I want to discuss just one point which I have -mentioned to the house more than once previously. I refer to the personnel of the various boards which have been set up and which come under this item. I have in mind the agricultural supplies board; the meat board, formerly known as the bacon board; the special products board; the agricultural food board, and the dairy board. In addition we have two other boards which from time to time have dealt with farm products as to prices and so on; that is, the wartime prices and trade board and the commodity prices stabilization board. All these boards deal with agricultural matters, but I am sorry to say that there is not a representative of agriculture or a primary producer on one of them. On the meat board we have a representative of the packers and a representative of the transportation companies. There are no producers on the dairy board, but there is a representative of the distributors and a representative of the shippers. I have brought up this matter on a number of occasions. I presume the minister's answer will be, as it has been in the past, that the government have set up advisory boards on which there is producer representation, but none of these advisory boards has any power. They may be consulted by the other boards, but I have heard it said that very often decisions are reached and policies enunciated and then sent to the advisory boards for their consideration, after the thing has been done.
I am not bringing up this matter in order to criticize, but the farmers feel very keenly indeed the fact that there is no producer representation on these boards, which are composed principally of members of the Department of Agriculture. All these boards are more or less interlocking; that is, you may find one man on two or three of them. These are estimable gentlemen, and I do not want to find any fault with them. I know they are IMr. Senn.]
industrious, capable and honest, but I do not believe any of them is a primary producer, and I think they might very easily get a different viewpoint if they had some producer representation on these boards. Once more I appeal to the minister to change his policy in this regard. For his own sake, for the benefit of agriculture, and in order to put farmers in a better frame of mind, he should see to it that there is producer representation on these boards.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, since we are on agricultural appropriations and production, I renew my request for full and final exemption for farmers from military service. Who could estimate the amount spent in travelling expenses and the time lost by farmers because of the way the Mobilization Act is presently enforced? Why insist on medical re-examinations when the family doctors have already categorized the men who have been called up? Is it reasonable or fair, Mr. Chairman, thus to belittle the undeniable qualifications of the civilian physicians and the service they have rendered their country? I say it is an uncalled for insult to men who have devoted their time and made sacrifices for the government and the Canadian people.
As for the agricultural situation in Canada, it is becoming more and more alarming. The lack of market for hogs and other meat cattle, added to the scarcity of farm help, during the last few months, have created an unbearable situation. Ask the farmer who has sold hogs and beef cattle since last fall what treatment he has received at the hands of Canada Packers and other similar trusts, whom the government should bring to their senses.
All the necessary powers are vested in the ministry to guard our farmers from those heartless firms, who have been taking advantage of them and swindling them for so many years. The government and the trusts have to take the blame for the spoilage of millions of pounds of meat, while our civilians were rationed and large families and young children were suffering from hunger. I urge the government to see that such a deplorable state of affairs never recurs as it is a shame for our country. That is all.


David McKenzie Wright: I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hon. member for Haldimand in regard to agriculture in this country, and I concur in many of the things he said. However, I felt that the effectiveness of his speech was somewhat lost when I remembered that he was a member of this house from 1931 to 1935; that his party was in power in those years and he was chairman

War Appropriation-Agriculture
of the agriculture committee, and that during this period agriculture received the lowest share of the national income that,.it has ever received in Canada's history.


Gordon Graydon: To what party did you belong?


David McKenzie Wright: The party to which I still belong. As a matter of fact at that time I believe agriculture received less than nine per cent of the national income. Even to-day we are not getting our fair share of the national income, but still we are a great deal better off than we were during the years I have mentioned. I think that deeds count for more than words when it comes to endeavouring to improve the position of agriculture. I do not propose to follow the remarks of the hon. member, but I should like to pay a compliment to the producers of this country for the way in which they have increased production under great difficulties, particularly in regard to the amount of labour that has been available to them. When you consider the number of men who have gone from agriculture, and consider further what agriculture has been able to do during this war period, the record is a remarkable one.
I should like to draw the minister's attention to the matter of increasing the supply of farm implements. In the agriculture committee last year we were promised that there would be a considerable increase in the amount of farm equipment made available during this year. That increase has not come about as yet, at least from information I have received from western Canada; they are in an even worse position than last year in regard to the number of new implements available. I believe the minister would do well to bring this matter to the attention of the departments that have the responsibility for seeing that the necessary release is made of steel and other raw materials required in the manufacture of agricultural implements.
With respect to coarse grains, I believe they should be handled entirely through the wheat board. Last year the wheat board took over complete control of the handling of wheat and flax, which was taken entirely out of the hands of the speculative market. But this has not been done with coarse grains and the result is that the government has had to pass a number of regulations to control and direct the people who are at present handling coarse grains in Canada. It has been a bigger headache to the wheat board than if they had been handling the whole thing themselves, both as regards making coarse grains available to feeders in eastern Canada and as regards exports. I see no reason why all oui grain should not be handled entirely
through the wheat board. I think it would be to the advantage of everyone concerned. But apparently the government is determined to keep a nucleus of the Winnipeg grain exchange alive so that it may again start to function as soon as the war is over. I see no other reason why coarse grains and rye should have been left under the present setup. I know that the farmers of western Canada are firmly convinced that the speculative market in Winnipeg should be got rid of at the earliest possible moment. It is pretty hard to convince them that the selling of their crop six or seven times over on the speculative market adds one more bushel to it or changes its quality whatsoever, and it is equally hard to convince the consumers that because the grain has been handled several times on the Winnipeg market the price of bread is thereby decreased. Certainly everything that is taken out of the price of the grain between leaving the farmer and reaching the consumer comes out of either the producer or the consumer. We believe that that spread could be recouped if the grain were handled through the wheat board.
Another matter I would bring to the minister's attention has to do with the rebate on feed grains. At present in western Canada men who are engaged in the feed business but who do. not operate a farm are able to obtain a rebate of 10 cents a bushel on oats, 15 cents a bushel on barley and 25 cents a bushel on wheat for feeding purposes. The minister in reply to a question by the hon. member for Selkirk, said, when his estimates were before the committee last, that the government was not particularly interested in the people who were operating feeding lots.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: I am sure that my hon. friend does not want to misrepresent the situation. There are no rebates paid to people who feed grain. There is an extra amount paid to the farmer who delivers to the elevator.


David McKenzie Wright: The man who buys it from the elevator gets a rebate of 10 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the man who buys it from the elevator buys it at the ceiling price, but the man who sells the grain gets an extra 10 cents on oats and an extra 15 cents on barley. There is no rebate for the person who buys it.


David McKenzie Wright: It amounts to that so far as the farmer who is feeding the grain is concerned, because he feeds that grain at the ceiling price plus 10 or 15 or 25 cents a bushel as the case may be. It means that the man
War Appropriation-Agriculture

who is operating a feeding lot and is feeding the grain gets it cheaper than the producer who is feeding the grain.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are costs in
connection with it that have to be taken into consideration-costs, for instance, in moving the grain from one place to another, as against feeding it right on the farm.


David McKenzie Wright: But the farmer has to pay those costs in delivering the grain to the elevator.


James Garfield Gardiner: The farmer who purchases it to feed pays just as much as the other in getting it moved to his farm.


David McKenzie Wright: 
James Garfield Gardiner: I think that has now
been corrected.


David McKenzie Wright: I hope it has been. I know there were many complaints about it. It was a condition which should not have been allowed to exist. I know it existed three months ago. At that time I had one particular complaint with respect to it. Apparently these milling companies, because they are subsidized in the price they are paying for wheat, are making a nice profit on the handling of flour and they were forcing their dealers to take flour in order to obtain their feed.
There are several other matters which I wish to bring to the attention of the minister, but I will do so as the individual items are taken up.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: In any discussion generally on the question of agriculture and its place in Canada, it is necessary for us to consider and agree that food production as it exists at present must be maintained for the period of the war, and that possibly food increases will be necessary after the war. This premise is necessary first of all for the projects we contemplate through our work on UNRRA and also for the fullest inplementation of the section of the Atlantic charter which deals with the freedom of the people of the world from want. It is a fine thing for those of us who for several years have lived in agricultural parts of Canada, particularly the west, to realize that food has become such a powerful weapon of the united nations. At the present time it is one of the most important weapons in their arsenals, though it may be almost a paradox that while most weapons of war are death-dealing, food as a weapon in this war is a means of sustaining [DOT]life.	.
Not only must we step up our programme of food production for the purposes of the war, but Canada's agricultural policy must be much more far-reaching. During the Hot Springs conference, when it was decided to set up an interim commission and to have one representative from each of the forty-four nations to draft a constitution for a permanent food organization, Canada was recognized among the nations as having a great part to play. Mr. L. B. Pearson, who was one of the members of the important committee on supply of UNRRA, writing in Canadian Affairs magazine, April 1, 1944, said this:
Peace sits uneasily on an empty stomach. . . . When the United States and United Kingdom governments decided some time ago that the united nations should begin the process of organizing for peace, they did not convoke an assembly to discuss general political or economic matters. The first united nations conference in May 1943 at Hot Springs dealt with one question only, and an essentially practical one, "Food and agriculture." Hence the first permanent united nations organization set up in the world will likely be that on food and agriculture, now being worked out in Washington by the interim committee representing the forty-four nations.
It would appear that in the past wars have been mostly of a destructive nature. Possibly this war is different from all others which have preceded it in that it is producing more new and constructive types of thinking. One of the most constructive lines of thought which are being developed concerns this question of cooperation of peoples after the war, to see that the want which prior to this war had devastated such large regions of the earth shall never again prevail. In other words there will be a great impulse to further cooperation among the nations. I am glad to see that our own government is giving a constructive lead on this particular question. I do not like always to quote from United States authorities on this subject, and I am glad to be able to cite the words of Doctor Barton, our own deputy minister of agriculture. In a statement to the press which was reproduced in the Ottawa Citizen on June 2, 1943, he is reported from Washington as follows:
Canada will be required to increase food production, not only in the immediate post-war period, but in the years to follow, if the recommendations of the united nations food conference are carried into effect.
Doctor Barton continued:
The whole picture, as it has been developed here, should appeal to Canada because it is one of expanding agricultural economy.
The deputy minister went on to say that in the period of shortages immediately after the war there will be need for orderly marketing through some form of international arrangement and, even in the long-range view, it may
War Appropriation-Agriculture

'be necessary for some farm products. "To that end," he continued, "we may have to join with others in recognizing that some form of cooperative production may be required."
In viewing the vast perspective which now opens up before us in this new era of peaceful development which we believe will be possible after the war, two things stand out in my mind most clearly. First of all, food production must be increased according to this country's ability to produce certain types of food more cheaply than other countries can produce them, in the first place for the immediate purpose of present war needs and for relief schemes; and secondly, food increases must be maintained and absorbed to a far greater degree than before by our own population through gradually achieving higher standards of living.	*
Canada's farm requirements, we must recognize, have depended in the past upon the income of her people, but food requirements are not like other things. They are a basic necessity for the life and health of the nation, and we should not judge food by the ability of the people to pay for it; we should judge the quantity of food needed by the accepted standard necessary for health. In 1940 the average consumption of food in Canada was roughly 1,038 pounds per year per person. That was a fairly high average, taking into consideration the food consumption of other peoples of the world. But without doubt we must realize that numbers of our own people could to their great advantage increase the amount and quality of the food they eat.
In certain surveys made in Canada just prior to the war, I think we can find evidence enough to prove that a larger consumption of food in this country is still a desirable thing. Studies made just before the war among numbers of families in the country show that when the average income was anywhere from $1,000 to $2,000 per annum, these families used an appreciably larger amount of protective foods than did those families whose income was below $1,000 per annum. Those who received from $1,000 to $2,000 used on an average 12 per cent more meat, 10 per cent more milk, 10 per cent more eggs, 7 per cent more fish and a larger amount of vegetables, fruit and butter than those who received less than $1,000 a year. These same studies would indicate that the more *well-to-do families whose income was anywhere above $4,000 a year ate far more of the nutritionally important foods which give the human body a greater fighting chance to resist infection and disease. This income group, receiving over $4,000 a year, ate 50 per cent more fish, 34 per cent more meat, 38 per cent more
tMrs. Nielsen.]
milk, 15 per cent more eggs and a proportionately larger amount of fruit, vegetables and butter than families earning less than $1,000 a year.
The point is that if the people of Canada were able to procure the amount of food which it is necessary for them to have for their health, we should need more food than we were having prior to the war for our own home market. The same Canadian council on nutrition stated, that in order to bring the adequate level of nutrition of all Canadian families up to the desired point, we would need roughly 1,500,000,000 pounds of food a year in the form of milk, eggs, meat, vegetables, dried beans, small fruits and things of that kind.
It is all very well to speak of Canada, and Canada of course is of greatest importance to us when it comes to the welfare of our people. But we must recognize that our own standards are very much better than those of many others in the world. If you come to consider the question as it affects some of the other nations, you realize what scope there is for the increase of food production if we are to implement those clauses of the Atlantic charter which declare that no people should suffer from want. The report from the mixed committee of the League of Nations before the war showed that in the countries with the largest surplus of food, such as Canada and the United States, there was still a considerable amount of malnutrition, but it was nothing in comparison with the conditions that prevailed in India and China. Take one food product, such as milk. In Canada there are three or four people dependent on the milk of one cow, whereas in China there are roughly fifty thousand people to every cow. This will give some indication of the need for an increase in live stock if we are to supply the needs of the people of the world to give them the health conditions to which they are entitled.
In normal times it is estimated that in China about 8,000,000 people die of malnutrition every year, and in India the condition is similar. Diet deficiencies are causing infant mortality, blindness, crippling of children, and this condition is widely prevalent among India's 400,000,000. In the last disastrous famine in India, roughly 1,000,000 people died from malnutrition. In Africa, Mexico, South America, Egypt, and in other parts of the world you find malnutrition and diseases resulting from diet deficiencies. Estimates made by the same committee of the League of Nations show that of the 2,100,000,000 people of the world, roughly two-thirds, or 1,400.000,000, have always eaten diets consisting of

War Appropriation-Agriculture
about eighty per cent of cereals and potatoes, though the health authorities say that a good diet should contain only about twenty-one per cent of cereals and potatoes, the rest being made up of protective foods.
If peace can be maintained with some degree of security after the war by the continued collaboration of the nations of the world it will make a great difference to the ability of many countries to grow food. For instance, many of the countries of Europe, if they were freed from war, or at any rate from the fear of war, would be able to reduce certain of their cereal crops ajid animal products which before the war they insisted on producing in their effort to be self-sufficient. If in the future they are not in fear of war they will cease to grow these things and buy them from countries like Canada which can produce them more cheaply, and in Europe the farmers will concentrate to a far greater degree upon the production of such things as milk, eggs, fruit and vegetables, so that their own diet will be of a greater variety. That will add greatly to the ability, of the farmers of this country to continue the exports of food which they can grow. Therefore a great deal of the agricultural problem of the world depends upon the ability of the united nations to collaborate in trade agreements whereby those who can produce certain types of food shall be encouraged in such production, and whereby free trade with other countries who are producing types of food different from those produced at home will bring about better results.
It becomes very clear to all of us that if the people of the world are to be free from want, if we are to see that food is available for all, it will be necessary for us to ensure that people are in a position to buy food. That of course is the other part of the problem. There must be employment. There must be increased industrial production and there must be free international trade. We can remove the devastation of poverty and hunger from the world only if we see that certain selfish interests and political prejudices no longer are in a position to deny to the people of the world their free access to food. I think we should all back up the statement which was made a while ago by the vice president of the United States of America, Mr. Wallace. He said:
Whenever these forces, of special privilege and international monopoly are found, our job is to fight them.
For surely the winning of the peace is bound up with the regulation of food supplies to the peoples of the world.
The agricultural workers of Canada have done remarkable things during this war to increase production. I think that all of us who come from agricultural constituencies have a great deal of pride in the fact that with their limited supplies of man-power, and with women and children having to help out considerably in the fields and during harvest time, the farmers have increased the food production roughly by about forty per cent.
Farming, of course, is not like industry. It is not possible to regulate farming on such short notice. You cannot say this month that you can increase your stock or increase the production of certain farm commodities next month. All farm planning has to be . of a far longer and greater range. It would seem to me that our farmers at the present time are greatly in need of more assurance from the Department of Agriculture

or perhaps I should say from the Minister of Agriculture- of the necessity for maintaining, and the possibility of increasing, or rather the necessity for increasing, food production in the future. We should have surveys made as to the types of food which will be the most cheaply produced in Canada, and therefore the foods which we should concentrate on growing when the war is over. I know that the Department of Agriculture is doing work in this connection but I still feel that there is greater need to bring this information more closely to the farmers to get them to understand. Some people are expressing fear on the question, of making gifts of food after the war is over. Some farmers are even a little dubious as to whether it will be the correct thing for us to do. Here again I believe the Department of Agriculture should show to the farmers how, if the nation as a whole takes on the burden of paying for food to give to other countries, and if at the same time the farmers themselves are guaranteed a fair price, that in itself will be of the greatest good to Canada; because that increased food production with fair prices to the farmers will assure them of being able to buy many things which industry can supply. It will provide employment to the industrial sections of Canada and set a cycle for an increased standard of living throughout the whole of the country.
Generally speaking I would say one of the most important things with regard to agriculture at the present time is to insist on Canada's taking a very strong position on all the boards of the united nations relief and rehabilitation administration and in all matters pertaining to the setting up of trade relations with other food producing countries.
War Appropriation-Agriculture

With regard to our own farmers, I cannot help but emphasize-even though the Minister of Agriculture may be sick of listening to these things which have been stated many times, I do not think we can reiterate them too strongly-the necessity of our farm people having the opportunity to obtain for themselves short term loans and credits through a special agricultural bank, something like the farm security administration in the United States, which has been responsible for such a tremendous increase of food from the smaller types of farms.
Without the shadow of a doubt I believe that our farming people should be guaranteed not only by the federal government but by the provincial governments security of tenure on their land, so that, instead of looking forward only a year or two ahead, they will begin to plan for a long future, in order that the people on the farms can have a stake in the whole rehabilitation programme of Canada in the era of peace.
Undoubtedly the machine problem is a difficult one to solve. In the areas where we have the smaller farming districts which are engaged in mixed farming it is not sufficient for the government to allow a certain quota of machines to be sold. The man who has a farm of a certain size, and the ability to buy a machine, is not always the person who should have it. We would find it of greater value to have certain new machines placed in machinery pools; many farmers would then be in a position to hire a machine, which in many instances could be used on many more farms than a machine purchased by one man. In the smaller mixed farming areas machinery pools and machinery repair depots should be set up under the care of the federal government and its jurisdiction. Repair depots are just as essential as supply depots, because much of the old machinery will still be available. The great difficulty at the present time is the lack of repair centres.
Then there is the question of floors and ceilings on all agricultural products, with a guarantee of at least two or three years in the future. It cannot be denied that that is something which the farmers are seeking before they go into any increased production, particularly of live stock, with any degree of certainty.
The representation of farmers on marketing boards has been dealt with by the two hon. members who preceded me. I can only say that I am in agreement with what they have said. Definitely the farmers themselves are only too anxious to cooperate in all these matters of marketing, but they have in large measure been left out of the discussion on

marketing boards, and for that reason I believe they feel that there are many things in connection with marketing which are not just as they should be. They feel that they have many suggestions to offer which I am sure the Minister of Agriculture would find to be not only to the farmers good but to the general good of agricultural production.
I should like to emphasize-and I believe the minister is in agreement with this-the necessity for the extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to cover the whole of the dominion. In the rehabilitation period, when we have the returned men taking up farming again, and are considering the problem of the best areas for the production of certain kinds of food, I believe there will be the necessity for moving certain of our farmers from submarginal lands and leaving those areas for grazing and reforestation. Our farmers are justified in asking that in the processing of foods there will be more government supervision through greater control of the middleman. Amongst the farmers of western Canada there is resentment because they realize there is an appreciable difference between the prices paid for their raw products and the prices asked for the product which is placed on the market after passing through the hands of one or two middlemen. Definitely there should be an investigation in this sphere to limit or to hold down at least the profits of the middleman. To assure a fair share of the prices to the producer would be something to give satisfaction to the farming people.
I do not feel that any thing should be emphasized more than the necessity for planning and giving to the farmers a clearer understanding of what is to be required of them in the future. The resentment which is still felt-and I urge upon the minister that he realize that this resentment exists in western Canada-is based on the fact that the farmers do not know soon enough ahead of time what is to be required of them. The hesitancy which has been part of their whole attitude toward increased agricultural production would thereby be removed.
When we come to the peace period and thousands of men are being returned to the farms, definitely we should have further provision made for farm labourers. Farm labourers should come under the unemployment insurance provisions, so that we may guarantee to them a definite standard of living and make them feel that their job is to be well paid and recognized as a part of the great industrial development of this country.
These are matters which I believe more than any other are important to the development

War Appropriation-Agriculture
of agriculture. Members who come from agricultural constituencies must take pride in the fact that the production of food and the increased output of agricultural products in Canada will play an important part not only in the winning of the war but also in the stabilization of the peace to follow.


Mr. WINKLER:: I was interested a few moments ago to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Melfort. He referred to the difference in the price of barley sold on the United States side for ordinary feeding purposes and for malting purposes. Last fall it so happened that nearly all the crop I had for sale in my farm in Manitoba was barley. Inasmuch as the elevators were almost full, and I could not sell very much of it, I obtained export permits from the wheat board to sell my barley on the United States market.
Then, in December, when I was ready to sell it, unfortunately the United States elevators close to my constituency filled up. Since I wished to sell in one quantity all at once, I could not find a place to market it. At that time I believe the bonus for malting barley was between five and ten cents at United States elevators in North Dakota. I was anxious to get that bonus, because it would have meant a considerable profit. However, I was forced to forgo the sale of my barley at that time, and proposed to sell it when I returned during the Easter recess.
At that time I found, after visiting many of the elevators on the United States side, that the .malting bonus had almost disappeared; and by the time I had made my bargain with the elevator there the price was, indeed, $1.20, but there was no bonus for the malting. I visited eight or ten different points in North Dakota, and found that they were uniform in their price, and that there was no bpnus for malting barley. There may have been a time when the facts outlined by the hon. member for Melfort applied. But my barley was sold in the latter part of last month, and the early part of this month, and certainly there was no bonus for malting barley at that time. The United States price of $1.20 prevailed, and that was the top price at the time. I thought the committee should have these facts.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: I wish to make a few remarks concerning this war-time appropriation. I would point out to the minister and to the Department of Agriculture that in spite of some of the action taken by the government in a supposed effort to prevent some of the evils of peace-time marketing, a great many of those evils remain. Despite the fact that the producer is receiving a larger return for his product, he is still not receiving the share he should get.
May I give a few cases in point. These are things I had drawn to my attention. Some western farmers who were in a special position to get hold of range cattle and feed them as a special product, found themselves in an awkward situation. They had special feed supplies to last them about ninety days. They brought in Hereford cows from the ranges, and proceeded to fit those animals for market. When the ninety days were up and the animals were ready for sale on the market the farmers were told that the market was glutted, that there was no room for them, that the storage capacity was filled and that the packers could not handle them. The farmers were in desperate circumstances. Their feed supply was gone. It was a matter of continuing to keep the cattle alive by feeding them higher grades of wheat and straw. The farmers were losing money. But the peculiar thing was that, despite the fact that those farmers had been told by the buyers that there was no room on the market for their cattle, other buyers-representatives from the packing plants-offered to buy from the farmers at a cent or a cent and a half a pound below the market price.
Because of their desperate position the farmers sent a delegation to the government at Ottawa. That delegation was assured that after some adjustments the packing plants would take the cows. The fed cows were bought; but the peculiar thing about the transaction was that according to information sent to us later steers were not being accepted at the market price. People who had steers for sale were told exactly the same story, that the packing plants were full and that a sale could not be made. They, too, were offered a cent and a half less a pound for their product.
That type of thing destroys the producers' confidence in the government. It is bringing some to the realization of the fact that so long as the packing industry continues to control the purchase of cattle and other live stock in Canada the farmer can have no hope of any redress, or a proper return for his labour.
Then, too, we had a rather unfortunate circumstance develop on the Winnipeg market within the past year. As in peace time, during these war years there has been a glut of live stock on the market at Winnipeg in the fall. As soon as live stock requires feeding on the farm or in the corral extra labour and expense are involved with the result that farmers usually try to place their live stock on the Winnipeg market early. The result is a fall in price, the farmer taking the loss. By placing floors on farm products, to a certain extent, the government has practically circumvented

War Appropriation-Agriculture
this difficulty. It has introduced regulations whereby it can take over live stock and have it slaughtered if the price falls below a certain level. That however has not cured the situation. The market in Winnipeg became so congested that the packing plants refused to take any more animals.
My information is that something over
140,000	hogs came to the Winnipeg market, and the Winnipeg packing plants could not handle them. The result was that the hogs had to be shipped east, to the Toronto and eastern markets. A terrific loss was suffered, because of the loss of time, the change in feeding, and the necessary delays which occur in shipping, particularly during the winter months.
I would ask the minister, when dealing with this matter, to explain to the committee how the government goes about reimbursing the producer for the loss in grade and price which takes place on these animals. There must be a difference in loss suffered, determined by the number of days required to transfer the animals to the packing plants in the east.
All this naturally leads one to the conclusion that what is needed is orderly marketing, and that proper information should be sent out to the producers respecting the capacity of packing plants and other facilities across the country to take care of production. If there was a shortage of packing space, then the government should and must have known about it. It must have known about this condition, and should have made preparations to meet it. There has been congestion at Winnipeg for some time, -and it still exists.
Here is a farmer who is shipping hogs. He has them fattened, right to the pound, and when he gets them to the market at Winnipeg he finds it is closed. Those hogs hang around for a day or two, and within twenty-four hours they lose their grade. If they have to be shipped back to the farmer, he undergoes a further loss there. Why should the farmer be compelled to take the loss in these cases? Why can there not be some proper adjustment and regulation of the live stock reaching the packing plants so that the animals may be slaughtered at their prime and the greatest possible return made for the farmer? I do not see why the farmer should have to take the loss that results from the fact that facilities are lacking to handle his products. Surely the Department of Agriculture should be able to give information to the shippers at every point, letting them know exactly what is the situation so that they may ship at the very best time.

Last year there was a change in the price of coarse grains being fed to live stock. As the hon. member for Melfort pointed out, this resulted, in the case of a man growing his own grain, in an increase in the cost of producing hogs. As a result many farmers said, "Well, if the government expects us to lose money in producing these hogs we might as well get out of the business," and hundreds of farmers shipped all their hogs, even brood sows, to the market, the consequence being that there was a terrific glut of live stock reaching the Winnipeg slaughtering plants. Farmers were shipping out their brood sows; and figures presented to this house in a return dated February 3 show how the shipment of sows to the Winnipeg market increased. In August, 1943, over 69,000 sows were shipped, as compared with 34,000 in August, 1942; in September, 71,000 were shipped as compared with only 27,000 the year before; in October, 61,000, as compared with 19,000 in 1942, or over three times as many. In November, some
39.000	sows were shipped as compared with
24.000	the year before. At that time an embargo was placed on the shipment of these animals; otherwise I suppose in that month also three times as many sows would have been shipped as the year before. As a matter of fact I believe the embargo is still in effect. In December, 24,000 sows were delivered on the Winnipeg market, as compared with
25.000	the year before. At that time conditions in the stockyards at Winnipeg were terrible; these animals were suffering deterioration in every way, and any sows not accepted were shipped back to the farmers. This should never have happened.


James Garfield Gardiner: It really did not happen for the reason indicated, either.
Mr. C'ASTLEDEN: Does the minister say that these figures are not correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. I say there were three times as many pigs in Canada last year as in a previous year, so that naturally there would be more sows marketed.


George Hugh Castleden: And apparently there were no facilities for handling them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: Then why the congestion?


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall deal with that in a short time.


Ernest Edward Perley: Canada Packers will tell us all about that.


George Hugh Castleden: Yes, Canada Packers will let us know why.

War Appropriation-Agriculture


Mr. RICKARD:: There are more hogs in Canada than ever before.


George Hugh Castleden: Of course there are.


James Garfield Gardiner: And that indicates that there were more sows.


George Hugh Castleden: Yes, and it should
require proper facilities for handling them, so that the farmers would not have to take a loss because of congestion. The farmers are taking that loss, and as the minister admitted in the house nothing is being done to make up that loss to them.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have the report of Canada Packers. They do not care whether it is a sow or anything else; they make just as much money.
Mr. CASTLEDEN. I believe that is so. The farmer himself will have to go into the shipping, processing and selling of his own products. The organizations of producers should be given assistance and information. They should be given information in regard to the world situation, particularly with respect to markets for their products. I think sometime last March the minister said that he would tell us whether or not a longer term bacon agreement had been signed with Great Britain, and I hope that when he makes his report to-day he will give us this information. Producers in Canada should have complete information as to world production. They are kept in the position that they do not know whether to go into the production of cattle or stay out of it. If they do not know what the production is throughout the world, they cannot properly plan their production. You cannot go into the production of beef overnight; it takes several years to build up your herd. The farmers should be given the information as to what the market will be for years ahead, as nearly as the government can give it. We realize that it is difficult to say when the war will be over and what will' be the needs of the world; but if we know the production of the world; if we know the present consumption; if farmers and farm organizations could be taken into the confidence of the government and told what is the world food situation, they could do something to adjust their own production. The farmers should be supplied with proper information in regard to the packing houses and storage facilities, and there should be some proper regulation of the flow of live stock to the centres where it is processed. In speaking to farmers throughout the country I find a common complaint to be that the whole thing appears to be left to chance. The funny part of it is that the packing plants always come 100-196
out with the big end of it. They seem to have too much control of the boards. I do not know why the packing plants have to be represented there.


Mr. HENDERSON:: Why could the farmers not build more packing plants?


George Hugh Castleden: That is what they will have to do; it is the only thing left for them. Would the minister give the committee some information as to the quantities of meat that have spoiled in Canada and have had to be destroyed? A number of rumours have been going the rounds but apparently have been hushed up. I should like the minister to give the committee some information with regard to the storage facilities available in Canada, the quantities of food that have spoiled in the packing plants and have had to be destroyed during each of the last three years, and what steps have been taken to reimburse those who have suffered the loss. I know the western farmer would like to know what facilities will be available next fall to handle his live stock, either in Winnipeg or in the east, so that he may plan his production accordingly. Then, when there was great congestion in Winnipeg the farmer would have liked the government to take advantage of the United States market. Apparently at that time there was a shortage of meat across the border, and with the difference in exchange that seemed to the western farmer a practical way of overcoming the situation which existed in this country at that time. I should like also to have a statement from the minister in regard to the present situation in Winnipeg. Has the congestion there eased off, so that the farmer can ship his hogs to that market with some certainty that his shipment will be accepted? Has anything been done in this long period to reimburse the farmer for the loss he has had to take, and for which he was in no way responsible?


James Garfield Gardiner: With regard to the last suggestion that we might utilize the United States market, I should like to read a few satisfies to show that conditions across the line were pretty much the same as conditions which prevailed here recently. These figures are taken from the last statement got out by the Department of Agriculture on May 18, 1944, and at the bottom of page 3 the United States live stock situation is dealt with, giving the federally inspected slaughtering at thirty-two selected centres in the United States, and the figures given here were obtained from United States statistics with regard to these thirty-two centres.
The number of cattle inspected at these thirty-two points spread over the United

War Appropriation-Agriculture

States was, in round figures, 181,000 head for the week ending May 6 last: for the previous week, 179,000; and for the same week last year, 150,000. That is, 31,000 more head of cattle were slaughtered at these points this year than in the same week of the year previous. Then calves; 83,000 were inspected for the week ending May 6 last; '87,000 for the week previous; 55,000 for the same week a year ago; hogs; 1,223,000 for the week ending May 6 last; 1,170,000 for the previous week; and 964,000 for the same week a year ago.
When one considers those figures, one can only come to the conclusion that the situation is much the same in the United States as it is here. In other words, the farmers of the United States have responded to the call for greater production of food products just as the farmers in this country have done, with the result that slaughtering places in the United States are glutted with live stock, just the same as they are on this side of the line. That is why recently the United States followed the lead we gave a few weeks earlier and did away with rationing of meat except steaks and high qualities of beef. Their experience has been similar to ours. That is the chief reason why it has been found difficult, if not impossible, to take advantage of the United States market, because it would have put our friends across the line into difficulties even greater than those they are now experiencing, and it would have compelled them probably to take action which we would much prefer to take ourselves under all the circumstances which existed.


George Hugh Castleden: Would the minister also give the slaughtering and storage capacity figures in the United States and Canada in 1939 and 1940.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not those figures, but they can be had in due course. I have the slaughterings in Canada. For the week ending May 6 last there were 194,000; for the week ending April 29, 196,000; for the week ending May 8, 1943, 140,000. We have a record of the slaughterings at all the plants across Canada, and the figures I have just given are the record of the killings in Canada at inspected plants, just as the figures I previously gave were a record of the killings at thirty-two different centres in the United States. When you take that fact into consideration you will see that the increase on the United States side of the line is just about in line with the increase on our own side.
At exporting plants, which are the plants we have under consideration in dealing with our exports of bacon and ham to Britain,

for the week ending May 6 last the slaughterings were 182,000; for the week ending April 29, 187,000, and for the week ending May 8, 1943, 130,000. So that it will be seen from those figures that conditions are much the same on both sides of the line.


George Hugh Castleden: How many of these places are unable to take the supply of stock which comes in?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will deal with that later. I have given the figures with regard to slaughterings to clear up just one point.
The discussions this afternoon were opened by the hon. member for Haldimand who. apart from the introduction to his remarks, gave us, I think, a clear indication of the general position. But in his opening remarks he dwelt at considerable length on statements that have been made previously in the house by himself and by others. In that regard I wish to call to mind the statements which were made by the hon. member for Haldimand himself, by the hon. member for Yorkton, who has just taken his seat, and by the hon. member for Melfort and others in the house during the first three or four years of the war. During that period of time the challenge which was hurled across the floor to the government, and particularly to myself as Minister of Agriculture, was to the effect that the farmers in this country were never going to be able to meet the demands that would be made upon them for food production to supply the necessities of war because we were not giving leadership to the farmers. That was the claim made during all that period of time. I was pleased, therefore, to be able to sit here and listen this afternoon to the same hon. members telling us that the real difficulty now is that we have produced so much food that we have not the plant capacity in Canada to have it processed.


Mark Cecil Senn: I did not make that statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend did not make that statement in so many words, but the hon. member who just took his seat did, and others who have spoken previously have suggested it. It pretty well indicates that someone was giving some leadership after all. I am not particularly worried about who gave the leadership. The fact is that the farmers have done what we suggested ought to be done. I believe that the farmers themselves have provided a great part of the leadership. The direction was indicated by the department and by myself, and in following that direction the farmers have done what we desired to have them do and what the British people desired they should do, namely, provide greater quantities of the different types of

War Appropriation-Agriculture
food which are required in connection with the prosecution of the war. Our farmers have done that to a greater extent than anyone anticipated before the war that we would ever be able to do in this country.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: And the farmers paid the shot.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says that the farmers paid the shot.


John Horne Blackmore: And they are still at it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the farmers will agree that some of the shot was paid by the British people and some by the Canadian people generally. While some of them may have the view that the pay was not as high as it might have been, I think they will all agree that the shot was paid for to the extent it has been paid, by the federal treasury on behalf of all the people of Canada, and by the British government on behalf of the people of Britain. That being the case, the farmers responded to the call which was .made for more food.
Discussing the point which was raised a few moments ago by the hon. member for Yorkton, that we are marketing a great many sows, all I have to say in that regard is that in [DOT]marketing the great numbers of hogs which have been marketed in 1944, during which period we marketed more hogs than we ever did before in any similar period in our history -sows and all kinds of hogs-the percentage of Bl's and A's of the total marketed compares favourably with that in any other previous period in the marketing of hogs in this country.
That in itself suggests that there has not been a greater number of sows or of heavies or of lights marketed than one would expect under the circumstances. As a matter of fact, one of the chief criticisms which were made of the department, of myself and of the government was to the effect that by the time we reached this period of 1944 so many sows would have been marketed that we were not going to be able to supply the British market at all. Looking at the last week for which we have the records, I find we are now in this positon, that we had marketed over seventy per cent-to be exact, about seventy-seven per cent-of all the hogs which the present agreement calls for. In other words, instead' of sows being marketed to the extent that we would have no pigs, we have so many pigs that we wonder how we are to be able to process and market them. In other words, farmers did not slaughter the pigs as they came from the sows, as was stated by members of this house outside the house in the fall of 100-196i
1943. Farmers were not selling their pigs at the prices that were indicated by some hon. members outside the house; they were retaining these pigs in their pens and feeding them, and these pigs are to-day coming on the market in numbers such as I indicated a few moments ago, thousands upon thousands more than ever came into the market in the corresponding week of preceding years. So that we have records which bear out what has been said this afternoon, namely, that our farmers have done a particularly good job in producing food; and if they have done it without any leadership from the Department of Agriculture-well, we are quite satisfied.
The question was raised that we ought to have more producers on our boards. That is an old story, and it used to come from all quarters both inside and outside the house. But it has ceased to come from many quarters recently, and there is a reason for that, too. When the war started we placed upon the boards which were set up in the agriculture department the best farmer experts that I know in the dominion, and I think even the hon. member for Haldimand will admit that with regard to some of them. These men came from the farms; they were hired by the Department of Agriculture through the civil service commission in years gone by, most of them by the opposite political party to that to which I belong, in periods of time w'hen we were not in office. These men were hired because they did know agriculture. These men were hired because they were born and raised on farms all over this country.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. S. E. Todd?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and Mr. Todd
knows very much more about agriculture than the hon. member does.


John Horne Blackmore: Was he raised on a
farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Mr. Todd was
raised on a farm and was employed by the government before he was employed by others; and he still farms.


John Horne Blackmore: By proxy.


James Garfield Gardiner: These men were bom
and raised on farms; they were put through the best agricultural institutions we have for training men to be able to assist in the farming operations of the farmers of Canada, and then they were employed by the civil service commission to give service in the Department of Agriculture to the farmers. What I wish to say to hon. members who make speeches such as have been made on a number of occasions with regard to these officials is, that if the
* 3122

War Appropriation-Agriculture
government took any fanner and put him on one of these administrative boards, he would immediately be an employee of this government, and in the minds of hon. members sitting opposite he would cease to be a farmer or one assisting in production in this country.


John Horne Blackmore: It would help, to try one or two.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have tried. Perhaps my hon. friend will not have so much to say about it before I am through.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall have more.


James Garfield Gardiner: I must admit that when the war began I, as Minister of Agriculturej was inclined to say that farm organizations would be ill-advised to have their best officials leave those organizations, come into the employ of the government and take their directions from those of us who happen to be in charge of the department for the time being, if they desired to serve the farm organizations to which they belonged and which had placed them in the positions they occupied. So that we said that officials who know agriculture, who have been advising in connection with agriculture, ought to head these particular boards and should have some-fhing to do with the directing of the marketing of the farm products during the war period. In the very first meeting we had *[DOT]with the farm federation at the beginning of [DOT] the war I pointed out to them that during i the period of the war, at least, it would be vthe policy of the government to set up government boards for the purpose of handling (farm products, and gave as one of the reasons (that we would be dealing direct with boards set up by governments in Great Britain and elsewhere which were going to purchase the products we had to sell. For that reason, if for no other, during the war period it would be necessary to have these boards appointed bv the government and under government direction. In addition, it was the intention, and that intention has been followed out, .that agreements would be made as between the government of this country and the governments .of other countries for the sale of [DOT]Canadian farm products to governments of ether countries, such products to be used in eonnection with the prosecution of the war; and under those circumstances it would . become necessary from time to time for our government, not only to purchase the farm product and place it as the disposal of a board at some point or another on its way ; between here and the British market, to be placed at the disposal of a board set up by .another government, but for the government

actually to finance the marketing of the farm product; first, the assembling of it at some point, and finally the marketing of it, taking care of the financing of payments from time to time. It was pointed out that under those circumstances it was very important that men who had been trained in the government service should be at the head of these boards in order to see to it that proper administration was given to the transactions that were conducted.
For a time farm organizations did take exception to that policy, but when we set up the food board I placed the matter squarely in the hands of the federation itself. I said, "We are prepared to take one of your officials-you name him-and preferably your president, and put him on the food board. We would like you to make the decision as to whether we shall do that or not." After giving it consideration they came back-the records are on the files to indicate what I am saying-and stated that they preferred to have representation on an advisory committee. I think they showed good sense in coming to that conclusion. So that, instead of having their president on the board, the president is chairman of the advisory committee to the food board. He has his office here in Ottawa; he is not under our direction; he has access to my office and the office of the officials at any time he desires to have access; he discusses the different farm problems relating to food with us, and there is an advisory committee set up that he calls together from time to time after consulting with those of us in the department as to the necessity for a meeting. He calls that committee together. It is composed of nine representatives nominated by the provincial government and three representatives in addition to the chairman nominated by the federation. Some of those men who are nominated by the provincial governments are representatives of farm organizations in their own provinces and others are officials of the Departments of Agriculture in the provinces. That committee meets from time to time when any important matter relating to the marketing of different farm products is under consideration and advises with regard to what should be done in connection with that particular product.


John Horne Blackmore: Do you ever take its advice?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. If we did not take its advice sometimes, I suppose my hon. friend would have known there was such a committee in existence and functioning. They would have made it known themselves. In connec-

War Appropriation-Agriculture
tion with a matter of this kind, not only is it an advisory committee to the government or to the Department of Agriculture or to the feed board; it is a committee which advises its own nominators as well. It gains information by sitting in committee with regard to the different problems that confront the government in the marketing of the product and gives its own opinions as to what ought to be done, discusses those opinions pro and con with the board and the minister; and after a decision is reached, it is in a position to explain to its own people why certain decisions were necessary and why certain results were obtained. I may say that since that decision was arrived at, since that action was taken we have had the most satisfactory association with the farm federation, which represents farm organizations from one end of Canada to the other. Their advice is freely given. They sit in and offer their opinions with regard to what ought to be done in connection with the different farm products. We listen to their opinions and apply as many of their ideas as we possibly can, and they in turn make explanations where explanations are possible as to why certain things had to be done. Therefore we have had a very satisfactory arrangement and things have worked quite effectively in the interests of the farmers of Canada during the last year under that organization.
I have made this statement in order to show that' so far as personnel of the food and other administrative boards is concerned it is comprised largely of officials of the department. The advisory committee has, as its chairman, the president of the farm federation, and other representatives from that federation, nominated by themselves, and accepted by me as minister and recommended to the government for appointment. They have been appointed and have been functioning on the committee throughout that period of time.
That is one of the reasons why the change was made about which I was asked for an explanation by the hon. member for Haldi-mand. In the spring of 1943 we set up the food board and we set up this advisory committee on which there are representatives of all the different agricultural activities across Canada, from which we get advice. At that time it was decided that all matters having to do with encouragement of production should be placed under the Department of Agriculture. Some of the subsidies previously paid for production were paid under the prices board organization, but in the spring of 1943 they were placed under the Department of Agriculture, more particularly under the administration of the food board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have followed with a great deal of interest what little I have heard, but I would point out that last summer, in connection with the production of new potatoes, the policy was to subsidize the consumer, and that was intended to be done through the wartime prices and trade board and through the Commodities Stabilization corporation. Owing to an error in the drafting of the regulations, however, it became a subsidy to producers. Why was that not all1 included under the food board? Perhaps the minister does not know about it, but I call his attention to the matter. It was intended to be a subsidy to the consumer and turned out to be a subsidy to producers, and thousands of dollars have been paid out which it was never intended should be so paid out.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I understand it, the position is that the subsidy which is paid in connection with potatoes is a consumer subsidy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was the intention; there is no doubt about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was the intention, and that is why it is under the prices board. The idea of paying the consumer subsidy through the prices board is that the prices board is controlling the cost of living-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Quite so.


James Garfield Gardiner: -in which is included the cost of food, and they say that where food costs too much they will subsidize the consumer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no doubt about the theory, and I am not objecting to it, but it turned out that it became a producer subsidy until it was caught, and the money cannot be got back.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand there is
some difficulty with regard to some payments in connection with potatoes, but that is one of the difficulties that develop in connection with, controls. The intention, however, was that it should be a consumer subsidy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Quite right.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those were the two.
matters which I wished to discuss to some extent at the moment. I do not wish to prolong the discussion in connection with administration under this item. It will be noted1 that there is administration under all these items. The first one is administration of the agricultural supplies board; then there is administration under the feeds administrator; there is administration under fertilizers; there is administration under subventions and freight
War Appropriation-Agriculture

allowances, and there is administration under the meat board. Up to the moment we have all been out of order in trying to discuss all these various matters under administration of the supplies board, because administration comes under each of the items that I have mentioned. If we are to discuss the meat board we ought to reserve our discussions until we are dealing with that item, or with items having to do with the meat board. I suggest that there has been considerable leeway up to the- moment, and I think the committee will agree that we can get along much better if we discuss the various matters as we come to them under their respective items. We have nine chances to discuss administration, and there is no reason why we should discuss all these matters under one item.


John Horne Blackmore: I think we should come 'to some understanding on the matter. I wished to discuss the question of meat, and I thought the proper place would be under the item *dealing with the meat board. If we agree to discuss it there, very well; if we agree to fight it out here, that will suit me.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was asked by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton) how we would prefer to proceed, and I suggested on Friday evening that it would be better to take these matters item by item than to have a general discussion ranging over all under one item. We have had a general discussion from all quarters of the opposition with the exception of Social Credit, and I think that if we can agree to go on from here and discuss administration in connection with each of these branches, discussing matters having to do with it under each vote, we shall make better headway and get information more readily, because the information is all compiled in that way.


George Hugh Castleden: Under what item does congestion of delivery of stock come?


James Garfield Gardiner: Everything having to do with the delivery of stock will come under the meat board.


John Horne Blackmore: I believe that the department have bungled the beef-producing job in southern Alberta. I shall have more to ;say on that later.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will, too.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall be here to hear it.


Ernest Edward Perley: I thought a general discussion was to be allowed and we were to have the same latitude that has been extended to other hon. members. I did not get into the

discussion for the reason that I thought it would continue. It is now nearly six o'clock. I could not conclude the few general remarks I should like to make before six, and therefore I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to call it six o'clock. I shall take about twenty minutes.


The CHAIRMAN:: Before I call it six o'clock may I say that I believe the point taken by the Minister of Agriculture is well taken. Hon. members of the committee will realize that we have already spent seven or eight sittings on agriculture. I do not want to curtail discussion-I am not able to-but I believe we should discuss the item before the committee at the present time. I am confirmed I am expressing the views of the majority of the hon. members of the committee when I say that.


Mark Cecil Senn: Before you make that decision, Mr. Chairman, may I say that at the opening of my remarks I laid a basis for what I had to say. The order in council sets up the agricultural supplies board and gives it very wide powers in regard not only to production but to all phases of the agricultural situation. That is the reason why I went as far as I did. It seems to me that that is sufficiently wide to carry on a general discussion unless the committee decides otherwise.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only thing I have to say with regard to that is to repeat what I said a moment ago. We have "administration" in every one of those items. I think the committee can get better information and better results by discussing all there is to be said about administration on those particular items wrhen we come to them. The information will then be available, but it is not readily available at the moment when the committee is wandering all over the place. I think we can get better results if my suggestion-is followed out.


Ernest Edward Perley: I thought it was understood on Friday night last that there would be more or less general discussion on the first item, such as has taken place this afternoon. If the ruling had been made after the first two speakers had concluded their remarks this afternoon it would have been all right, but I do not think it is proper to make the ruling now because there are two or three other hon. members who would like to say something. I have spoken to them and they have told me that they intended to go on. We have heard from the far comer. I refrained from going on because some hon. members in that corner wanted to precede me. I think, Mr. Chairman, that you should call it six o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Charles Edward Johnston: After he had had his say.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said that we would take up this item and discuss it and not wander all over the place. I will admit that that has been departed from by one speaker from the official opposition, two speakers from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the hon. member for North Battleford, and the hon. member from one other party who talked about the employment of labour in agriculture. After having gone over all that, I think we should call a halt and discuss the particular item that is before the committee.


Ernest Edward Perley: There are about five or six administrators and three or four boards. If a general discussion is to be allowed on each one of those then we may say all we have to say in a general way for about five minutes on each one. If we do that it will not facilitate the passing of the estimates. Nor shall we be doing that by closing down the discussion as suggested at the moment. There are three or four other hon. members in the same position as myself. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that you call it six o'clock.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I believe that it is a matter of understanding among the hon. members of the committee. It is impossible for me to curtail the discussion. It is not my intention to do so at the present time, but there has been a great deal of repetition. I believe it is the wish of the committee that the discussion be curtailed to a large extent.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Ernest Edward Perley: Mr. Chairman, on Friday last the minister's war estimates were before the committee for only a short time before eleven o'clock. We did not get very far that evening. This afternoon there has been a general discussion on the first item, in conformity with the usual practice. Just before six o'clock the minister pointed out that he thought we had had enough general discussion, and should discuss the item in detail. All I have to say is that I think the minister was perhaps a little optimistic. I do not think his estimates will be held up very long, however, because I am sure that when the different
boards are under discussion in detail he will be prepared to give all information asked, and as a result possibly he will get through sooner than he expects.
I was interested when, just before six o'clock, the minister replied to the hon. member for Yorkton, placing on record the increase in the production of hogs, and a record of the slaughterings both in Canada and in the United States.
I believe the information he gave showed that the increase was about the same in each case, a situation only to be expected. I trust that the minister clarified other conditions, such as the increase in the marketing of sows, to the satisfaction of the hon. member for Yorkton. If that hon. member is not practical enough to absorb what the minister has said, then there are one or two other members in his group who are practical farmers and who will be able to explain things to him.
The minister took some little time this afternoon to answer the hon. member for Haldimand and, to some extent, was complimentary in what he said about that hon. member. In my view the hon. member made a well-considered and constructive speech. It was, of course, critical in some respects, but constructively so. He made several suggestions whereby the operation of the different boards, and the department generally in respect of its war programme, might be made more efficient, so as to give the farmer a little better deal. The hon. member for Haldimand referred to increased production and increased prices, and also dealt with the farm labour problem, and the difficulty farmers have in securing machinery. It is clear that farming operations, in view of the shortage of labour, require more machinery under present conditions.
The hon. member made a point with respect to the cost of production, and showed how, even under present conditions, and despite increased production and increased prices, the farmer is hardly getting what is coming to him, and is not getting a fair share of the national income.
The minister endeavoured to answer what had been said by the hon. member for Haldimand, and, I was interested to note, to give credit to the farmers on this occasion. However, I can well remember another occasion to which the hon. member for Haldimand made reference. I can remember when the minister's estimates were before the committee before the Easter recess, upon which occasion the hon. member for Moose Jaw, the hon. member for Macdonald and the hon. member for Brant spent considerable time in eulogizing the minister, paying him compliments and giving him credit for the increased production, the increase in prices, and the apparent pros-
War Appropriation-Agriculture

perity the farmer has lately enjoyed. I recall that on that occasion the minister absorbed the eulogies, smiling occasionally, and expanding himself when he rose to reply and to thank his supporters for their compliments.
To-day, however, he did go out of his way to make proper references to the hon. member for Haldimand, and to a certain extent did give credit where it belonged; that is, to the farmer. If I remember correctly, his expression was that the farmer had followed the instructions and requests made by his department, in almost every respect, in regard to increased production.
The minister referred to the farm representation on different boards, a point which had been raised earlier by the hon. member for Haldimand. The minister's reply was that the government had set up advisory committees, and that on those committees the farmers have direct representation, just as they have in some of the farm organizations and cooperatives. Well, that is all very well. I might say that a review of some of the statements made by different organizations discloses that they have such representation. But it is a little difficult to see where the suggestions they make from time to time are implemented or put into force.
Replying to what was said this afternoon by the minister, I would point out to him that if he will go back to 1942 and 1943, when the boards were first set up, he will see that on those occasions the hon. member for Haldimand, and others on this side of the house, demanded that farmers and producers have_ direct representation on the boards. That was not allowed. The farmer did not receive such representation at that time, and he is getting it now only in a roundabout way, by representation on the advisory committees. Well, that is all to the good.
To return to the credit hon. members tried to give the minister, on the former occasion when the minister's estimates were before the committee, might I say that when those hon. members gave the minister credit for increased production and increased price levels I was tempted to ask the minister then what Providence might have had to do with it. What did the farmer, himself, have to do with it? I believe it is apparent he has had much to do with it. Then, what has the war had to do with it? Surely we realize that it has brought about a demand for increased production of all kinds. I suggest that these are some of the reasons why we have had the increase. No matter who might have been sitting on the treasury benches, the farmer would have met the demand, when or if it was necessary.

I shall not deal with subsidies until we reach the item in the estimates -dealing with that subject.
May I express my agreement with what has been said by the hon. member for Haldimand with respect to prices? The ceiling price should not apply to certain farm products, but certainly floor prices should. I, for one, was disappointed that before this we had not had presented to the house the bill to establish floor prices which the Minister of Finance said was to be introduced. We should have had that bill before us before these estimates were presented. We should have it before us, before concluding our discussions on the war appropriation estimates, so that we may know exactly what the minister has in mind, what he means by floor prices, how he is to establish them and what they are to be. We should have had that information, particularly . in view of the minister's announcement of Friday last that he was going to go west next Saturday night, no matter what happens, whether these estimates are through or not. Before he leaves this city to go west, to take part, as we know, in a certain campaign out there, he should let us have that bill respecting floor prices, so that we may know what it is all about.
The stock grading system is not satisfactory. I have had communications from and talked with farmers and shippers who are not at all satisfied. I suggest that to make it more satisfactory some change should be made.
The situation set out this afternoon by the hon. member for Yorkton with respect to the processing and distribution of live stock works all to the advantage of the packers, I do not think the present grading system is what it should be. I believe it should be revised. I am going to quote the statement referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Haldimand, as having been made by the president of Canada Packers before the price spreads committee in 1934, in regard to live stock prices;
The total live stock is sold for the total sum, whatever it is; from that sum is deducted first the packer's expense and the packer's profit and the farmer gets the balance.
I imagine the same rule is followed at the present time. There has been no change in the grading system or the regulations; the farmer gets whatever is left after the packer takes his profit and expenses. On previous occasions we on this side have suggested that a board of live stock commissioners should be set up in order to assist producers of live stock as the board of grain commissioners assists producers of grain. I think I have referred to this matter once or twice already this

War Appropriation-Agriculture
session. If we had such a board, with proper representation, I believe a great many of the difficulties that now exist in regard to grading, marketing and processing would be done away with. A few moments ago I referred to Canada Packers. I have in my hand the last annual report of that company, which I received just a few days ago. I am not going to read from it at any length, but I recommend this report to all hon. members.


Mr. GOLDING:: Does the hon. member think he is the only one who has read it?


Ernest Edward Perley: If my hon. friend has read it he will see that the packers themselves say they make so much profit on every pound of pork, beef or other meat that goes through their plants, no matter what animal it may come from. I am glad to know the hon. gentleman who interrupted has read the report, for I am sure he will agree with what I have said and will join me in recommending it to the attention of hon. members.
I wish to refer briefly to the matter of the disposition of agricultural products of which surpluses have been created because of the war. In certain products we now have surpluses as a result of increased production and other causes; and after listening to the statement made this afternoon by the Prime Minister we must realize that our difficulties are not at an end yet, that we may still have a bad year or two ahead. I suggest that the minister should make a start in implementing some of the suggestions contained in the report of the reconstruction committee dated December 16, 1943. At page five of that report, under the heading, "Industrial Utilization of Farm Products," I find this:
That a new government-supported laboratory limited to research on the utilization of farm products and with facilities for pilot-plant investigations, be established in the prairie provinces.
The suggestion was made this afternoon that we should have more packing plants, perhaps smaller in size, which would help take care of surplus live stock marketed from time to time, but here we have a definite recommendation in this report. Then on page 24, in regard to the industrial utilization of farm products, I find this:
A survey of Canadian research on the utilization of farm .products reveals that in the past agricultural research has been directed mainly to increasing (production; in the future, greater emphasis should be placed on utilization problems.
So that I would ask the minister, when he comes to discuss these items in detail, to say what has been done in this connection and just how far the government is going in carrying out the suggestions contained in this very 100-197
worth-while report. At page 27 of the same report I see a reference to one or two interesting items having to do with a general research programme which they suggest in connection with such matters as wheat starch, vegetable proteins, vegetable oils and so on. I think we should have a statement from the minister on some of these items, whichever he thinks most suitable, as to what is being done in regard to accepting some of the suggestions advanced by this committee.
The last item under this estimate has to do with the agricultural food board. This is a new item in the minister's estimates, and it provides for a proposed expenditure of $47,600,000. If we go back to item 5 we see a proposed expenditure of $16,500,000 on freight assistance in connection with western feed grains; then we have another item of $8,000,000 for a subsidy on western wheat. If we add together the first two items I mentioned we get a total of $64,000,000; if we subtract that amount from the total of $73,-
500,000	we have left $9,500,000, and if we subtract that from last year's total we find that the net increase this year is only something like $4,500,000. I believe this new item involving some $47,000,000 should be explained thoroughly by the minister, who should tell us exactly what is to be done under the new board that is to be set up and how the work is to be carried on. Also with respect to these items the minister should tell us the number of people employed this year as compared with last year. I have before me the auditor general's report for last year. If you go through this report and take the minister's estimates item by item you will see all the details. I find that in one year there was an increase of almost one hundred employees drawing salaries of from $2,400 to $3,000 a year, in addition to their expenses, as well as many stenographers and clerks. I think we should be told by the minister just what increase is anticipated for this year.
There are one or two interesting items in the auditor general's report on which I should like some information from the minister. They have to do with advertising. At page A-71 I see an item for advertising with respect to the production of wheat and coarse grains, amounting to $15,000. I should like to know what is to be done this year under this item. Then on page A-73 I find an advertising item of $7,000 for special war-time pamphlets. On the same page we have an item of $30,000 for advertising " re farm women's activities," and the comment on the following pages is that this-
.	.	. represents payments to the Canadian
Advertising Agency Limited, Montreal, for



War Appropriation-Agriculture
advertising in farm publications to assist farm women in their home and farm duties and allied war work.
On page 74 there is another advertising item for $555; another advertising item of $15,000; an item of $12,000 for advertising a sheep raising programme. On page 75 there are two or three more advertising items, including an item of $22,000 for advertising to stimulate live stock production. I am not going into details as to who got this money, although it would be interesting to know who it was in Montreal who got the most of it. My point is, does the minister really need to carry on this expensive advertising this year, or will the advertising that was paid for last year suffice? The amount spent on advertising does seem out of all proportion when you have boards set up, with inspectors and key men going all over the country. When I was at home at Easter I stopped at an hotel in a small town, and standing outside were eight or ten cars. I said to the hotelkeeper, "You must be doing a good busniess, with so many cars outside." He said, "Come on out with me and look at them." Half of them were departmental cars, three of them belonging to the Department of Agriculture. They are doing a lot of advertising and your boards are doing a lot of advertising, so that I think these advertising agencies should not receive again this year the amounts that were paid them last year. The best advertising we can get with respect to farm production in Canada is a fair price, and that is all the farmer asks-a fair and square deal and a parity price. There has just come to hand to-day the Searle index giving comparative prices on 147 items and the price shown for farm products is 102 instead of 156. A fair price for the farmer is the best advertising of all.
When we come to the individual items we shall have questions to ask. It is our responsibility to help the minister get the necessary production of food to assist in bringing the war to a successful conclusion. But I think, too, we all want to see the agriculturist, who is carrying on the largest industry in the country, get a square deal.


Mr. HLYNKA:: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed with the consideration of individual items in a more orderly fashion I should like to say a few words.
The Minister of Agriculture seems to be very well versed in his subject and has a lot of statistical information at his finger-tips whenever he is asked a question. He also delivers some very good speeches on the floor of this house. But for some reason or another the farmers are never set at ease by the speeches

which the minister delivers, and I believe that the results which the farmers received from their operations justify their feelings. I should like to hear the minister give this committee and the country the assurance that farm income in Canada after the war will be maintained at a high level.


Mr. EVANS:: It is higher this year than ever before in the history of this country.


Anthony Hlynka: I quite agree that the
income which the farmers have been receiving during war time is considerably higher than that which they received before the war, but one or two years of better prices for farm products do not place the farmer in a position where he feels safe and is able to meet his daily obligations.


Charles Robert Evans: The farmers of Alberta are
liquidating their mortgages this year.


Anthony Hlynka: Yes, but Alberta has a
good government. That is the difference.


Mr. DLPUIS:: Twenty-five dollars a month.


Anthony Hlynka: If I may proceed, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to tell us how he proposes to keep farm income at a high level. Has he any formula? Or is he unable to give the committee and the country the assurance that farm income will be maintained at a high level?
Would the minister also tell the committee whether he still entertains the view that agricultural prosperity depends upon and can only be maintained by foreign trade? That is the view which this government held in the past. Our farmers were told that they could not possibly expect better times because we could not sell our wheat abroad. Will the minister tell the committee whether this government feels that immediately after the war the Canadian people can be assured of an adequate income, or must they again hear the excuse that because we cannot sell our products abroad the people must go hungry at home?
Would the minister also tell the committee whether or not he is satisfied that under his administration it will be possible to make available to the farmers sufficient credit to enable them to carry on their farming operations as they would like to do? I must say that in the past, and it is partly the case now, this government has chosen to put the farmers on a sort of relief system. The farmers were forced to live on relief, and they still do, whether it be in the form of subsidies or other assistance that the government gives the farmers from time to time. I believe in subsidies for both the consumer and the producer. But first of all we must endeavour to

War Appropriation-Agriculture
set and maintain a parity price on farm products. I believe that subsidies should be used only for the purpose of adjustment.
Another item which I should like to mention, and to which brief reference has been made to-day, is the condition of farm machinery. For the past five years the farmers, particularly those of western Canada, have been operating with old machinery. Much of it is broken down and some is beyond repair. Will the minister tell the committee and the country what he proposes to do in this matter? I should like to hear an assurance from him that repair parts will be available, and they must be made available if the farmers are to carry on their operations efficiently.
The minister seems able to produce statistical information on practically every question which is asked, and I congratulate him upon his knowledge of this information. But he should also from time to time indicate to the farmers what they may expect in the future. It is well to tell them what the country expects of the farmers, and it is well to inform the farmers what they may expect of the country.
At the appropriate time I intend to make a few more remarks with particular reference to the beef situation and the marketing of bacon.


Charles Edward Johnston: This item has to do with the programme to encourage the production of essential war supplies. I believe the specific matter we are discussing is that of the agricultural supplies board administration.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the item.


Charles Edward Johnston: I listened to the minister's replies to some of the questions asked this afternoon, and, as the hon. member who has just spoken indicated, the minister gave a very nice speech. But I am endeavouring to find a solution of some of the problems which have been outlined. I have before me a petition which was sent to me by my constituency and is signed on behalf of a number of farm organizations, complaining about the unsatisfactory marketing of hogs. I am aware that the minister on May 8 gave quite an explanation of why the packing plants could not handle the large dumber of hogs which were being brought to them, and he returned to the subject to-day, saying in general that many more hogs had been brought into the packing plants this year than in any other year since the war started. I do not suppose there is any question about that; the minister has given the figures and I accept them as correct, but that does not solve the problem. The condition complained of still exists. The minister went to quite a length 100-1971
this afternoon to show how well the farmers have responded to the "leadership", as he called it, of the Liberal party in raising the required production. I do not know whether that is evidence of leadership. I would have thought that when the government asks the farmers to raise a large number of hogs to supply war demands, the government should be in a position to handle those supplies. But that is where the minister's explanation stopped; he did not go on to say that the government have plans to take care of this production for which they asked. That does not show planning, or leadership.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did say that w'hen we got down to the item I would be prepared to discuss it; that is, the meat board.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is what I am dealing with.	*


James Garfield Gardiner: No; it comes under the meat board.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have
looked over the details carefully, and I cannot see where the raising of stock would come under that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The whole handling and marketing of live stock-hogs and cattle- comes under the meat board.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will finish now what I had to say, and then I need not repeat my remarks if the minister will answer the question. The point is, that while the minister has reviewed the facts I have indicated he has not solved the difficulty which faces the farmer, and I have been waiting for his explanation so that I can answer the great number of letters I have received and tell the farmers just how soon their problem will be solved. It is all very well to say that the farmers are very patriotic in their response to the call. That is true; but the fact is that, in making that response, they, like those in other industries, should receive proper remuneration for their labours. I recall having visited about a year ago some aircraft plants, which, too, are doing a good job; but in this industry, as in the building of ships and the manufacture of guns, industrialists receive a profit on their labours. The full costs of production, including labour, raw material and overhead are ascertained,, and upon these outlays their profit is calculated. It seems to me only fair that the farmers, when they raise hogs at the request *of the government in a time of national war emergency, should be guaranteed the cost of production plus a fair and reasonable profit I would not claim for them an excessive profit, and they are not asking for it. But

War Appropriation-Agriculture
the situation is that they complied with the government regulations in every detail; they bring their hogs to the stockyards to be sold, and quite frequently-this was revealed to me only about a week ago-they are forced to take their hogs home again and hold them for another two or three weeks. Immediately they are required to do that they undergo a loss. If they continue to feed the hogs, there is a danger of overweight when they are 'brought in again; if they feed them just enough to maintain the required weight, they are out the cost of the day to day feed; if the hogs lose weight, again the farmers lose. It seems to me that the problem should be tackled in a different manner. If an aircraft manufacturer makes a plane which the government is not prepared to take from him at [DOT]once, he is allowed the cost of storage, insurance, and like charges. The farmer should be treated in the same way; when he brings his 'hogs into the stockyard the government should be prepared to buy those hogs then and there.


Mr. BLAIR:: What would they do with them?


Charles Edward Johnston: They asked for them. What do they do with surplus aircraft? They store them or pay for the storage, because they are the government's property when they are brought out of the factory.


Mr. DUPUIS:: The conditions are not the same.


Charles Edward Johnston: The planes belong to the government and not to the aircraft manufacturer. It should be the same with the farmer; when he brings his hogs into the stockyard the government should take possession of them. If they want to have a feeding lot there or something of the sort, that might be the solution; but delivery should be taken of the farmer's hogs as he brings them in. Then the nation itself would assume responsibility for any loss incurred after the time the farmers had delivered the stock.


Vincent Dupuis: Does the hon. member mean to say that the western farmer does not make .a profit on hogs-that he is not making a profit on hogs this year?


Charles Edward Johnston: 'You never heard me say that.


Vincent Dupuis: What is your complaint, then?


Charles Edward Johnston: If you want to say that, go ahead.


Vincent Dupuis: What is the situation of the eastern farmer?


Charles Edward Johnston: Do your own talking, please. If the hon. member wants to say that the farmers are making too much profit in the west, that is his privilege-


Vincent Dupuis: I do not say that, but I say they make a profit.


Charles Edward Johnston: -but I am trying to assist the Minister of Agriculture because I know he is having difficulty in solving the problem.


An hon. MEMBER:: What would be your
suggestion?


Charles Edward Johnston: I am sure the people in the west are not satisfied with the way in which the thing is being handled now, and merely to recite what the packing companies are doing to-day as compared with a year ago is not the solution. Everyone knows, or can know if he will read the figures which the minister has given-and no one doubts the correctness of those figures-that the packing plants are doing much more than they did before. Only look at their profit sheets and you will find that out. But that does not solve the difficulty. I have an important suggestion to make to the minister. I do not know whether he will accept it or whether he has something better to propose, but I think some plan should be worked out whereby, when the farmer brings his product to the market, the government would at once take possession of it, whether it be hogs or beef or any other commodity, which is an essential war material. The government, from the point of view of war necessity, has appealed to the patriotism of the farmers to produce, and when the fanners comply with that request they have done their share. But to penalize the'farmer and force him to take his hogs home, and definitely to incur a loss on them, is not good business from anyone's point of view. I should like to see the minister, therefore, make some plan for taking over possession of these hogs and paying the farmer the price that is coming to him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Assistance in disposal of agricultural products rendered surplus by the war, $550,000.
Mr. QUELCH:: There is no doubt that prices paid at present for agricultural produce do tend to increase production, but it is a great mistake for anyone to think the prices which the farmers are receiving are unduly high because they seem to be so good compared with prices received in the past. Let us

War Appropriation-Agriculture
remember that the farmers to-day are still not receiving anything like their fair share of the national income on a per capita basis. Until that end is achieved, we cannot say that the farmers are in reality receiving fair prices for the things they have to sell. Let us put that on a comparative basis. From 1914 to 1919 the farmers, representing thirty per cent of the population, received thirty per cent of the national income. To-day the farmer is not receiving anything like thirty per cent of the national income, so that it is altogether unwarrantable to say that the prices the farmers are receiving now are out of line.


Charles Robert Evans: Would the hon. member not admit that the increase in wages has lowered the percentage of the farmers' income?


Victor Quelch: Not only the increase in wages but the increase in the price of materials, the increase in the cost of machinery, and other factors entering into the situation. All of these would, of course,, offset the return which the farmer receives. However, I simply wish to emphasize the fact that although to many people the prices of agricultural products seem high to-day, those prices do not make it possible for the farmer to get a fair share of the national income, and there are still products for which'the farmer does not receive a fair price. That is true, for example, in regard to sheep, because I have here a resolution from the sheep-breeders' association protesting bitterly over the low price received for lambs and mutton. They say that they cannot be expected to expand production in sheep until fair prices are assured1 them. Although the prices received may encourage production there are, on the other hand, certain factors that are definitely decreasing the efficiency of farmers in production. For instance, if you go to the west to-day and speak to the farmers there you will find that they are somewhat jittery about the prices which they are likely to receive in the future. They remember what happened after the last war. They remember how prices fell within three years from the end of the war. Prices at that time went to, a very low level. For example, at the end of the war cattle sold at around $125 and the price dropped within a few years to $26 and $30 a head. The same was true of other lines of produce. The farmers remember that fact; they do not intend to be caught in the same way after this war if they can avoid it, and that has a detrimental effect on production. They hesitate to make capital expenditures and to expand their holdings of stock. It is necessary, therefore, that the government should at the earliest opportunity give some assurance to the farmers that the prices now received will be maintained
and a market guaranteed for a certain length of time, instead of expecting farmers to operate from year to year in a state of uncertainty.
Three or four years ago I visited several farms in the west where I saw two or three brood sows being kept. On those same farms to-day there are anywhere from twelve to twenty brood sows, but there is hardly any change in the buildings and the conditions for raising pigs. The reason the farmers give is that they do not know how long they will remain in hog production at that height. They say, "We are keeping twenty brood! sows to-day, but if prices drop we will go out of hog production. We will not make the-necessary capital expenditures to put up the-hog houses needed to take care of the hogs efficiently." That is bound to have a detrimental effect on hog production, and that condition is largely to blame for the high mortality in young hogs. Throughout the west, in the part of the country in which I live, there was a heavy loss of young hogs last year. One could see young hogs herding out of a small building on a cold day, many of them sweating, with the result that they got pneumonia and thousands died. It is said1 that the farmers received a poorer grade for hogs now than in the past and I have a number of letters making that charge. If it were said to the farmers that this was owing to the fact that the hogs were not raised under ideal conditions, I doubt if the farmers would agree, because they blame the packers rather than the way in which the hogs have been raised. But I can visualize the raising of hogs under conditions that are not ideal having a detrimental effect on the grade of hogs.
In the past few weeks I have received a number of letters stating that since the new hog policy has come into operation the grading, and dockage of hogs have increased tremendously, and the increased grading and dockage' have offset the price. Whether that is due to the packers or to other causes I will not say; but no doubt the farmers would blame the packers, and if I were farming now I would do so, from past experience. I think the government should be in a position to give the assurance to which I have referred, and I suggest that the assurance could be given without the government taking any risk even if they want to continue the same type of export policy they had in the past. The demand for the produce will stay up until the end of the war. We have every reason to-believe that and to believe that there will be a good market for our produce for a number of years after the war. There will be a higher demand than at the present time because more shipping will be available.

War Appropriation-Agriculture
Under UNRRA it will be possible to dispose of a good deal of agricultural produce, and I am sorry that the scope of UNRRA has not been widened. Under the Atlantic resolutions the scope of UNRRA was restricted, but no doubt, as the demand for goods under UNRRA increases, so will the scope of UNRRA be expanded, and for the duration of the war we shall continue to make gifts under the mutual aid legislation and the lease-Iend provisions. I hope that after the war a similar provision will be kept in operation to make it possible to continue large gifts to countries that have suffered as a result of the war.
If it is decided that we should not continue that policy then, of course, some other policy will have to be introduced, maybe some form of international monetary proposals. But one thing is certain, namely, that those nations which have suffered in consequence of the war will not be in a position to pay by export for the things they need. We shall have to make those things available either as a gift or under some international monetary proposal or under some long-term loan. I think those nations are perfectly justified in expecting that Canada, the United States and other countries which are away from the theatre of war will continue to make those gifts. I look upon it as a moral obligation, owing to *our geographical position. It is fortunate for us that we have not suffered as a consequence *of the war. When it is recalled what has taken place overseas I think it is quite easy to see that we have not made any sacrifice inside this country. We have had a number of little irritations, but they can scarcely be called sacrifices. I think it is part of our duty to help to rehabilitate the devastated areas of the world. That is a job we shall have to complete after the war. One of the best things we can do in that regard is to make supplies of agricultural products available. It will help to maintain agriculture in this country and it will help us over the transition period.
I just mentioned that to show that that is almost certain to be the situation. The government, of course, is in a better position to know this than I am. I feel quite sure that that is the situation; and if the government knows that that is the situation, surely it should be able to guarantee the farmers a fair price for three or four years after the war. If the farmers are guaranteed a fair price for a number of years after the war, they would not then hesitate to make the necessary capital expenditures to provide proper housing and fencing, provided they .could obtain the material.
IMr. Quelch.l
I should like the minister to tell us just how far the government will be able to go in giving the farmers this assurance. Some people may call it "leadership", but I have left out that word because some people object to it. I have used the word "assurance". In the past the minister has seen fit to give that assurance for only one year at a time, except with regard to wheat. Of course, we are to have a floor under agricultural prices. The bill is to be brought down some time. That floor may be satisfactory, but on the other hand it may not. We should have an assurance that the present level of prices will be maintained for three or four years. Could the minister give an assurance in that regard?


James Garfield Gardiner: I had hoped I would be able to get through at least the first item without making another speech; but since four members who have preceded me have insisted I should say something more, probably I had better say something.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Qu'Appelle asked some questions with regard to advertising, and since the item we are now considering covers programmes to encourage the production of essential war supplies and amounts to $93,560, probably this is the point at which I should give an answer to these questions.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. That item has been passed. The item we are now on is "assistance in disposal of agricultural products rendered surplus by the war."


James Garfield Gardiner: We are even farther ahead than I thought we were. Two items were carried while I was looking over these records. This item is still higher and it gives me more latitude. The item amounts to $550,000. Its object is to assist in maintaining production of quality hogs in Canada in order to meet Britain's war-time requirements of bacon, hams and other pork products. That is one of the objects of the advertising that is put out. Five advertisements of approximately five hundred lines each in English and in French were put out for this purpose. Approximately thirty farm journals across Canada and about fifteen of the foreign language papers in western Canada contained these advertisements. The time was April, June, July, October and November. The cost of that advertising was $27,717.62.
Then we come to western feed grains. The objective was to acquaint Canadian farmers, east and west, with the regulations, conditions and government assistance policies under which purchases of feed grains from western farmers could be made. I am sure that

War Appropriation-Agriculture
members of the committee will agree that it was necessary to put out that information in order that farmers might take advantage of the opportunities provided. Those advertisements, one of 498 lines, divided into (1) an eastern Canada, (2) a prairie provinces and (3) a British Columbia edition (English and French), were put out. The media was approximately seven hundred rural weekly newspapers, thirty-seven farm journals and nineteen foreign language newspapers. The time was October, 1943, and the cost $15,282.61.
The next is war-time gardens. The objective was to encourage-


Ernest Edward Perley: Would the minister permit a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.
. Mr. PERLEY: Would the minister give us the amount that it is expected to spend this year with respect to the same item so that we shall have a comparison with what was done last year? With respect to the weekly newspapers, did every weekly newspaper get that advertisement?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount in connection with each of those items would probably not be any greater than it was last year. Some items it will not be necessary to advertise at all. If there is no change in the policy it will not be necessary to give other advice with regard to the matter. The amounts contained in the item spent for actual advertising are not contained in the amounts that are estimated here. They are amounts which are spent from time to time. They are amounts of money set aside for war purposes, which are voted by order in council from time to time as the necessity arises.
The objective of the advertisements was to encourage the growing of garden crops in the urban centres of Canada so that the immediate supply of fresh vegetables in the summer and fall months would release more of the commercial production for processing and canning purposes. The advertisements consisted, one of 800 lines, or 600 lines in English and French. The media were ninety-two daily newspapers in Canada, thirty-six in group A, 800 lines, and fifty-six in group B, 600 lines. The time was April, 1943, and the cost $5,505.51.
The next is the meat recipe folder. Approximately 260,000 war-time meat recipe folders, English and French, were produced for distribution from May to August at a cost of $3,879.86. That is another example of the advertising which is carried on when it is decided to ask the farmers to do certain things or to acquaint consumers with the fact that certain
products are available. Then we put out advertising in order to direct them as to what may be done; in other words, this is the method by which we give the leadership that the committee has been insisting on all afternoon and this evening.


Ernest Edward Perley: May I ask a question?
Why is it that some of the weekly newspapers in Saskatchewan carry advertisements every week, and others in adjoining towns within twenty-five or thirty miles do not carry the same advertising?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that some of them do carry it for a number of weeks, although they are paid probably for one or two weeks. Some of the papers do run it for more weeks than they are paid for; others do not run it for any more weeks than they are paid for. I think the hon. member for Qu'Appelle understands the situation which exists in Saskatchewan. I believe that all of the weekly papers in Saskatchewan are organized in one association. That association has a president, a secretary, and officers or an executive. The papers operate under that association, and those who put out advertising contracts in Saskatchewan I think on practically all occasions, put the advertising out through that executive. Of course, more of the advertising will be placed with some papers than with others because of larger subscription lists, since all advertising is carried in accordance with the number of people who are to be reached by putting it in the papers. But the arrangements made are made, I think in all instances-if not in all, in practically all -through that association.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have asked that question because complaints have been coming to me in which publishers say they cannot get advertisements, and that certain newspapers-and the minister will know which ones-never have to go without an advertisement.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know of any in
that position, but they must be more liberal with their space than some others, rather than Liberal in the sense my hon. friend suggests, to get that result.


Ernest Edward Perley: It is the Lemberg Star.
All you have to do is to go to the reading room, and check on it.


Mr. STIRLING:: Does the department
make the arrangement with the association, or with individual newspapers?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Department of
Agriculture, ever since the first or second year I have been associated with it, has done all its advertising through one agency.

War Appropriation-Agriculture
Different advertising agencies have had different departments to deal with. The agency with which my department has dealt is the Canadian agency in Montreal. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said a few moments ago, I think it would be found that all of the advertising was done through that 'agency. That simply means that all the advertising of some other department is done through some other agency. But so far as my department is concerned, it has all been done through one agency.


Grote Stirling: I understand the minister to say that there is an association, and that advertising is done through that association. What I want to know is whether the payment of money passes through the hands of that association, or the individual papers which used that advertising. Are they paid separately?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not certain about that. I know only this, that when I was in Saskatchewan we made our arrangements with an association. I think the cheques were actually' issued to the local papers, when payment was made. However, I would not be absolutely certain about that. In some cases small amounts probably went out to the association, and they distributed them.
The other suggestion which has come up among the suggestions made since the dinner recess is to the effect that I should give some assurance to the farmers of Canada as to what the future has in store for them. I do not know why I should be asked to give that assurance again, because on each occasion my regular estimates were before the house I was asked to give an assurance* and did give it. Then, on a previous occasion, when the speech from the throne was read to the house, an assurance was given. On an occasion prior to that the Prime Minister gave it, in a radio address which covered all Canada. And on an occasion even prior to that I myself gave it from the city of London, Ontario.
If another assurance now can help any, I have no objection to giving it, but I must say those assurances have been given regularly. They have been to the effect that there would be brought before the house this session legislation to provide for floor prices on farm production. The reason given for bringing this legislation down this session to establish floor prices under farm products is that during the war, or during the greater part of it, we have had controls on farm prices in the form of ceiling prices, which have indicated the highest prices at which those products could be sold.

Consequently it has been said that since we have had control on inflation through the setting of ceiling prices, toward the end of the war and after the war we should have control against deflation, and thus provide floor prices under farm products. That assurance has been given by the government on quite a number of occasions, and by me on many occasions in so far as farm products are concerned.
But hon. members who have spoken are not satisfied to ask just for that assurance. They have made some comments on past policies in relation to prices, and on the accomplishments in relation to those prices. I would repeat what I said in the house on a number of occasions, namely, that we have had floor prices on farm products ever since the first year of the war. As a matter of fact we had a floor under wheat before the war started. Since the war began we have had floor prices under many other farm products, until to-day there are floor prices under most of them.
One product, to which that statement does not apply, and to which some hon. members would no doubt suggest it should apply, is potatoes. We have had some discussion in recent weeks as to whether we should have a floor price under potatoes. I can only say what I said to the house last session in that connection, namely, that we have been giving careful consideration to the question as to whether we ought to place floor prices under potatoes.
Western members will understand what I mean when I say this, that if I had my choice as to what potatoes I was going to eat I W'ould eat western potatoes. I have a reason for saying that. My hon. friends from New Brunswick and from Prince Edward Island will probably not agree with me, nor would I expect them to. But anyone who gets a roasted potato out west-


An hon. MEMBER:: He has something.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, he has something. In order to emphasize the importance of that statement I would recall to the minds of hon. members that if they would go into the United States-or had they been there prior to the war; one is not permitted to go so often now as he was then-they could scarcely have driven through any part of the western United States without seeing Idaho licences on motor cars. And whenever one did see an Idaho licence, he saw Idaho potatoes advertised. The reason for that is that Idaho potatoes are known for their quality over the greater part, if not indeed the whole of the United States. Because of the climate in

War Appropriation-Agriculture
which those potatoes are grown, and because of the kind of soil in which they are produced, they are exceptionally fine. We have much of that similar climate, and much of that similar soil in the western part of Canada.
Might I add that we have a few hundred thousand acres of potatoes grown in Canada. At the present time the natural place to grow them is in New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island1-


An hon. MEMBER:: And Nova Scotia.


James Garfield Gardiner: War Appropriation-Agriculture
	Per 100
Year	pounds
1938		
1939		
1940		
1941		
1942		
1943		
Of course we have not reached June of 1944.


John Horne Blackmore: Could the minister give us the prices the feeders had to pay in the fall of each of those years?


James Garfield Gardiner: When we get down to the general item on cattle I will do that; I am dealing now with the general question of inducing farmers to produce by a higher price level. I now have the figures for October in the same years:
Year
1938.
1939.
1940.
1941.
1942.
1943.
Per 100 pounds $ 4 85
6	03
7	00
8	08 9 43
10 45
Those are the prices for good butchers at Winnipeg, which as hon. members, and particularly those from the west, will understand is the basic price for steers delivered to that market.
I should like to make a comparison with hogs, and I am going to take the live weight price for hogs because in the earlier years we did not have rail grading; but I have reduced the rail grade prices to the live weight basis in order that the figures may be comparable. These are the prices per 100 pounds for hogs, at Winnipeg, in January of the years in
question:	
	Per 100
Year	pounds
1938		
1939		
1940		
1941		
1942		10 40
1943		
1944		
In other words, starting in 1938 with $8.28 the price has increased each year, with one exception which I am sure hon. members will
remember, until it reached $12.23 in January of this year. I now come to the figures for June in the same years:
	Per	100
Year	pounds	
1938			66
1939			78
1940			 7	75
1941			23
1942			 10	62
1943			87
Again we are unable as yet to give the figure for June of this year. It will be noticed 
that there is a difference between the period I have mentioned and the present period. It will be noticed that the high price for hogs in 1938 wns in the months of May, June and July. The price in May was $10.28; in June, $10.66, and in July, $11.83. It dropped in August to $9.63; in September to $9.21, and in October to $7.SO; then it went up again in January to $8.28. The next year war broke out and prices changed to some extent. The following year there was another change in prices. Coming down to 1943, however, we find the price in January, $11.55; in June of the same year, $11.87, and in October, $11.73. In other words, the price is maintained at approximately the same level throughout the whole year. That was true from January through to October; then on October 1 our hog year changed and the price went up to $12.05. The following month it was $12.23, and in April of this year it was $12.29. In other words, the price runs along almost at a dead level throughout the year, whereas previously the high prices would be in May, June and July.
There is an explanation for that, and that explanation applies to beef as well as hogs. Up to the moment, however, it has not applied to beef to the same extent, largely because we have had very little export of beef since 1942; all our beef has been consumed in Canada. We are, however, exporting beef this year. As a result of our experience during the war we have established more or less of a flat price for hogs throughout the year, something for which farmers have been asking during my experience. The farmer has been saying that he does not want a condition under which, because of a rush of hogs to the market, someone can force the price down at one period of the year, process the hogs, put them in the form of bacon or keep them in freezers and carry the pork into another period when the price is higher, and make great profits at the expense of the farmer. Producers of live stock believe that prices should be kept fairly level throughout the year. Our first opportunity to do that came during this war period, and it came about in this way. Ever since the war started there has been a constant demand for all the hogs we could produce. That constant demand has come from the British market; there has not been very much variation in the demands of the Canadian market. When the Canadian demand did go up we imposed regulations in order to prevent the Canadian people from consuming as much pork as they were prepared to consume. The reason was that we wanted to send over to Britain the full supply that she wanted. In order to make that possible, we entered into a contract with the

War Appropriation-Agriculture
British government in the first year of the war, in the fall of 1939. We contracted to supply bacon and ham to Britain to a quantity of 291 million pounds in the twelve months from October 1, 1939, to October 1, 1940. We did supply in that year to Britain, because of conditions I have described in this house before, 330 million pounds.
In the next year we contracted to supply to Britain 425 million pounds, and we did supply about 440 million pounds. In the next year we contracted to supply to Britain 600 million pounds, and we supplied approximately 600 million pounds. The next year we contracted to supply 675 million pounds, and we supplied that amount.
What are we doing this year? We entered into a contract with the British last fall to supply them with at least 900 million pounds of bacon and ham within two years. The terms of the contract were "at least 900 million pounds". There was nothing in the contract, as I have told the committee before, to prevent our marketing 900 million pounds to Britain in 1944. But there was a lot of agitation in this country to the effect that the signing of the contract for 900 million pounds in two years meant that we were restricting the supplies of bacon and ham to Britain to 450 million pounds in the first year as against the 675 million pounds that we had supplied in 1943.	.
What has our experience been? Our experience has been that seventy-seven per cent of the 500 million pounds which was the minimum that we eventually said we would supply in 1944 has already been purchased for tlie supply of Britain, and we have yet to pass through the remainder of the fifth month of the year. In other words, we are well on the way to supplying Britain this year with the whole quantity of 900 million pounds that we agreed to supply her in two years, and there is the possibility that if we get our increases of hogs in the fall of the year in proportion to the numbers we have got in preceding years we may find it necessary to market very close to the full quantity of 900 million pounds in the first year rather than to wait for the second year in which to supply that quantity.
What position does that put us in? My hon. friends across the way want to know what assurances we can give the farmers that they will be able to market hogs in the future. The assurance has been announced on a number of occasions. I do not know why I am asked to announce it again, unless to advertise what the department is doing, and I rather enjoy doing that. I am quite prepared to give it to the committee. I have
announced it all over the dominion. I have announced it in Alberta; I have announced it in Saskatchewan, in twenty-five different places; I have announced it in Manitoba;
I have announced it in Ontario, in a number of places; I announced it only within the last week in the province of Quebec; and while I have not been in the maritimes to make the announcement I know that what I say gets down there because I read some of the Tory press from that section of the country. Therefore I think the idea has been pretty well disseminated all over Canada. But in order to make doubly sure that it is known,
I think the committee will agree that I ought to put one of these advertisements in the papers to tell those who do not already know it that we have negotiated an agreement with Britain for four years. That negotiated contract will cover 1944, 1945, 1946 and 1947; and what we have attempted to do in that contract is to have the British agree to take as many hogs from us in the next four years as they have taken from us in the last four years, and to take them over at a price which is higher than has been paid for them before, whether we pay for them out of the federal treasury or the British pay for them out of the British treasury-that they be paid for at a price, within the figures I have just spoken of, equal to about seventy-five cents per hundredweight higher than we obtained in any other year except the year we are now in.
I had expected-probably I should not have said this to-night-to be able to announce the terms of the contract to the house before this, but I am not going farther than to say that we have negotiated the contract. It has not yet been signed. It may be changed in some of its details before it is finally signed. But I can assure this committee and assure the farmers that there is no reason for worrying about our not going to have a market for a very considerable part of our hogs for a period of years. When I have said that, I do not want anyone either inside the house or outside to misunderstand me. Any agreement which we enter into with the British or with anyone else cannot lose sight of the fact that we are living in a world where we have associations with other people. We are not simply the citizens of one country. Anyone who realizes what the Atlantic charter means-and that has been spoken of a number of times to-night-knows that when this war is over, if we are to be able to live under conditions of peace for a period of years-and we all hope it will be a long period of years-we must take into consideration the fact that people are living in other parts of the world and that people are producing in other parts

War Appropriation-Agriculture
of the world the same products that we produce in Canada. We must take into consideration, too, that the British are not going to be always buying from this country all the food they require. We must recognize that that will be one of the factors of the future. So that when hon. gentlemen say to me, "Why don't you tell us what you are going to do?" I can only say in reply: If anyone in this house can tell me what the conditions are going to be for the next ten years or for the next five years, and absolutely guarantee that those are going to be the conditions, I can guarantee that inside of two or three weeks' time we will work out and put into effect a policy that will be satisfactory under those conditions. But I must confess that I do not know all that is going to happen within the next five years, and certainly I do not know all that is going to happen in the next ten years. If, however, we can get a satisfactory agreement-satisfactory to the farmers of this country and satisfactory to the Canadian people generally-covering products of this kind for a four-year period, we are certainly ' giving some assurance to the farmers as to what they can do in the years that lie ahead.
Then, as already announced, we have a two-year contract on eggs, at a higher price than in the past. We have already announced a two-year contract on cheese, at the same price that we have had in the past.
If I had not been able to get these ideas over to this house by reciting them to the house half a dozen times over in one form or another, then I submit that I ought to have more money for advertising in order that I can get these ideas out, at least to the country.
The position in connection with these contracts has been placed before the house. I recall, when I say this, that every session until this session every member who has risen on the opposition side of the house, with very few exceptions, and at the moment I cannot think of one, to discuss this problem has talked about parity prices. I think we heard this mentioned twice to-night. I have an idea that an hon. member mentioned it and realized he was reciting his last year's speech, and he dropped it just as quickly as he could get away from it. Why has he dropped it? Because we have parity prices on all farm products to-day, and higher than parity on most of them. So that if anyone wants us to go back to parity he wants us to go lower down than we are at the present time. I do not agree with that policy; I think we should at least hold what we have for the time being and see to it that our farmers get the returns which are guaranteed in the returns we now have.

Someone said, "Oh, that is just because of the war". The war has had considerable to do with it in this way, that Britain wants food products. Before the war we were supplying part of her bacon and ham. To-day we are supplying as much bacon and ham as she got from all the other countries in the world before the war. Her main supplier before the war was Denmark. We are supplying practically all the bacon and ham of the Danish type and the Canadian type that are going into the British isles to-day. We may not be able to hold all that business when the war is over. We may require to find some markets elsewhere. Britain has been taking eighty per cent of our bacon products; she has been taking between seventy and eighty per cent of our cheese; she gets seventy to eighty per cent of our wheat which is marketed; and so on right down the row.
There is to-day a demand for these products such as we did not have at the beginning of the war, and such as we have not had down to the present time even during the war as far as wheat is concerned. The demand for wheat is increasing, and we have sufficient to supply Britain for many months in advance, with the storages of wheat that we have in this country at present.
Let me repeat that the reason why we have been able to maintain prices at the level throughout the year is the fact that there has been a constant demand for all of those products that we can produce, with the exception of wheat, and the demand is growing for wheat. As the demand has grown from year to year we have been able to maintain a higher level of production and a higher level of return for the product.
Someone says, "Where do you get the money?" I know that is something in which my friends of the Social Credit group are interested. They wonder where we get the money from. I suggest to them that money is a medium of exchange.


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear. It is time
the minister learned that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I learned that away back in my boyhood days. I found that if I did not have a little of it in my pocket I could not get much in exchange.


John Horne Blackmore: That is still true.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; but the first fundamental thing is to have the products, and the next fundamental thing is to have a market to put them in because somebody wants them. To-day, because Britain wants them,, and because we want to see that she gets

War Appropriation-Agriculture
them in connection with the prosecution of the war, we are able to arrange that all the products shall be taken and that certain price levels shall be set in payment for them. You say, "Who pays for it?" Britain pays part of it and we pay the other part. In other words, we go right into the pockets of the people of Canada; we ask them to put up sufficient of the price to make it possible to get the increased production we are getting of farm products from one end of this country to the other.


Victor Quelch: You created a billion dollars last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says that we created a billion dollars. We created a billion dollar's worth of wealth, a billion dollar's worth of food, plus munitions, plus machines, and we distributed it to different countries where there was a very strong demand for it.
My hon. friend says, " What are you going to do in the future?" Well, I am afraid we shall have to do very much as we have been doing during this war, and very much as we had to do over a long period before the war started. Anyone who gets the foolish idea that the law of supply and demand, which was not written by anybody but simply exists, does not exist, is not going to do much to solve the problems which will be in existence when the war is over. If there is a demand, and there can be a demand, for all the food that we are producing on our farms, of course we shall be able to dispose of all that we produce, and I believe that any government that is in existence in this country or in any other country which has been associated with the allies in this war should be convinced that we ought to do everything we possibly can to see that these markets are assured in different parts of the world for the food which Canada produces.
The hon. member for North Battleford mentioned the point this afternoon when she referred to the needs of India, China and other countries. Of course we all know that the peoples in those countries, at any time in the generations that have gone by, could have consumed very much more food products than they were able to have delivered to their countries for consumption. We know, too, that there will be available a place in those countries for these food products if certain things are done here and certain things are done there, and those things we all hope will be possible as a result of any peace which is made at the end of this war. But when all that is done, it will continue to be true that there will be a demand for food in some parts
of the world and a surplus of food in other parts of the world, and there will still be the necessity of transferring surpluses from where they are to the places where the supply is short. If that is done, we in Canada will be able to produce to the limit of our possibilities and market the products at a return which will make it possible for us to carry on our farms.
I hope that I have made myself plain on this occasion. I hope that I shall not be asked on every item of administration to say the thing all over again, but if I am asked another three or four times I suppose I shall have to say it, and I shall be quite pleased to do so if it is insisted upon.


Ernest Edward Perley: Did I understand the minister to state that we have a parity price with respect to wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. We have at present a floor of SI.25 under wheat, and all the wheat that is being sold at present is being sold at above the parity.


Ernest Edward Perley: Does the minister maintain that the farmers receive what is termed the parity price?


James Garfield Gardiner: The farmer is getting a guaranteed advance of $1.25 a bushel, no matter what the price of wheat is; but the price of wheat has been above parity, if not ever since that floor was set, within a very few days after it was set; it is continuing there; and the farmer has a participation certificate.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I might preface my remarks by saying that fools enter where angels fear to tread. If we have disposed of wheat and pigs I should like to ask through you, Mr. Chairman, if I am in order, a question with reference to berries. I am not endeavouring to enter into an argument; I want some information:	Is this the item on
which I can get it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid that it will not come under any of my items, because I believe the question which the hon. member is about to ask has to do with prices set by the prices board, which is not within my department.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is not the question I was going to ask. What I am particularly interested in is what policy the Department of Agriculture intends to recommend in connection with the disposal of our surplus crop of berries in the Fraser valley. There are several questions I want to ask, but first I would point out that there is an order in council, not under the minister's

War Appropriation-Agriculture
department, which affects agriculture in British Columbia to this extent that the disposal of our berry crop there has been settled. I understand that it does not affect any other province. We have been told that we must dispose of our processed berry crop, our SO2 crop, this year in a certain way-someone is interrupting me. It may be S.O.S. in Nova Scotia, and I do not wonder if Nova Scotia needs an S.O.S. because the maritimes have always been tagging along for the reason that they will not fight for themselves. However, we are told that we have to dispose of our berry crop to the manufacturer in the east- another interruption. It is all right. I am getting a lot of advice in this corner from a lot of hon. gentlemen who know nothing about farming, not the slightest thing.
I will quote the order so that it will be on the record. I am referring to administrator's order A-1200, according to which any raspberries or strawberries must be sold through the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Limited, or designated manufacturers. In British Columbia we do not object so much to the fact that we are forced to sell through that medium; but last year, in March, we sold some berries and did not get paid until October. I am not complaining at this time that our berries are allocated to different manufacturers; but, if we are compelled to dispose of our surplus crop in the manner directed, will some arrangement be made to finance that transaction instead of having the farmers themselves carry it over from the time the pack is put up until the following year?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I said, the corporation spoken of is under the prices board and they, of course, will be able to explain, when their estimates are before the committee, the reason for the regulation to which reference has been made. All I can say with regard to berries is that on each of the occasions on which they have had a surplus of berries in British Columbia since the beginning of the war, the special products board, which operates under the agricultural supplies board, has marketed the supplies in Britain, and I think I should say also that the hon. member who has just spoken has had more to do with the pressing of that and getting it done than anyone else. Nevertheless it has been done. We marketed in Britain 1,186,640 pounds in 1942, about 3,260 barrels, and last year I understand there was not a surplus of them and there was no marketing in Britain that year. I presume that so long as they are required in Canada, the prices board, which after all is entrusted with the task of trying to maintain food in 
Canada to feed the Canadian people, after it is once produced by the farmers here, will see that we have sufficient to supply our own people, and if there were a surplus, arrangements could be made to have that surplus shipped to Britain.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not quarreling; I am seeking information. I repeat that the position in British Columbia is this. Our crop is allocated to manufacturers in the east and the board tells us how we must ship. The farmer must hold the crop until such time as the board gives directions. Our crop may be out in July and August, but we cannot ship until we are so instructed. My question is, will any provision be made so that the board will finance the crop through the bank or otherwise, while we are holding it, until the board tells us where to ship and when?


James Garfield Gardiner: All I can say in answer to the last question is that it will be taken up by the minister in charge of that board when his estimates are before the house. I would point out, however, that the same principle applies to all farm products grown in Canada at present. The first charge upon farm products is the requirements of the Canadian people. It may be by rationing that we limit the requirements of some products; but once it has been decided by the prices board and those associated with them as being necessary for feeding the people in Canada, including the armed forces, that amount of food is retained here. The only products of which a continuous movement is maintained from one end of the year to the other are those of which there is a continuous supply in excess of consumption. That is true of cheese, wheat, hogs and cattle, and arrangements are made to move the surplus, sometimes throughout the year. One of the reasons why they had a difficulty with cattle in Alberta is that we have not had that arrangement made up to the present in connection with cattle, because this is the first year in which we have had a surplus continuously to ship since 1942.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If I am not mistaken, there is an initial payment on wheat. I do not think the minister has followed me. I repeat that I am not quarreling with the fact that our crop is allocated to Canada or anywhere else, but I do quarrel with the fact that the farmers' cooperative should be compelled to carry $450,000 worth 'of fruit because the board says that it cannot be shipped to eastern Canada, Ontario and Quebec-I presume Quebec again has too much to say in the matter-except under certain con-

War Appropriation-Agriculture
editions that are stipulated. The board tells us when we can ship, and tells us that we cannot ship, let us say, until six months from the time of production, and we submit that the government or the board should finance the transaction. I put it directly, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister: Is that not a fair assumption? Is it not an assumption that he as Minister of Agriculture might recommend to the board?


James Garfield Gardiner: The assumption of anyone is that until the crop is pretty well assured and we are well on in the season in which it is picked, no one will be in a position to say whether there will be enough berries harvested to supply all the people in Canada. I should think, however, that those who are regulating the supply will see to it that a certain distribution is made in the sales of these .berries by those who produce them. In other words, whatever proportion of the berries is taken will be taken from all the people. I would imagine that would be the case, and if that is the case then I presume that if ninety per cent of the berries are to be consumed in Canada, that ninety per cent of the money or value of them will be paid to those people as they go along. There may not be the necessity for financing in so far as day to day is concerned. I am under the impression-I may be wrong in this-that in all the sales that have been made in the past when there has been a surplus these costs have been taken into consideration when sales of these surpluses that come through have been made later to the British government. I wTould imagine that when the time comes to sell any surplus that may be in existence attention will again be given to that consideration, and I have no doubt that the matters which have been mentioned by the hon. member will be taken into consideration.


Mr. FAIR:: The question of parity prices has been discussed to some extent to-night, and I am afraid that we are being led astray again because of the word "parity prices." I understand that the period 1926 to 1929 has been used as the base for computing those prices. If my understanding is correct, the farmers of Canada received 16-6 per cent of the national income during that period. At that time the farmers of Canada comprised about thirty-three per cent of the population. Therefore, one-third of the population of Canada received only one-sixth of the national income, and our prices are based on that. My belief is that if we are to figure parity prices as they should be, then we should
take the period 1915 to 1919 when we had much higher prices. At that time the farmers of Canada received a percentage of the national income in comparison with the farm population to the whole of Canada. I do not think we should be misled by having statements made that we are now getting parity prices or above. When we come to the period 1926 to 1940 we find that on the average the farmers received only 9-6 per cent of the national income, and when we get back to 1932 we find that the farmers of Canada received five per cent or one-twentieth of the national income, whereas we were entitled to one-third. I think these things ought to be taken into consideration when we are figuring parity prices.
Some hon. member across the way said that the farmers were now paying off their debts, and supposes that everything is OJC. I wish that that hon. member would look back at some of the legislation that has been wiped off the statute books of the western provinces. One such piece of legislation was debt-protective legislation, and the mortgage companies were turned loose and were taking very good andvantage of the opportunities that were given to them by the removal of this debt-protective legislation. That is one of the reasons why farmers are paying off their mortgages. Another reason is that farmers are producing, to the very limit at the present time. The condition of their buildings is going down, not up. Paint is needed. Their farm implements, in almost all cases, are wrecked, because they have not been able to buy machinery. If a true picture of conditions on the farm is given then we shall have an entirely different position presented here. I am quite free to admit that conditions are better on the farm to-day than they have been, but why compare prosperity conditions of the present day with depression conditions that existed particularly between 1930 and 1939? I think we should take into consideration some of the downfalls and pitfalls of the farmers of Canada before we make statements that everything is all right with them at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not said that everything is all right at the present time, nor have I compared prices with the prices of the drought period or of the depression period. I have made a comparison with the prices of 1926 and 1929, which were the years of the highest income that the farmers had ever obtained before the present period. At that time the highest cash income that the farmers ever had was $1,063,000,000. That was in 1928. The greater part of that farm income
War Appropriation-Agriculture


Ernest Edward Perley: I did not suggest that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon, member for Haldimand suggested that was one of the reasons why we got such high returns. One of the poorest crops that they have ever had in Ontario in the last fifty years was harvested last year, and in spite of that we have this $1,396,000,000 of income across Canada on our farms. While a year ago when someone twitted us with taking credit for the increased income and said that we had the best crop we ever had, I said that I preferred to be on the side of those who are responsible for the climate, and liked it better to have them on our side, on this occasion when the same hon. members come back and twit us with the idea that we cannot .take credit because we passed through a year of the poorest crop in fifty years, then I think they are playing two ways with a vengeance. The fact is that the income was $1,396,000,000 in 1943, and that it has been going up as compared with 1943 every week since the beginning of 1944, and if conditions continue as they are we shall probably have a very much increased cash income in 1944.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We are now on item
2. The minister having answered all the questions asked, I suggest that we should stay within the item.


Mr. CARDIFF:: I shall stay within the
item, because I believe it would include surplus beef. There is no one in the house who admires more than I do the way in which the Minister of. Agriculture expresses himself in regard to government policy. I would not expect him to admit that government policy was to some extent responsible for the bottleneck in the beef market this spring. Nevertheless, that is so.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Two years ago we were
short of beef. We were told to hold our beef at least one year longer so that we could increase the weight, and thus have more beef. A great many farmers held their beef a year longer with the result that this spring we had a surplus of beef, and could not dispose of it. Some time ago, I cannot just say when, meatless Tuesday was arranged. That continued until there was no space left to store beef. We had no outside market. The market was for home consumption. Then meatless Tuesday was discontinued.
I blame the government for that condition. Before every space was filled, meatless Tuesday should have been cut off. I do not suggest that any government could be perfect, because I realize no one is perfect. But when the government makes a mistake it should be ready to admit it.

War Appropriation-Agriculture


Robert Fair: I think the minister has given
us what we call in the west a bum steer. He is taking into consideration gross prices and not net prices, and forgetting entirely the extra cost farmers have to pay for bringing about this production. He must also remember that last year we had one of our biggest grain crops in the west. A number of other things have not been taken into consideration.
I have not my figures here to-night, but there will be another occasion when this matter may be discussed further.
If the minister will go back and look over the percentage of national income for the period 1915 to 1919 he will find that the farmers received one-third of that national income, and I believe that that is still the level upon which our parity price should be based, regardless of any recommendation that has been made by the federation of agriculture.


Charles Robert Evans: If you have parity prices-


Robert Fair: The silent member from Saskatchewan may make his own speech, when he has the chance, later on. At the present time I am making my contribution. On another occasion, when I have a chance to get my figures together, I think I can support the statement I have just made to the effect that the period 1915 to 1919, when farmers received one-third of the national income for their one-third of the population, is much better and much closer to the mark than the period 1926 to 1929, when we received only one-sixth of the national income for our one-third of the population.


Ernest Edward Perley: Just a moment ago the
minister refereed to the hon. member for Haldimand, and what we had said with regard to parity prices. He said that for the last ten years he has not been in favour of parity prices for certain farm products, because he maintained that it was not enough.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said that I was in
favour of more.


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes; he was in favour of
more. I should like to know if any hon. member in the house has ever heard him say so in the last ten years.


James Garfield Gardiner: You can read it out of Hansard.


Ernest Edward Perley: He cannot find it in
Hansard, and I will venture to say he never said, on the floor of the house, that he would maintain a better price than parity for certain farm products. I will go farther and say that it was first mentioned by this group, on this side of the house. I know I can show a press report of two years ago wherein a good deal
of publicity was given to a discussion in the House of Commons on parity prices, and complimentary references were made to two members of the official opposition. It was pointed out in the report that they were the only ones who knew what they were talking about. If the minister was so much impressed with the idea of a better-than-parity price, particularly for wheat, why was it that in 1935, and particularly in the early part of 1936, when he became Minister of Agriculture, he endeavoured to sell about 250,000,000 bushels of wheat of western Canada at a price to break the market. He put on a fire-sale price. He was accused of it, and he did not deny it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I denied it.


Ernest Edward Perley: And he tried his best to sell wheat day after day. They could not sell it fast enough, to break the market, and later made a handsome profit out of wheat which had been accumulated by the previous government. Why did the minister on that occasion inaugurate the policy of selling wheat, so much every day during trading hours in order to try to break the price and get it down below the price which had been Bet, and which was above parity price at that time?


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member will come into my office to-morrow morning I will give him a pamphlet in which I said I never .was at any time in favour of a fire sale, and that there never had been a fire sale, in the sense in which my hon. friend speaks of it.


Ernest Edward Perley: What kind of sale would the minister call it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I ran an election on it in the spring of 1926, in the next constituency to the hon. member's, and was elected by a majority of 3,600, despite the fact that he was there campaigning against me.


Charles Albert Henderson: I heard the minister say that he was in favour of selling at better than parity price and would not be satisfied with just parity prices. I heard him make that statement, all over Saskatchewan.


David McKenzie Wright: I do not wish to get into a discussion about parity prices; but if the minister was so much in favour of parity prices, why did he not give a little kinder reception to the wheat pool delegates when they were here a couple of years ago asking for parity prices?


James Garfield Gardiner: The advance was raised twenty cents.

War Appropriation-Agriculture


David McKenzie Wright: This is an election year,
when it is likely to make more kudos for the Liberal party. That is why we get parity prices from the government. Before the dinner recess the minister spoke about the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and complimented them upon the cooperation he was receiving from them. Well, they were prepared to give that same cooperation in the first year of the war, but they did not get any cooperation from the government. There was a fight to get prices of agricultural products rasied to the point at which they are to-day. What did they have to do to raise the price of butter? What did they have to do to riase the price of grain?
As the minister said, there has been a gradual increase. A concerted attempt had to be made by organized farmers to get justice from the government. But it is only at the present time that they are getting anywhere near justice-and even at that it is not full justice. I remember well in 1927 buying a tractor in western Canada, and paying $1,485 for it. Last year I bought the same make of tractor, and it cost more than $2,000. At the time for which the minister quotes his parity price we were paying in western Canada wages of $50 or $60 a month, but to-day we are paying fifty per cent more than that. So that there is still a long distance between parity price to-day for farm products, and the price the farmer should receive.
The minister mentioned that farmers in western Canada had been wanting for years to get an even price for hogs over the full year, and he quoted prices to show that that condition obtained to-day. I will tell him this, that the farmers of western Canada have not been fighting to get an even price for hogs over the whole year. Anyone who produces hogs knows that it costs fifteen per cent to twenty per cent more to produce hogs during the winter than in the summer. What the western farmers objected to was the fluctuation in the market in the fall of the year, when they marketed their greatest number of hogs. As a matter of fact, in its first bacon policy after the war started this government intended to establish a differential between prices of hogs raised in the summer and those raised in the winter, but found that, because of the increased production of hogs resulting from a greater number of people going into that business on a commercial scale who found that they could raise hogs for practically the same price the year round, it was not necessary to level out the supply in that way. When the war is over, however, and we get back to normal times we shall find it necessary to make a differential between prices of hogs

raised during the summer and those raised in the winter if we are to have an even supply and keep our packing plants operating throughout the year.
The minister has taken a great deal of credit for the increased production of hogs and cattle. Let me say that the increased production this year is owing largely to the fact that in 1942 we had the largest grain crop ever produced in the history of Canada, and there was no market for it. The only way in which it could be marketed was in the form of hogs and cattle, and those are the hogs and cattle that are coming on to the market to-day. That is why we have such large amounts of meat products coming on to the market. The crop was not as large last year, and by this time next year the minister will find that the production of meat products will have dropped. That will be quite natural, because there just is not the feed in Canada with which to produce a greater number of cattle and hogs.
That was not what I rose to say; I wanted to ask a question with respect to this item, which has to do with assistance in the disposal of agricultural products rendered surplus by the war. I suppose this item of $550,000 is largely to take care of the apple surplus, and I should like the minister to break down the item and tell us in connection with what products this assistance will be given.


Mark Cecil Senn: While the minister is getting ready to reply, I notice that last year $1,080,000 was voted under this same item. When the minister is answering the hon. member for Melfort will he give us some idea of how the money voted last year was expended, and with what results?


James Garfield Gardiner: The suggestion of the hon. member for Melfort is correct; the greater part of this item has to do with the apple crop in Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Ontario. The larger portion of the expenditure is for Nova Scotia, and there is a considerable amount in connection with the British Columbia crop as well. Not much has been spent in regard to the Ontario crop. Perhaps I should say that the market has been so adjusted that the Ontario crop has an advantage on the Canadian market over the others which are being assisted by the treasury of Canada. For the year 1943-44 the amount provided for the Nova Scotia apple agreement was $3,158,000, and this year the amount provided is $550,000. This is not the amount which will be involved in the 1944 agreement, however; this sum is to pay the balance owing on the 1943-44 agreement. The agreement for 1944-45 is not ready yet, so that it is not possible for me to state what amount will be

War Appropriation-Agriculture
involved. We know very little of the crop as yet; as a matter of fact I do not think it is even in the blossom.


David McKenzie Wright: Does this vote apply to any product other than apples?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is all; apples.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister put on record the figures for British Columbia and Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Grote Stirling: That is, $50,000 less than that was required?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; this item is $162,500
less this year than it was last year; but the agreement with British Columbia has not yet been concluded, so that we do not know what will 'be involved in this year's contract.


Grote Stirling: But my recollection is that in the public accounts for 1942 the figure was about $2,500,000 spent for Nova Scotia and. something over $250,000 for British Columbia, and I wondered whether we might have the comparable figures for 1943.


James Garfield Gardiner: The appropriation for British Columbia in 1942 was $1,000,000, but the expenditure was $311,434.37. The appropriation for Nova Scotia was $2,000,000; the expenditure was $1,763,670.13, and there was a recovery of $352,672.73. That is, the products were sold for that amount, so that the net cost was $1,415,997.40. The net expenditure for British Columbia on the 1942 crop was $212,500.


Grote Stirling: Is the comparable figure for 1943 available?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the figure for 1943 is not yet available.


Grote Stirling: In the public accounts the allotment for Nova Scotia was just
over $3,000,000, and the expenditure was just under $2,500,000. For British Columbia the allotment was $965,000, and the expenditure was $261,000. Was that the figure the minister just gave?


James Garfield Gardiner: The figure I gave was $261,414.06.


Grote Stirling: And we cannot have the 1943 figures yet?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: A moment ago the minister mentioned the agricultural income for all Canada. Could he break that down into the agricultural income for each province?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I have that here.


Charles Edward Johnston: Could the minister give the figures for the last eight or ten years?


James Garfield Gardiner: I could put them on the record; they cover most of this sheet.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think it would be all right if the minister just gave the figures for last year and put the rest on the record.


James Garfield Gardiner: The figures for 1943 were as follow's:-
Prince Edward Island	 $ 15.920,000
Nova Scotia	 30,940,000
New Brunswick	 34,450,000
Quebec	 200,030,000
Ontario	 389,140,000
Manitoba	 136,140,000
Saskatchewan	 311,440,000
Alberta	 223,080,000
British Columbia	 55,810,000
That makes a total of $1,396,600,000. If the committee desires the break-down by provinces for the ten years, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will now put them on Hansard. They are as follows:-
Gross Agricultural Cash Income : Receipts from Sale of Farm Products, 1934-1943 (Does not include all subsidies paid)
P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que. Ont. Man. (Million Dollars)	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Total1934	.. 4-11	13-18	8-78	60-36	145-55	43-34	93-47	95-28	21-20	485-31935	.. 3-83	13-86	8-85	64-59	155-09	36-13	108-10	98-91	21-93	511-31936	.. 5-16	14-29	10-46	72-10	184-80	47-23	125-84	94-85	23-48	578-21937	. . 5-97	17-58	11-83	85-51	215-99	74-90	84-29	122-17	27-50	645-71938	.. 5-27	17-70	10-84	89-85	219-02	65-06	93-41	133-92	29-25	664-31939	.. 6-53	13-12	12-12	101-49	217-92	64-75	158-06	120-17	28-17	722-31940	.. 7-24	17-17	15-52	120-68	233-42	64-98	150-85	127-19	28-80	765-81941,...	.. 8-55	20-06	19-45	144-88	286-49	81-65	161-96	154-41	36-65	914-01942	.. 12-70	25-96	27-30	176-91	355-11	101-32	195-47	175-56	44-67	1,114-91943	
15-92 Item agreed to.	30-94	34-45	200-03	389-14	136-14	311-44	223-08	55-81	1,396-6
War Appropriation-Agriculture
Freight assistance on western feed grains, $16,500,000.


Charles Edward Johnston: An instance which was drawn to my attention not long ago I should like to bring before the committee, because it may be typical rather than an individual case in connection with this assistance given on feed grains. It is a situation which I think is unfair. A farm was owned by a widow who moved into Calgary. She rented her farm to a man in that neighbourhood, who farmed it for one year and raised coarse grains while he was renting it. Then he moved off and a new renter came on this year. Being a young fellow he bought stock and was going to feed hogs and cattle. He bought the grain which the farmer who had previously rented the place had raised. Then, when he applied for his fifteen and ten cents a bushel on the grain for feed purposes he was refused it. The government claimed that the subsidy could not be paid because the coarse grains had been raised on the same land where the stock was to be fed. The thing seemed so obviously wrong to me that I immediately wrote to the man and told him that I was sure there must be some mistake. As I began to go into it a little farther, I was informed unofficially that probably the reason for refusing the subsidy was that the permit had to stay with the land regardless of who the farmer might be. It seems to me that when there is an entirely different man renting the farm, the permit should not be attached to the land but rather to the man who raised the crop, and that the man who rented the farm should be entitled to his fifteen cents a bushel on the grain for feed purposes. I wish the minister would clear that up.


James Garfield Gardiner: I assume that the only reason that could be given is the one just stated. If the permit was associated with the land and remained there, then the regulation, as I understand it, provides that anyone who has a permit to sell wheat or feed grain this year cannot himself become a purchaser of the grain and get the assistance that is paid on the grain that is purchased to' feed.


Charles Edward Johnston: The man who had the permit and sold the grain was not the feeder. It was an entirely different renter.


James Garfield Gardiner: It comes under the wheat board, under the Department of Trade and Commerce. But I have had correspondence with regard to other cases which involved the matter of requirements with respect to the permit book. I cannot see any other

reason. I do not know why the permit book would follow the land. I think it is a case that requires some discussion with the wheat board, and if there has been a wrong interpretation by someone, I am sure that it would be straightened out.


Charles Edward Johnston: While it is not in the minister's department, I think it would assist the committee if the minister could state that the permit went with the man who raised the crop and did not stay with the land. There is the difficulty.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to state that, because I imagine it would depend somewhat on what the deal was as to whether the permit would or would not remain with the land. But if a person is buying grain from another person who previously owned it, and he had no interest in it, 1 would think that under the regulations if he drew that grain into the elevator and weighed it and then drew it out again, he would be able to draw the ten and fifteen cents. But it may be that he took the grain out of the bin and fed it to the hogs and cattle. If he did that, he would not be able to draw the ten and fifteen cents. He must take it into the elevator, weigh it and get a certificate, and move it out again.


Charles Edward Johnston: It has to be taken into the elevator and taken out again?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is as I understand the regulations.


David McKenzie Wright: Before the dinner recess I was mentioning the difficulties in the distribution of feed grains in the east. I would ask the minister to give us some account of what is being done and to tell us whether there are cases where the grain is being handled by several different firms before it gets to. the consumer in eastern Canada, and, if so, what is being done to prevent that. It seems to be an unnecessary expense. There is also the question of grain which has to be shipped by water and goes into the terminal elevators in the east, on which transportation the freight rate is approximately $4 a ton, while the rate on grain brought by rail is $4.50. I should also like a break-down of this item by provinces. How much assistance has been given to feeders in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount of money
paid out in freight assistance from October, 1941, to March 31, 1944, by provinces is as follows:

War Appropriation-Agriculture
Province	Tonnage 	
2,601,309	Value $11,705,890 50	Average rate per ton $4 50
2,072,308	10,919,431 26	5 26
258,831	1,941,232 50	7 50
319,698	2,589.553 80	8 10
91,286	748,545 20	8 20British Columbia 	
431,714	2,730,214 41	6 32
Total tonnage shipped east and west, 5,775,146; value, $30,634,867.67. Average rate per ton, eastern $5.22.
Average rate per ton to British Columbia, $6.32.


David McKenzie Wright: Why is the rate so much higher to British Columbia when the distance from Alberta is so much shorter?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: It has been stated from this side of the house and: from the other side that the western farmer is not getting sufficient for his grain and that therefore, we are being allowed freight assistance. I would point out that when that freight assistance was given by the government, the ceiling price was raised just about that time to the extent of the freight assistance.


David McKenzie Wright: I assure the hon. member that, in inquiring about this freight assistance, I was not trying to intimate that we in western Canada object to it. We have no objections to it whatever.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I was not making any particular reference at this time to what the hon. member said, but on Friday evening several hon. members spoke of western Canada receiving this freight assistance. When the freight assistance was supplied the price of the feed went up to the extent of the freight charge, and while we appreciated the fact that we were getting freight taken off, I think the western farmer is receiving just as much for his grain, and always will, so long as we have a Minister of Agriculture who comes from the west.


James Garfield Gardiner: With regard to the
statement just made, I feed hogs and cattle in both eastern and western Canada, and those that I feed in the east are not very far from where the hon. member who has just spoken lives. Last year I shipped a carload of grain from my farm in Saskatchewan to my farm in Ontario, and I must say that the grain was landed in Ontario without any cost to me. I could have fed the grain at exactly the same price on my farm in Saskatchewan as I was feeding it at in my farm in Ontario, which indicates to me that by the action of this government something happens between the two farms which makes it possible for one to move the grain all the way from the
west down east, if he farms in both places, and to feed it here at the same cost as if he lived and fed it on a farm in western Canada.
I am not saying that that is any greater help to eastern farmers than to western farmers because there is involved in that, ten cents on oats and fifteen cents on barley, which goes to the western farmer, and there is involved in the freight assistance given to the eastern farmer an average of somewhere about twelve cents a bushel.


Mark Cecil Senn: On barley.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, on the average of the different feeds that are used. So that I think one is treated just about the same as the other. It is our intention that they should be, and I think that is the way it is working out. I do not think it can be contended that anybody is getting any particular advantage over some other person.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I do not think so either. But the minister will admit that the time the price was put on grain the market price was raised to almost the same amount as the freight assistance.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will not admit that, no. There has been no rise in the selling price since the price was first set.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: But the selling prices of the commodities which are sold here have been maintained right through.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are different prices on grain products that are sold in eastern Canada; because-again-I purchase them in both places, and I have purchased grain in Huron county for feed and have bought it at three different prices. When I go there to buy it and ask why I have to pay a higher price for one lot of grain than I pay for another, they tell me it is made out of grain that is of a higher grade, and I assume that that is the reason for the grain costing me more. But so far as I know there has been no increase in the selling price since the ceiling was first established.

War Appropriation-Agriculture


Lewis Elston Cardiff: But the ceiling was
established just prior to the time the freight assistance was given to us, was it not?


Ernest Edward Perley: What was the date of the freight assistance?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been freight assistance on this basis since October, 1941, and that was the same time as the price ceiling was set.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That is what I said.


James Garfield Gardiner: They were set at the same time; all set about the same date.


Mark Cecil Senn: I think the hon. -member for Melfort asked the minister a question which he has not yet answered. I understand that when I was out of my place for a minute the minister took me to task about my statement in regard to Providence giving us a bountiful harvest. Nobody knows better than I do that our spring grain crop last year in Ontario was -more or less of a failure, but that does not alter the general situation.
The point, however, which I wish to put to the minister at the moment, and I think it was mentioned by the hon. member for Melfort, is that, as the minister has already stated, different prices are charged in different parts of Ontario to farmers who are buying mill feeds which come from the west, in the shape of grain. I have heard criticisms on the part of the farmers, many of whom are not able to finance the bringing down- of a carload of grain for themselves. The grain is bought by milling companies or other small companies which manufacture it into feed, and different prices are charged. Is there any supervision on the part of his department to see that the farmers are not charged two or three prices illegally or wrongfully by different companies, some of whom would make a greater profit than others? It seems to me that when a milling company gets freight assistance in this way it should be fair at least to the man who has to feed the grain.


James Garfield Gardiner: My information is-of course I am not now in a position to follow it through-that the ceiling price on mill feeds in Ontario is established on a level throughout the province. There is a mark-up which is allowed by the prices board under certain conditions. I am not able to give the details with regard to them, but the ceiling price that was established has been maintained, as I understand it, all the way through.


Mark Cecil Senn: My information is that different prices are charged, and it seems to me that somebody, either the wartime prices and trade board, or the Department of Agriculture,

which is supplying the freight assistance, should see to it that the farmers all over the province get an even deal.


David McKenzie Wright: The minister did not answer my question with regard to whether there were three or four- dealers handling this feed between the time it arrived in the east and was finally sold to the producer. I have been told that last year, during the shortages of feed in the east, certain firms had control over large quantities of grain in eastern Canada; that deficiencies occurred in areas where these firms did not have outlets; that as a result grain had to be transferred, sometimes as many as two or three times, before it reached the consumer, and that each one of the people who handled it got -a commission on it. I do not see any reason for the existence of that condition, and I wish the minister would give us some information on the subject.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that there
have been cases where there have been shortages. As a matter of fact, when I was in Paris, Ontario, some time this spring a gentleman came to me and told me that he had had difficulties for a week or so in getting grain, because the regulation was that they had to take it from the lake front and they were not able to get it from the lake front, and there was a supply at Toronto. As soon as they made their application to the board and got the matter dealt with, there was a shipment made from Toronto into that area, and that involved some additional freight. I am informed by the representative of that board here that the freight was paid by the board and that it did not cost the farmer any more than it would have cost him had it been shipped from the lake port. In other words, the ceiling price was maintained on the grain just as though it had come from where it was first ordered to come from, but where it could not be obtained because the supply was not there.


David McKenzie Wright: In other words, the extra
commissions are paid by the government rather than the producer. But I still do not see why the cost should come out of the pockets of the public, or why there should not be a better distribution to avoid this expense.


Ernest Edward Perley: Will the minister state
why there is over 100 per cent increase in this item? Will he also state whether the $8 million voted last year was fully expended, or was it overexpended? Also, who is the administrator, and what staff does he have to-administer this vote of $16,500,000?

War Appropriation-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: It was very much overexpended.


Ernest Edward Perley: Last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The estimates approved for freight assistance on western feed grain amounted to $20,750,000, and cash allotments, $20,750,000. The actual expenditure was $17,758,291.79.


Ernest Edward Perley: And the amount voted last year was all expended?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: That is the reason for the increase this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: Who is the administrator?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Davidson.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Subsidy on western wheat used exclusively as feed for live stock, $8,000,000.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: About a year ago I asked the minister some questions with regard to screenings coming from the west. As far as I know, the western farmer gets nothing for the screenings. We in eastern Canada, especially in the county I represent, can feed vast quantities of these screenings if we can get them at a reasonable price, but we find that by the time we get the screenings they cost from $24 or $25 to $30 a ton. The western farmer, however, gets nothing for it. There is no reason why we should not get these screenings at more reasonable prices. If the western farmer were getting his fair share out of it, it would be a different story and we would not begrudge him what he might get; but when someone else in the middle class gets what he should not get, then I suggest it is high time the minister took a hand in it so that we might get the commodity at cost.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the screenings amount to li per cent the farmer gets paid for them after cost of cleaning is accounted for. I presume the reason why some particular amount is stipulated on screenings is that the cost of cleaning practically involves the price of the screenings. But if it runs over that, the farmer in the west is paid for it.


Mark Cecil Senn: Has the minister any idea of the quantity of screenings that came down last year? I can recall that in years gone by there were bitter arguments in this house and in the committee on agriculture in regard to the advisability of bringing from the west to Ontario screenings which are full of weed seeds. There was a time when it was advocated that all these screenings Should be ground before being brought into Ontario. Ontario is infested badly with weeds at the present time, and it would not make it any better to bring in a new crop of weeds from the west and have them ground here and have vital weeds sown. Very often weed seeds do go through the grinders and are still vital. Is a considerable amount of these screenings coming down? If so, is any attempt made to see that the weed content of the screenings is not vital?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount of screenings which came down in 1942-1943 was 48,225 tons, and the amount that came down in 1943-44, 39,790, tons, a decrease of approximately 9,000 tons.


Mark Cecil Senn: They were not ground?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they were not, I imagine. They were ground in the plants here before going out. The hon. member for Haldimand knows that most of the regulations with regard to seeds are provincial regulations. We may put them into effect and enforce them in connection with the shipping of grain from the wrest, but before changes are made in them we consult the provinces. This last year, in order to make it possible to get feed grain down, we had to raise the seed content of the grain from one per cent to 3 per cent so as to avoid having all the cars go to Fort William to be unloaded and the cost added to the grain shipped east. To avoid that, we got the provincial governments to agree to the seed content being raised from one to three per cent while shipment is going on. We advertised that fact all through Ontario so that the farmers could clean the grain if they thought it wise.


Mark Cecil Senn: I understand that the weed
seed content and the control of weed seeds * are largely in the hands of the provincial governments, but it seems to me that our federal department should have some interest in the matter, because, after all, a certain proportion of that material which comes down is taken to the farms and ground by the farmer's own power machinery. Very often it is not effective and a certain amount of weed seeds go through the grinders and are sown finally through the manure, and they are vital. In the interests of agriculture something should be done to see that these weed seeds are not distributed through the country. It is a very live question, and there is always a certain proportion of careless farmers, as there are careless persons in every other class, who allow this to be carried on. They do not mind, so far as their own farms are concerned,
War Appropriation-Agriculture

and at the same time they infest other people's farms. More care should be taken to see that these weed seeds as they come into Ontario and the eastern provinces are more closely controlled.


Mr. BURTON:: I presume that the wheat under this item of $8,000,000 for subsidy on western wheat used exclusively as feed for live stock is purchased from the wheat board?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Joseph William Burton: I was wondering why it
is only on western wheat. Can the minister explain why it does not apply to all wheat that is purchased for feed?


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume it is for the
same reason that we do not pay anything on the movement of grain in eastern Canada from one place to another. It is much for the same reason that we do not permit the payment of ten cents and fifteen cents on oats and barley in the west to the farmer who actually grew it. In the east you have soft wheat, which is different from our western wheat. In some years it has been higher in price than the western wheat and in other years lower. I remember one year, if one shipped western wheat to the east-two years ago-he would sell it here at twenty-five cents a bushel more than you could get for eastern wheat. One could sell his wheat here at twenty-five cents more than it cost him to get western wheat shipped from the west and put on his farm. At present it is the other way around. Probably the farmer gets a little less for his wheat than we get for our wheat in the west. At least, it was that way a few months ago. When these changes take place from one year to another we do not follow it through and adjust the differences. They balance, over time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Flax fibre administrator-administration, $32,300.
Joseph William Burton: Can the minister give us
an idea of what has been done in connection with flax fibre?


James Garfield Gardiner: At the beginning of the war we were asked by the British to assist in providing seed for fibre flax. We were also asked to produce more fibre from flax in Canada. Speaking from memory, I believe the acreage in fibre flax at the beginning of the war was about 12,000 acres. It is now somewhere around 43,000 acres. There has been an increase from around 12,000 or 13,000 acres to about 43,000 acres. That has been about the acreage for the last two years and I think it is about what we expect this year.


Joseph William Burton: What strikes me as being odd about this is that it is all for administration. Is there nothing to show for the assistance of those who have undertaken the work?


Mr. MARSHALL:: Before the minister
answers that question, may I say it was my intention to go into the matter of flax raising and processing.


James Garfield Gardiner: This has not to do with western flax, but with fibre flax.


James Alexander Marshall: Has it nothing to do with the matter of administration of flax?


James Garfield Gardiner: The matter of the control of prices of flax and all that comes under the wheat board and the Department of Trade and Commerce. This has to do with fibre flax only. To answer the question that was just asked, this is all spent on administration in connection with fibre flax.


James Alexander Marshall: Where can we discuss the question of the establishment of a flax processing plant in western Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: Is the hon. member speaking of flax seed for linseed oil or fibre flax? There is a plant at Portage la Prairie-


James Alexander Marshall: Is there a processing plant in western Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is one being
placed at Portage la Prairie.


James Alexander Marshall: For what purpose?


James Garfield Gardiner: For testing of fibre flax and fibres of all kinds.


James Alexander Marshall: Not for the purpose of manufacturing linen?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it is a pilot plant to make studies in connection with fibre, the proper kind of flax to grow in the west, the conditions under which it should be grown and the areas in which it should be grown.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fertilizers and pesticides administrator- administration, $31,850.
David McKenzie Wright: There is considerable information with respect to this item that I should like to have from the minister. Last fall I was in the maritime provinces, and there I found a considerable shortage of fertilizer among the potato growers of New Brunswick and the other maritime provinces. At that time fertilizer dealers had orders to supply only the customers that they had the year before and not to allow them any more than they had the year before. That meant that there could be no increase in the production

War Appropriation-Agriculture
of potatoes in those areas, because they require fertilizer if they are to produce a good crop.
This spring I also had a letter from Saskatchewan and I should like to read a short portion of it. It deals with this matter and is as follows:
We usually order our fertilizer in the fall. Last fall we ordered one hundred tons from our local agent. A few days ago we were notified by our agent in Carragana that owing to a federal order he would not he able to fill our, fertilizer orders. All he could get on his hundred ton order will be twelve tons. Out of that twelve tons he will have to supply registered feed growers first, which will take all he has.
Then the letter goes on to point out that in this particular area of Saskatchewan it is essential that they have fertilizer; that it means that their crops ripen probably a week or ten days earlier and that they get away from the frost. It also says that there is a considerable production of live stock there for which this feed is necessary. I took this matter up with the fertilizer administrator, and the information which he gave me was that there was a shortage of fertilizer in Canada and that the government were doing the best they could to see that there was a fair distribution of it.
A few days later I received bulletin No. 2095 from the Department of Trade and Commerce. It is dated March 25, and in it I find a statement of exports of principal commodities. In the month of February, 1943, there were exported from Canada $1,268,000 worth of fertilizer, while in the month of February, 1944, there were exported $2,268,000 worth. In other words, during the month of February we exported from Canada a million dollars' worth more fertilizer than we had the year before, while apparently our own producers in Canada, who are producing the grain, are unable to obtain this fertilizer. There must be some explanation for this. I know the fertilizer used in New Brunswick is probably not the same kind of fertilizer that is used in western Canada, but I know the fertilizer which is being exported from western Canada is of the type that is being used out there on the farm. When we can get a better price in the United States for the grain we produce in western Canada, but it is needed in Canada, the government sees that our home market is supplied. In the matter of fertilizer apparently it is a different proposition. If these figures are correct, manufacturers of fertilizer are allowed to export large quantities to the United States where the price levels are higher than ours and where they get more for fertilizer than if it were sold on the Canadian market.
When the minister's estimates are up tomorrow I should like him to tell us the amounts of fertilizer that were imported into Canada during the years 1942 and 1943 to date, and the amount which was exported from Canada of different types so that we shall know exactly what the position is. I think the farmers of Canada are entitled to all the fertilizer that they can get, if that fertilizer is in Canada, or if it can be obtained for them. I should like the minister to give some figures with respect to that to-morrow.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the principle involved is really more important than the figure. It has always been necessary to exchange the ingredients of fertilizer between this country and the United States. There are some things which they have a surplus of and some things which we have a surplus of, and under conditions such as we have at the present time it is, of course, necessary to give as well as take. When there are some fertilizers required there or some of the ingredients of fertilizer mix which is used are required there and we require something else here, well, of course, the commodity is divided up in the manner which is thought advisable.
The fertilizer most used by the farmers of the prairie provinces has been the 11-48 brand of ammonium phosphate. This fertilizer with its fifty-nine units of plant food, is one of our most concentrated chemical fertilizers and therefore much in demand during the war by the United Kingdom, who wish to economize on shipping. The prairie farmers used approximately 6,000 tons in 1942 and 8,000 tons in 1943. The demand this year has been again increased. In order to make good our promises to the United Kingdom we had to notify the Consolidated Mining and Smelting company, who manufacture this fertilizer, that they could not sell on the prairies amounts in excess of last year until our allocations to the United Kingdom and the United States had been made. The company has increased its production, and the fertilizer year is drawing to a close with the amounts promised exported to our allies and 10,000 tons delivered on the prairies. Because of the feared shortage in the west 1,344 tons of 16-20 form of ammonium phosphate and 270 tons of ammonium sulphate have been delivered to the prairie farmer. The net result is that he has received more fertilizer this spring than in any previous year. Therefore I think probably very little complaint can be made about that. I believe it is true that the western farmers are becoming more inclined to use fertilizer and it is going up. It has gone up from six

Empire Day

to eight and now to ten, which would indicate that he is using, if he can get it, very much more than he was using before.


David McKenzie Wright: I should like the minister to give complete figures of the imports and exports to-morrow, so that we shall see for ourselves. I have no doubt the minister may be right, but I should like to see the exact figures.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE

Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved:: That the name of Mr. Picard replace that of Mr. Durocher on the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
Tuesday, May 23, 1944