1945-09-27

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I table
an order in council under which Walter Adam Tucker, Esquire, M.P., has been appointed parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to assist the said minister within and without parliament in such manner and to such extent as the minister may determine.



RAILWAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 8, to amend the Railway Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. ADAMSON:: The purpose of this bill is to amend sections 308 and 419 of the Railway act.
The amendment .grants power to certain municipalities contiguous to or near large cities to pass by-laws prohibiting the sounding of the statutory crossing whistle at specified grade crossings within the confines of such municipality.
The reason for this amendment is that many townships or villages situated contiguous to major metropolitan areas have now become so built up that they constitute a physical part of the neighbouring city or town.
Railways passing through these built-up areas and whistling at the crossings constitute a nuisance and are a real menace to the health and welfare of the residents of such districts.

Argentina-Canadian Nationals

The amendment is simple in form as it merely adds the words "township or village situated contiguous to or near such city or town" to subsection 2 of section 308 of the Railway act, and the same words to subsection 3, section 419, of the same act, the latter being the penalty clause and' contingent on section 308.
Subsection 2 of section 308 will now read:
"(2) Where a municipal by-law of a city or town, or of a 'township or village situated contiguous to or near such city or town, prohibits such sounding of the whistle or such ringing of the bell in respect of any such crossing or crossings within the limits of such city or town, or township or village, such by-law shall, if approved by 'an order of 'the board, to the extent of such prohibition relieve the company and its employees from the duty imposed by this section."
This does not constitute a blanket order permitting all townships or villages to pass prohibitory by-laws, nor does it embrace all grade crossings in the designated municipality, as each crossing must under the terms of the act be approved by the board of transport commissioners, who must be satisfied as to the safety measures taken at each crossing where the whistle warning is to be dispensed with.
I would mention the case of St. Hilaire Village v. Canadian National Railway, where it is shown that relief can only be obtained by an amendment to the act.
Motion agreed to and bill read; the first time. ARGENTINA



PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF CANADIAN NATIONALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['If I heard my hon. friend correctly he referred to an approaching conference. I am not aware of any conference that has been called for the purpose to which he has referred. I believe what I have said answers his question.']
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct three questions to the Prime Minister in his capacity of Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the news emanating from the Argentine, wherein a state of siege is said to have been reimposed yesterday by which most of the people's liberties have been suspended, will the Prime Minister assure the house that every possible precaution is being taken by the Canadian government through our ambassador to see that the rights of Canadian nationals who may be residing in that country are properly protected and preserved?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The answer is yes.


Gordon Graydon: The Prime Minister is unusually brief, and I want to congratulate him upon it. I hope this is the beginning of similar answers of the kind.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May
I ask the Prime Minister in his capacity of Secretary of State for External Affairs if the Canadian government has given authority and instructions to anyone to represent Canada's point of view in London while the five power foreign ministers' meeting is in progress, and, if so, what position is Canada taking with respect to the plan for adminstration of Japan which I understand is being discussed by the foreign ministers of the larger powers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Canadian government is represented in London at the present time by the acting high commissioner, Mr. Frederic Hudd. So far as I know, plans for administration of Japan are not on the agenda of the present session of the council of foreign ministers.
I might say that I have had notice of a question which the leader of the C.C.F. party intended to ask, and which relates in part to what my hon. friend has just asked. Perhaps, if-


Mr. COLD  WELL@: It would be perfectly .
all right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -the leader of the C.C.F. will ask his question I might supplement what I have just said to my hon. friend.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Has the government made any representation to the council of foreign ministers now conferring in London regarding Canada's right to participate in discussions concerning recommendations regarding the disposition of persons and territories the status and disposition of which is a matter of interest to the Canadian people?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I do not think the answer given by the Prime Minister quite covers what I have in mind. I was wondering whether any representations had been made regarding the disposition of persons and territories. The question I had particularly in mind was this: Is Canada interesting herself in the fate of many of the people who are moving around Europe at the present time, the disposition of whom will be discussed by the foreign ministers in London?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to have that question stand. I will give a further answer to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to make a statement to the house which will serve in part as a further answer to some of the questions which have been asked on the orders of the day this afternoon. I hope the house will not object to the length of the statement, but it is important, and for that reason I have tried to anticipate and cover some of the questions I thought might be in the minds of hon. members.
In answer to a question by the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) on Friday of last week, I said that I hoped I could find it possible at an early date to talk over questions of mutual concern with members of the United Kingdom government. I have been waiting until the address in reply to the speech from the throne has been agreed to, to inform hon. members of what I have in mind, and of my present intentions. As my plans have been made on the expectation that, at a first session, the debate on the address would not likely continue longer than three weeks from the opening of parliament, which period expires to-day, I feel I should not delay longer in making to the house the statement I had hoped to make at the conclusion of the debate.
External Affairs

The world is still in a very troubled state. The war is over and the victory won, but the responsibilities that rest on governments are not perceptibly lighter. We have our own task of reconstruction in Canada, but to carry it out as wisely and as well as we should wish it is essential that consultation be had from time to time with members of other governments, facing similar problems, often under more difficult circumstances.
These last months have seen many changes in Europe, brought new persons into responsible office and faced them with new problems. We in Canada are directly concerned with the solutions which they are seeking to these problems. Experience has taught us that the problems of other countries very quickly become our problems as well.
The process of peace-making is obviously going to be difficult and protracted. The task is not one of restoring the world as we knew it before the war. That world has gone. The collective task is to get the new world moving along paths that will lead to peace, happiness and the general welfare. This means finding ways in which the peoples of the world can work together in confidence and cooperation.
In the shaping of the new world order, a good start must be made in the right direction during these next critical months. Decisions that will have to be taken during the coming months may shape and determine the kind of world we are going to live in. I am not thinking primarily of the particular questions that the council of foreign ministers has been considering at its recent meetings. Questions of boundaries, of colonial administration or regional disarmament are important, but, in the last analysis, many of them are of less consequence, even to the countries whose interests they affect most immediately, than are questions of attitudes and objectives. These are, as I see it, the big questions, the worrying questions. They are hard to formulate and harder still to answer. What kind of world do we really wish to live in? What sort of effort are we ready to make to realize it? What do we and what do people in other countries mean when we agree that peace and prosperity are indivisible in this one world? How can we help each other to make our world a free world in which we can give substance to the idea for which free men died?
We should find working answers to these questions and find them without delay; for, on the answers which we in Canada and other countries give to these questions, national policies must be based. It is the answers to these general questions which will determine
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
what we should do about defence; how we can most wisely and effectively maintain high levels of employment and promote a fairer distribution of a larger national income; and how far, as a country, we can go in attempting to assist the economic recovery of our allies and the restoration of the world trade on which our wealth and welfare have depended.
Hon. members will be aware that during the meetings in London of the council of foreign ministers the question of participation by nations of the British commonwealth, apart from the United Kingdom, has arisen on a number of occasions.
The Canadian interest in the meetings of the council of foreign ministers lay not so much in the detailed discussions of particular issues, as, for example, the demarcation of frontiers, as in an overriding concern for the peaceful settlement of outstanding differences, and for consolidating the general organization for the maintenance of international security.
It is important that Canada should not merely be consulted, but that there should be clear recognition of Canada's right to effective participation in the great decisions where questions affecting the general ordering of the future peace of the world are under consideration. During the war, for military reasons, it was necessary to acquiesce in the operation of war-time arrangements under which responsibility for major decisions on the direction of the allied war effort was concentrated in a very few hands. The continued use of methods such as were improvised to meet the urgent strain and hazards of war, whereby private settlements are arrived at between the great powers on issues of general interest, might well become a source of difficulty and even of danger. Every possible precaution should, therefore, be taken to see that in this particular the war-time pattern is not perpetuated in the framing of the peace settlement and in the united nations organization.
It is with these thoughts in mind that I have decided I should, as soon as possible, make an informal and, if necessary, an extended visit to the United Kingdom and western Europe.
Of conditions in Europe generally, I should like to obtain first-hand information from my own observation and inquiries. If I am to have the knowledge of many of the problems which are now upon the horizon, and to be able to speak regarding them with the authority I should like to possess, I feel that I should see for myself something of the changed world in which Canada must make her way and take her part.
The operations of UNRRA, the general conditions of food, clothing and shelter in

External Affairs
the war-devastated countries of Europe, are all of concern to Canada as a principal supplying agency under various international arrangements. Apart from the practical working of these arrangements, there is a still greater humanitarian interest which wrill continue to have a strong claim upon our capacity to help in the relieving of suffering and distress.
I would hope, while in Europe, to have an opportunity to visit areas occupied by Canadian soldiers, and the scenes of battles with which, through the heroic exploits of our fighting men, the name of Canada will ever be associated. I think it is important also that I should visit Canada's embassies and legations, some of which have been established since the beginning of the war, and all of which, in consequence of the war and postwar problems, have had to operate under new and difficult circumstances.
It was on August 24 that Mr. Attlee, in a personal message to myself, stated that he would greatly welcome it if I and other prime ministers of the commonwealth felt we would be able to come to London for purposes of consultation and personal discussion at the opening of the council of foreign ministers. At the same time, Mr. Attlee stated he regretted to have to raise such proposals at such short notice and that the United Kingdom government recognized the great difficulties which this might involve for me and for the other prime ministers. When Mr. Attlee's telegram was received, the present parliament had been summoned to meet on September 6, and it was, as Mr. Attlee himself recognized, not possible for me, because of the opening of the first session of a new parliament to visit London at that time. Until I had met parliament and confidence in the government had been expressed by the House of Commons, it would not have done for me to be absent from Canada. That confidence has been expressed in the votes thus far recorded in the divisions which have taken place on the amendments moved by the Progressive Conservative party, the C.C.F. party and the Social Credit party to the motion of thanks to His Excellency for His Excellency's speech addressed to both houses of parliament.
It is now, therefore, possible for me to take the house into my confidence with respect to the reasons which make it advisable that I should pay the extended visit I have referred to. Having assured Mr. Attlee that I would, at an early opportunity, be glad to talk over with him matters of mutual interest to our governments, I feel I should avail myself of the opportunity which now presents itself for this and the other purposes
I have mentioned, and which, if not availed of at this first session, may not be possible in the period between the close of the present session and the next session which will come in the new year. My plans have, accordingly, been made to leave for London early in the coming week.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I do not think this statement should be allowed to pass without some expression from the house. Hon. members have listened with a great deal of interest, and with approval, to what the Prime Minister has said, particularly his reference to the international situation and the necessity for Canada's raising her voice in that regard. As one who was present at the San Francisco conference I can say that I think we all understood that prior agreements among the five great powers were useful. There was a very general feeling that the time had arrived when other nations which had played such an important part in the winning of the war should also be heard. I am thoroughly in approval of what the Prime Minister has said this afternoon, and I can assure him of our support in that particular.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the
house listened with keen interest to what the Prime Minister has just said. Speaking as the leader of the group sitting opposite to him, may I say we wholly commend his statement. I want to assure him, too, that his party will receive the very generous cooperation of hon. members on this side while he is away.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it gave me considerable satisfaction to listen to the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon. I believe no group in the house has been more careful to keep in [DOT]touch with the world situation than has the Social Credit group, realizing as we do the tragic situation in which the world finds itself to-day, and realizing too that Canada has-grown to the full stature of nationhood and', should take her position in the world com- munity of nations, a position of responsibility..
I concur in the Prime Minister's determination to go to Europe to find out definitely what the situation is, and to lend his experienced hand in a serious attempt to turn chaos into order and bring about a solution of the world's problems. My congratulations are extended to him, and this group wish him godspeed, safe journey, and safe return.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,. I should like to express my very warm thanks-to the leaders of the different parties who-
Meat Rationing

have spoken this afternoon for the approval they have so cordially given to the course which I have felt it was in the public interest for me to take at this time. I can assure hon. members I regret deeply, and shall regret even more deeply while I am away, not being able to be present with other hon. members throughout this first session of the new parliament. I can see quite clearly, however, that unless I take advantage of the opportunity afforded during this first session to take up some of the matters to which I have referred, a like opportunity may not again present itself.
May I say to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) how obliged I am to him for his courtesy in agreeing to extend a pair to me during the time of my absence.


John Bracken: I would only add the hope that when the Prime Minister is gone his government will bring in legislation of a type which may not tend to make us feel the necessity of effecting the pair with him.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister, arising out of his statement-one which I believe was asked at the last session. At the approaching conference will there be any discussion of the points raised by the late Mr. Curtin of Australia when he was in Ottawa? I refer to the creation of an empire council to operate after the war for the purpose of bringing about closer collaboration and cooperation with the mother country, including preferential trade, defence, and migration within the empire.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I heard my hon. friend correctly he referred to an approaching conference. I am not aware of any conference that has been called for the purpose to which he has referred. I believe what I have said answers his question.



BUSINESS VISITS TO EUROPE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. A press dispatch from Paris appearing in the New York Times of yesterday quoted the American ambassador to France as saying that facilities for food, lodging and limited transportation for American business men will be provided through the United States Embassy over there on and after October 1, 1945. May I ask the Prime Minister what steps this government is taking
!Mr. Mackenzie King.]
to provide similar service to Canadians on business in France and anywhere in Europe where the army has quarters and messes?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid I shall have to ask my hon. friend to allow the question to stand and I will give an answer later on. I had no notice of the question.



MEAT RATIONING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Having been informed by telegram that representatives of Montreal butchers have requested an interview with the Prime Minister and the government to-morrow morning, may I ask whether the Prime Minister will inform the house whether the government intends to receive this delegation and discuss means whereby the strike may be ended?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend sent me a copy of the question. I will read to the house the telegram which I received this morning from Mr. E. Chartrand of Montreal and the reply I have sent. Mr. Chartrand's telegram reads:
1945, September 27 a.m 2 14 Montreal, Que. 26
Prime Minister Mackenzie King,
Parliament Building, Ottawa, Ont.
Montreal butchers whose stores are closed because of meat rationing would appreciate an interview with you and your tribunate-
I take that to mean cabinet.
-on Friday morning at Ottawa. Kindly indicate by wire as to time and place that is agreeable for you to meet at the legation-
I think that means "meet a delegation".
-of twenty-five.
E. Chartrand,
President.
1252 Stanley street, Montreal.
To that telegram I sent the following reply this morning:
Ottawa, September 27, 1945.
E. Chartrand, Esquire,
1252 Stanley street,
Montreal, P.Q.
A delegation of retail meat dealers of Canada has already been received by the Ministers of Agriculture ,and Finance with the rationing authorities and the questions raised by the meat dealers w'ere fully discussed and certain adjustments -were made in the rationing system. If the retail dealers of the organization, of which you are the president, would like to make suggestions of other adjustments to the rationing

Provincial Legislation
authorities, any representations will be immediately and carefully considered. In the light of all the existing circumstances, the government considers it would be inappropriate for the cabinet to receive the delegation requested.



DIFFERENTIAL RATIONING FOR MINERS, LUMBERMEN, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mir. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River):	I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In the light of the serious strike of southern Alberta miners, will the government give consideration to some change in the meat rationing regulations to permit of a more equitable distribution of available meat supplies-recognizing the principle of greater need on the part of those engaged in heavy work such as miners, lumbermen, etcetera?
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: A great deal of consideration has been given to the question whether differential rationing, as it is called, is practicable and the decision arrived at is that it is not. The request of the miners in Alberta, at least the group referred to in the question, is that they receive double rations. Naturally if they were to receive double rations, claims would arise from many other groups in various parts of 'Canada. The question, in so far as lumber camps are concerned, is answered by an arrangement that is made apart from change in the number of pounds per week of meat available. That is, in remote districts where alternative food supplies are not available in large measure, the rationing authorities make available extra quantities of meat, not by way of individual quota but by way of quotas such as a restaurant or some such establishment gets, and the situation is covered in that way. But the specific request here, to allow more pounds of meat per week to certain classes in the community, is deemed to be impracticable. At the same time I may say that the rationing authorities are giving much attention to the problem of how to relieve cases of particular hardship. They have not been able to find any solution to the problem as yet, but it is receiving attention at the present time.



PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: May I ask the Minister of Justice a question. On Tuesday I sent him a copy of a telegram which had been sent me by the attorney general of Saskatchewan. Can he give us now the information requested in that telegram?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of
Justice):	When the original question was
put the other day I attempted to answer it from memory, and probably I should not have done so because I find there were some errors in the information I gave the house at that time. Thus I referred to the Dominion Land Mortgage Association and I am informed that it is the Dominion Mortgage and Investments Association. I also stated that information had been given to the attorney general of Saskatchewan almost as soon as the petitions had been received. When I received, later on Tuesday, the telegram addressed to me by the attorney general of Saskatchewan I immediately referred it to the deputy minister of justice and he has supplied me with this information. The petition of the Dominion Mortgage and Investments Association was received early in July. Mr. Carson, of Toronto, acting as counsel for the petitioners, saw the deputy minister of justice just about that time, and there was some discussion as to whether he wanted to add any oral representations to those contained in the petition. What was determined then was that he did not feel that it was necessary that he do so, but if we wished for further elaboration of the representations in the petition he would be available. The petition was then referred to the law officer who deals, as a matter of course, with the examination of all the provincial legislation adopted each year, and who prepares memoranda to enable recommendations to be made to council as to whether or not the legislation should be allowed to have such operation as it can legally have. In considering this legislation an effort is made by the law officers, who have considerable experience in that matter, to study everything that is pertinent to the form and purport of the legislation, whether representations or petitions come in or not. The only additional value there can be in making representations is to focus attention upon something which, in spite of their experience, the law officers might not consider pertinent or consider that it was necessary for them to study and report upon.
It was only when the other petition for disallowance came in from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company specifically requesting a hearing that the matter was dealt with in any other than the routine way. That request was received at the department on September 16. The deputy minister wrote to counsel for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and to Mr. Carson, as counsel for the other party that had made the representation, on September 18, asking them to send copies of their representations to the attorney general of
House oj Commons

Saskatchewan, in view of the fact that it appeared they wished to be heard orally. As I say, those letters were written on September 18, and I understand that copies of the representations were supplied to the attorney general on September 20. Those letters suggested that they could be heard if they wished on October 11 and on October 15, as I stated before.
There is not going to be any trial of issues at that time. Council will of course be allowed to make such representations as they see fit to make, and those representations will be considered, together with the legislation itself, as an aid in the preparation of the recommendations that are made in every instance with respect to provincial statutes.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Is it not usual to apprise the province that a petition against legislation has been left with the department, and the contents thereof? It seems to me that in an important matter of this kind the respondent province should have an opportunity to study the grounds upon which the petitioners are asking for disallowance, in case there may be some further representations or oral discussion later.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Well, I have not specially inquired as to what was the procedure; I was informed by the deputy minister that the usual procedure had been followed here, and it was merely because a specific request for a hearing had been made-


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: That is not court
procedure?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: These are not court proceedings at all. The Minister of Justice does not make a decision; he prepares an opinion to support a recommendation made to council as to whether the legislation should or should not be allowed to have such operation as it legally may have. That is done because of the requirements of the British North America Act, and is done irrespective of whether representations have been made or not.



INAUDIBILITY OF DEBATE-REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF AMPLIFIERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E, G. HANSELL (Macleod): I rise to a question of privilege, with respect to a matter which concerns every hon. member of this house. Since we are accustomed to following the procedure of Westminster I wish to read a few lines which appeared in this morning's press. A Canadian Press dispatch from London says:

United Kingdom members of parliament, in the rebuilt House of Commons, will have loud speakers so they can be heard.
Farther down the article says:
The 456 loud speakers-a concession to modern ways-will be incorporated inconspicuously in the seating and made proof against damage by members.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I must point out to the hon. member that his question should be brief and to the point.


Mr. HANSELL:: My point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that we cannot hear what the Prime Minister and ministers of the crown are saying. I might say to Your Honour that sometimes we cannot hear what you are saying. We can never hear what the leader of the opposition is saying. It seems that we cannot hear what anybody is saying. I doubt, Mr. Speaker, whether you can sometimes hear- you are straining your ear a little bit even now while I am speaking-what we are saying. The press gallery cannot hear; the spectators cannot bear; nobody can hear what anybody is saying.
May I now ask the Prime Minister a question? Since the British parliament leads the way-the Prime Minister is putting his hand to his ear now, which proves my point that the ministers cannot hear-would the Prime Minister give consideration soon, and before he goes away, if possible, to the matter of installing some system of amplifiers in this chamber?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that when my hon. friend addressed his question to me he dropped his voice so that I would have to strain a little in order to hear him. However, may I say that the house is possessed of its own privileges; it is not a question for the Prime Minister to settle; it is a question for hon. members themselves to settle. No doubt you, Mr. Speaker, will take the matter referred to into careful consideration.



SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY, HEALTH, HOUSING AND PUBLIC WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have sent him notice. Will the government give consideration to amending the rules of the house to provide for the establishment of a standing committee on social security, health, housing and public welfare?

Wheat
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister): I regret to say I did not receive the hon. gentleman's question. However, I will take notice of it as it appears in Hansard and give him a reply later on.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. KIDD (Kingston City):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction, or in his absence to the Prime Minister or the acting minister? Will the minister kindly inform the house whether immediate steps can be taken to release building materials to discharged soldiers in order to enable them to build or remodel houses or places of business for themselves and their families?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I will direct the attention of the Minister of Reconstruction to his question, and no doubt the minister will give him an answer in due course.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I have already submitted my question in writing to the minister. Thank you very much.



TAXATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. When will the report of the royal commission on taxation of cooperatives be tabled?
James Lorimer Ilsley: The commission made its report on September 25, which was the day before yesterday, and as yet I have not had time to read that report. I intend to read it just as soon as possible, and then it will be printed and distributed.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO WARDS OF children's AID SOCIETY
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether consideration is being given to granting the family allowances to wards of the Children's Aid Society. I hope the minister heard me.


James Horace King: The hon. gentleman
should place that question on the order paper.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But, Mr. Speaker, it would not be answered for perhaps a month or
more, and this is very urgent.


James Horace King: I do not see any urgency in it. It should be placed on the order paper.



HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. D. COYLE (Elgin):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue when the bonding of United States trucks travelling over highway No. 3 in Ontario, from Windsor to Niagara Falls, will cease.


James Horace King: There is no urgency in this question, I would suggest that it be placed on the order paper.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I have had quite a few telegrams about this matter.


James Horace King: I have given my ruling. WHEAT
PURCHASE AND SALE BY FOREIGN SPECULATORS On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. ROSS THATCHER (Moose Jaw):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether any steps are being taken by the government to prevent foreign speculators from buying Canadian wheat at the $1.55 ceiling price and selling it on the world market at $1.90 or even higher.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am grateful to the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The answer is that the government has been fully aware of the possibility of this danger, and, through the wheat board, has-taken steps to see that Canadian wheat-reaches legitimate users only.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, September 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. Benidiclcson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Ross (Souris), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Wright.
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Townley-Smith
Mr. F. W. TOWNLEY-SMITH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, when the house
adjourned yesterday I was discussing floor prices, parity prices, and a proper percentage of the nation's income so necessary to the western farmers. I am sure all hon. members realize there will be some difficulty in establishing those parity prices. However, it can be done. It will be a job for our mathematicians and our research men, but I am convinced they can do it.
The point I wish to make here is that it will be necessary to have those prices established before we can indicate what ninety per cent would amount to. Hon. members in this group do not like the ninety per cent stipulation. We do not see any particular advantage in pussyfooting around with a part of the parity price and we would ask for the establishment of the whole of it. In our subamendment we ask for the establishment of floor prices for all basic agricultural products on a parity with other services and products. The hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Tucker) yesterday said that his government was in favour of parity prices; hon. members will find that at page 472 of Hansard. He also said at page 484 of Hansard:	We
want one hundred per cent. The logical conclusion for one to arrive at would be that the hon. member for Rosthem and his fellow members will vote in favour of our subamendment. But of course, Mr. Speaker, I am only a new member.
There is a feeling prevalent in this country that the farmer to-day is well off and has lots of money in his pocket. That is true within certain limits. It is true, as a matter of fact, that the war, and the war only, has been responsible for the farmer's receiving better prices for his products; but the principal reason that he has money in his jeans to-day is that he has not been able to spend it upon the things which he really requires to buy. If he had been able to buy the machinery he requires and pay for needed repairs to his machinery and paint for his buildings and a host of other things, he would not have this money in his pocket. The farmer himself will receive a surprise, perhaps a shock, when the time comes that he is able to buy the things he requires to reequip his farmstead. As a matter of fact his wealth is superficial, not real. He has the money at the present moment but when he has bought some of these $1,700 tractors and' $3,000 combines his money will rapidly disappear. I would like hon. members especially those who have just a passing knowledge of agriculture, to bear that in mind when they hear talk about the western 
farmer rolling in wealth at the present time. He is a pretty good fellow. He has been very patriotic and loyal and he has given willingly of his sons and daughters and of his dollars to the war effort, and now in his old age he has gone into harness again, with his womenfolk helping him, to see that the production of food is not decreased because of the exodus of so much of his help.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), who made a statement on the price of western wheat the other day: Let us say to the people of devastated Europe and to the people of the low countries: Not only here is wheat but here are flour and foods of all kinds, both in bulk and otherwise; here are clothes; here are machines, boots and shoes, pots and pans, building materials of all kinds, and the prices of all of them are being held down to the level of September 19, 1945.
May I say this about world markets, to which we farmers will have to subscribe and to which we shall have to adjust ourselves. I believe that when the smoke of battle has finally blown away, every country will be compelled to produce that which it can most economically and most easily produce. Thus it may be that in certain parts of Canada which are at the present time extensively engaged in dairying, the harsh winters, the great distance from tidewater and high freight rates will not permit our farmers to compete with countries like New Zealand and Australia, with an outdoor climate that is moderate all the year round, and with their closeness to the sea. It is conceivable that some other country may find that they can produce and get their products on to the world markets more cheaply than we. That possibiliy must be faced, and we must be ready for it, even though the quality of our products is higher.
We have been accused by members in certain parts of this house of having communists as friends. They are no friends of ours, Mr. Speaker. In fact, many of them tried to prevent me from getting down here at all. However, these same communists were advocating a coalition with the Liberals, and so it would be just as logical to refer to them as friends of the Liberals.
Great changes are taking place all over the world, and there is a great change taking place in this country. The poet Tennyson saw that many years ago when he wrote:
Ring out a slowly dying cause,
And ancient forms of party strife;
Ring in the nobler modes of life,
With sweeter manners, purer laws.

The Address-Mr. Senn
Tennyson saw this thing coming. We in this group, sir, are anxious to help the government in all the legislation which they introduce in this difficult period, if they in turn will show that they are sincere by bringing down legislation that will be helpful to all classes. But there must be no indifference and no complacency. Serious situations will arise calling for careful handling, and it will tax the efforts of all hon. members of this house working together to smooth out these situations and make this great country of ours a good place for all classes to live in.
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, it has been my custom always when addressing this august chamber to be as brief as possible, and I am going to follow that practice to-day. I had not intended to take part in this debate on the address at all, until the night before last when my colleague the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) introduced an amendment which he asked me to second.
When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) made his statement in the house on September 19 in regard to setting a floor price for wheat, it was of course not debatable but I did ask him whether the provisions of the order in council applied to winter wheat grown in the eastern provinces, and I was glad indeed to hear his statement that it was not included. One dollar a bushel may have been a fair price at one time for winter wheat, but it is not so to-day. With higher costs of production, higher costs of labour, higher taxes, and other factors that enter into production, it is not profitable today to produce wheat in the province of Ontario at $1 a bushel. It is true of course that our eastern crop of wheat does not loom nearly as large as the western crop; we produce only some 25,000,000 bushels in the eastern provinces. On the other hand, the sale of that wheat forms an important part of the income of many farmers in eastern Canada. Moreover, wheat production works very well with their particular crop rotation. For these reasons I should like to see a fair price established for winter wheat in eastern Canada.
Although the minister's statement was of prime importance to the wheat growers of the west, I believe it was equally important to other branches of agriculture than that of growing wheat. I think we must accept this statement as an indication of government policy respecting the farmers' price structure. I regarded it as such as soon as that statement was made, and that is the reason I seconded the amendment of the hon. member for Souris. That my fears in this respect are
altogether too well grounded was amply demonstrated, I think, yesterday when the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) spoke on behalf of the government. He said that this was the first step in implementing the provisions of Bill 168, which was passed in 1944 and was called the Agricultural Prices Support Act. He read a certain clause in the act which he said provided for adequate and stable returns for agriculture. But I am afraid that this act is not going to work out as he expected, for it has some important defects.
Unfortunately I happened to be away on the week-end in 1944 when this bill was introduced, and did not have a chance to discuss it and to express my criticisms. But so far as I can understand, it has at least two important defects. The first defect is that the provisions of the bill are only temporary in character. The title: of the bill as it was brought down in the House of Commons is, "An Act for the Support of the Prices of Agricultural Products during the Transition from War to Peace." The question arises right away^-and I think the farmers of the country are particularly interested in this: What is this period of transition? How long is it going to last? Is it to be one year or two years or perhaps five years; and after that period of transition is over, what is going to happen next? The farmer, more than anybody else in the: country, needs permanence and stability. The great thing which has affected the prosperity of farmers in days gone by is that there have been many rapid and violent fluctuations in farm prices, and this bill is to be operative only after prices fall. The board provided in the bill will not step in until such time as it thinks prices have gone below the proper level. The farmer would like to know, I should like to know, and I think everybody in the house would like to know, to what level must prices fall before this bill becomes operative, before the board which has been set up will step in and try to do something -with this revolving fund of $200 million which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is so glad to mention from time to time.
Just in passing I might remark that the time has arrived in at least one branch of agriculture for putting this revolving fund into effect. There has been and there exists at the present time a grave congestion of cattle on our live stock markets, and particularly in our stock-yards. This congestion has caused prices to fall, in some cases to unprofitable levels. It should be the duty of this government and of the board which is set up under this act to provide in some way for
The Address-Mr. Senn

these heavy runs, if necessary to take a certain amount of the revolving fund and remove these cattle from the market.
I know the minister made the statement the other day that farmers should be careful to market their cattle and hogs in a more orderly manner. But it is not always possible to do so. When a hog gets to a certain weight it must be marketed, or the farmer loses by reason of a lower price; it passes into another grade and he is using his feed to very little advantage. The same is true very largely of cattle, perhaps for a different reason. When cattle are well finished they should go on the market; but there are times in the fall when the farmer has to raise money, and the only way he can do so is by sending his cattle to the market. He may also be in a position where he has to get rid of these cattle or they will be kept at a loss. In passing I would recommend to the minister and his board that provision should be made now to deal with the congestion of cattle which occurs in our stock-yards and on our markets from time to time, and which could very well be handled by this board and this revolving fund. This is not the first- time that this condition has occurred in the fall; as a matter of fact it happens every fall; and some permanent provision should be made by the government or by some suitable authority to see that this does not occur from time to time to the farmer's detriment by reason of its effect in lowering prices.
Farmers should know in sufficient time what prices they are going to receive for their products. They must make their plans a long time ahead. If a farmer is going to market a field of grain, that field must be ploughed, in eastern Canada at least, a year ahead, and I take it that the same is largely true in western Canada. If he is producing hogs or milk or beef cattle he has to make his plans even further ahead; and as I have already said, from time to time, after he has made hds plans on the assumption that a certain price then prevailing will continue, he finds that by the time his product is ready to market the price has fallen, fluctuations in price have taken place, and the result is he does not get the returns that he should receive for his cattle and other products.
May I also point out that if reasonable floor prices were established for all classes of goods which the farmer is likely to produce, he is a good enough judge to know whether he can produce those goods at those particular prices. If he cannot produce hogs profitably, perhaps he can turn to beef, or milk, or grain, or some other article for which he is sure he will reap a reasonable reward. But I am

afraid that if the price which has been set on wheat by the minister is any indication of the level of prices which are to be set for other classes of farm products, the farmer will be in greater difficulties than ever. On this phase of the matter I still think that bill 168, providing for fair prices in the manner in which the government has seen fit to present it, is unsatisfactory, and that it will not -establish parity prices or fair prices to the farmer if the wheat price that has been set is to be the measuring stick by which we must measure what the government will do in all other cases.


Mr. GARDINER:: This act does not come in until the War Measures Act goes out, that is, six months after the war.


Mark Cecil Senn: The Act does not apply to
wheat, but in any case, whether the bill can be of use at the present time, something should be done to see that prices do not fall unduly.
May I now refer to a certain clause in the speech from the throne relating to agricultural matters and primary industries.
The maintenance of long-term markets for our primary industries is receiving close attention. The continuing need for foodstuffs, both at home and abroad, will ensure, for some time to come, a heavy demand for the products of our farms and fisheries. .
That clause lays stress upon the value of the export market and upon the value of the home market; they are both important to the farmer. I would say however that, if anything, the home market is even more important than the foreign market particularly in eastern Canada. For a great many years, up to a short time ago, nearly ninety per cent of everything the farmer produced in Canada was consumed in Canada in one way or another. The exception to that rule was wheat, and the percentage in the case of western wheat was a good deal larger. However, during the war there were certain classes of farm products that were produced in greater quantities, and we were glad to be able to export them in greater quantities.
The minister brought down a correction of the figures he placed on Hansard the other day when he was speaking. I have taken those figures that were put on Hansard and have made a computation, and I find that for the past eight years, 1938-1945, we have exported about thirty-three per cent of our pork and about twelve per cent of our beef. If I am correctly informed, and I read the question which the leader of the C.C.F. party asked the minister, that included meat sent overseas to feed the troops while there. If those troops come back they will have to be fed here and it will mean that a smaller per-

The Address-Mr. Senn
centage of our total production will be sent overseas. In addition the minister tried to prove to us, and I believe he convinced us, that if we did not have greater grain production in the near future our production figures in cattle and hogs and other live stocks would go down and go down very rapidly.
Every one will agree, I think, that these years have been years of high production during the war. Taken altogether, production of grains in Canada and everything else on the farm has been much higher than it was prior to that time. We have had bumper crops, and those crops have helped us to maintain the supplies we so much needed. There is one thing I would suggest to the government in passing, and that is that we should if possible try to retain our British market for bacon. It is one of the best we have. If we receive a fair price for our production of bacon, it is one of the most profitable lines the farmer in Canada can follow.
AVhen the Minister of Agriculture was speaking the other day he took credit for establishing floors by means of contracts which he had negotiated with Great Britain, and he claimed, and I think rightly, that the prices set by those contracts set the floor price of farm products in Canada, at least of bacon and beef and perhaps cheese. I would point this out, however. Those contracts were negotiated in a seller's market. The desperate need which Britain had for foodstuffs enabled the government during the difficult times when those contracts were negotiated to get better prices than they might otherwise have obtained. That is one reason why I am afraid of the announcement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
What is the effect of that announcement, in reality, particularly as to certain markets we have? I think the effect of that announcement has been to serve notice on our customers abroad that the government of this country has embarked on a policy of deflation of farm prices. I do not think we can draw any other conclusion than that, and the result will be, I am afraid, that instead of being able to negotiate contracts in a seller's market in the future we shall have to bargain in a customer's market where the customers in different countries will be able to dictate the prices we can obtain for different classes of goods.
It is undoubtedly true, and no one will deny it, that low export prices means low domestic prices. I can recall in a good many instances in days gone by, and not so long ago either, that in certain classes of farm products we
had only a surplus of five or ten per cent, and the small price we had to take for the exportable surplus had a direct bearing on the domestic price. That is not as it should be.
The next thing I would point out is this. After all, primary production is the greatest factor in creating buying power in Canada. There are four broad branches of primary production in Canada: farming, mining, fishing and lumbering. Of these I do not think anyone will deny that agriculture is the most important. It is the most important from the point of view of financial returns, and it is most important from the point of view of population. From 28 to 30 per cent of the population of Canada are farmers, but in addition to that there is a large body of people who are engaged in collecting, transporting, processing and marketing our farm products. If you take all these together it is safe to say that they form the largest consuming group in Canada. As such if the farmers of Canada are prosperous and can buy, then other classes in the community will be prosperous, because the farmers will consume to the extent of their ability and income.
I suggest therefore that the first objective of any government should be at this time to fix parity prices. There has been some discussion in the house as to what the term "parity prices" means. I do not intend to give any scientific explanation of the matter. I think a simple sentence will outline what parity really is. It is a fair relationship between farm prices and the prices of goods and services which the farmer has to buy. That ig_ simple enough. Moreover, if the farmer is given a fair price he will produce. There is no doubt about that. He will produce to the limit of his ability. The thing he needs and the thing he should have is this. He should know that he will get a fair price, and that as time goes on, between the time he makes his plans and the time he gets his goods on the market, there is not going to be such a slump that he will be unable to carry on.
I think we all agree at the present time that farmers are enjoying a fair share of prosperity, or at least partial prosperity. The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Townley-Smith) gave a reason or two for that. The first is that undoubtedly during the war, prices have gone up. Whether the government is going to take credit for that, or whether it is due to something over which nobody in this country has any particular control, I shall leave it to parliament itself to judge. But I do say that even with the prices that prevail, the farmer has not yet had a fair share of the national income. That is true because after price ceilings were set
The Address-Mr. Senn

up the government found it was impossible for the farmers to carry on in that way, and they introduced a system of subsidies on different kinds of farm products. I think that in the year 1944 those subsidies amounted to over a hundred million dollars.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is just the direct subsidies.


Mark Cecil Senn: Yes; there were others as well. Some were paid by the Department of Agriculture and some by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, and perhaps some in some other ways as well. I have not yet been able to find out where the division lies, and I should like to have that information. What lines of subsidies are being paid by the Department of Agriculture, and why, and what lines are being paid by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation?


James Garfield Gardiner: Would the hon. member like an answer now? It would take only a minute. The division is that wherever it is intended to increase production it is done in our department; wherever it is intended to cut down the cost of consumption, it is done in the other department. .


Mark Cecil Senn: I thank the minister for the explanation, but it seems to me in some cases both principles would apply. Perhaps the division has been made in a way that is suitable to the Minister of Agriculture, if not to both ministers.
The second reason why farmers have enjoyed a modicum of prosperity was outlined by the hon. member who preceded me, namely, that the farmers are finding it impossible to make the necessary repairs on their farms. If one drives through Ontario to-day-I cannot say anything about the other provinces, I do not doubt but that the same conditions prevail-one can see a woeful lack of good buildings and repairs. Because of labour shortages, and because they cannot get materials, farmers have been unable to keep their buildings, fences and machinery in proper repair. They are hoping, now that the war is over, the condition will be changed and they will be able to get more labour and materials. There is only one other thing that they need in the years following the war, namely, an income that will enable them to pay for labour and supplies.
_ Price ceilings were inaugurated three or four years ago. As I understand it, two main reasons were given for that step. The first was to prevent inflation. I do not think anybody will disagree with that. The second was to avoid disastrous slumps and deflation after the war. Something was said at the

time about the deflation and the slump in prices that took place after the first great war. That slump did not occur until two or three years after the war was over. There is no doubt that unless something is done there will be a slump again. The government had evidently forecast that by their announcement on the price of wheat. There is no doubt in my mind at least that if floor prices are to be placed under other classes of farm products on the same basis, using the wheat price as a measuring-stick, the prices that the farmers are to receive for their live stock, dairy products, fruit and vegetables, and all down the line, will not be sufficient to establish a fair relationship between their prices and the prices of goods they have to buy.
May I summarize what I have to say in two or three sentences? The announcement of the government of a floor price for wheat indicates that the government has already embarked on a policy of deflation of farm prices, the policy of lowering prices for agricultural products. It admits that it is powerless to maintain farm prices in the future at levels which will enable agriculture to buy freely and to make the repairs which are so necessary and which have been so long delayed. It also admits that the imposition of price ceilings on agricultural products in the past cannot succeed in preventing deflation of farm prices under peace-time conditions. It further admits that it cannot set prices that will assure the farmer of fair and stable returns and a stable price structure.
I am supporting the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Souris, because I believe that one situation should be avoided at all costs; unemployment must not be allowed to become general again if it can be avoided. If it is not to be allowed, goods of all kinds must be produced and a market must be found for them at fair prices. The surest way to accomplish this is to maintain the buying power of the primary producer, the farmer, the miner and the fisherman, at substantial levels. To do this I firmly believe that the government must reverse its present policy of deflation as indicated in the statement that the minister made on September 19.


Mr. E. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I would not be rising to speak again in this debate had it not been for the introduction of the new amendment and subamendment, and another matter which came up in the house in the last few days. Before speaking to the amendment and the subamendment, I should like to refer to the other matter, which has to do with displaced and stateless persons in Europe.

The Address-Mr. Zaplitny
I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) and the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Tucker) in that regard. There are two points that stand out above all the others and I should like to emphasize them while I have the opportunity in this debate. I might say in passing that both these hon. members made a very good case for what they were talking about, and I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Rosthem on the promotion he has received, as announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to-day. I want to say all the complimentary things I can about the hon. member for Rosthern, because later on I may have something different to say.
The two points I should like to bring out are these. First, it appears evident that a great number of people are scattered throughout Europe who find themselves classified as displaced or stateless. That is, they are being shuffled around from one country to another, and there seems to be some evidence that there is a move afoot to repatriate them forcibly. Now, I believe, and I think hon. members will agree with me on this, that one of the great principles of the Atlantic charter was freedom of choice, or self-determination. In that connection I should like to read article III of the Atlantic charter.
Third, they'-
That is, Mr. Churchill and the Late President Roosevelt.
-respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and selfgovernment restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.
That is a principle I believe we and all freedom-loving, democratically-minded people can support, and on this basis I make my appeal. I believe the present government, in every way possible, should make its influence felt on behalf of these people, so that they will have freedom of choice and a certain amount of self-determination. I realize that there are difficulties to be overcome; the task is not easy, but on the other hand I believe we should avoid the use of steam-roller tactics in dealing with human beings. Regardless of the country from which they came originally, these are human beings. We know there are people in Europe who for one reason or another do not wish to return to where they lived before the war. I do not want to go into the political implications, because this is not the place for that, but I do want to bring out the humanitarian angle and the fact that if we are to follow the spirit as well
as the letter of the Atlantic charter it will be necessary for us to throw our influence on the side of freedom of choice.
The other point I want to bring out in that connection is the fact that a request, of which I am sure hon. members have received copies, has been made by various Ukrainian organizations across Canada for permission to send direct assistance to their relatives and friends in Europe. I know from personal experience that people who have relatives across the water, whether on the continent or the British isles, are very anxious about their welfare. As an example I should like to remind you of the effort organized by the Kinsmen's clubs during the war to send milk to Britain. For this purpose they established a fund, to which many people cheerfully donated. This milk was used to supplement the assistance being sent through regular channels such as the Red Cross, UNRRA and so on. In this country we have approximately 300,000 people of Ukrainian origin, practically all of whom have relatives living on the continent of Europe. Though I am Canadian born I too have relatives across the water, and I am sure hon. members will appreciate our motives when we ask for permission to send direct assistance to our relatives or those with whom we are acquainted, whose situation we understand, in order to supplement the assistance being provided through regular channels. The request is not made because we have no confidence in UNRRA or the Red Cross; it is only because we feel that in a direct personal way we can assist these bodies which are doing such great work. I hope when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) makes his visit to Europe he will take full advantage of the opportunity to find out everything he can in regard to these displaced persons, so that when he returns the government will be in a position to make some comprehensive statement of policy to guide this house in any future action we may take in that respect.
I should like now to refer for a few moments-and I am going to be brief, because I realize that this debate has gone on for a long time-to the amendment and the subamendment. We are asked by the Progressive Conservative group to accept an amendment asking for ninety per cent of parity.


An hon. MEMBER:: At least.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I accept that correction; at least ninety per cent. Listening yesterday to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) speaking to this amendment, I was impressed by the very good case he made, particularly when I realized what a poor case he started with. I rather admired the hon.
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny

member's ability; and what I say about his case is not in any way disparaging to his effort. But he got himself into a curious position. In the first half of his speech he dealt with the removal of controls. He was pretty vehement and decisive about it, and expressed his determination that controls should be removed as quickly and to as great an extent as possible. Then, lo and behold, in the second half of his speech he asked us to accept the principle of parity prices, or at least ninety per cent of parity, which as everyone realizes would entail a great deal of price control. How are we going to remove controls on the one hand and impose or retain controls on the other? At the moment I do not quite see how this can be done. Perhaps at some future time we will have an explanation of that position.
Another question which to my surprise was not dealt with by hon. members to my right in speaking to the amendment is their position on the matter of the grain exchange. As was pointed out by my colleagues here, this question is important. We are definitely of the opinion, and have so stated repeatedly, that our wheat should be handled through the wheat board; we do not want the grain exchange to get its fingers into the pie again. On this point, however, we have not heard an expression of opinion from those to my right. When a group ask the house to vote for an amendment, in effect they ask us to endorse their stand on a certain question. Until we know what that stand is, it seems a risky matter to vote for it. I hope before the vote is taken they will take advantage of this opportunity to tell us just where they stand on the question of the grain exchange.
Another curious thing developed in connection with the amendment, and I should like to bring it to the attention of the house. After the hon. member for Souris, who incidentally is from the same province as myself, introduced his amendment, he was challenged by my colleague the hon. member for Mel-fort (Mr. Wright) as to who had drawn up the amendment. In other words he was asked whose work it was, whose amendment it was. In the interchange that took place the hon. member for Souris replied, if I remember his words correctly, that not one of the members from the Toronto area had even seen the amendment before it was presented in the house.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: That was the accusation made by your colleague, that they had probably drafted it.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That is quite right, and I am not quarrelling with the hon. member's
{Mr. Zaplitny.]
statement. I am merely drawing attention to where that leads us. The fact that in the group to my right there is a fairly heavy representation from Toronto and district, and that none of them as much as saw the amendment before it was introduced in the house, brings up another question. Are they in favour of it? Whose amendment is it? Is the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) in favour of it? He has not said so.


James Arthur Ross: You will find out.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: 
James Arthur Ross: Apparently the hon. member has not read Hansard for the last five sessions. If he had, he would have seen my complaints each year.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If he has taken that
stand consistently, I congratulate him upon it. But I must point out that in Manitoba there has taken place a fusion-perhaps confusion is a better word-of the two old parties; and it is therefore somewhat incongruous to find that while here in Ottawa they evidently disagree on everything that comes up, as they go further west they find it possible to engage in an uneasy marriage. If they ever come to the point where they have to dissolve that marriage, I hope they will not bring their divorce bill before this house.
When I began speaking I promised I would not take much time, and I shall live up to my promise. In all sincerity I hope hon. members who have the welfare of farmers at heart will vote for the subamendment as a matter of principle.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member (Mr. Zaplitny) who has just taken his seat has discussed one or two points to which I shall address myself. I am glad to have this opportunity to make an answer, and also to clear up what was said yesterday by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) when he misinterpreted and misquoted our amendment.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I read the amendment; I
did not interpret it at all.


James Arthur Ross: I shall quote what the hon. member said. When I was at cross purposes with him yesterday, this is what he said: Let me read the words of the actual amendment. This is what it says:
The hon. member deliberately left out the first four lines of the amendment, and then continued with this part of it:
Immediate consideration should be given to establishing for a period of years floor prices for all basic agricultural products at levels not less than ninety per cent of parity.
As I have said, he left out four lines of the amendment.


Mr. KNOWLES:: He read the part that
counts.


James Arthur Ross: That part which he left out is as follows:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that, pending the establishment of a more stable and equitable price structure for Canadian farm products based on parity of income for farmers-
That is the portion he neglected to read. Then he went on to read this:
-immediate consideration should be given to establishing for a period of years floor prices for all basic agricultural products at levels not less than ninety per cent of parity.
I do not know that the hon. member wanted to do it. However, he certainly misrepresented my amendment and my position, and I think it must have been done deliberately-because he is a pretty able member.
As he said yesterday, we have sat on many committees together, and I have always thought he was one member of the C.C.F. group who would be above that sort of thing; at least, I did, until this time.


Mr. GOLDWELL:: Will the hon. member
explain what the difference is? I should like to know, because I cannot see it.


James Arthur Ross: I should also like to
know when the great change of heart came over the hon. member for Melfort. Apparently it took nlace between the time he spoke earlier in the debate, namely, on September 20, and the occasion of his moving the subamendment yesterday. It is strange that in his remarks of September 20, around a week ago, he asked the government to continue for five years at a floor price of $1.25, and pointed out that that would be fair remuneration to the farmers for their labour and cost of production. Apparently he was satisfied, and his words, to be found at page 330 of Hansard, may be read by hon. members who have an interest. Probably the hon. member will be able to make an explanation some time as to why this change came over him.

The Address-Mr. Boss (Souris)


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Let me understand the hon. member; he has accused the hon. member for Me] fort of making a deliberate misrepresentation.


Gordon Graydon: It is up to the hon. member for Melfort to say so.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: And now the hon.
member for Souris says that the hon. member for Melfort^ may explain at some other time. He has a right to explain now, if he wishes.


Mr. ROWE:: No, he has not.


James Arthur Ross: The words are to be
found in Hansard.


Gordon Graydon: The leader of the
C.C.F. has no right to speak, and cannot claim protection. The hon. member for Melfort might do so-but not his leader.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I suggest the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) should rise when he addresses the chair.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: What is this-a dog
fight?


James Arthur Ross: I have been asked
to quote the exact words. They are these, as reported at page 330 of Hansard:
I believe that this government could have made agreements with those countries for a five-year period and at prices which would mean a better return to farmers than under this legislation. I am sure that $1.25 a bushel is the lowest floor price that should be set *or .j .a^ in Canada. That is a price which would give to the average producer a reasonable rfiT-1Iu1 l labour and for the investment which he has in his farm and in his equipment.
Those are his own words.


David McKenzie Wright: What is wrong with that?
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding); f hope the hon. member for Souris will withdraw his statement in which he has accused the hon. member for Melfort of deliberate misrepresentation. That is not in order in debate.


James Arthur Ross: I have quoted the
exact words of the hon. member for Melfort on both occasions. However, I bow to Your Honour s ruling, and have no desire1 to say anything discourteous. I did say that I thought he, of all members, would be above doing that.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: But the hon. member has charged the hon. member for Melfort with deliberately misrepresenting something. That should be withdrawn.


Mr.   V@: I do not see where the quotation the hon. member for Souris has read discloses any misrepresentation at all.

My statement is quite clear. I was not satisfied with the floor price of $1 a bushel and suggested that $1.25 was a much fairer floor price.


James Arthur Ross: I have a lot of
confidence in. the ability of the hon. member, and withdraw the word "deliberately". I thought he was a fairly able member, and I have pointed out the misrepresentation as it appears in those two speeches.
An hon.. MEMBER:	Pretty badly balled
up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Back up and start over
again.


James Arthur Ross: Several hon. members in the group to my left have said that they do not understand what parity is, and how the mechanics of it might operate.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who does?


James Arthur Ross: In view of some of the statements made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, before I can vote conscientiously for the subamendment either he or his leader will have to explain to me how under the wheat board, which they suggest should be continued, they could pay the producer at point of delivery 100 per cent of parity, operate for that crop year, export wheat to every country in the world, sell wheat to millers for domestic purposes, with all the ramifications found in connection with the wheat board, and wind up at the end of the year with the same figure as they paid the producer at the point of delivery. Can they explain what is meant by 100 per cent parity to-day? I have no faith that they can do so.
I pointed out in moving my amendment that we urged a floor price of ninety per cent parity as a result of our studies in the country to the south of us, where they have made a very good job of handling the situation by giving their producers during the post-war years a guarantee of ninety per cent parity, and netted to producers thirty to fifty'' per cent more for their products.
We hear so much theory from the group to my left. One of them asks: If you had 100 per cent parity paid to the producer, where would the money come from? Where does the money come from to pay on the participation certificate?
As to the suggestion that my amendment was drafted by the Toronto members, let me say that we are certainly all agreed in principle, and I think the hon. member's innuendo was unbecoming. Let me tell him that I have far

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
more faith in the Toronto members, the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris), the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol)-


Mr. MacINNIS:: And all points west.


James Arthur Ross: I have more faith in all the Toronto members being desirous of helping the producers to procure parity than I have in the group to my left. Let me tell them that this terrible Tory' government at Toronto which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) spoke of as being one of the few left in the world to-day did more for humanity in its first year of office than the socialistic Saskatchewan government have done in one year and a half. I know how much concerned I was during the drought years to see that the children of Manitoba should have a chance to get primary education. I felt that the province, or the state should assume more responsibility in that respect, and I am glad to say that the so-called Tory government at Toronto in their first year in office undertook to pay fifty per cent of all the costs of education in the province of Ontario and they have carried that out. Contrast that with the false promises of the premier of Saskatchewan. He promised to abolish the educational tax of two per cent on the cost of living and production, but that tax has not been abolished. They have actually added in taxation to the cost of living and the cost of production in that province, and so I ask hon. members in which party they would put their faith. Until somebody' can tell us how the mechanics of this thing can be worked out-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where do you stand on the grain exchange.


James Arthur Ross: My hon. friend was a member of the last parliament, and he is not so dumb either. In the last parliament the then hon. member for Qu'Appelle, Mr. Perley, and myself moved a resolution asking that the Winnipeg grain exchange be closed. That was before the government had taken action. By the way, let me say that some of my finest friends personally are members of the Winnipeg grain exchange.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is in my constituency.


James Arthur Ross: Then the hon. member had better be careful. My hon. friend made the statement in the house the other day that the ramifications of the Winnipeg grain exchange had been investigated by royal commissions, and they always gave tne grain exchange a clean bill of health in the handling of the wheat of this country. When the Turgeon grain commission made its investigation it reported that in its opinion the exchange could render no useful service during wartime.
I did want to clear up some of this misunderstanding, misinterpretation and misquotation on the part of certain hon. members. I do not see why there should be any misunderstanding, for the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), who is a very able farmer, apparently understood what I meant by a floor price of ninety per cent parity, as hon. members will see if they will re-read his speech. Surely hon. members who professed not to know what parity meant would not be doing that just for political expediency! But several members, including the hon. member who has just sat down, have said that they did not know what parity was, or what the figures were. There was hardly a session of the last parliament when I did not have a run-in with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) over getting parity prices for agriculture. The government took the period 1926-1929


James Garfield Gardiner: We did not take that. The farm federation took it.


James Arthur Ross: I am not talking about the farm federation or about agriculture at this moment. I was going on to say that the period 1926-1929 was taken by the government as a basis for industry and organized labour, and therefore I argued that probably the same thing should be done for agriculture. If that were done, the parity price of wheat would be $1.42 a bushel, and ninety per cent of that would be $1.28 a bushel, which is three cents above the price which the hon. member for Melfort asked for on September 20, five days before he moved his subamendment.
As I pointed out the other day, the cost of living and the cost of production have risen probably twenty per cent during the war. Certainly that is, true of the farmer's cost of living and the cost of his implements. So, that, if we add twenty per cent to that figure of $1.42, we get $1.70 a bushel, and ninety per cent of that would be $1.53. Therefore, if you take the same period as was taken for industry and organized labour, ninety oer cent of parity either then or now would mean a higher price than the hon. member for Melfort asked for in his speech on September 20.
I have never in my life made any rash promises in either municipal or political affairs in order to gain office. I have never promised anything that I did not believe I could conscientiously carry out if elected to office, and unless the members to my left who have
The Address-Mr. Hansell
COMMONS moved the subamendment have some idea how it could be put into force if carried, I think it should be withdrawn. I have given a great deal of study to this question over the past few years, and I will be bold enough to say that there is a lot about it that I do not know. But I do know what is practical in this country and in the United States, and it is because the subamendment that has been moved by my hon. friends to my left is not practical that I ask the house to vote against it and to vote for the amendment which I have moved, which is practical, and which will guarantee to the farmers ninety per cent of parity at point of delivery, and we will hope for the other ten per cent after the year's operation. I think I have cleared up the various points that have arisen in the debate, and again I appeal to every member of the house to vote for something practical and workable by voting for my amendment. Then we shall have a better understanding of the mechanics of this thing after a year of operation.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, and I do not now propose to participate in any discussion of these amendments or the technical means whereby, if passed, they may be put into operation. I rise to bring to the house another thought. Personally I have no particular objections to either of the amendments, because I believe each of them aims at an objective which, in general terms, is a square deal for the farmer with respect to the prices of his products. But what I wish to say is this. Our Conservative friends, through the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), proposed an amendment. I am not going to read it, but it was presented on the basis of an announcement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). When the hon. member moved his amendment I said to myself, that amendment is reasonable; it is safe; it is sane; it attempts to attain a certain objective and I regard it as desirable. But I find there is one group in the house that evidently does not agree with me on that, for they suddenly decide to go one better than the first amendment, with the result that the house has been subjected to a discussion and drawn into a sort of political race whereby one political party is trying to outbid another.
We heard the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon; we know that we are living in serious times. Personally I do not think that at the present time it graces this house to make motions or amendments which have a 
lot of political significance to them. Perhaps my friends will not agree with that view, but I have the floor and I am expressing my opinion.
I cannot see anything wrong with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Souris. He is not saying that the farmers should not get 100 per cent parity; he is simply asserting that there should be floor prices for all basic agricultural products at levels not less than ninety per cent of parity. They may go higher, and he is not saying that they should not. So that to my view the amendment is most reasonable. Turning over in my mind the reason for this going-one-better stunt, I am reminded that an election is being fought in the province of Manitoba.


James Angus MacKinnon: When?


Ernest George Hansell: It is being fought right now. Some hon. members are out there, campaigning, and I am just wondering whether this second amendment is not an attempt to initiate, here in this house, the Manitoba provincial election.


Mr. BURTON:: Why, then, not ascribe the same purpose to the previous amendment?


Ernest George Hansell: Well, maybe you can. I am not suggesting that both parties have not the right to move amendments; certainly they have. What I am saying is this, is the first amendment a reasonable one? Is it aimed to reach a certain objective? Is anybody going to complain if in the process the objective is reached or the farmer gets even more than the proposed amendment claims for him? All I am saying is that the amendment is reasonable, and I think the house, particularly the opposition, would be in a much stronger position to persuade the government to act along this line if they had looked at the matter on the basis of its value and its objective. Surely there is not a single member in this house who will contend that the farmer should get one cent less than is coming to him, for that is only reasonable; it is only common sense. Surely my Conservative friends are not putting on an amendment which expresses the view that they want the farmer to get only so much and no more. No man with any common sense would do such a thing. My plea is simply that if we want to bring influence to bear on the government let us get together on something which is practicable and desirable instead of splitting forces. The hon. member for Souris has said, why all this confusion? Apparently it is because it is desired to embark on a little political huffing at one another instead of getting down to practical terms. He has said, let us get down

The Address-Mr. Hansell
to practical things. Well, we will, when we leave politics out of the picture. But just as soon as you bring political sparring into the picture you can throw practical things out of the window.


David McKenzie Wright: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of privilege, the hon. member is imputing motives and so, I think, is out of order, and I would ask you to have him withdraw those imputations.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


David McKenzie Wright: He stated that the purpose of our amendment is political.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is true.


David McKenzie Wright: The introduction of the
amendment was simply to obtain a square deal for agriculture in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


David McKenzie Wright: Mr. Speaker, I ask for
your ruling on this matter.


An hon. MEMBER:: No ruling is necessary.


James Horace King: I should like to hear
what the hon. member has to say before I give any ruling.


Ernest George Hansell: I am only appealing for
a process of debate and of conduct in this house which will be free from political significance.


Angus MacInnis: Oh, such hypocrisy!


Ernest George Hansell: Does my hon. friend want to say something else?


Angus MacInnis: I say, switch off the
hypocrisy.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I am imputing no motives. I do not desire to impute any motives, but my hon. friends cannot possibly stop me from thinking what I think, and then I proceed to think out loud. It will be an interesting thing if a man cannot think out loud.


Joseph William Burton: It is, when you proceed to impute motives that are not there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on this
point of order, may I call attention to citation 297 in the second edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms which reads:
The imputation of bad motives-


An hon. MEMBER:: This is not a bad
motive.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I expected that some
hon. members would derive some amusement from this. However, to go on:
The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged

And so on. All such imputations call for prompt interference; in other words, they call for protection from Your Honour the Speaker.
I submit that for the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) to say that either the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) or the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) has introduced an amendment or a subamendment from motives other than those acknowledged by the hon. members themselves, who introduced such motions, is against the rules of the house.


Mr. POULIOT:: Speaking to the point of
order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that if we are to interpret that rule strictly one must be a mind-reader to know what are the motives of the other fellow. Moreover, it is a very common thing during campaigns to try to promote politics; that is the reason for all campaign speeches. I do not understand how any member of parliament who has been campaigning politically to win his seat on political grounds can unclothe the old man when he gets into the house and become a new man and then consider that politics is a shame, and that it is a shame to talk politics. What does "politics" mean, Mr. Speaker? It has been defined by Aristotle, a famous Greek, who wrote a learned treatise on the subject. He told us that politics was the science of government; and in speaking as he did, the hon. member for Macleod, if he attributed any motive to the hon. gentlemen who moved the motion, insinuated that the mover and the seconder were both imbued with the science of government, which is politics. I cannot understand, therefore, how the mover could complain. It is a great tribute that has been paid him. It is a tribute to his shrewdness and he should not be ashamed of it. He may be ashamed of certain things in his party, but it so seldom happens in the C.C.F. party that members are imbued with the science of government that when the thing is said, especially by a member of the Social Credit or New Democracy party, it has more value. For all those reasons, sir, I believe it is permissible in debate and I hope you will rule accordingly.


James Horace King: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to the point of order?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: From what has been said in the house, I do not think that the expression "political sparring" should ce ruled out of order. It has been used on different occasions in the house. However, I would suggest that it is the privilege of the hon. member who has used these words to modify them with a view to pleasing the hon. member who has raised the point of order.
The Address-Mr. Low


Ernest George Hansell: I am always willing to withdraw anything that is offensive. I have never refused to withdraw anything which the Speaker has ruled that I should withdraw and I am sorry if I have hurt the feelings of my hon. friends. But, you know, sir, there is no question about it that people are watching this parliament these days and are beginning to say that in this session parties are commencing to jockey for position. That is already being said in this country. Well, let us nail that lie to the wall, if it is a lie. I simply wash to say that I believe the hon. member for Souris and his advisers around him thought their amendment through. The sincerity with which he spoke and presented his amendment indicated that he was really attempting to give the farmer a square deal. I am not going to imply by that that my C.C.F. friends do not want to give the farmers a square deal. Of course they do. I would be a fool to stand here and say that they did not and I am not saying that. But I am saying that in principle I cannot see any difference between the two amendments.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ten per cent.


Ernest George Hansell: No, there is not ten per cent because we have mention of a floor price and it can go higher than that. Therefore I think it is splitting hairs, to say the least, and it tends toward dividing us when we should be united. We in this group have to vote for one amendment or the other, or both. I am going to vote for both, as far as I am concerned. Another thing, when we talk about politics, will any party guarantee that this very debate, these very amendments will not be brought into the discussion in the Manitoba election? Certainly not; they will not guarantee that. If there is any tiny little thread they can reach out for and grasp, making great political capital of it, believe me they will do so. That is politics.


Jean-François Pouliot: In Manitoba and British Columbia now, but not in the house.


Ernest George Hansell: I have said enough, and I object to anything that may happen in this house at any time-I am not imputing motives now-whereby any parties try to gain po'itical advantage by these processes. Times are serious; believe me they are. I do not agree very often with the Prime Minister, but I will agree that he has a tremendous burden upon his shoulders to-day. Let us therefore look at things in a practical manner and attempt to solve in a practical way the problems that face the country.

Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Just before the question is put I feel that I should say a word on the amendments now before the house. I promise, Mr. Speaker, that I shall not delay the house for more than a minute or two. Further I promise that I shall not follow at least one example already set in this debate, that of making a sneak attack on any hon. member or members who have already delivered a speech or made an interjection.
Yesterday the hon. member for Melfori (Mr. Wright), speaking in support of the C.C.F. subamendment, attacked the Conservative amendment on the ground that it only guarantees ninety per cent, or calls for the guarantee of ninety per cent of the cost of production. I have looked over the hon. member's speech very carefully; I have read the amendment most carefully, and thus far I have been unable to find anywhere in the amendment or in the speech of the hon. member for Souris any reference to cost. The ninety per cent refers to parity of price, which includes profits of all corporations. Surely the hon. members of the C.C.F. are not going to argue that ninety per cent of parity, which includes all profits in addition to all costs, is less than 100 per cent of the cost of production. If they are, Mr. Speaker, then. why are they constantly saying that profits are more than ten per cent? I contend that if the farmers get at least ninety per cent of parity, as called for in the Conservative amendment, they will receive thereby more than 100 per cent of the cost of production.
In neither amendment do I find so much as a hint of the procedure by which those moving the amendments would give effect to the policy which is advocated. Therefore it seems to me that both are straight resolutions of objectives, and objectives only, and I feel quite sure, that no one in any party in this house could conscientiously disagree with the idea of so ordering our Canadian affairs that farmers everywhere in Canada might be able to obtain their fair share of the national income. Of course, the Liberals and the Liberal government are in a different position from the rest of us. They have to worry about where the money is to come from. That is quite a considerable worry in the light of the many things that they have already committed themselves to do under all the restrictions of our present financial arrangement, and my sympathies are with them too.
Since we are considering a straight matter of objectives, and not methods, the Social Credit group find themselves in sympathy

oil
The Address-Mr. Pouliot
with the C.C.F. objectives. We also find ourselves favourable to the objective of the Conservatives, because they are the same in the end. If, on the other hand, the C.C.F. amendment proposes any more socialism than we now suffer in Canada, then this group could not possibly vote for it, but I fail to see that there is any such suggestion. If the Conservative amendment proposes to add to the already effective burden of debt and/or taxation, then the Social Credit group could not possibly vote for it. Whether any group in this house could ever do all that we want with respect to parity of income for the farmers depends upon what method or technique they intend to apply. In my judgment there is simply no possibility that either of the parties who have moved the subamendment and the amendment now before the house can accomplish this most worthy motive without using the procedure that Social Crediters on numerous occasions have so ably, and I would say, so comprehensively placed before this parliament in times past. In the circumstances the Social Credit group will vote for the subamendment. If that fails to carry, then we shall vote for the amendment. By so doing I want it definitely understood that we are taking two opportunities of indicating our unqualified support of the principle of parity of income for all Canadians.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I shall not speak at great length on this subamendment which reads as follows:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that immediate consideration should be given to the establishing of floor prices for all basic agricultural products at parity with other services and products.
All this may be all right theoretically. I am not a statistician, and I am not a farmer, but I live among farmers and I know their troubles. I know that one of their troubles now, and perhaps the worst of all, is lack of man-power on the farms. That is the reason why they have less facilities for transportation and less facilities to cultivate the soil, to harvest, and so on. Therefore, the man-power problem is the most acute on the farm at the present time. I remember, sir, during the early days of the last parliament when a handful of hon. members defended the farmer. We tried to show the importance of the work of the farmer in the war effort. We were not numerous; we were just a small number of members of parliament, and we were looked upon as traitors. I myself was called a friend of Hitler by a Tory member just because I was defending the farmer and trying to rehabilitate him in the minds of our fellow citizens, trying to
show that the farmer in cultivating his soil and working on his farm was doing his duty as a good Canadian citizen during the war. Moreover, I established clearly, as did other hon. members, that without the farmer the soldier would have gone nowhere. Well, sir, it is an elementary principle that cannot be denied by anyone. Now that we hear some speeches about leadership, my suggestion is that we should start by primary education.
Some hon. members remind me of those who know how to read by the euphonic method without knowing their alphabet. I know of a girl who works downstairs on the members* stenographic staff. She asked my stenographer where she could get the alphabet. She said: "I read well; I write well; I know my typewriter; I know shorthand, but I do not know the alphabet." It shows the way some people pretend to know so much when they know' so little.
In peace time the farmer is praised; the farmer is the king of the land. Hon. members go to the parishes to address the farmers as kings. I am surprised that I did not hear anybody calling the farmer "Your Majesty", he would deserve it. I live among farmers, and I have the utmost respect for them. But how is it that all those hon. gentlemen who are so much interested in the welfare of the farmer did not vote with us when we were fighting the farmer's case? I give credit to some of the older members of the C.C.F. group, though not all of them. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wright) who moved the subamendment never supported us. We tried to show the importance to the war effort of the task being performed by the farmer. Some members of the C.C.F. group supported us, but he never did. Now that the war is over, however, again he becomes the greatest friend of the farmer. He was not a friend in need and therefore he was not a friend in deed.


David McKenzie Wright: Can the hon. member make any quotation from any speech I made in this house during the last six sessions in which I did not support the farmers in every respect?


Jean-François Pouliot: I know that, and I acknowledge it; but when it came to action, when it came time to vote to show that he was a real friend of the farmer, the hon. gentleman never did so. That is the point.


David McKenzie Wright: On what occasion did I not vote in the way the hon. gentleman has just indicated? Just name one occasion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will do so right away. It was on the first motion I moved to exempt farmers from military service, which was
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

seconded by my very dear friend Mr. Lizotte, then member for Kamouraska. That was in February, 1942; we can get the record.


David McKenzie Wright: That was the way I voted, and I still agree with it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Were we right or wrong?


David McKenzie Wright: You were wrong.


Jean-François Pouliot: Now my hon. friend proves that my statement was correct.


David McKenzie Wright: And I can prove more than that.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend had the floor; I have it now. I have established clearly that the handful of members who had the courage of their convictions, who were not afraid of insults and outrage, who sometimes rose and voted against the whole house, were the real friends of the farmer because they were suffering for the farmer. That is why I endured the insults that came from Dufferin-Simcoe, when I was called a buffoon and a clown just because I was trying to defend the farmer. I wanted that to stay on record in Hansard to show the humiliation we suffered at the hands of the Tories while defending the farmers. That is the record. The hon. member called me a clown; I called him a fascist, and I repeat it now. All the members of the Conservative party are not of the same mind. Some of them are good old Conservatives who think Queen Victoria is still alive and Edward is still Prince of Wales. They are happy. They probably do not know that automobiles have been built and that people may speak over the radio and be heard for long distances without any wires. They are happy; they belong to the old days. Then there are other Conservatives who belong to our age. They are not unpleasant fellows; they know we have automobiles; they know all about radios and the other new inventions, but they do not believe in them. They still belong to the old days. Then there are some Liberals like the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). He may tell me that he is a Progressive Conservative. It may be so, but I do not believe in his conversion to Conservatism, because it came too late to be true. He is a likeable gentleman, but as I said before what I fear is the clutching hand which runs the good old Conservative party and makes it not only the Tory party but the party of fascists, and I will explain later what I mean. A fascist is a man who does not see the other fellow's point of view.

. Mr. TUSTIN: You have crossed the floor many times.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is silent
so much that he should give a chance to those who dare to speak. If he wants to say something, however, he is always interesting and I will listen to him with pleasure. I have described one of the elements of fascism; and for the benefit of an hon. member from British Columbia, a general who was not here during the last session, I will repeat what I said about fascists. A fascist is a man who substitutes his own will for the law of the land, who believes himself omnipotent and thinks he can run the whole show in the House of Commons. I will tell all marshals, all generals and all provost marshals that they are not so dangerous as they seem. Whether they come with wooden swords or steel blades they do not frighten me at all. I have been here for a long time, and if I feel like it I shall be here for a long time yet. No general will prevent me from coming here as long as my electors wish. I have known other generals who were very fine fellows. Some may be fine fellows, but why do they try to be so unpleasant?
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I have defended the farmer, and other members have done the same. They have forfeited the crowning of legitimate ambitions by being true to their conscience, and they have the satisfaction of having done their duty. What did I do in those hard times? I will tell you what I personally did for twenty-three counties of Quebec. In the first place I tried to clean out the office of the mobilization board and the registrar's. The chairman of the board, a judge, had to go to Amos in Abitibi for three weeks each month for the sittings of the court. He was sent there by the chief justice, who was in Sir Robert Borden's government during the last war and who never forgave the Liberal who defeated him while he was a minister of the crown. This judge had a few days left each month to come to Quebec city to look over the files, which were piled high on his desk. I admit that he started to look honestly at the files, that he began to study them. Finally, however, after he had examined ten or twelve or perhaps twenty files, what happened? He said, "I have not time to look into them all. These boys must do their training." Many boys whose duty it was to remain on the farm were sent up for military training by that judge, who was replaced on my complaints. But in the meantime he was

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
responsible for grave injustices to farmers' sons and other men who were working in essential industry.
There was another fellow oppointed at that place, because he was a creditor of the first registrar. Because the registrar could not pay this man, he said, "I will appoint you to a good job, and then you will give me some delay in paying my debts to you." This man was incompetent, he was dirty, and he was an abomination. Once I handled the case for three draftees who had been called before the court, and the case really developed into a trial of this man who, it happened, was in charge of the correspondence at the office of the registrar at Quebec city. In court I asked him if 50,000 letters had been put together in one of the lockers without being sorted or placed in the files of those concerned. He replied that there had not been 50,000. Then I asked him how many there had been, whether 25,000 or 30,000, and he said no; that it would be around 15,000.
We hear a good deal about deserters. I have in mind a young man who happened to be the son of a friend of mine. This boy had been operated upon for appendicitis and had not recovered, with the result that he was under the doctor's care. An affidavit was obtained from the doctor to the effect that this boy, when called, could not go to camp and could not report to the registrar or to any other camp authorities. This letter was sent to the registrar's office and, without being sorted, was put in the locker with the other 15,000 or 50,000. The police came to take that boy as a deserter, and I had to explain the case. The medical certificate was sworn to and the letter was registered but, because of the incompetency of this man, it was not on the file. Finally I had the clerk fired, but it took two years to do it And one must stop to think of the trouble to which those people were put during two years of time because this man had been left in charge of the correspondence.	-
Finally, there was the second registrar. The first one was not a bad fellow, and the second one was a man who had a light tenor voice about thirty years ago. Supposedly he was a barrister from the north, and had been selling mining shares. In addition he played a good game of bridge, in fact, that was his only qualification to be registrar cf Quebec district.
Once I wrote him lodging a complaint about a ruling that had been made. This man pointed out to me that there could be no appeal from the board's ruling. I agreed with him that that was the regulation, but pointed 47696-33
out that on the other hand, when I give the board some new information which would indicate that due attention had not been given at first to a case, and that some details had been ignored, such case should be reconsidered. I told him that it was his duty to do so, and that it was only his laziness and idleness which prevented his doing so.
On this occasion I wrote General LaFleche, who was then deputy minister of national war services, pointing out that if the interpretation given to those regulations was the correct one, then all those who make the statement that the farmer had an important role to fulfil during the war were imposters and liars. The answer I received was that the registrar was wrong, that he was a newcomer who did not know his business, and that he had been told to reconsider cases when new points were involved.
I got rid1 of this man. Every time I complained to him he cried1 like a crocodile-but that is all he was doing. He was holding a position for which he was incompetent, with the result that other men had to suffer.
There were many times when the chairman of the board did not recognize the lumber industry as essential to the war effort. I have letters in which he told young farmers what their duty was, and always concluded by saying, "You do not know that a war is on." He was speaking like Lake Centre:; he was speaking like Parkdale; he was speaking like Hastings-Peterborough-"You do' not know that a war is on; you are not carrying out your war effort."
As I said on occasions during the last parliament, the members of the board were ignorant; they could not distinguish a calf from a stallion, and yet they were deciding everything because they were there. Farmers could expect no justice from them. And the judge was there stating, "I have two or three sons in the army. I do my duty; your duty is to enlist." And, mark you, for a judge that was exceptional.
He thought farmers were being granted a favour when they were given a postponement. He did not know that by virtue of the regulations it was their right, and that the farmers were justified in claiming that right to stay on the farm. But many of them were sent for training. Some of those boys have been called deserters, but the truth is that they should not have been called into the army at all. What was done? By getting rid of the chairman and the clerk-possibly a grade four-in charge of the correspondence in the offices of the registrar at Quebec city, and by getting rid of the second registrar, something was

The Address-Mr. Pouliot

accomplished to help those twenty-three counties which constitute the district of Quebce over which that board had jurisdiction.
I turn now to the matter of amendments to the regulations. I give credit to all hon. members, but has any member of the C.C.F. group; lias any member of the Social Credit group or has any member of the Progressive Conservative party-the Tory party-done anything to change the regulations so as to show the importance of the farmer's task?
It will be said, in the first place, that agriculture has been described in the mobilization regulations as a seasonal industry. I have had to write articles and memoranda, and take this matter up with the cabinet ministers and especially	with	my very dear	friend,	Mr. Lapointe.	I brought this matter	to the eyes
of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself, and gained his ear in the matter. I said: "Is it not stupid ibo call agriculture a seasonal occupation when in my part of the country farmers work from dawn to dusk- and sometimes longer than that."
Now, sir, mark you this: Those regulations were drafted by a Quebec lawyer and a Toronto brigadier,	who	were reporting	to an	exminister-who is no longer in the cabinet, thank God. The purpose of those regulations was precisely to bring everyone into training. At first	they	disregarded completely	the
importance of farming, and of the work of other men who were engaged in essential industry.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner recess I was mentioning what was done to clear up the files at the office of the registrar and the mobilization board in Quebec city. But something else was done by other members of this house. Every time a vote was called for the defence of the rights of the farmers and for the defence of the rights of all those who were engaged in industrial labour, the number of these patriotic members who voted for the defence of those rights varied from five or six to forty or fifty; and most of those who voted for their defence were Liberals, except on a very few occasions.
But something else was done, and it was done by the member for Temiscouata, with the assistance, -help, guidance, support and influence of the late minister of justice, the Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe. That is, I secured amendments to the mobilization regulations,
FMr. Pouliot.]
which were called at first the national resources mobilization regulations-a very long name.
At the start the draftees were called up for one month, and they were told that they would have to serve for only one month. The postponement at that time was for four months only. When the period of training was extended to four months I succeeded in having the regulations amended to provide for a postponement of six months. Afterwards, when the four months training was extended to the duration of the war I succeeded in having the postponement extended according to pleasure, until further notice. That was something. Every time Colonel Ralston tried to turn the screw to make it tighter, I turned it to the other side to make it looser.
During the last election campaign I stated over the radio from powerful stations like CKAC, La Presse, Montreal, and other stations in Quebec city and elsewhere that I had succeeded in securing from the Liberal government recognition of the rights and privileges of the farmer by vindicating his honour, something I never could have secured from any other party or group, and the more so because the Prime Minister had had the skill and ability and finesse to discard his three former war ministers. I stated over the radio -and that broadcast was listened to throughout the province of Quebec-that I supported the Prime Minister inasmuch as he was willing to continue his cleaning of the Liberal party and get rid of all those of the same political tendencies. Here is what was done by a member of parliament, not only for the farmers of his constituency, not only for the farmers of the district of Quebec, not only for the farmers of the province of Quebec, but for all the farmers of Canada-for the farmers of the constituency of my hon. friend the member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) who has just moved his amendment, just as much as for the farmers of Hastings-Peterborough and other places whence came untrue and unworthy denunciations of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I am from the province of Quebec. I am a French Canadian and I am proud of it. I will tell you that I have resented deeply the insinuations and the calumnies hurled against my province by some hon. gentlemen in this house. It was unworthy of them and unworthy of this chamber, and when I think of that going on all during the long years of the war I think also of how few stood up for the defence of the rights of the farmer. Only a handful-one handful, not two handfuls, although occasionally there were

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
two handfuls, but that was all, and we did it because whatever might be the name of the political affiliation of those who did it we were liberal-minded. A Liberal is a man who is a lover of liberty, liberty not only for himself but for others also, and all those who defended the cause of the farmer, the cause of the labourer, the cause of the underdog did so because they were liberal at heart.
I had no political motive in defending the rights of the farmer. My idea was to defend the rights of those whom I have learned to respect since my very childhood. I remember my father's friends who came to our home to see him when I was just a little child and the respect that I was taught to have for them because they were those who fed us at all times. If it had not been for what we had done, despite the insults and humiliations that we have received from a small number of members, especially of the Tory party, and from the mover of the motion, who acknowledged the truth of my denunciation this afternoon, we would have had famine in this country, and my hon. friend the mover of this motion, who wants the farmer to sell his produce at a good price, would have starved because he would have been unable to get any help on his farm. He may thank the member for Temiscouata; he may thank the hon. member for Quebec West and South (Mr. Parent); he may thank the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier); he may thank the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde); he may thank the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget); he may thank the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) and the former member for Gaspe and others for the fact that he has some help on his land. If that help was not denied to him it was because of the efforts put forth by these Quebec members.
How can we hear talk about national unity when we hear some members say: I am of British descent; therefore I am for conscription. They put it as a racial issue. I do not put it as a racial issue. We put it as a national issue. We wanted to defend those whose work was essential not only to the civilian population but also to the army, and not only to the army but to the united nations. We did it fearlessly; we did it with perseverance. We did it courageously _ in spite of the insults that we were receiving from men like the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) and others who were always insulting us and defending the farmers only in words; but when it came to action they were slackers; they ran away; they had not the courage of their convictions, if they had any. That is the position.
47696-33J
I will tell you more, sir, if the house is willing to listen to me. I will tell you the story of the amnesty that was ready to be granted by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and was refused by the former Minister of National War Services. I wonder if the house is ready to listen to it? I will tell you a chapter of Canadian history which is unwritten but which is true, and which hon. members should know in order to appreciate the motives that dictate the political actions of hon. members in this parliament. Injustices have been done to farmers by these whom I have denounced, and rightly so, this afternoon. I denounced them to the department. I notified them first-I always notify them-and when I saw that they were helpless I had to denounce them, first to the deputy minister in charge and then to the minister, and ask redress in so far as they could of the wrong that had been done by these incompetent people.
Of course, many farmers who should have been kept on farms were dragged to1 the camps because of the stupidity of these public servants and their misunderstanding of public duty in time of war. I came1 here to Ottawa.
I went to the supreme court, which was housing rubbish in a building, the fine corner-stone of which was laid by Her Majesty the Queen. It did not serve for the supreme court, the highest court in Canada, but for garbage. On one of the floors I met General LaFleche, and I said to him, "What I ask of you is an amnesty for all farmers of Canada from October 15 till the new year of 1943 in order to give them the opportunity to come back, to explain their case, and' to be treated as though they had not been called' before." That was fair, because some farmers were in the forest at the time the first notices were sent to them and they did not receive them. Therefore at the office of the registrar they were treated as incorrigible, as delinquents. The only thing to do was to give them an opportunity to show their good will. I said further, "You should also put advertising in the daily and weekly papers of Canada and broadcast over the radio to inform all those who have not yet reported to the registrar, or who have not yet filed an application for postponement to do so immediately, or not later than the 2nd or 3rd of January, 1943. Then their cases can be examined anew, just as though they had not been called before, and justice can be rendered to all of them." The Minister of Labour was in favour of that, and I am most thankful to Mr. Paul Goulet, the chief of the Selective Service, a most able man, who deserves recognition. I stated the situation to him and he thought the suggestion was
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

all right. What did General LaFleehe say? He was about to be appointed1 a minister of the crown, and he was afraid of the repercussion upon himself of an amnesty to farmers throughout the country. He raised his arms and said, ''What! This is a spark that would put the country on fire." I said*, "You don't know your business. It is not true. It is not true at all. The farmers need an amnesty now. The lumberjacks who are working in national industry need am amnesty now. Why don't you give it to them?" "Oh." be said, "it is impossible; it is a spark that will put the country on fire." Then I left, and what I did was to go to Montreal with a very dear friend of mine who' has done very well in this house, especially when he was over in that comer where there were some members who were broad-minded but unfortunately were in the army. He was in a nest of jingo imperialists, and it required quiet lot of courage for him to rise in his place in the house and vote according to his principles. I refer to Mr. L. P. Lizotte, K.C., then member for Kamouraska. He came with me to Montreal, and1 there we gathered the French, speaking members of Montreal to discuss the situation with them and decide what we were to do about General LaFleehe. We had the finest of candidates, a man who would have been elected very easily, a man who was known throughout Canada as a great and broad-minded Canadian, an able speaker and a famous lecturer, a mam who now does very well for Canada outside this country by making it known very favourably. So we met together. I see, Mr. Speaker, that I am about to exhaust my forty minutes, but if it is the pleasure of the house I will continue what I have to say.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


James Horace King: The hon. member will require the unanimous permission of the house. I must point out that he has already spoken for over forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Continue.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you,sir; and through you I convey my thanks to my colleagues. I want them to know the truth, and I want you to know, Mr. Speaker

well, you know it, but I want my hon. colleagues to know that we exhausted all means to settle the conscription question favourably. Nearly all the French speaking members for Montreal were with us at the Windsor hotel. We discussed the situation and we did not reach an agreement in the first place. Afterwards we met again. I have the authorization of the members whom I name to mention their names; I am not
	|
committing any indiscretion. We met the exminister of public works (Mr. Cardin), and we asked him if he was ready to fight LaFleehe. He said, "Yes, provided that there is unanimity among you." All were in agreement except one. Therefore the proposal fell to the ground. I could not fight the candidate as I would have liked to.
On the other hand, we prevented the conscription of women. You remember, sir, that ini the summer of 1942 women were registered for conscription, and there were some byelections. I was ready to fight LaFleehe in Outremont, a constituency which, after an interval of five years, is now represented so ably by a new member (Mr. Rinfret). The only thing to do was to secure some kind of protest from the province of Quebec. That is why, when I saw that my hon. friend the present member for Charlevoix-Saguenay was running there as an Independent I offered my help and went there to support him in his campaign; and it is because of the victory of the present member for Charlevoix-Saguenay on December 30, 1942, that women were not conscripted in this country. That is something which few members have done. Other hon. members-and I do not except you, Mr. Speaker-were willing to do something to prevent the conscription of women; but since there was no unanimity the reasonable condition mentioned by the ex-minister of public works could not be fulfilled, and therefore the course I took had to be adopted. That is something. It was not done in Ontario; It was not done in British Columbia; it was not done in any province other than Quebec; and if the women of Manitoba, British Columbia, Ontario and anywhere else have not been conscripted it is on account of the action of Quebec members. We have looked after the women of the whole country.
I see my hon. friend the colonel laughing now. I may tell him a lot about the way camps were kept in New Brunswick, but I will not do so to-night. Let me, however, say this to him. I know he is refractory to argument. I understand his state of mind, and I remember very well that during the last war the men, who did very well, were told that when they returned to Canada they would find a Garden of Eden here. They expected that, and they were told more than that. They were told that they were the only ones than won the war and they were to get this and that from the manufacturers, from the railway men and from everybody else. The Borden government had made them undue promises which it could not fulfil.

The Address-Mr. Gladstone


Mr. BROOKS:: What about the promises that are made now?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not speaking of the men who are returning from this war. I am speaking of those who returned from the last war, one of whom was my hon. friend from New Brunswick.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: He did not return from any war.


Jean-François Pouliot: I expected that from the hon. gentleman. We have two gentlemen with Victoria Crosses here, one of whom received his decoration during this war from the hands of the king, and I congratulate him in the same manner as I congratulated Major Paul Triquet, of Temiscouata county, who earned a similar award so nobly on the field of battle. Let me say this to the hon. gentleman. This is an award that comes from the king for gallantry on the battle field, but it does not give anyone any degree of infallibility. It did not give any degree of infallibility to the general from the province of British Columbia who sits next to my hon. friend. Let me say this to the general, who has vanished. I do not know why he has gone, but he has vanished. At any rate, I will say this for his information. There is in this building the holder of a Victoria Cross who has been snubbed by the other Victora Cross holders, and that man is in a very humiliating position. He cleans spitoons in the basement of this building and for a time was the only Victoria Cross holder in the district of Kingston. Who looked after that man? Was it my hon. friend from New Brunswick, who sits here to argue politics all the time? The hon. gentleman may have done nobly on the battlefield but I regret that he does not do so in the house. He did not look after that V.C. Who brought that man before the committee, with his honours and decorations, in order to have him rehabilitated? Was it not the member for Temiscouata? Who mentioned him to General McNaughton during the secret sitting of the house if not the member for Temiscouata? Who asked you, Mr. Speaker, to improve that man's position? You know very well, sir, because you have given him an increase in salary pending the time when his case will have been settled. The member for Temiscouata did that. My hon. friend must remember that during the secret sitting it was not he; it was not any brass hat; it was not any general or any colonel or major or corporal, but plain Jean Francois Pouliot who asked for a remission on behalf of that young man who saved the lives of so many people when he removed the fuse
from a bomb that would have exploded in forty-five seconds and wrecked St. Paul's Cathedral, London.	[DOT]
My hon. friend has a fine record; I do not deny that, and personally I think he is a very fine man, provided that he does not argue too much politics. But when it comes to politics, is it impossible to argue with him? I ask my hon. friend, would he not now be proud to have taken part in the defense of the two men whom I have mentioned? I ask him now, is he ready to go with me to the Speaker's room and cooperate with me in an effort to have that V.C. appointed as personal messenger? Is he ready to do so?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have no influence with the government.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not a question of the government; it is a question of the honour of a soldier, and I ask him if he has enough courage to go with a civilian to ask for an improvement in the condition of that man.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is directing his remarks to me, but he has had the courtesy of the house in allowing him to extend the time of his speech and if he is going to use that time to abuse hon. members on this side I think that courtesy should be withdrawn.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is enough for now. There will be a little more later on.


Mr. R. W. GLADSTONE (Wellington South):: I think, Mr. Speaker, we should dispose of this debate so that the budget may be brought down in order to allow us to plan next year's business. I would urge now, therefore, an early winding up of this debate. I suggest that we get away from generalities and so much talking without legislation, and move on to the pressing matters of the country's business.
This debate commenced twenty days ago and 110 members have spoken. I wish to congratulate the new members on the high standard of their contributions to the debate.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of record for readers of Hansard, that this de-oate arises through a motion to thank His Excellency the Governor General for the speech which he delivered on the opening of parliament on September 6. Amendments to the motion to adopt the address, if carried, would constitute a vote of no confidence in the government. I am sure it would not be the desire of the people of this country that such a situation should come to pass, for the result therefrom would be an appeal to the



The Address-Mr. Gladstone
people in. a new election. I am sure the people expect of their members of parliament; the people of every constituency expect of their member, the most earnest and faithful contribution to a solution of the pressing after-war problems that face this nation.
To the motion of thanks five amendments have been proposed. Three have been defeated and two are still before the house. I imagine it would be possible, going through the various departments, to frame five more amendments that would occupy another twenty days of debate. The procedure in the British parliament is that a few of the leaders speak on the motion to adopt the king's address and this occupies usually only two or three days. We have drifted into the practice of moving amendment after amendment, reaching the climax this year in the number of amendments and subamendments that have been proposed.
It is interesting in this connection to note the comments in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. In the third edition, section 226, at page 95, we read as follows:
It is a mistake to believe that the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne allows members to raise all kinds of issues on the mere ground that they relate to the general situation of the country. In the times of Sir John A. Macdonald and Hon. Alexander McKenzie, considerable restriction was placed on that debate. Speaking on the address in the session of 1875, Sir John A. Macdonald expressed the following opinion: "The practice of discussing the speech from the throne at great length and of raising endless isues upon it was simply an obstruction to business. It was his opinion that, unless the opposition were in a position to move a vote of want of confidence in the government, which he candidly confessed they were not in a position to do on this occasion, the address should be passed without delay."
Then farther on in the same section I read:
Speaking again on the address in 1879, Sir John A. Macdonald said: "I am glad the opposition have adopted the English modern system -;a very proper one-of passing the address without amendment, and when all the various subjects alluded to in it are dealt with, when the measures proposed are before the house, they and their details can be criticized with a full knowledge and satisfactory explanation with regard to the policy of the government."
I realize that hon. members may wish to take the earliest opportunity of bringing some particular problems before the house. However, it must be noted that such problems usually come up for consideration in some form of legislation, and then comes the opportunity for a detailed consideration and for reaching conclusions.
Mr. Speaker, along with others, I wish to congratulate you on your honoured position in this parliament. I give assurance of my

cooperation at all times. Your authority goes beyond the membership on the floor to the thousands of visitors in the gallery during the session. We are always delighted to see so many young people in attendance showing their interest in the affairs of government. I should like to speak a word for the ladies who attend in such large numbers. There seems to be a regulation that the officers may admit only those with heads covered. Those who arrive without hats are refused admittance until they deck themselves with boy friend's scarf or hubby's pocket-handkerchief. Surely in these days of artistic coiffures, of modern beauty parlours, we can dispense with this senseless regulation.
The chief point of my remarks in this debate to-day is that just as new methods were employed during the war, which has just terminated, so should we endeavour in this parliament to find new methods of improving our procedure. The service people have been living in a new world; they have travelled across the country, across the prairies and through the mountains in tens of thousands. In hundreds of thousand they have crossed to Great Britain and the continent. They have visited the people of other lands. They have been in charge of and dependent upon machines of destruction devised by our best engineers and scientists. They have been living in a new world, and I am sure there is no person who has served in the forces but has come back with some new thought, new ambitions and new hope. From them, I imagine, come the hope and the prayer for the fulfilment of the prophecy of old, "I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away." While clinging to the old we ought also to be receptive to Changes that will promote our efficiency. These times are a challenge to us to get as quickly as possible to essential things and not to waste time on generalities. There is much in this system that we should retain; perhaps there is some of it that should be discarded or improved in places. Private members have a greater responsibility than that simply of voting, and I think as the responsibility of private members is increased we may find a decrease in that much criticized bureaucracy of which we are hearing these days. Therefore I would urge the government to endeavour to utilize the service of private members to every possible degree.
For the benefit of hon. members who have come to this house for the first time I might state that during the session of 1944 a committee was set up to consider the possibility of amending and improving the standing orders of the House of Commons. This committee

The Address-Mr. Gladstone
made a report, a copy of which I have in my hand. It came before parliament, and much time was given to debating the preamble which preceded the definite recommendations. There was so much tension about certain features of the preamble that the whole recommendation was talked out on that day and finally lost its place entirely.
What should have happened is that opportunity should have been given to hon. members to consider the definite amendments that were proposed in the report of the committee. To illustrate, I might quote the comment on standing order No. 37. Standing order 37 reads as follows:
No member except the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister, or a member making a motion of "no confidence" in the government and a minister replying thereto, shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.
The comment of the committee in connection with this standing order, reads as follows:
When Mr. Speaker is in the chair, a member can only speak once, but there is no limit to the times of speaking when the house is in committee. Under the present rule, a member may make two or three forty-minute speeches during a sitting of the committee which does not last longer than three hours at a time. This amendment provides for a more equitable apportionment of time and allows more members to take part in the discussions.
The proposed amendment of the committee reads:
Provided always that in the committees of the whole, supply or ways and means, no member shall speak more than once on a particular motion, clause or item under consideration, and not more than twenty minutes continuously, but his right to ask questions relating to the subject matter of the said motion, clause or item under consideration shall not be thereby restricted.
The effect of a change of this kind in standing order 37 would not necessarily mean that during a session hon. members would have less opportunity to speak. Rather I think it would result in more subjects being brought up for consideration and in the resolutions of private members having a greater opportunity of being debated, while in general there would be greater opportunity for all hon. members to participate in discussions. My suggestion is that the report of the special committee of last year should be brought to the attention of this parliament by some means or other. Many hon. members have served during the last ten years, and I am sure they have the feeling that some of the suggested changes, although perhaps not all, would be beneficial. I am also sure that after the new members have been here for two or three sessions they, too,
will be in agreement with some of the proposed changes. So that I trust the government will find some means of bringing these recommendations up for consideration this year.
Another result of the reduction in the length of time a member is permitted to speak would be that it might be possible to shorten the sessions of this house. I am sure many hon. members feel that when we sit until eleven o'clock it makes a pretty long day, since I judge that most members of parliament work upwards of fourteen hours a day, taking into consideration office work, committee work, and listening to speeches in this house for six hours. Therefore I suggest that the government might consider a proposal to conclude a day's sitting at ten o'clock, instead of eleven. In doing so, we would be giving consideration to the faithful members of the press gallery, who send the news of this parliament to newspapers across the country; for when we continue our sessions until eleven o'clock, I am sure their work goes on into the small hours of morning.
There are many things I should like to mention, but I shall confine my remarks to only one or two points in order to hasten the conclusion of this debate. We are gratified to learn that during this month some fifty thousand members of the armed forces will have been returned to Canada. In this connection I should like to pay tribute to the three departments of defence, to the Department of Transport, to the management of the railways and to the railway employees for the arrangements made to look after returning troops. I have come in contact with a number of men who have returned, and they all speak enthusiastically of the consideration they have received on arriving at Halifax or Quebec. It has been a delight to them to be placed in comfortable sleeping cars, and to be served such splendid meals. I am sure we are all glad that such excellent arrangements have been made for the reception of the men and women of our armed services as they return to Canada.
This country has been prosperous during the last five years. Leaving out of the picture the sorrow that has come to many homes, I am sure most of our people are enjoying such prosperity as they had not known for many years previously. As a result, the number of marriages has increased and many new homes have been set up, which is a matter of gratification to all of us. The effects of the family allowance are already being felt. Testimony is coming in to indicate that the sale of milk,

The Address-Mr. Gladstone
for example, has increased. From some of our schoolteachers I have heard that they have noticed their children wearing better suits and dresses, and many children wearing sweaters where they had none before. But in addition to money the children of our country need direction. We must give thanks to many public-spirited people who give leadership in sports and who in other ways are influences for good, but many people are endeavouring to make money out of influences that are questionable. We must stop the commercialization that lowers the moral stamina of our young people. I believe the nerve-wracking pictures our children see at the cinema and on magazine covers have a bad effect. One newsdealer said to me, "I can sell good detective stories without requiring the books to have covers which encourage children to flourish revolvers or daggers."
Mr. Speaker, we must move to protect Canadian homes against the undermining influence of those who seek to make money, regardless of the harm they do to the rising generation. We should feel alarm at the increasing number of divorce cases. I can understand how ill-mated persons just cannot live together. In such cases I favour one divorce, but not a second or a third.
The great offenders, so far as example is concerned, and so far as their influence on the sanctity of our homes is concerned, are the moving-picture actors and actresses. Canada can well afford to be generous to such people in the matter of holidays. Through our customs branch, in the event of their having second divorces, their films should be barred for one year; and for a third divorce a holiday of two years should be imposed. For the sake of our children, Canada must discourage the growing tendency to break up our homes.
We have provided old age pensions at seventy years, and we are now proposing to increase the payments and to modify the requirements. We give benefits to the blind at forty years. Investigators in connection with old age pensions and mothers allowances find many pitiful cases of persons suffering infirmities, and bed-ridden without hope. I suggest that these people should be made eligible at the age of forty years for the benefits of old age pensions.
Canada has gone a considerable distance toward providing more security for our people. However, there is still one great need. Many people have the benefits of superannuation and pension, and among these would be included such groups as civil servants, railway employees, bankers and many others. But all too often we find that the

man who has toiled throughout his best days in a factory is turned out, with no provision for his later years, when he reaches that time in life when his earning power has been depleted. In addition to these, we know of those terrible cases where homes carrying small mortgages are threatened when sickness overtakes members of the families in those homes. Possibly a home must be mortgaged in order to provide proper medical and hospital care for a mother and child afflicted. Very often the result is that that home is never again properly established. Therefore one matter which requires our earnest consideration is that of working out some provision to give security to the homes of so-called common people on those occasions when they require medical and hospital treatment.
I wonder how many Canadians realize the complex considerations of government, those considerations which enter into our dealings with other nations and which have to do with our internal operations. Many things must be purchased from other nations while, on the other hand, we have many other things in surplus quantities which we desire to sell to those nations. We must pay in money that has a recognized value in goods. And so, when the need is created we have a further problem of exchange. Without that exchange problem, with our country operating independently, we might organize our own internal money system pretty much to suit ourselves. We might go on printing money and issuing bonds to an extent where such issues might become voluminous. Then, possibly some group holding radical views might assume power and would scrap all those assets, in order to start over again.
This would not be the method of the people in a free and fairly organized democracy. So I say that our government has many complex problems to deal with. It is reasonably easy and simple to make suggestions calling for expenditures of large sums of money, but it is an altogether different matter to keep everything in balance so as to be fair to all groups in the country and to keep our economy on a solvent basis.
We have been most fortunate in our Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). I am sure all groups in the house will recognize his success in preventing soaring prices during war time. He has our congratulations, and he has our sympathy to-day as he continues his struggle against inflation which he feels, and we feel, would bring such terrible suffering to those with moderate, fixed incomes.

The Address-Mr. Bracken
We can also be grateful that during the war we have had in charge of our munitions programme one who had a first-class engineering training, one with exceptional executive ability, and who possesses a spirit of confidence and optimism. That spirit of optimism was never better displayed by the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) than on the occasion when he was torpedoed in mid-Atlantic. I am sure he will continue to display that spirit of confidence in the house, and in his work as Minister of Reconstruction, despite the attempted torpedoings which ma}' come his way from many of those who would criticize unduly.
In conclusion, may I pay tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I am sure that even among his opponents there is an undercurrent of very warm feeling for the wonderful service he has rendered during the trying days of the war. I believe, too, that most people in Canada have a great deal of confidence in him and in his ability to render service in many ways to other nations of the world as, in joint effort, they attempt to ensure that war shall not come again.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, we have before us an amendment and a subamendment. I wish that the members of the house could all support the subaimendment, because I believe it places very simply before parliament what many of us feel should be done, namely, the giving of direct instructions to the government to consider immediately the bringing in of parity prices for farm products.
We have .moved that subamendment because we do not like the language of the amendment. I still feel that there is in it phraseology which does cause some misunderstanding. We were told by a former leader of the opposition in this house, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, on many occasions and at some length, that the written word always prevails. If you take the written word of the amendment it does give rise to the interpretation that was placed upon it by my hon. friend the member for Melfort (Mr. Wright).
As I say, I wish the house could support the subamendment, which is simple, which does not suggest ninety per cent of parity but suggests parity itself. But if the house does not do that, I believe that the amendment offers something better than the principle which is being followed by the government, and if our subamendment is not carried we shall support the amendment.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on the subject of the wheat price policy announced a week or so ago by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) on behalf of the government.
During the course of this debate there has been a good deal of misunderstanding, if not misrepresentation, with respect to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) and with respect to our general position on agricultural prices. I should like to take this opportunity of making clear our position on both.
Before I proceed further, may I take this opportunity of complimenting the leader of the C.C.F. party to my left upon helping to clarify to a small extent the intent of his party which moved an amendment to the amendment because I do not read the same meaning into his party's amendment as evidently he intends should be read.
All I wish to do to-night is to make clear exactly where we stand with respect to the wheat price policy announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and perhaps at the same time make clear where we stand on the general question of parity or a square deal for agriculture.
It is three weeks now since parliament convened. At the opening of the session there was read to us a speech from the throne, which is supposed to outline the government's policy for the session and for the near future. That speech from the throne contains no reference to a change of policy with respect to wheat prices. Two weeks later, on September 19, the Minister of Trade and Commerce on behalf of the government announced this new policy, a new policy which has two effects: (1) it prevents the price of wheat to the farmer from rising, as he indicated it otherwise would likely do in the near future; and (2) it may let prices drop lower than the present floor price or the initial price of wheat.
Let me say in this connection, Mr. Speaker, that this party brought in its amendment in no sense of small politics. We happen to be the official opposition. I hope I shall never say anything in this house that will be critical personally of any hon. member opposite. I respect them all. I know the load they are carrying.
But we all have our responsibilities, and I know the members of the government will expect us to carry them out. When we see policies like this announced and we think there is a weakness in them, it is our duty to point out the other side. There was no opportunity to discuss this question in the debate on the

The Address-Mr. Bracken

address because we had not then been advised of this change of policy. As I said, it was brought in two weeks after the speech from the throne was made. If this policy had been included in the speech from the throne, it, too, would have been included in the amendment which it was my privilege to move. The implication of this new policy is too far-reaching, too filled with ill-consequence to let it go without discussion or without protest. In my remarks to-night I propose to deal with the facts of the situation as we see them.
The question before us now is this. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) has moved an amendment to the government's new policy of reducing the floor price of wheat from SI.25 a bushel, which is now the initial price for wheat, to SI a bushel. His motion was in protest against that reduction.


James Angus MacKinnon: There is no reduction.


John Bracken: The hon. member's motion was in protest against that reduction to SI, and in its place his amendment proposed giving ninety per cent of parity, which would mean a floor price of $1.28 a bushel instead of the $1 a bushel which the government has now announced. It is a protest against that reduction and suggests a sound policy of arriving at what would be good practice. Instead of the policy announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce the amendment proposes to increase the present price from $1.25 to $1.28. As I go along I will explain the details, since the figures are not in the amendment itself.
First let me review the policy announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce a week ago. The intention was to prevent wheat prices from going up beyond $1.55, and, second, to lower the present floor price, which is now $1.25, to $1-not immediately but for the next five years. I may be asked what is wrong with that policy?
In the first place it asks the wheat growers of Canada to assume a burden that the nation should bear. On a free market, wheat prices would now go up and normally the farmers would get the benefit. But this puts a ceiling price on wheat. The government says: We are going to sell wheat at $1.55 and not higher. They do not let the price go up. Then the government suggests a different floor price policy, which may lead to an unwarranted degree of deflation. When the government brings in a policy saying, we guarantee a floor price of $1 for the next five years, that either means something or means nothing. If it means nothing the government should not have brought it ini; and if it means something

it means that the government is fearful that the price of wheat will some time in the next five years drop to $1 a bushel or less. This country cannot face the possibility of wheat dropping to $1 a bushel or less in the next five years. At a price now of $1.55 that would mean a drop of one-third. If wheat is to drop a third, cheese to drop a third, hogs to drop a third, fruit to drop a third, where is the high national income going to come from?
Let me refer briefly to the remarks of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) and the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), and I know these hon. gentlemen will realize that there is nothing personal in what I have to say. But I shall have to be critical of some of their statements. I think the hon. member for Rosthern left the impression, I hope not intentionally, that our policy means that we stand for only ninety per cent of the cost of production, ninety per cent of parity, on the price of wheat and other agricultural products. This resolution does not bear that interpretation; that is not our policy, and I want to make that fact clear to-night. We stand no more for having agricultural prices at ninety per cent of parity than they stand for having agricultural prices at sixty-two per cent of parity, because that is all that their policy of $1 a bushel is. The government talk about floor prices in this policy of $1 a bushel. That is only sixty-two per cent of parity. We say it should not be sixty-two per cent; it should be at least ninety per cent, and it should not go below that. Ninety per cent is $1.28, and the government's announced policy is $1.
I now want to say a word about the procedure in bringing this policy to the attention of the house. It does not get one very far to criticize procedure; yet it must be said that it was not good procedure for a democratic assembly. What happened? We met here on September 6 and the government brought down the speech from the throne, which is supposed to announce government policy. But before the speech from the throne has been discussed for two weeks the government brings in a new government policy-a policy not mentioned in the speech from the throne-a policy to be passed as a war-time measure in days of peace, a policy determined upon by the government behind closed doors while the house was in session. That seems to be the normal way of doing things under the present procedure. Then it was brought in here one day without notice, brought in here in a manner which denied members the right to discuss it. It is far that reason that

The Address-Mr. Bracken
this amendment was brought forward one evening when many hon. members thought there might be a vote on this debate.
Let us examine in a little more detail what this policy is. I have under my hand Hansard No. 10, and I shall read at page 289 from the remarks of the minister when he brought in this policy. He said:
I wish to make a brief statement on wheat prices.	.
The second world war has concluded with Canadian wheat producers in a particularly strong marketing position.
He means that prices are going up.
Not only has the general disruption and bad weather reduced production in the w-ar areas, but the Australian and north African crop failures and a small crop in Argentina have left Canada and the United States as the only countries at present having substantial export surpluses of -wheat. This has coincided with the release of pent-up demands in the liberated areas.
In these extraordinary circumstances. Canadian wheat might well command for a limited period very much higher prices in the world market.
Do hon. members get that point?
In these extraordinary circumstances, Canadian wheat might -well command for a limited period very much higher prices in the -world market.
Wheat has been selling recently at $1.55. Even conservative estimaters predict that it will go to $1.90, and some, even higher. These are the conditions under which this crop in a free market is being sold, and the government comes along now and says: We are going to sell this, because we are controlling it, at SI.55, and it cannot go higher. The minister continues:
It is in the interest of Canada and of Canadian wheat growers that the importing countries should continue to obtain Canadian wheat at prices not in excess of those prevailing at the end of hostilities.
He says it is in the interest of Canada, and he goes on:
Accordingly the government, by order in council, has instructed the Canadian wheat board to offer wheat for sale for export overseas at prices not higher than the current export price of $1.55 per bushel.
At the moment I am trying to get the facts before the house. For a dozen years before the war farmers were getting prices much below parity. Everyone will admit that. The last two or three years we have been getting fairly good prices, and now, when the outlook is that they will go higher, we are denied the right to accept higher prices, "in the interest of Canada". Then he goes on:
In asking Canadian producers to forgo such benefits as might be realized in the short run through higher export prices, the government realizes the paramount need for- -
47696-34i
Listen to this:
-relative stability of income to wheat producers.
Are the farmers going to get stability of . income by a lowering of the present floor price from $1.25 to $1. And because the government are doing that it thinks it has to give a quid pro quo, and what is it?
Toward this end, the government undertakes that in the five-year period ending July 31, 1950, producers will receive not less than $1 per bushel basis No. 1 northern, in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver on the authorized deliveries for each crop year.
Not for all their wheat, but for the authorized deliveries, whatever that is; a part of the crop. Then he goes on. Listen to this: By providing a long-term floor price of not less than $1 the government will protect producers against the consequences of any sharp reversal in the world wheat position during the next five-year period.
If that means anything, it suggests that they are afraid that the level will be down there or lower. This country cannot contemplate a condition of letting wheat go down to SI or lower in the next five years; with the burden which this government has put upon the people-and many of us support most of those expenditures-that burden cannot be borne if the national income is to be lowered to anything like the degree which is here contemplated- as a possibility. Further: The government, in adopting this policy of a maximum price for overseas shipments for the present and a floor price for five years, is asking the producers, in their own interests, to forgo exceptional short-run advantages in favour of a long-run stability of income.
What kind of stability of income- will wheat at $1 a bushel bring to the farmers? If that sort of deflation is to take place in o-ur whole economy, there is no- chance- in God's world of this government collecting enough taxes from the Canadian people to carry the services they are proposing for the people- of the country. The statement goes on:
Any further increase in wheat prices now would aggravate the problems of economic and political readjustment of the liberated areas to Canada's detriment in future trade with those areas.
I agree with that. I compliment the government on that policy, but I do not compliment it on the policy of leaving the burden on the wheat growers. Then it goes on: There is a moral obligation not to take advantage of our recent allies in their time of compelling need.
A moral obligation- on whom? On the 250.000 farmers or on this nation? Then the
minister states:
I wish to lay on the table copies of order in council P.C. 6122.
The Address-Mr. Bracken

I should like to refer to that order in council for a moment. This is the order in council which the minister tabled on the very day on which it was passed. I will refer to one clause':
That as a further means of stabilizing wheat prices-
Mark these words "stabilizing wheat prices" -by a floor price of $1..
That as a further means of stabilizing wheat prices during the post-war period it is the intention that steps shall be taken to ensure that producers will not at any time up to July 31, 1950, receive less than $1 per bushel . . .
Mr. Speaker, stabilizing wheat by such an action as that is all eyewash. It will not stop a deflation which this country cannot afford if it is to carry the services the government has undertaken to assume.
Perhaps at this point I should deal with the remarks made by the hon member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). I listened with interest to what the hon. gentleman had to say in the first part of his address and I was prepared to compliment him on the nature of it, but I must say I was surprised and disappointed when he came to the last part of that speech. I will not say that the hon. member deliberately misrepresented our position or what was in the amendment, but what he said had the effect of misrepresenting it. Here is what the hon. gentleman said, as reported on page 480 of Hansard, and I quote:
I am surprised that he introduced an amendment which suggested that the farmers of Canada should be satisfied with ninety per cent of their cost of production.
That is not in this amendment, and when that fact was brought to the hon. gentleman's attention he made this statement:
Mr. Wright: Let me read the words of the actual amendment.
And this is what he read; he read only part of the amendment:
. . . immediate consideration should be given to establishing for a period of years floor prices for all basic agricultural products at levels not less than ninety per cent of parity.
As I say, he read part of the amendment. I propose to put on the record the other part so that the house and the Canadian people can read them both together. Here is the first part:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that,-[DOT]
I hope hon. members will listen to this.

pending the establishment of a more stable and equitable price structure for Canadian farm products based on parity of income for farmers,-
Pending that time.
-immediate consideration should be given . . . 
Immediate consideration should be given to the advisability of establishing for a period of years floor prices-not parity prices but floor prices, the thing the minister was talking about-for all basic agricultural products at levels not less than ninety per cent of parity.
The hon. member then went on to say, further down on page 480:
The hon. member now suggests that for a period of years we in agriculture should be satisfied with ninety per cent of our cost of production.
That is not in the resolution and the hon. member for Souris never said that. He was talking about floor prices, the same thing the minister was talking about when he brought in the government's dollar floor price plan. After some discussion on the floor of the house the member for Melfort said this:
That is why I am so surprised that the present amendment should be brought in by the hon. member, because he states we should get not less than ninety per cent.
Mr. Speaker, that is the chief reason why I am speaking to-night. I do not think hon. members wanted to misrepresent our position and I do not want to misrepresent it. I want the house to know what it is. We do not expect to upset the government's policy, but when we see a weakness in that policy we must try to present that weakness; and we hope we can present a united front in trying to get the government to raise the figure from SI to at least $1.28. Then the hon. member for Melfort moved his resolution:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that immediate consideration should be given to the establishing of floor prices for all basic agricultural products at parity with other services and products.
If that means anything in connection with wheat it means that he wanted it established at $1.42, because that is what parity is. I wish to compare that statement of the hon. member for Melfort with the statement he made a few days earlier in the debate. Here are his words as reported on page 330 of Hansard:
I am sure that $1.25 a bushel is the lowest floor price that should be set for wheat in Canada. That is a price which would give to the average producer

I hope that all hon. members are listening to this. I was going to say it pains me as much to read it as I am sure it will pain you in the C.C.F. group to hear it.
That is a price which would give to the average producer a reasonable return for his labour and for the investment which he has in his farm and in his equipment.
The hon. member who moved this amendment. which means, if it means anything, that $1.42 is the floor price, stated only three

The Address-Mr. Bracken
or four days before that that SI.25 would give to the average farmer a reasonable return for his labour and for the investment which he has in his farm and in his equipment.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: On a question of privilege-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who is speaking-and I do not often rise in defence of the C.C.F.-made the statement that the hon. member for Melfort deliberately misrepresented-


John Bracken: I did not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Mr. GREEN:: Sit down.


James Arthur Ross: Don't be foolish; he said no such thing.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a question of privilege, I ask that it be read back.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: That will be more publicity for you.


James Arthur Ross: He distinctly covered that and it is the opposite.


James Horace King: Order. I have listened to the hon. member and I could not detect any question of privilege.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I have been critical of the statements made by the hon. member for Melfort-


George Alexander Cruickshank: You made it.


John Bracken: -but I am sure he will not charge me with saying that I deliberately misrepresented him.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You made it.


William Earl Rowe: Why are you his champion?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Never mind.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You are trying to misrepresent.


John Bracken: I have one other reference to the statement made by the hon. member for Melfort who moved the amendment to the amendment, and then I shall be through with that part of it. To-day in the discussion on a point of order, he said: "All I want is a square deal for farmers." A few days ago he said that $1.25 would be in effect a square deal. His amendment means $1.42, and it means more than that. He is saying that he wants a floor price and he is going to make the parity price-$1.42-a floor price. Then, under our system, where we have floor prices and ceiling prices, presumably in a
time like this when wheat is bringing $1.55 he would get the difference between $1.42 and $1.55, which would be more than a parity.
I am sorry that I have had to take so much time in dealing with his remarks, but I am sure the house will realize that his statement did leave a wrong impression with respect to what our amendment means, and with respect to what we meant it to mean.
I have commented on the way in which the matter of floor prices was brought forward, and I have reviewed the pertinent features of the policy announced by the government. I should now like to examine for a little while more clearly the two main features of this policy. Let me first deal with the prevention of prices going up and then with that of adopting a floor price policy of $1, in place of what is now a floor price policy of $155.
There is one other weakness in the statement. It was not the minister's business to do it, but the statement does not cover all agricultural products. Our amendment was meant to establish the parity principle in the floor price for all agricultural products. In a system where you have floor prices and ceiling prices we contend that the floor price should never be less than ninety per cent of parity for all basic agricultural products.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What is parity?


John Bracken: If the hon. member will hold his patience for a little while he will learn. I would suggest that if he represents an agricultural community it is about time that he knew what it was.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I got elected again.


James Horace King: Order.


John Bracken: We wanted the house to have an opportunity of approving the principle that as long as we have floor prices and ceiling prices, the principle of making floor price should not be lower than ninety per cent of parity.
The reason the government gives for the first of these two policies, is, as has been mentioned before, that it will prevent prices from going up and thereby help to restore the economy of other nations. I do not disagree with that; I only disagree with the policy of asking one section of the Canadian people to bear that burden. What is the reason given for adopting a floor price of $1. The following words appear in the order in council. I ask the house to listen while I quote them: "to protect producers against any sharp reversal of the world wheat position." If that means anything it means that it is expected there is a considerable chance that wheat will go down
The Address-Mr. Bracken

below that figure. For a dozen years before the war we had wheat below $1 a bushel. I am sure there is nobody in this house or in Canada who wants to contemplate a condition in this country with wheat and other agricultural products that low. The government says it is a world responsibility to help other nations to reestablish their economy. With that we all agree, but we do not agree that a section of the Canadian people should bear the burden. Then, as a quid pro quo for preventing prices from going up the government offers this as something worth while. And instead of increasing the present floor price it actually lowers it by twenty per cent, from SI.25 to SI.
In effect what the government is saying to the Canadian farmer is that you lose both ways. Prices will not be allowed to go up, but prices may be allowed to go down to as low as $1. That policy is extremely inadequate and unsatisfactory. It is a sop with no substance either to the farmers or to this nation. That policy is, in my judgment, unsatisfactory, because it will not give a fair deal to growers with SI.42 being parity to-day. You are not likely to get parity if you are going to let the price go down to as low as $1 and stop it at $1.55.
I do not need to tell hon. members the condition of agriculture during the last few years when nearly one-third of our people on farms frequently got only one-sixth of the nation's income and sometimes only one-tenth. This policy will not enable farmers to buy the products of industry. I do not need to tell the house that sometimes in the past the Canadian farmers have received only $400,000,000 in a year. Last year they received $1,700,000,000. They can buy the products of industry if we keep up the prices of agricultural products; they cannot if we do not. This policy will not enable agriculture to help maintain employment. If farmers cannot buy the products of industry, then industry cannot employ people. In the past six years, because nature smiled upon us and because for the last two or three years we have had good prices, the farmers of this country received $6,600,000,000. In the six years prior to that they received only $3,300,000,000; I am using round figures in both cases. With $6,600,000,000 they are able to buy the products of industry and help keep our economy functioning in a healthy manner. But this sort of policy-a $1 floor price-will not enable agriculture to maintain a high national income. I need not tell hon. members that prior to the war the farmers of this country, on the average, if they allowed themselves any interest on their capital, in some years made

only $1 a day, and in no year made more than $3. Even if they did not allow themselves any interest on capital invested the income for the whole farm family was only from $2 to $4 a day.
This sort of policy-low floor prices-will not enable agriculture to keep up production. The price incentive will, as it did during the war. During the last five years an average of seven million tons more of cereals were produced than during the five years immediately before the war. That was partly because nature was good to us, but the principal cause was reasonably fair prices.
Last but not least, this policy does not tend to create confidence on the part of our people. On the other hand it creates lack of confidence in the whole government programme of reconstruction. If they suggest the possibility of wheat going down by one-third, to $1, what are our hog producers going to think; what are our cheese producers going to think; what are our fruit producers going to think; and if agriculture goes down, where is the hope of employment and where is the hope of a high national income? I do not know what the national income is to-day, but a short time ago some people estimated it at around $9,000 million. If that is to be reduced by one-third, to $6,000 million, and this government asks the Canadian people to pay taxes three or four times as high as before the war, they will never be paid. A reduced national income of that kind cannot carry such taxes, and the government's programme will fail.
From what I have said hon. members will gather what I conceive shall be the objective of a policy of this kind. First of all, it should be equity for producers. We ask no more than that; but we ask that much. Another objective should be stability for the industry. You cannot have stability with prices ranging from $1.55 to $1, any more than a wage-earner of this country can have stability if his wages jump around-$155 now and $100 later. If farmers have low incomes they cannot pay the farm wages now demanded. And a high national income is necessary to a high national production.
I had intended to say a good deal more, Mr. Speaker, but I am reminded by one who is close to me that there may not be many conversions after the first three-quarters of an hour. I am not expecting to make many conversions; all I am trying to do is to make our position clear. In connection with this question of parity; in deciding what is a fair relationship between the prices received by farmers and the prices paid by farmers, one of the best guides to-day is the parity principle. By this we mean that the prices for

The Address-Mr. Bracken
what the farmer has to sell should bear a fair relationship to the prices for what he has to buy, and should rise or fall approximately at the same rate as the prices of the goods and services he has to buy. That is equity, nothing more or less. This approximate equality has been taken in the United States from a period when agriculture and the rest of the economy was in reasonable balance. The United States uses the years 1910-14 as the base period. Sufficient data is not available in Canada to make these earlier years a scientific base period. I make the suggestion that the committee on agriculture and colonization or a special committee appointed for the purpose should give some study to the selection of a proper scientific base period for Canada. Pending such action, however, I have taken the period 1926-29 as the most suitable period that can be selected in Canada, at least for certain crops. In the case of wheat the average price of No. 1 northern, Fort William, was $1.34 a bushel for the three months of heavy delivery in the years 1926-29. This spring the official indexes show that the prices of things farmers buy, including production, living, taxes, interest and wages, have risen an average of six per cent above the basic period 1926 to 1929. A fair or parity price for wheat would therefore be six per cent higher than the base period, or $1.42 a bushel.
We believe in the parity principle. In the United States they took a period before the war which they considered to be one in which there was a healthy relationship between the prices of agricultural products and the price= the farmers had to pay, and they use that as the base period. If later the prices the farmer has to pay go up they would see that the prices the farmer received would go up also, and that if the prices the farmer had to pay went down, then the prices of their products would go down also. That is what they regard as the parity price principle. That is the policy we adopted at Winnipeg. But I go further than that. They took that base period only because it was the best thing they could have as a guide. A base period is not always the best guide. That kind of parity does not always give a fair deal to farmers. So that we have adopted the policy that farmers should have their cost of production, and should have on top of that, incomes equal to the average of the incomes of other gainfully employed workers in other occupations.
We believe that the parity principle, using the 1926-29 base for most products, could very well be the basis of setting floor prices for the basic farm products. In order to avoid wide
fluctuation in prices, we believe that until a rigid parity price structure is brought about we should keep floor prices as high as we reasonably can. That is why we ask that the floor price be raised above the government's announced figure.
Then, to skip a good deal of what I had intended to say, may I leave this word with the house. It is clearly evident that what farmers have received in the past is far below parity, at least until the last two or three years. In 1940 and 1941, even after adding the participation payments, they received thirty-eight cents a bushel below parity. In 1942 they received thirty cents less than parity. It is extremely unlikely that the participation payments for 1943 and 1944 will, with the final returns, reach parity.
I am not going to keep the house any longer. As I resume my seat, I wish to say that we stand only for equity for agriculture. Prior to the last several years the price policy of this country was one of letting prices go as low as they chose or as high as they chose. Now, and particularly since this war, the policy of this government-and I have not objected to it-has been to put on a ceiling price beyond which they will not let prices go, and establish a floor down here below which they cannot go. They set it at $1.25 for wheat, and it is that to-day. But with the government's policy it may be $1 in the future.
I believe we shall have greater stability in this country the more we can bring those two figures closer together by raising the floor price and not much stability when the price range is from $1 to $1.55.
When this amendment was prepared, as I [DOT]have said, it was hoped that all hon. members on this side of the house might feel that they could support it. I would not expect that it would gain the support of hon. members on the other side of the house, because I can quite understand that when the government determines upon a policy it is not likely to accept the ideas of the opposition. So that, to speak frankly, we were not expecting 'hon. members opposite to support us.
Our position has been-and to some extent it has been misrepresented-that we want the parity principle established. We do not differ in that respect, on this side of the house. And we want the government's floor price policy of $1 raised to $1.28.
But I do not want hon. members behind me to be misrepresented to their disadvantage. Therefore, I am going to say to my supporters that, having established where we stand on this matter and 'having brought forward a policy which is sane and fair and, I am sure, appeals to all hon. members as a policy
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

that cannot be misunderstood-I am going to say to hon. members behind .me that I shall not object if they choose to support the amendment to the amendment as well as the amendment itself.


James Garfield Gardiner: the wheat acreaage reduction payments which we were making in western Canada, amounting to some millions of dollars, and also pay SI a bushel as the initial payment on wheat. After the discussions with them we retained the wheat acreage reduction payments and we payed ninety cents a bushel as the initial payment.
That remained until 1943, when the initial payment was raised to SI.25 a bushel. I have here on record the statement made by the people of the farm federation following that announcement. They complimented the government upon the action we had taken in making the payment SI.25 a bushel. The only occasion upon which they have used $1.25 a bushel as the floor price in connection with their resolutions was in the present year, when they asked this government to retain the initial payment of $1.25 a bushel for the year 1945-46; and this government has done so. In other words, mot only have we met the wishes of the farm organizations in Canada with regard to a fair price for wheat, but we exceeded them in 1943. When we exceeded them they asked us to continue that advance payment during the following year.
I recall those resolutions only to call the attention of the house to the fact that, while certain hon. members are raising the question as to whether the farmers will be satisfied with this price, farm organizations declared their belief in it before we undertook it, and farm organizations right across the three prairie provinces, as the hon. member for Rosthern indicated last night, expressed themselves as satisfied with the policy which has been adopted by the government.


Joseph William Burton: Mr. Speaker, I think the
Minister of Agriculture is getting slightly mixed. He referred to what the hon. member for "Humboldt" said. I did not speak last night.


James Garfield Gardiner: I meant the horn, member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). I was paying the hon. member for Humboldt a compliment he did not deserve. I am glad the hon. member for Humboldt called my attention to it, because I would not want to mislead the people or this house into believing the hon member on this side represents any other seat- than Rosthern.
I was saying a moment ago that they had reasons for passing these resolutions in the farm organizations. Those reasons took them right back to the period of time that I reviewed a few moments ago. Someone said-
I think it was the hon. member for Souris- this afternoon in reply to am hon. member of the C.C.F. group that there had been an

experience with the policy of attempting to make high payments the floor price in connection with wheat. That experience was during the very period of time of which I spoke at the beginning of my speech, when prices of wheat were high. We started in western Canada with a floor price of $1 a bushel under the pool. The farmers were then handling their own pooling of wheat. We held the price at $1 too long. Then we reduced it year by year until finally, I think, we got it down to some seventy cents a bushel. But every year we were reducing it from $1 a bushel down, the wheat pools were taking a loss, and in the end they lost $30 millions and had to come to the government at Ottawa and to the three governments in western. Canada in order to get their position taken care of by using. the finances of the people of this country.
In every discussion I have had with farm leaders in western Canada, when held in places where we can sit down and talk with regard to them without an audience and base our talks on the experiences in the past, they have called attention to the fact which was called attention to this afternoon by the hon. member for Souris, namely, that it is dangerous to have the initial payment higher than is necessary in order to pay the operating costs of the farmers who produce the wheat. They all agree that we should depend upon participation for our profits. I make that statement in order to repeat that the men who passed these resolutions know the wheat business better than anybody else in Canada. The pools are composed of producers growers of the wheat, and 'they marketed in the province of Saskatchewan, which produces more than 50 per cent of the wheat grown in Canada every year. The men who market that great volume of wheat have realized from experience the difficulty of setting floors which are too high in connection with tire product that they handle, because they know we must have the marketing of agricultural products established on a sound economic basis as well as upon a basis which will give us the highest possible returns for our products. They have suggested, in all their resolutions passed with regard to this matter down to the year 1945, that the basic price or initial payment be not less than $1 a bushel.
Having that before us, the government was placed in a position of having to discuss this question recently in the light of the facts as they now exist throughout the world. Wheat has been gradually going up, but wheat is not the only thing which has been gradually going up.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
This government embarked in 1941 upon a policy of attempting to maintain ceiling prices not only upon those things we have to sell but upon those things we have to buy, and I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the majority of men and women from one end of this country to the other, no matter which party in this house they voted for, believe that that policy, as it has worked out from 1941 to the present time, was in the interests of Canada. Under that policy there was one product upon which no ceiling was set, and that was wheat. Ceilings were set on beef, pork, cheese, butter, and every other processed farm product, but not on wheat, although a ceiling was set on other grain. One reason why a ceiling was not set upon wheat was the fact that wheat was then at seventy-eight cents a bushel. Members from the western part of Canada took the position at that time, as we take it now, that you cannot set up in this country an economy based upon seventy-eight cent wheat, and in taking that position and maintaining it and working for it we established the position that there would not be a ceiling set on wheat at that particular time, and not until it passed parity of $1.42.
What is the result of that? The leader of the opposition has said to-night that in his opinion some of the things which have been suggested in the policy that has been announced are good of themselves but, he says-and I agree with him in this-two hundred and fifty thousand farmers, the producers of wheat in western Canada, should not be called upon to bear the burden of utilizing our wheat in order to assist people in other parts of the world, but that all the people of Canada must do that. As I say, I agree with him on that. What did we do, Mr. Speaker? Back in 1941 we said that every person in Canada-it does not make any difference whether he is a banker on St. James street, a farmer in western Canada, or a labourer in the Ford plant-as long as the controls remain upon prices in Canada, can buy his bread based on seventy-eight cent wheat, and no higher. Well, may I say to my hon. friends that when we raised the guaranteed floor on wheat to $1.25 a bushel we said to every farmer in Canada, you are going to be guaranteed $1.25 a bushel for your wheat delivered at Fort William. At the same time we said to every man, woman and child in the Dominion of Canada, you are going to buy your bread based upon the price of seventy-eight cents for wheat and you are going to buy it there as long as controls last.
I call the attention of the house to the fact that that is placing the burden exactly where it belongs. It puts the burden on the treasury of Canada and through the treasury of Canada upon all the taxpayers of the country, whether farmers, or others.
That is not a new policy. That policy has been in existence since 1941. Well, now, on the other farm products, what was done? The price of meat in 1941, in the four-week period which was established as the basis of price control, the price at which meats sold to consumers was higher than it was in the period of 1926-29. The price of many of the other farm products was higher than it was in the period of 1926-29. What did this government do? We established these higher than 1926 or parity levels as the ceilings I should say, when saying that, that the price of live cattle, the price of hogs, the price of other natural products from the farm, unprocessed, was not so high, on some of them at least, as the average price from 1926 to 1929. The government therefore did this. We set a ceiling upon meat; we set a ceiling upon dairy products; we set a ceiling upon the processed products of different kinds. But we said to the farmer, we are going to allow the prices of the commodities that you sell unprocessed to rise up to the levels provided for under the ceilings that are set on meat and other processed products.
And so from 1941, through that year and the next, these primary farm products and some others, cattle, hogs, cheese, butter, went gradually upward until they all passed the average prices of 1926-29, which is parity, or we added subsidies to make them higher.
The other night the leader of the opposition said that we had not increased the price of hogs in the year, 1944 over 1945, other than to add a $3 premium and a $2 premium to the prices which had been paid after prices on grain had been raised up to the levels I spoke of a few moments ago. I corrected that statement in my speech the other day, and I refer to it again only in order to say this, that the only reason why we stopped with seventy-five cents in raising the price of bacon at Saint John in the winter of 1943-44 was the fact that when we added the seventy-five cents we brought the price of that product up to the ceiling as established in 1941, and so we said that rather than break through the ceiling price upon pork we would submit to a policy of putting a premium on high-grade hogs of $3 and $2 and maintaining the price of hogs at a level which did not break the ceiling on pork as it was established in 1941.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

There is one thing I cannot understand about the position taken by the leader of the opposition. I opened my remarks the other night with regard to what he had said in the first address with a statement I am going to read again. He says that the reduction in hog production and the going down of production of bacon in 1945 as compared with 1944 is due chiefly to the government's policy of keeping hog prices so far out of line with feed prices as to discourage hog production. Well, to-night he is arguing for the policy of having grain prices higher, while at the same time wheat is the only product which down to the present moment has not had a ceiling upon it; and wheat, as he stated in his previous address, influences the cost of feeds and therefore would influence the cost of producing these bacon products to every farmer in the dominion who produces them.
What I wish to say is this. We cannot, argue both ways on these questions. Feed enters into the production of every live stock product we have; when we argue for a ceiling price in one breath-and every member of the official opposition agrees that ceiling prices have been a good thing-we have to admit that _ these ceiling prices must be held at certain levels throughout certain periods of time; and when they are held on one product they must be held on others if we are to deal equitably with the people of this country.
In dealing with that matter this afternoon the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) raised the question of subsidies, and I made some reference to the fact that we have subsidies on most farm products. We have them put on in two or three different ways, and this brings me back again to the suggestion that all the people of Canada ought to be made to pay, when we bring down policies which result in the giving away of farm products or any other products from this country to the people of some other countries, and not simply one class of the people.
Prices of farm products were not raised in the markets in the manner described by someone this afternoon. We were told that we had to take care, in dealing with this particular question, that we did not create a situation whereby we would lose our markets through raising our prices in the markets of the other countries of the world. I think that statement was made by the leader of the opposition to-night.
It was not the other countries of the world that made these prices. The other countries of the world have been getting assistance under mutual aid, which resulted in our being able to pay our farmers higher returns, and 
that mutual aid came out of the public treasury, a charge on all the people of the country, making it possible for us to pay about the difference between eighty-five shillings and one hundred and thirteen shillings on bacon to farmers through the packing plants for the hogs that were marketed off their farms. A similar condition exists in connection with cheese, in connection with canned milk, in connection with every product that was provided to Britain and other allied countries under the mutual aid arrangement.
Therefore what I want to emphasize in that connection is that in anything we do with regard to ranges of prices on wheat we are not interfering with something which had been established in some other country in recent years during the war. We are dealing with a condition under which this country, under the able leadership of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), raised funds with which we paid for Canadian products, and then we sent those products to other countries, taking back from our allies what they could afford to pay under the conditions then existing, and charging the rest of it up to the billion dollars of mutual aid which this government provided in order to help our allies during the war.
It might be said and they have said it-I do not need to say it; our allies have said it -that Canada has done a worth-while job in that regard in carrying that policy through during the last three or four years of the war, and we believe that by carrying that policy through we have created a situation which will make it possible for us to market the commodities we produce in this country in countries which believe that they owe something to us because of the service we gave in their period of greatest trial. That is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) had in mind when he said in this house the other day that we as a government must give consideration to the effects which any price that may be established for our products at the present time, particularly products we are selling in great volume, have upon the economy of the other allied nations alongside of whom we fought. It is in order that we may maintain the proud position which we hold among the allied nations to-day, of having done everything possible to give service in every way in order to assist in the winning of the war. When we have come to the end of it, it is not our intention to do things which might cause us to destroy the good feeling which we established then.
Let me now touch on the position as it relates to the war period and as it relates

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
to the period before the war and to the future. "We have been struggling with this wheat question not only ever since the war started but since 1932, when the government of the day sent a delegation from Ottawa, which took with them representatives from the three western provinces, to discuss our wheat problem at that time. It was the problem of a great carryover of wheat which we desired to sell in the European markets. At that time there was set up an organization which has been discussing our wheat problems ever since. As I said here the other day, when this wheat question was being discussed by someone, we have not succeeded in getting any definite arrangements entered into by the five great wheat-producing countries of the world in their relationship with the great consuming countries of the world. We have had these people together; we have been discussing their problems and our problems. That has all been helpful, but when it came down to getting definite arrangements as to what the price and the acreage were to be we have always been confronted with some difficulties which have usually resulted in lack of agreement-I would not say in disagreement, but in lack of agreement.
I wish to say to the house to-night that if it is ever possible at any time to lay the records of those discussions, which have been held in camera, before the people of the world, and at the same time before the Canadian people, it will be found that in every case the advances made by this country toward the other countries were in a line which, if they had been agreed to, would have satisfied the demands of farm organizations from one end of Canada to the other. One of those demands has been written down by the farm federation on many occasions. They have said, "What we want is a stabilized price for wheat." They said, "We want it stabilized over a period of years." They have said on occasions, "We want a $1 price established." I remember on one occasion that they were saying in one breath they wanted a price established at $1 and in the other criticizing the government at Ottawa because the government would not sign a proposed agreement presented by this commiittee. I went so far as to say this to them: "If you want us to sign the agreement, which is before us at the present time, with the nations of the world, which you have said in one resolution you want, and you want us to accept the price which is in that agreement as the basic price for wheat, then it is lower than 11 a bushel, and the other countries of the world will not agree to its being higher." That was just prior to the war.
Since the war, these discussions have been changed from London to Washington and they have been going on there. What I wish to say to the house is that policies similar to those which have been advocated by the farmers of western Canada with regard to wheat have been submitted to that organization year by year. What the Minister of Trade and Commerce meant the other day when he answered a question from the other side of the house, and when he stated that these countries recently meeting in London had not agreed, was that they had not agreed to a policy which I am sure would have met with the approval of all the farm organizations in Canada.
When that agreement was not reached this government announced its policy in the house the other day. That policy gives us five more years in which to carry on negotiations. That is why the farm organizations, without any coaching on our part, have gone to the press in their own cities of Calgary, Regina and Winnipeg, and said that they are satisfied with the policy that has been announced. Some of them told us clearly that they want us to go ahead and negotiate other steps and arrangements, but there is no way that you can proceed to negotiate steps and arrangements with governments at the present time and hope for any settlement in time to deal with the next crop, let us say, or probably the next crop or two. You cannot depend upon having absolute settlements made among the great number of nations that are involved in this wheat question, while world conditions are what they are.
Therefore what we have said to the people of this country is, that for the present we have asked the wheat board to sell wheat at not higher than SI .55 a bushel. That was the price the market would have paid for our wheat on the last occasion in which we were dealing with the British government just before the policy was announced. Therefore we have said that we are going to sell wheat to the overseas people-we do not say to anyone else-at SI .55 a bushel for the time being. Then we have said that for the next year, down to the end of July, 1946, the initial payment is exactly what it was asked to be by the farm organizations down to that period of time, namely, $1.25 a bushel. Then we have said that in the meantime we are going to carry on with the same policies in relation to wheat and other farm products as we have been carrying on with from 1941 down to the present. And we say-we have not said this in so many words, but I am sure that every member of the government will agree with me when I say it-there is not any intention on the part of the members of
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

this government, or of any one associated with it, to lower the initial payment on wheat below $1.25 a bushel as long as the wheat of this country can be disposed of anywhere at $1.25 a bushel. We are carrying out the policy at the moment just as the circumstances warrant our carrying it out, namely, guaranteeing a floor price of $1.25 a bushel for this year, no matter what happens, and going on with our negotiations with other people as to what the price ought to be, and saying that for the time being, while we are selling wheat overseas to the countries that need our food, we are going to charge them only $1.55 a bushel for it.
I agree with the leader of the opposition that to the extent that we might have got more we are asking the 250.000 farmers who grow wheat to carry that part of the burden for the time being. And we are asked, what are they getting in return for it? We are saying to them that, no matter what happens during the next five years, we are going to see to it that you never have to take less than $1 a bushel for your wheat, basis Fort William. What does that mean? It means that it does not make any difference where wheat goes on the market, if it goes down to fifty cents a bushel we are going to take the money from all the people of Canada to pay the difference between fifty cents and $1. All we are suggesting to the 250,000 farmers is that, while it is $1.55 or more, and while we have ceiling prices on other commodities in Canada, we are going to ask them to permit us to sell whatever wheat we do sell to our overseas allies at $1.55 a bushel during that time. But at the same time we say to them by inference, if not in words, there will not be any ceiling price on your wheat any longer than ceiling prices remain on other commodities in this country. We did not say there was a ceiling of $1.55 for five years. We said there would never be a floor of less than $1 a bushel for five years; but we have said that as long as wheat is $1.55 or more, and as long as there are ceiling prices on other products in this country, since wheat has gone above parity, to $1.55 instead of $1.42, we are prepared to place a ceiling of $1.55 a bushel on what wheat is sold to our allies.
To-day on the orders of the day someone asked whether the government was giving attention to the possibility that someone might start to sell wheat outside this country, into the United States, at higher prices. In reply to that question I say that all the wheat in Canada is delivered to the wheat board, and the wheat board is the only seller of wheat. That board has everything to say, in consultation with the government, as to

where wheat is to be sold and at what price it is to be sold; and I can guarantee that there will not be any wheat sold into the-United States or anywhere else, other than overseas, while this arrangement exists, at prices which are lower than market prices in those countries, taking into consideration shipping and exchange costs and the duty upon products entering those countries, which has always been done. That position is entirely safeguarded. In other words, we think we are playing the game fairly with the countries with which we are dealing, rather than going back to the "catch as catch can" policies which antagonized our customers in the thirties.
How are we dealing with them? It is true that mutual aid came to an end, but if we want to sell farm products or any other Canadian products to many of these countries at the present time we must be prepared to help finance the sale of such products. At the present time it is not just to say to this house, or to try to leave the impression with the 250,000 farmers of this country, that we are doing something which is not fair to them. We are utilizing all the .economic strength of this country, putting it on the lowest plane possible, to try in the first place to benefit all the people in Canada to the greatest extent possible. Keeping that in mind at all times, we are also endeavouring to assist those people who will be wanting our products in future to consume those products at the present time. That does not apply to anything with greater importance than wheat, bacon, beef and all the other products about which we have talked so much in the last few days.
I now come to a question which has been in the minds of most of those who have been speaking, and for a moment or two I shall deal with the legislation of which there has been some criticism; that is, the bill brought in last session to place floor prices under farm products. I wish to emphasize what I said this afternoon in reply to a question, or an interruption of another speech, that this act is not yet operative. The act was passed last session, and everyone who was in the house at that time understood the terms upon which it was passed. This measure was designed to place what we were pleased to call floor prices under farm products. One can read sections of it and give other interpretations to them, perhaps, but if hon. members will read Hansard to see what was said when this bill was introduced in the house they will find that it says this. We proposed to establish a temporary board. We would appoint the permanent chairman and would take two officials out of the Department of

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
Agriculture and set them up at once to do a job. We may be asked, what was that job. We said the job was to determine the relationship between farm prices as they have been since we established ceilings upon prices in Canada, and the prices of other products farmers had to buy; to study that relationship and get it into the form of figures which might be called parity prices or anything you like. In any event they were to establish the relationship which existed between the ceiling prices as fixed during that period, from 1941 down to the end of the war, and have those facts available for the permanent board which was to be appointed when the War Measures Act went out of existence, to take over the administration of this act. Then we said to the board, in section 9 (1) (a), that they were:
to prescribe from time to time, with the approval of the governor in council, prices at which the board may purchase agricultural products in the market.
Then in paragraph (c) they were directed: to pay to the producers of an agricultural product directly or through such agent as the board may determine the difference between a price prescribed by the board with the approval of the governor in council for such product and the average price, as determined by the board, at which such product is sold in the market during the specified period if such average price is below such prescribed price.
Then in subsection 2, which has been read to the house already by one or two hon. members, there is this provision:
In prescribing prices under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection 1 of this section, the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
If I had time I could read again what was read last night by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), who stated that the president of the farm federation, in speaking of this legislation at the last annual meeting, had declared that for the first time this act gave Canadian farmers an opportunity to enjoy stable prices, and went on to term the prices provided for under this act as parity prices. And I agree with them. Our hon. friends of the C.C.F. party want prices established for the next period of years. Someone has asked how long that period is to be. If they read Hansard they will find that last year someone suggested it should be four years. We refused to make the period four years, on the ground that it might be ten years. It is whatever period is necessary in order to reestablish agriculture in this country on a sound financial basis at the end of
this war. Therefore I say to hon. members to-night that if they want to vote for 100 per cent parity prices all they need do is vote for the policies of the government. Anyone sitting on the other side of the house who, in moving a resolution for floor prices based upon parity, is trying to make the people of this country believe they are moving for something which is not already provided for in the policies of this government, is trying to mislead the voters of this country.
May I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that I agree entirely with the statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for MacLeod (Mr. Hansell), that to indulge in that sort of thing with all the facts before the house is purely and simply playing politics; and I say that knowing that my hon. friends on the other side-


William Earl Rowe: You should know.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should know, as my
hon. friend says, and I think I do know. And since I do know I want to repeat that that is playing politics, and playing it with a vengeance, by trying to mislead the people.


James Garfield Gardiner: What I wish to say is
this, that every man who votes against this amendment to-night is voting for parity prices as set up under legislation which the government has already placed upon the statute books. Anyone who votes for the motion tonight is voting for an arrangement of longterm agreements between the countries that use our wheat overseas, particularly Great Britain, and the people and government of Canada-long-term agreements which will establish a stabilized price for our wheat, just as agreements we have had in the last five years have established fair prices and stabilized prices for other farm products of Canada.
Every man who sells hogs knows there never has been a more stabilized price structure for hogs in this country than there has been during the last three years, and particularly the last two. Everyone in Canada knows that, despite what our friends across the way may say, Canada Packers and other packing plants have men out in the province of Ontario at the present time offering over twelve cents a pound for well prepared and well finished beef cattle. That is a higher price than could have been obtained under any policy other than that of the government during recent years. That policy has been one of stabilization.


William Earl Rowe: It is seventeen cents in the
United States.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says it
is seventeen cents in the United States. Well, if he went down there to get a shave it would cost him a dollar-and other things in proportion. If he went down there to get a drink it would cost him far more than he pays for it in this country.
We in the Dominion of Canada have controlled prices both on things we produce and on things we consume, and on a very much lower level than they have in the United States. But as long as the level applies right across the board on consumed products as well as on produced, products, nobody will be hurt.
In other words, we have stopped our prices from spiralling, and right now we are stopping them from deflating. The leader of the opposition does not need to worry, so long as this government is in power; and apparently the people of Canada did not worry so long as it was in power. They do not need to worry about deflation-or about inflation, either. We have taken care of inflation during the latter part of the war. We will take care of inflation in the years immediately following the war. And when the time comes when deflation begins to bother us, we have the legislation on the statute books to carry us through. We have agreements made with respect to our farm products to safeguard our farm policy against any of the evils of deflation.
The house divided on the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Wright), which was negatived oni the following division.
Adamson
Archibald
Argue
Ashby
Barrett
Bentley
Black (Yukon)
Blackmore
Blair
Boucher
Bowerman
Bracken
Bradshaw
Brooks
Bryce
Burton
Campbell
Cardiff
Case
Casselman
Castleden
Charlton
Church
Coldwell
Coyle
Daniel
Diefenbaker
Dorion
Fair
Ferguson 
YEAS Messrs:
Fleming
Fraser
Fulton
Gagnon
Graydon
Green
Hamel
Hansell
Harkness
Harris (Danforth)
Hazen
Herridge
Hlynka
Hodgson
Homuth
Irvine
J ackman
Jaenicke
Jaques
Kidd
Knight
Knowles
Kuhl
Lacombe
Lennard
Lockhart
Low
McCuaig
McCullough
(Assiniboia)
McGregor
Maclnnis
McKay
McLure
McM aster
MacNicol
Marshall
Matthews
(Kootenay East) Menary Merritt Nicholson
Robinson (Bruce) Rose
Ross (St. Paul's)
Rowe
Senn
Shaw
Smith (Calgary West) Stephenson Strum, Mrs.
Thatcher
Townley-Smith
Tustin
Pearkes	Webb
Probe	Wright
Quelch	Wylie
Raymond (Beauharnois- Zaplitny-90. Laprairie)
 NAYS Messrs:	
Arsenault	Gourd (Chapleau)
Baker	Halle
Beaudoin	Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Beaudry	Healy
Belzile	Ilsley
Benidickson	Jean
Bertrand (Laurier)	Jutras
Bertrand (Prescott)	King, Mackenzie
Bertrand (Terrebonne) Kirk	
Black (Chateauguay-	* LaCroix
Huntingdon)	Lafontaine
Blanchette	Lalonde
Boivin	Langlois
Bonnier	Lapalme
Bourget	Lapointe
Bradette	Laurendeau
Breithaupt	Leader
Bridges	Leger
Brunelle	Lesage
Chevrier	Little
Clark	McCann
Claxton	Macdonald
Cloutier	(Brantford City) Macdonald (Halifax)
Cote (Matapedia-	
Matane)	McDonald
Cote (St.Johns-
Iberville-Napierville) Cote (Verdun) Cruiekshank Deehene Denis
Dion (Lake St. John-Roberval)
Dionne (Beauce) Douglas Dubois Emmerson Eudes Farquhar Fontaine Fournier (Hull) Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) Gardiner Garidpy
Gauthier (Nipissing) Gauthier (Portneuf) Gibson
(Comox-Alberni) Gibson
(Hamilton West) Gingues Gladstone Glen Golding Gour (Russell)
(Parry Sound) McDonald (Pontiac) McGarry Mcllraith Mclvor Mackenzie MacKinnon MacLean McNaught Marier Marquis Martin
Matthews (Brandon)
May bank
M ayhew
Michaud
Mitchell
Mullins
Mutch
Nixon
Parent
Picard
Pinard
Pouliot
Power
Raymond (Wight) Reid
Richard (Gloucester) Richard (Ottawra East) Rinfret St. Laurent

The Address-Division
Sinclair (Ontario)	T ucker	Ross (St. Paul's)	ThatcherSinclair	Viau	Ross (Souris)	Townley-Smith(Vancouver North)	Warren	Rowe	TustinSinnott	Weir	Senn	WebbSmith (York North) Stuart (Charlotte) Tremblay	Whitman Winkler Winters-116.	Shaw Smith (Calgary West)	Wright WylieStephenson	Zaplitny-91.PAIRS	Strum, Mrs.	(The list of pairs whips.)	is furnished by the chief	NAYS	Ross (Hamilton East)	Cockeram	Messrs:	Maloney	Black (Cumberland)	Arsenault	KirkIsnor	Stanfield	Baker	LaCroixHowe	Bruce	Beaudoin	LafontaineGrant	Stirling	Beaudry	Lalonde


Mr. ABBOTT:: I	was paired with the	hon.	Belzile	Langloismember for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). I voted, I would have voted against	Had the	Benidickson Bertrand (Laurier) Bertrand (Prescott)	Lapalme Lapointe Laurendeauamendment to the amendment.	Bertrand (Terrebonne)	Leader


James Horace King: The question is on	the	Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon)	Leger Lesageamendment, Mr. Ross (Souris).	Blanchette	LittleBoivin	McCann


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.			Bonnier	Macdonald


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.	Bourget Bradette	(Brantford City) Macdonald (Halifax)The house divided on the amendment (Mr. Ross, Souris), which was negatived on the	Breithaupt Bridges Brunelle	McDonald (Parry Sound) McDonald (Pontiac)following division:	Chevrier	McGarryClark	McllraithYEAS	Claxton	Me IvorCloutier	MackenzieMessrs:	Cote (Matapedia-	MacKinnonAdamson	Hazen	Matane)	MacLeanArchibald	Herridge	Cote (St.Johns-	MeNaughtArgue	Hlynka	Iberville-Napierville)	MarierAshby	Hodgson	Cote (Verdun)	MarquisBarrett	Homuth	Cruickshank	MartinBentley	Irvine	Dechene	Matthews (Brandon)Black (Yukon)	J ackman	Denis	MaybankBlackmore	Jaenieke	Dion (Lake St. John-	MayhewBlair	Jaques	Roberval)	MichaudBoucher	Kidd	Dionne (Beauce)	MitchellBowerman	Knight	Douglas	MullinsBracken	Knowles	Dubois	MutchBradshaw	Kuhl	Emmerson	NixonBrooks	Lacombe	Eudes	ParentBryce	Lennard	Farquhar	PicardBurton	Lockhart	Fontaine	PinardCampbell	Low	Fournier (Hull)	PouliotCardiff	McCuaig	Fournier (Maison-	PowerCase	McCullough	neuve-Rosemont)	Raymond (Wright)Casselman	(Assiniboia)	Gardiner	ReidCastleden	Macdonnell	Gariepy	Richard (Gloucester)Charlton	(Muskoka-Ontario)	Gauthier (Nipissing)	Richard (Ottawa'East)Church	McGregor	Gauthier (Portneuf)	RinfretColdwell	Maclnnis	Gibson (Comox-	St. LaurentCoyle	McKay	Alberni)	Sinclair (Ontario)Daniel	McLure	Gibson (Hamilton	SinclairDiefenbaker	McMaster	West)	(Vancouver North)Dorion	MacNicol	Gingues	SinnottFair	Marshall	Gladstone	Smith (York North)Ferguson	Matthews	Glen'	Stuart (Charlotte)Fleming	(Kootenay East)	Golding	TremblayFraser	Menary	Gour (Russell)	TuckerFulton	Merritt	Gourd (Chapleau)	ViauGagnon	Nicholson	Halle	WarrenGraydon	Pearkes	Harris (Grey-Bruce)	WeirGreen	Probe	Healy	WhitmanHamel	Ouelch	Ilsley	WinklerHansell	Raymond (Beauharnois-	Jean	Winters-116.Harkness	Laprairie)	Jutras	Harris (Danforth)	Robinson (Bruce)	King, Mackenzie	
The Deputy Speaker



(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips.)
Ross (Hamilton East) Cockeram Maloney	Black (Cumberland)
Isnor	Stanfield
Howe	Bruce
Grant	Stirling
Main motion (Mr. Benidickson) agreed to on division.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the said address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, there is one matter of procedure which should be dealt with immediately. The rules of the house provide that as soon as possible after the address has been agreed to a deputy speaker of the house should be appointed, also the committees of supply and way and means established. Through the courtesy of hon. gentlemen opposite the committees of supply and ways and means have already been set up. That was done in order to oblige the government in getting through interim supply.
It will not take me more than a minute or two to read to the house the rule which governs in the matter of the appointment of the Deputy Speaker and to propose an hon. member for that position. Standing order 56 respecting the Deputy Speaker reads as follows:
(1)	A chairman of committees of the house, who shall also be Deputy Speaker of the house, shall be elected at the commencement of every parliament, as soon as an address has been agreed on in answer to His Excellency's speech; and the member so elected shall, if in his place in the house, take the chair of all committees of the whole, including the committees of supply and ways and means, in accordance with the

rules and usages which regulate the duties of a similar officer, generally designated the chairman of the committees of ways and means, in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
(2)	The member elected to serve as Deputy Speaker and chairman of committees shall be required to possess the full and practical knowledge of the language which is not that of the Speaker for the time being.
Mr. Speaker, I would draw attention to the fact that the hon. member to be appointed

to the position of Deputy Speaker must be possessed of the language which is not that of Your Honour, he will therefore be chosen from among the English speaking members of the house. It is desirable that whoever holds the position of Deputy Speaker should possess qualities of mind and temperament similar to your own. He should be courteous, impartial, judicial, possessed of a sense of humour, conciliatory in manner and able to command the confidence and respect of the house in the position which he holds.
The hon. member whose name I should like to put forward is Mr. Ross Macdonald, K.C., of Brantford, Ontario. Mr. Ross Macdonald has been a member of this House of Commons for the last ten years. He was elected to parliament in 1935, 1940 and 1945. He was also a candidate at two previous elections. Mr. Macdonald is a war veteran of the first great war, a graduate of the university of Toronto and of Osgoode Hall, a distinguished member of the legal profession, and may I say, what is important to hon. members of this house, he is wholly familiar with its rules and its procedure and on many occasions in the last parliament, when asked to do so by the Speaker of the house, occupied the chair of the Deputy Speaker, and on occasions the chair of the Speaker of this house. Possessing all the qualities and virtues he does, I hope the house will join unanimously in electing Mr. Macdonald as Deputy Speaker of the house.
I move:
That William Ross Macdonald. Esquire, member for the electoral district of Brantford City, be appointed chairman of the committees of the whole house.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, there may not be many occasions in this house when I can support and agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the moves he makes. I am glad to say that this is an occasion when I can. It is not my privilege to be personally acquainted with the hon. gentleman who has been nominated to be Deputy Speaker; but on this subject I accept the words of the Prime Minister.
May I say for the members of this party that we extend our sincerest congratulations to the hon. member who has been chosen for that position and that we are sure that he will fill it with distinction to himself and credit to his party. I want to assure him that he will have the utmost cooperation from those of us who sit on this side of the house.

International Labour Conference____


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: May I join in those congratulations, particularly because I remember the very happy associations that we had with the hon. gentleman who is named Deputy Speaker when we went to Great Britain in 1941. At that time we appreciated the fact that he was the chairman of the delegation and carried himself with distinction to himself and with honour to Canada. I am quite sure that he will fill the position of Deputy Speaker in the same manner in this house. May I also say that the Prime Minister omitted one qualification which I know that the hon. member has. He has not any ancestors; he is married and he has a family.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): The members of my group have something on me in this respect. I have not had an opportunity of meeting the Prime Minister's nominee. But we are happy to join the Prime Minister in his nomination and to offer our congratulations to the hon. member for Brantford City.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would suggest to the hon. member who has just been elected Deputy Speaker of this house that he should rise and make a graceful bow to all hon. gentlemen who have joined in his election to the important position he now holds.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
Friday, September 28, 1945