1945-09-26

REFERENCE TO REMARKS OF MR. POULIOT IN DEBATE ON SEPTEMBER 25

Mr. J. L. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. On page 465 of Hansard the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is reported as inferring that the member for Comox-Alberni had joined the Liberal party. I should like to correct any false impression that this house may have had from his remark.


An hon. MEMBER:: What are you doing where you are?


John Lambert Gibson: In sharing a desk with a member of the Liberal party on this side of the house I am following the course adopted by my independent predecessor, Mr. A. W. Neill. I believe that I can better represent the people of Comox-Alberni if I am able to hear the proceedings of this house, something that vras not always possible in my former location. I am and I shall continue to be an independent.



INTERIM INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT -PRICE CEILING FOR EXPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce what is the present status of the interim international wheat agreement. If it is in operation, are the proposals of the government to place a price ceiling on wheat for export in accord with that agreement? If it is not in operation, what are the reasons therefor?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can best answer the hon. member's question by stating that for the past eight months the Canadian government has been doing its utmost to reach some agreement with the other wheat exporting nations of the world. A conference was recently held in London at which there were discussions, but the conference broke up without any decision being arrived at because of disagreement among the nations participating.



MEAT RATIONING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):: Will the Minister of Finance inform the house what action the government is contemplating in view of

the serious situation in Montreal which has arisen through a strike of the retail meat dealers?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: As the hon. gentleman knows, meat rationing was put into effect for reasons which I think commend themselves to the judgment of this house and of the great majority of the people of Canada. The question in Montreal is whether law and order will be enforced or whether gangs wall be permitted to prevent the people of Montreal from getting their food. The enforcement of law and order in the city of Montreal is primarily the responsibility of the local authorities of that city, and the people of that city have every right to expect that the local authorities will assume and discharge that responsibility.
I may add that we do not intend to permit a local disturbance of this kind to prevent us from going ahead with the task to which we have set our hand, and that is the rationing of meat and continuing the rationing of meat for so long as that is required.
Mr. HOMUT-H: It is a federal law, not a local law.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There has been no violation of the meat rationing regulations in Montreal, so far as I know. The violation has been of the provisions of the law relating to the maintenance of peace and order. It is not connected with the rationing regulations at all. If it were a violation of the regulations, we would of course institute prosecutions.


Mr. HOMUTH:: You never did before. RESEARCH ENTERPRISES



INQUIRY AS TO CONTINUATION OF RESEARCH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): May I ask the Minister of Reconstruction if he has any plans in view for the reconversion of the plant and facilities of Research Enterprises Limited, at Leaside, and for continuation of the type of research carried on at that plant?
Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I do not see any urgency in the question. I would ask that the hon. member put the question on the order paper.


Mr. FLEMING:: But, Mr. Speaker-I have the proof of the urgency right here in my hand-about fifty telegrams.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: The Speaker is on his feet.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But-

The Address-Mr. Quelch


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You have to sit down; the Speaker is on his feet.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I never stood up.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not for anything.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the Minister of Reconstruction if the several thousand employees of Research Enterprises may be given some immediate consideration, as this is a matter of urgency, with regard to the reconversion of Research Enterprises into a plant of a kind that will ensure the employees of some work in the not too far distant future.


James Horace King: If I understand the question aright, it is a repetition of the one just asked by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), which I have ruled out of order.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he has any further report to make to the house on the progress being made in the settlement of the labour dispute at the Ford Motor plant at Windsor.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Through the good offices of the Secretary of State, the member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), and the mayor of Windsor, it has been indicated to me that the unions involved desire that efforts be made for the conciliation of the dispute. After consultation with the Minister of Labour for the province of Ontario-for I would point out to the house that this is a provincial dispute at the moment, not a federal dispute-a wire has been dispatched to both the company and the union stating that both ministers have agreed to meet with them on any date convenient to them in order to bring the parties together and get the wheels moving again in the Ford plant at Windsor.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: May I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs if it is the intention of the government to set up a special committee on veterans affairs at this session of parliament, and if so, at what time we may expect the committee to be set up?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): The reply is in the affirmative. The intention is at once to set up such a committee, and I shall be asking the various parties and groups in this house for their selections of names for that committee, probably in a day or two.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, September 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. M. Benidickson 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).
Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take any further part in this debate, but now that the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) has moved an amendment dealing with a subject which is of very great interest to western Canada I feel obliged to make a few comments upon it. His amendment reads 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, 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.
This amendment is perhaps not worded just as clearly as it might have been, but my interpretation is that it definitely endorses the principle of a parity income for farmers, and with that objective we are absolutely in accord. It also submits that in the maintaining of floor prices not less than ninety per cent of to-day's parity should be established. I take that as the meaning which the hon. member for Souris had in mind in moving his amendment. If that is the meaning, the amendment will receive the full support of this group. I should like to point out that we have on various occasions in this house taken a stand in support of that very objective, as I shall shortly show.
In this house and throughout the country there has in the1 past been a good deal of misunderstanding as to just exactly what is meant by parity prices. It has been quite a common thing to base parity on the prices over a given period, 1926 to 1929, and some have based it upon the 1913 to 1914 period. But the important thing to note is that in neither of these periods did the income of the farmers represent a parity income. Therefore if we are using the period 1926 to 1929, we can use it only as a temporary expedient to keep

The Address-Mr. Quelch
us going until such time as we have definitely established the principle of parity income. Of course, by parity income I mean that the income of the farmers should bear the same relation to the national income as the farm population bears to the national population.
We in this party have had on the order paper of this house for a number of years a resolution to that effect. I should like to read it to show that the amendment now before the house is in line with what we have long been advocating regarding parity income. The motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), and dated September 6, reads as follows:
Whereas agriculture has seldom received its fair share of the national income of Canada;
And whereas the cost of producing all agricultural products varies considerably from year to year;
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house and in the interest of the nation as a whole, the government be requested to set the prices of agricultural products at such a level that it will guarantee to the farmers of Canada at such yearly percentage of the national income as will have the same relation to the national income as the agricultural population bears to the national population of Canada.
We have had such a resolution on the order paper for several years. The only years within the past century during which prices for agricultural products did maintain a parity of income for the farmer were 1915 to 1919. That basis is seldom mentioned in relation to parity prices. In support of that I should like to quote from a pamphlet which I have in my hand, issued by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and called "What Share of the National Income does the Farmer Get?" On the back page we find a table setting out agriculture's share of the national income. It shows that in 1926 the farmers' income represented 17.8 per cent of the national income; in 1929, 14.6 per cent; in 1930, 9.6 per cent; in 1931, 6.3 per cent; in 1932, 5 per cent. By 1940 it had gradually crept back to 11 per cent. The average between 1926 and 1929 was 16.6 per cent, and from 1930 to 1940, 9.4 per cent. If we turn to page 13 we find a graph which shows the relationship of the farmers' income to the national income. It appears that from 1915 to 1919 the farmers' income represented approximately one-third of the national income, and at that time the farmers constituted one-third of the population; therefore I think it is quite correct to say that during the period from 1915 to 1919 the farmers, representing one-third of the population and1 obtaining one-third) of the national income, received in reality a parity price.
The amendment is aimed' at establishing that parity. We all realize that a parity of that kind cannot be brought about overnight.

Therefore in the meantime we would establish a floor of at least 90 per cent of existing parity.
I have heard it argued by some hon. members and by some people outside this house that the farmers are not entitled to that type of parity for the reason that a farmer does not need to spend the same amount of time and money in training himself for his job as is required in some other vocations, and that, therefore, it would not be fair to compare the income of the farmer with the income of, we will say, the lawyer or the doctor. If that were true I would say that the farmer more than compensates for the difference by the extra long hours of labour which he puts in, and which are just about twice as many as those of men in any other profession. While labourers generally work from six to eight hours a day, the length of the farmer's work is from ten to sixteen hours a day. Therefore I maintain that he certainly makes up for any lack of training or any less time he has spent in training, by the extra hours of labour he puts in, not for one, two or three years, but during his life until such time as he is too old to work. I said, "if that statement were true," but I am not prepared to admit that it is true. I believe it takes longer to train an efficient farmer than to train a man in any other occupation. The farmer to-day must be skilled in many trades, skilled in combustion engines and power machinery; he must understand their maintenance and how to repair them. He must be a good blacksmith. He *must also be skilled in knowledge of plant life and animal life and all that they entail. He must be a general animal doctor, and as the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Ashby) said the other day, must act at times as a maternity nurse. He must also be a competent salesman. Many men who prove themselves to be good farmers as far as the work they do is concerned, fall down on the job of selling their products. In that case they are doing their work, very frequently, for almost nothing.
I think all of us who are married will agree that a farmer needs to become a skilled diplomat in handling or humouring an overworked wife. Finally, I would say that he must find ways and means of carrying on in the face of adversity. Anyone who farmed during the thirties knows how at times it seemed an almost impossible task to carry on from one year to another. We persisted, however, in the hope that the next year would be different and that we would be able to "make a go of it."
Coming for a while to a discussion of the question of wheat, I wish to speak of the policy which was brought down in this house by the

The Address-Mr. Quelch
Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). In placing the new policy before the house the minister explained that, owing to crop failures in various parts of the world, the only two countries which would have a large surplus for disposal w'ere Canada and the United States, and that, therefore, they would be in a position to demand a higher price. He also drew the attention of the house to the fact that the wheat will be sold largely to our allies, -who are in no position to pay a high price for that wheat; they will have great difficulty in finding the means of payment. Therefore he urged that it was our moral obligation to make that wheat available to these nations at a price not higher than the present one.
We in this group are absolutely in accord with that. Consistently during the war we have advocated Canada's participation in such measures as mutual aid, the billion dollar gift, and UN.RRA. We have always emphasized that all the united nations should be willing to pool their production for common use against the enemy, and that so long as the united nations were reducing their standard of living to barely sufficient to maintain the people in a state of decency, there Should be no question of inter-allied debts being considered; the contribution should be made as a moral obligation, and no debts should be formed. Unfortunately, as we know, that policy has not been carried out, and the difficulty of inter-allied debts is already coming to the front, as it did after the last war. I am convinced that eventually those debts will be, if not repudiated, put off indefinitely and not paid, because after the last war no nation, with the exception of Finland, was able to pay the debts it incurred, and I do not doubt for a minute that no nation will be able to pay the debts of this war in view of the fact that they are far heavier than they were following the last war.
But the point I wish to make is this. While we agree that the policy enunciated in this regard is a fair one, we insist that when Canada makes that sacrifice and that contribution it should be a sacrifice of the Canadian people and not of any one class of society alone. Why should agriculture be asked to stand the full cost of that sacrifice? Surely the logical thing to do is to pay the farmers the price that can be obtained, sell the commodity to the people who need it, at the current price, and make up the difference between the two figures out of the general revenue fund or any other source which the government sees fit to use. We may differ as to the way that should be done, but that is not the point in question now.
The minister has tried to excuse his proposals on the ground that the government policy will compensate the farmers by guaranteeing a floor price of $1 a bushel for the next five years. But the mere fact that the minister says that it will be compensating them implies that the price may fall below that figure. On the other hand, the government does not know for certain whether the price will fall below or whether it will be above that amount. It may not call for any sacrifice at all. But certainly the government are not in a position to make a guarantee for the next five years, because they do not know whether they will be in power for the next five years; they might go out of power next year, in which event the farmers might be called upon to make the sacrifice for nothing.
But there is another reason why we are opposed to the farmers having to make that sacrifice. It is that we say that the farmers are being called upon to make a double sacrifice. For ten long years the farmers of the country produced at very low prices, and day by day, year by year, they were making considerable sacrifices. Therefore to-day the farmers should be guaranteed a fair price, a maximum price in order to compensate them for the losses they suffered in those ten years, without being asked at the same time to make similar sacrifices in the future as well.
I have already said that high prices are required to-day to compensate the farmers for the losses they suffered during the 1930's. I have no intention of going into what happened in those years, because most of us are quite familiar with the history of those times. It will be recalled that pre-war prices were dominated by export prices. I never could see the justification for that, because before the war, with the exception of wheat, the largest percentage of production was consumed in Canada. I could never see why that small percentage, from five to ten per cent, which was exported should dominate the price of the other ninety-five percent consumed in Canada; yet that was the case, with the exception of wheat, apples and one or two other commodities.
I recall that wheat in 1932 fell to 194 cents a bushel, and from. 1932 to 1934 it averaged around thirty to forty cents. Unfortunately however, the government were not merely content with wrecking agriculture by allowing prices to fall to those very low levels. Thev were not content with wrecking agriculture by making farmers accept world market prices. They further penalized agriculture by their fiscal policy. It will be remembered that in those years we were competing with world markets, with Australia and the Argentine. It-
The Address-Mr. Quelch

will be recalled by many hon. members that Australia depreciated her currency twenty-five per cent below sterling, while at the same time in Canada we appreciated the dollar twenty per cent above the pound sterling, with the result that Australia had an advantage of some forty-six per cent over Canada. In other words, when Australia shipped wheat to Liverpool and obtained $100 in return, when that money was converted into Australian funds the farmer there received $125; but when we shipped wheat to Liverpool and the money obtained for it was translated into Canadian funds we found that our farmer received only $80 instead of $100. Thereby our farmers were penalized to the extent of fortj six per cent owing to the government's fiscal policy.
I recall that Professor Upgren estimates that when the cost of that policy to western farmers from 1931 to 1936 was worked out it averaged $47 million a year. If you add to that the penalties imposed as a result of tariff policies you have another $32 million, making a total loss of $79 million a year to the farmers as a result of government fiscal policies, and that in addition to the general policy of trying to force export prices upon agricultural products consumed in Canada.
It will be remembered that these low prices continued for several years even after the declaration of war. They continued to the end of 1941. I listened to one hon. member recalling how a delegation came from Saskatchewan protesting against low prices, and shortly after that the price was raised from seventy cents a bushel to ninety cents. Unfortunately, however, just about the time the government increased the price of agricultural products, they made a drastic increase in the income tax.
What happened as a result of these low prices? Since no industry can continue to produce at a price below cost of production, the farmers were forced heavily into debt; up to the time prices were raised, the farmers were still going into * debt, and when prices were raised the income tax was drastically increased so that the farmers who were trying to pay off their debts found that their debt payments w'ere increased by approximately thirty-five per cent or more owing to the income tax. By bringing about an increase in the tax at that time the government increased the farmers' debt payments by about thirty-five per cent, and that is not helping the farmers to remedy the situation that came about in those pre-war years.
I am of the opinion that farmers should be entitled to exactly the same type of consideration in regard to losses as some of the

other businesses in Canada. Take, for instance, the chartered banks. What is the situation in regard to the chartered banks? They are allowed to set aside annually a certain amount of undisclosed money placed in what one might call a hidden or secret or inner reserve, and the excuse for that action is that the money is set aside to meet possible losses in the future. As a consequence, they pay no income tax on that amount. The reason given is that banking is a very risky business; bankers do not know what may happen in the future and therefore they must build up a reserve to take care of possible losses. I doubt very much whether banking is anything like as risky as farming and, if bankers are allowed to create an inner reserve without paying a tax on it, why should farmers not be allowed to set aside a certain amount of money in a reserve to take care of possible losses in the future.
Again, what do farmers' debts consist of largely? They consist of unpaid expenditures. If a bank is allowed to accumulate money to pay a possible loss in the future, expenditures it cannot meet, there is every justification for the farmer being allowed to pay debts represented by unpaid expenditures without having to pay taxes upon that money. I think there is a real and legitimate claim on the part of farmers for better treatment in that regard, and I am not quite satisfied that the bankers are justified in the claim they make, that the inner reserves are used for the purpose of meeting possible losses. I maintain that those reserves have been used in the past to guarantee profits. Why do I say that? Because during the depression years in the 1930's, as we know, the banks suffered heavy losses. That was emphasized during the hearings of the banking committee last year. If the banks suffered heavy losses during the thirties, evidently they would not be able to pay profits, and yet they paid an average dividend of around eleven per cent right through the depression years. If they were suffering losses during all those years, how could they pay a profit? Evidently the hidden reserves were used not merely to pay their losses but to guarantee a profit to shareholders. I suggest, therefore, that the farm-mers have undoubtedly a far better claim to exemption from income tax on the payment of debts, at least those incurred prior to 1942, than the banks have for exemption in respect of money set aside in reserve.
To-day one might well ask what the future of western agriculture is to be if the pre-war policies of this government come back into operation. I would say, if that is to be the case, then agriculture faces a very dark future,

The Address-Mr. Tucker
and not only agriculture but those men who come back from overseas and take up land. They will be entering into a very hazardous occupation, and no matter how good the new Veterans' Land Act may be, if these veterans in the future are to have to produce at less than cost of production they will go into bankruptcy. That will happen no matter how hard they work or how good a deal they receive under the Veterans' Land Act.
If in the future as in the past the cost of production on large farms is in any way to govern prices for the whole of agriculture, then it must be quite evident that many are bound to go bankrupt. Every small farmer will become bankrupt, because the figures are already on record to prove that it is possible to produce grain considerably cheaper on a large farm of two sections or more than on a half-section, and if we are to base price? on cost of production on the large farm then, the small farmers are bound to go into bankruptcy. What will happen then is that the small farmer will become the hired help of the larger farmer or will drift into the city to swell the relief rolls, as has happened to a great extent during pre-war years. Does anybody consider it desirable that western Canada should become merely an area of large mechanized farms? If that happens it means that community life, the small villages, will go. If the idea is merely to show how efficiently we can produce wheat, and if we are to sacrifice everything else to that, then perhaps it might be excusable, but I think most of us will recognize that human rights are more important than material rights, and that it is desirable from every point of view to maintain the small community.
I believe that the principle of parity of income for farmers should be adopted. As I said at the beginning, I realize that such a policy cannot be put into operation overnight. Until such time as that policy can be put into operation the very least that we can do is to guarantee a price of at least ninety per cent of existing parity. I believe it is fair to say ninety per cent and not one hundred per cent, because we realize that there must be a certain error in computation and it cannot be estimated immediately what the parity will be. That may take several months, so that initially a fair price of ninety per cent could be established and the remainder paid later on when the full facts are available.
When we consider agriculture it is well to remember that when agriculture has prospered in Canada the whole of Canada has prospered, and when agriculture has gone bankrupt it has dragged down with it various other industries throughout the dominion.
I look upon the policy that the minister brought down-and I say this in all kindliness -as the first step to a deflationary policy; and the farmers throughout the west are afraid of that very thing. I remember Hitler said in his book "Mein Kampf", and he used to repeat it time and time again, that if you wanted to bring in a policy to which you knew the people were opposed, never try to bring in the whole policy at once, just bring it in little by little and then the opposition will never think that any one individual step is of sufficient importance to fight. I think that is exactly what the government is trying to do here; they are bringing about reduction step by step and hoping the farmers will consider no one step of sufficient importance to fight.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to congratulate you on your appointment to your present high office, and also the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne; and with that I would particularly associate those hon. members who have made such splendid contributions to this debate. This is the third parliament in which I have had the honour of sitting, and I cannot recall any opening session in which such splendid speeches were made by new members of the house.
If the house will permit me, I should also like to express a word of congratulation to the Assistant Clerk of the house as a former colleague from Saskatchewan, and commend him for the outstanding manner in which he has carried out his duties thus far.
The amendment moved last evening on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party, as found in Hansard at page 464, reads 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, 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 could not possibly support this amendment. Ever since I have been a member of this house we of the Liberal party, particularly those of us from western Canada, have been contending at all times and in all places that the principle of parity prices for farm products should be accepted. We considered that we had obtained the acceptance of that principle when we finally had the gov-
The Address-Mr. Tucker

eminent pass the Agricultural Prices Support Act, subsection 2 of section 9 of which reads as follows:
In prescribing prices under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection one 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.
We consider that a definite acceptance on the part of this government and of the Liberal party of the principle of parity prices; there could not be a more striking acceptance of it than having it written into the law of the country. I am not alone in believing that that is what the statute meant. I find I am confirmed in that opinion by a speech made on January 18 last- by the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. This is what he said about the floor prices bill. I quote from page 10 of his speech:
In our opinion the floor prices bill is a more radical reform measure, and likely to be more far-reaching in its effect and ramifications, than any other piece of legislation passed in the interests of agriculture in a long time. The bill sets forth its aim as follows-
He then quotes the section, of the act which I have just read to the house, and goes on to say-and. it is a most significant sentence, because it is the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture speaking to his own organization; it is not by any stretch of the imagination a political utterance;
This, we believe, is the first official declaration by a Canadian government that farm people are entitled to a parity of economic returns with non-farm groups; and likewise, the first time it has been incorporated as a definite objective of fiscal policy.
I thought to myself last night: is this the new leadership that we are going to get from the present leader of the opposition? We fight to get the principle of parity prices accepted and written into the statutes of the country, and then we get an amendment moved on behalf of the official opposition that we shall have only ninety per cent of parity. Well, all that I can say about it, Mr. Speaker, is that those improvements were too hardly won to think of paring them down now by ten per cent or at all.
It might be said by my hon. friends that this does not apply to wheat; but when the government adopts that policy in regard to all other agricultural products and states its policy in regard to continuing the wheat board, as it has done, naturally the same principle will be applied to wheat. No other possible action could be followed in that regard. And surely in the fight to establish that definitely-if it still has to be a fight, which I do not think is
[Mr. Tucker. 1
necessary-it is not going to strengthen our position to suggest that we should be satisfied with ninety per cent of parity. Therefore I think that this amendment was certainly ill-timed and ill-judged.
With regard to the point as to whether or not the recognized farm leaders of this country are satisfied that this government is committed to a principle of parity prices in regard to wheat, and to a fair attitude toward the wheat board, I should like to -read from the statements of the leaders of agriculture in western Canada. The first one that I should like to read from is a statement of Mr. Wesson, the head of the wheat pool in Saskatchewan. This is taken from the Leader-Post of September 20, in which he is reported as having said:
I believe that the decision of the government to continue to sell wheat to Great Britain and other importing countries at a price around $1.55 for 1 Northern basis lake head and Vancouver is a fair one. There is not the least doubt in my mind that under present conditions, with a feverish demand for wheat in Europe and dwindling supplies, the price could be much higher at the present time. I hope, however, that in years to come when there may be temporary unwanted surpluses that Great Britain and other countries will recognize this concession and play fair with Canada and other wheat exporting countries by continuing to pay a reasonable price for the amount of wheat they require.
I heartily concur in that expression of opinion by Mr. Wesson, who goes on to say:
The announcement that the initial payment for the next five years will not be less than $1 per bushel will be generally accepted as satisfactory so long as it is understood that the Canadian wheat board will continue to act as the sole marketing agents for Canadian wheat. However, until such time as there is a reduction in the cost of those things which enter into the cost of production, there should be no reduction in the wheat board's present initial payment of $1.25.
Again I heartily endorse these sentiments expressed by Mr. Wesson; and I think the Liberal party of western Canada will not be found wanting in the future, as in the past, in supporting the wishes of the farmers and in fighting for these things.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about the Liberal government in Ottawa?


Walter Adam Tucker: If my hon. friend had been here he would know that no one fought for the farmers harder or more effectively than the Liberal group from western Canada in previous houses. Now I should like to read the opinion of Mr. Plumer, chairman of the Alberta wheat pool, in regard to the matter. In the Calgary Herald of September 20 he is reported as having said:

The Address-Mr. Tucker
The government policy of fixing wheat prices for a period of five years is a step in the right direction. A staple wheat price is important, but proper relationship of prices is even more so.
That is a statement I endorse most heartily. If there is one thing we Liberals of western Canada have urged upon the government of this country more than anything else, it is that the farmers are entitled to a fair share of the national income; and when the Agricultural Prices Support Act was written into the statutes of this country we thought we had established the efficacy of our work for all the country to see. Mr. Plumer goes on:
Prairie farmers, I believe, will generally approve of the government's policy as announced, providing there is no increase in the price of things that the farmer must buy.
Again we have the principle of parity prices, which is accepted in the statutes of this country as a direction to the board which is to administer these matters and establish those floor prices. I continue:
General reaction of the individual farmer seemed to be that the guarantee of a stated floor price for wheat over the five-year period of not less than $1 a bushel was a step in the right direction and would assure a balanced market for five years at least.
I repeat that there was no suggestion in the government announcement that under present conditions the initial, and therefore floor, price would be less than $1.25, basis lakehead or Vancouver. The only suggestion was that farmers could rest assured that no matter what happened-prices might fall; the prices of the things the farmer had to buy might decrease-the farmers could always rely upon a floor price or initial payment of $1 per bushel. As I understand the attitude of the farmers, it is fair. They want parity prices; they want their fair share of the national income, but also they want to have some idea as to what they can absolutely count on, regardless of what happens in other directions, just as other branches of economic activity want to know what they can count on. So while under present conditions the initial price is $1.25, the farmer may be assured that for the next five years, whatever happens, it will not be lower than $1 basis lakehead or Vancouver, subject to the overriding principle I have mentioned already, which has been written into the law of the land and is the accepted policy of the government.
The United Farmers of Alberta also approve. Mr. Church had this to say:
"The United Farmers of Alberta have consistently sought the establishing of floor prices on all major farm products, and will therefore welcome the announcement of the dominion government of a minimum price for wheat of
one dollar a bushel basis Fort William for the next five years. There will be general satisfaction among farmers, particularly in view of the announcement that a price of $1.55 has been set for wheat bought by Britain. It must not be overlooked that the world price has^ been higher for some time than the $1.25 initial payment being made by the wheat board.
"The U.F.A. believes that stability in the price of farm products will be a great factor in post-war reconstruction and that even if it should require a bonusing policy to maintain that stability all Canada would benefit by it."
Here again we have an endorsation of the policy of the government already written into the statutes of this country.
In concluding my remarks on this subject I should like to say to hon. members from other parts of Canada that, as Mr. Wesson pointed out, it is appreciated in western Canada that under the present unusual conditions we could take advantage of the needs of our customers-though probably we should have to finance it ourselves-and get more from them than $1.55. But I would ask the country to note the attitude of the farmers of western Canada, as represented by their authorized leaders. They do not want to take advantage of the temporary need of their allies and friends overseas. All they ask is that the people overseas should remember, when days may be different, that the farmers of Canada took this attitude, and as the representative of a farming constituency it is an attitude of which I for one am very proud.
I do not intend to spend much time this afternoon on my hon. friends of the C.C.F. party. In all sincerity, however, as a resident of Saskatchewan, I should like to say that they held out to the people of that province the vision of a new era there. They were going to extend and broaden social services, and were going to pay the increased cost not by higher taxation but by going into business and making profits. We are waiting with a great deal of interest for the C.C.F. party to carry out the promises it made to the people of Saskatchewan.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Give them a little time.


Walter Adam Tucker: They have been in power almost a year and a half now, and with the exception of their horse meat packing plant, their brickyard, their fish filleting plant, the woollen mill, which is not much more than started as yet, and the shoe factory, which they have only talked about so far, nothing has been done as yet that amounts to anything in carrying out their programme.


Major James William Coldwell: What about the protective legislation the big interests are asking to have disallowed?
The Address-Mr. Tucker


Walter Adam Tucker: The Liberal party passed legislation to protect the farmers which those so-called big interests also petitioned or urged to have disallowed; my hon. friend should not forget that.


Mr. BENTLEY:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a correction?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas John Bentley: I want to tell the hon. member-


James Horace King: I would remind the hon. member that when an hon. member has the floor there should be no interruption without his permission.


Thomas John Bentley: I am asking his permission. I just want to ask the hon. member-


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask your question.


Walter Adam Tucker: The custom in this house is that questions may be asked but a speech should not be interjected into another member's remarks.


Thomas John Bentley: Does the hon. member know that the horse meat packing plant at Swift Current is not owned by the Saskatchewan government but by a cooperative?


Walter Adam Tucker: I knew that, but the C.C.F. were taking so much credit for it that I felt I had to refer to it. If I had not, I would probably have been corrected by some C.C.F. member. They seem to be so proud of some of the things they have done that I feel sure if I had not mentioned it I would have been corrected by five or six members.
I venture to suggest that they will not get anything in the way of profits out of these enterprises with which to expand the social services they have led the people to believe they will get. Outside of that, the only thing they have done is to expand social services at the cost of increased taxation. The Libera! party had a proud record in Saskatchewan in the extending of social services.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: Their record met with the approval of the people for a long time. However, my hon. friends held out a vision of a new way of handling things whereby these services would be paid for in some mysterious way rather than by having to take money out of their pockets, and the people turned temporarily from the Liberal party. But I would point out to hon. members that there are only two C.C.F. members sitting in this house from Saskatchewan who, like my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture and myself, had the support of the majority of the people

voting. That does not look as though the people of Saskatchewan have swallowed completely the C.C.F. fantasies that were held out to them.
As I was going to say, the Liberal party were expanding social services in Saskatchewan as fast as the money could be obtained, so that is nothing new. What we have had now from the C.C.F. government there is an increase in the gas tax and an increase in the licence fees for farmers' trucks. I ask hon. gentlemen: is that the new era they had in mind when they held out these glowing promises to the people? This is the thought that is in the minds of the people of Saskatchewan to-day; do the C.C.F. mean what they say when they speak of the new era, when they talk about taking over businesses and making profits in order to advance the social welfare of the people, or are they just talking about it in order to catch votes?


Major James William Coldwell: If we did not believe it we would join the Liberal party.


Walter Adam Tucker: I say to my hon. friends that if we did not have a better record in Saskatchewan than they have, we would not have been returned steadily for twenty-five years. I warn my hon. friends that if they do not get going with their programme and produce some of the things they promised the people, they will not be re-elected time after time.


Mr. IRVINE:: Is my hon. friend saying that the farmers of Canada are now receiving ninety per cent of parity?


Walter Adam Tucker: I am sorry I did not make myself clear. I said that as I understood the accepted policy of this government it was that the agricultural prices support board, and, by inference, the wheat board also, would see to it that they did get parity at all times. The figures show that they are getting parity on these things. My hon. friend shakes his head, but I can only take the opinion of the statistical experts. That is what they say. If at any time I can be convinced that they are not getting it, I assure my hon. friend I will do all I can to see that it is restored, and I think the Liberal party will support that policy.


An hon. MEMBER:: What expert says
that?


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: No statistics will prove that.


Walter Adam Tucker: You made your speech,
and I did not think it was a very prudent or good one for agriculture. Let me say to my

The Address-Mr. Tucker
friends of the C.C.F. that we watched expectantly when the Regina Industries Limited plant was turned over from war production. The people said, "Here is a splendid opportunity for the C.C.F. government to take over a factory and start, with a business that is ready to be taken over." Did they do that? No, they did not; they said, "We do not want to have anything to do with it." Right there the people of Saskatchewan marked down a question, "Do they believe in a single thing they are talking about?"
Let me give some advice to my hon. friends, and particularly my genial friend the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). Let them go on with their socialistic programme where they have a chance to do it and not just talk about it in this house. Let them put their theories to the test of actual practice.


Major James William Coldwell: I always take advice
from a good lawyer.


Walter Adam Tucker: There is another matter
with which I should like to -deal shortly, the question of foreign policy. I realize that the situation to-day is a delicate one, and I do not want to say anything that might make it more difficult. However, there are certain things I feel should be said on the floor of this free parliament. First, I do not think the council of foreign ministers representing the five great powers has any right to try to settle the future peace treaties of this world. I know it will be said that the council will just make suggestions, but the suggestions they finally make will lack only formal ratification because the smaller countries will not be able to change them very much if the council has reached agreement.
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the other united nations have played a sufficiently great part in winning the victory which has been ours to have the right to have some real and effective say in the settlement of the terms of peace. Further, the present policy is not working out to advantage, because I find the following which appeared in the Daily Herald:
We repeat our calm conviction that the international situation is more than alarming; it is becoming desperate.
And the following is from the Manchester Guardian:
Would it not be best if all were to return to the principles of the Atlantic charter which states that the powers (it was endorsed by Russia) seek no aggrandizement territorial or otherwise?


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Is that the Herald of Calgary or London?


Walter Adam Tucker: The London Daily Herald.
I quoted that for the benefit of my hon. friends of the C.C.F. over there. In regard to this whole question of foreign policy, I realize that there seems to be a feeling on the part of the English-speaking world that there is such a passionate desire for world peace that they are determined to let no disagreement creep into the discussions of the future settlement of world affair. Because of our reluctance to express disapproval of some of the aspects of Soviet policy, the Soviet leaders are coming to think, I am sure, that they can make demands that they otherwise would not make, that the governments of the free countries of the world will give way for them, or, if they do not give way, sufficient public opinion will develop to force them to give way.


Mr. FULTON:: Apparently the hon. member holds the view that Canada should have an opportunity to have her voice heard. I should like him to explain why this government did not see that this country was represented at the conference that is now going on.


Walter Adam Tucker: If my hon. friend knew what was going on, I believe he would find that great pressure was exerted to have the various nations of the British commonwealth represented at these peace discussions. But just as in past times the Soviet objected to the British commonwealth having more than one vote, I think my hon. friend will find that there was objection to the British commonwealth being represented by several votes. My hon. friend has no right to jump to conclusions. I do not think he would suggest that the British government, which I am sure would like to have Canada represented there and have her fair say, would not want that to be done. I think when the record of this thing comes to be written it will be found that the British government was anxious to have the dominions represented there on an equal basis with themselves, but they had to take the five-power conference or nothing. It is very easy for my hon. friend to suggest that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should have gone over there, but as I read the dispatches he was asked to go over there and sit in the background and have the British representatives speak for all the nations of the commonwealth.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Oh, come, come!


Walter Adam Tucker: That is as I read the communications, and so far as I am concerned Canada has a right to be represented in the councils of the nations of the world in her own right as a nation, and not to be repre-
The Address-Mr. Tucker

seated by anybody else. If my hon. friend wishes to have Canada speak through another nation, I believe he does not represent the thought of the Canadian people.
I was going on to say that I think the present situation is a dangerous one. It leads to claims being made that otherwise would not be made.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What does Mr. Bevin say?


Walter Adam Tucker: I have read the debates in the British House of Commons and know what Mr. Bevin said. I think my hon. friend cannot have read it or he would not be asking that question. The fact remains that it is a dangerous situation, and the sooner we make it very plain to the Soviets that we believe just as much in freedom and liberty now as we did when the Atlantic charter was signed, the better it will be for world peace.
That brings me to another question, and here I should like to associate myself with an hon. member of this house who is other than of British or French origin. I am glad to see him in this house representing one of the important elements of our population, the population of Ukrainian origin. He had every right to get up and show that he felt for his own flesh and blood who he fears and believes are suffering on the continent of Europe. I put it to those of English, Scotch, Irish or French origin, if according to all the news they could get, their own people on the continent of Europe ^were being crucified, we would, I am sure have heard more from them than what the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) said in his most moderate speech.
What is the situation now before the Big Five conference? The west Ukraine comprises a large part of the Ukrainian! population of Europe. The granting of the Soviet western boundary at the so-called Curzon line included the Ukrainians in the west Ukraine. At the Yalta conference it was claimed that these people thereby became Russian, citizens. Russia claimed that it was agreed that they should be surrendered to the Soviet authorities. Mr. Churchill insisted that the Poles in that area should not be forcibly repatriated, that they should have the right not to be sent back to their homeland and that if necessary they would be granted the protection of the status of a British subject. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, when I heard that, it made me proud to belong to the British commonwealth of nations.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Conservative
party.


Walter Adam Tucker: My hon. friend say's "the
Conservative party". I say that it was the people of Canada of all parties who made the 
great record of Canada in the past six years. Mr. Churchill, at the request of these beset Poles, said that they should have the mantle of British citizenship thrown around them, which was a great compliment to the British commonwealth at least.
But what of the Ukrainians? They were claimed to be Russians, and to-day the demand is that they be forcibly repatriated from the British and American zones in which they are to-day to the number of about one million. \\ hen attempts are made to carry out these orders, these unfortunate people, we are told, commit suicide or forcibly resist being handed over to the Soviet authorities. The Ukrainian committee in the United States has addressed a moving appeal to the president of that country to save their kith and kin, in Europe from being forcibly repatriated to the Soviet. The Ukrainian committee of Canada has made a submission to our government, from which I quote two sentences:
We have received information from Europe to the effect that the Soviet Union has demanded the repatriation of those Ukrainian refugees who came from the now Soviet occupied territories east of the Curzon line. In the name of humanity we appeal to the government of Canada to do whatever may be possible to prevent such deportations to the Soviet territories.
What is the situation of these people? We know that in the west Ukraine there were thousands of people who looked to the end of this war to taring them a free Ukraine. They wanted their freedom. They spoke for it and they worked for it. They were against being in the Soviet, and they were against communism-their preachers, their doctors, teachers, leading authors and writers-and for that reason they have been marked down, not as anti-communist but as fascist; for in Europe there is a tendency to say that if a man is against communism or in any way against being incorporated in the Soviet, he is fascist or pro-nazi. I would say to the members of this house that we do not want communism in this country-or most of us do not; we do not want to be incorporated in the Soviet Union, and we would not like it if we were called fascist for that reason. In the hearts of these Ukrainians there beats the love of liberty and the love of country just the same as in the hearts of Canadians, but they are branded as anti-Soviet, and we are told that for that reason they fear to be handed over to the Soviet authorities. They fear what is going to happen to them. Somebody might say: You do not know what is going to happen to them over there. But to use the words of Mr. Churchill, nobody knows what is happening behind the iron

The Address-Mr. Wright
curtain that divides Europe to-day, and if the Soviet authorities are not willing to let the representatives of our people and the representatives of the press come in to see what is happening over there, have we any right to doubt these people when they say they fear what is going to happen to them when they are forcibly repatriated?
And so, Mr. Speaker, I would urge this upon the government with all the feeling I possess: Do not let our Canadian troops have anything to do with forcing these people into the hands of those who they fear are going to liquidate them. Surely our great contribution to the fight for freedom was not made to have our troops in any way forcibly repatriate these people. Let them have the same protection as has been freely granted to the Polish people. I honour the representatives of Great Britain and the United States, at the Council of Foreign Ministers, who, we are told in press dispatches, are to-day resisting the demands of Mr. Molotov that these people *be handed over.
Once more I see the British people and the people of the United States standing on guard for freedom and liberty, and I am sure that, our government has been making representations to the British government of approval of that policy.
I hope that this debate may be soon concluded so that we can send our own Prime Minister over there to add the voice and support of Canada to the conscience of the world in bringing to pass an era of freedom and liberty which alone will only begin to justify the tremendous sacrifices that have been made to render it possible.


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the anomalous position of again addressing the house during this debate after having recommended in my last speech that the debate should be confined to the leaders of the four groups in this house. However that position is brought about through the fact that the recommendation of our leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), that a day or days be set apart for a discussion of this particular subject which is brought up by the amendment of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), was not accepted by the government. Later I endeavoured to move the adjournment of the debate to discuss this subject, but you, Mr. Speaker, did not see fit to accept that suggestion. Consequently I find, representing an agricultural constituency, that it is my duty again to take part in this debate and to express my opinion and, through me, the opinion of the people I represent, on this latest amendment presented by the Progressive Conservative party.
I represent a constituency in Saskatchewan which is a mixed farming area. In speaking the other day, I dealt largely with this matter from the point of view of the wheat producer. Probably other members of this group are more qualified than I to speak to this subject from that particular angle, and they have already done so-the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley) yesterday and the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Argue) the day before. But as residents of a mixed farming area where at least fifty per cent of our income comes from other than wheat, namely from hogs, honey, seed, and various dairy and other agricultural products, we are vitally interested in the establishment of some reasonable floor not only under wheat but under all the country's agricultural products. We have been promised that for a long time.
The hon. member who has just spoken, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), stated that he has always favoured that and that the Liberal party has always favoured it. I should like to remind him of the delegations which have come to Ottawa at various times to try to establish that principle when the Liberal party had the power to establish it, as in 1940, and failed to do so. We certainly were not then getting a parity or a cost of production price; and if the hon. member for Rosthern had brought enough influence to bear on his government to have that accomplished at that time we would feel that he was much more sincere in his speech to-day.


Walter Adam Tucker: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. I suppose, in the first place, he is aware that the western-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What is the
question?


Walter Adam Tucker: I ask the hon. member: are you aware that the western Liberals fought hard to have those representations accepted; do you suggest that a group from western Canada can dictate the policies of the rest of Canada; and do you suggest that if you ever got into office you prairie members would dictate the policy of the C.C.F. party while in office in this country? Just answer those three questions, and then you may have the right to say that I am not sincere.


Percy Ellis Wright: I notice that, in the votes taken in this house on certain resolutions which were introduced by members of the opposition, the western Liberal members did not support their pleas to their own caucus by voting against their party.
The Address-Mr. Wright


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: On a question of privilege, the time I suppose my hon. friend is referring to is the vote on the second reading-*


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not privilege.


Walter Adam Tucker: I recognize it because it was used through Saskatchewan during the last election. On the government's motion for second reading of a measure to raise the price of wheat from seventy to ninety cents a bushel, an amendment was moved that the bill be not read the second time, but some opinion was expressed favourable to dollar wheat. I just want to ask the hon. member if I did not say on the floor of the house that a vote for that amendment would have defeated the attempt to get the price increased from seventy to ninety cents, and did not his leader say that I was right?


Major James William Coldwell: That is not my
recollection.


Walter Adam Tucker: I can show it to the hon. member in Hansard, then.


Percy Ellis Wright: The fact remains that it took a couple of delegations from western Canada to get Liberals to the point where they recognized that parity prices were something that the farmers were really in earnest about; and the recent elections in western Canada have amply demonstrated that to them. We hope they will change their attitude from now on, but evidently it has not been changed a great deal, if we are to judge from this order in council 6122 which was brought down here the other day by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon).
With regard to some of the Liberal promises, I should like to quote what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated with regard to floor prices in a radio address on December 4:
The government recognizes that farmers are anxious about their post-war prospects. They do_ not want to face a disastrous fall in farm prices within a year or two after the war. If, to help win the war, the farmers are asked to accept a ceiling on prices, we believe they are entitled to a floor under prices to ensure them against an agricultural depression after the war.
Order in council 6122, which states that wheat may not go below $1 a bushel before 1950, does not say, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) stated the other day, that this necessarily means that the floor price will be established at $1 a bushel. Neverthe-

less, as I said the other day, it has been the experience of agriculture that when these prices, or floors-whatever you like to call them-such as the price which was established the other day, are stated, in any year in which the production is more than the market requires the price immediately goes to that peg and stays there. That is why we are so anxious that this peg should be placed at a level which will give agriculture its cost of production, and as I put on the record the other day, $1 a bushel is not considered by western agriculture to be the cost of production at the present time.
Dealing with another matter which the Minister of Agriculture raised in his speech the other day, that of hog production in this country, he stated that it was a policy of his department to maintain a balance between the price of grain and the price of hogs, which would leave it up to the western farmer to decide which way he would obtain his income, whether he wished to obtain it through the sale of his grain or whether he wished to feed hogs. In western Canada, for a long time, we have been trying to diversify agriculture, and the Minister of Agriculture, as a western member, has stated at various times that we would never become prosperous out there until we could do that. Nevertheless this policy which he announced the other day, the policy of paying the freight from the lakehead to eastern Canada, subsidizes the production of one of the things which I believe we can produce in western Canada.


Mr. GARDINER:: What is wrong with
that?


Percy Ellis Wright: The feed is being sold here, subsidized by the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are subsidizing
almost everything in all parts of Canada.
'Mr. WRIGHT: I will come to the matter of subsidies in a moment if the minister will hold his horses. Hog production is something which is a natural industry in western Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: In the hon. member's
section.


Percy Ellis Wright: In all Saskatchewan, not
only in the section I represent in the north but even in the dried-out area.


James Garfield Gardiner: Where there has not
been a crop for three years it is not natural at present.


Percy Ellis Wright: If a proper policy were followed in western Canada, the policy of an ever-normal granary, it would be possible even in the dried-out area to feed regularly a certain amount of live stock and so diversify produc-

The Address-Mr. Wright
tion there. But the government have never seen fit to institute a policy of maintaining an ever-normal granary in the dried-out areas of western Canada, and this should be done. Hog production is a natural industry as far as western Canada is concerned, and the subsidizing of production in eastern Canada is not a sound policy now that the war is over. We might as well argue that industry should be moved to western Canada and that the government should pay freight on all raw material necessary to transport raw materials there for production in western Canada. One is just as logical as the other.
In regard to this question of subsidies which the minister has mentioned, where do we stand? I would ask the minister a few questions in that regard and I hope he will answer them at some future time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Why not answer them
right now?


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister may do so if he wishes, but I hope he will do it on his own time rather than on mine. We are exporting bacon to Great Britain and I should like to know just what subsidies are being paid on that export bacon. For instance, is it our agreement with Great Britain that they pay eighty shillings per hundredweight for that bacon and the government absorb the difference between that and the 113 shillings we get at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Does the hon. member
want the answer now? The highest price the British have indicated they were prepared to pay since 1940 for bacon and ham, was on the basis of eighty-five shillings. That was in the middle of 1941, about June, and we increased the payment-I am speaking from memory- about $3.50 per hundredweight between that and the end of that season in order to make pork products available for Great Britain rather than have them go to the United States. At the present time the amount being paid for bacon delivered at Saint John is about 113 shillings, so that one would probably be justified in saying, although I do not know that there is any way of working it out exactly, that under mutual aid we have been expected to pay about the difference between eighty-five shillings and 113 shillings.


Percy Ellis Wright: That simply shows that
bacon is subsidized! as far as production in Canada is concerned. We have run into certain difficulties in maintaining our production at the rate even at which we are producing to-day, which is approximately 450 million pounds for export. The minister thinks that should be a fair objective for us in the future, that we should be satisfied if we can obtain that share
of the British market. The British market is concerned with two things with respect to its supplies; one is quality and the other is continuity of supply. Those are the two factors in which the British people are most interested and yet, when they look to Canada, they find that, through a policy instituted by this government, we have practically cut our production by thirty-five per cent in one year, and it is still falling. I believe that Great Britain will hesitate about giving us as large a share of its market as we would like to have. The people there are looking to Denmark. During the war years, when our pork production has been decreasing, Denmark, although in the war area, has actually been increasing her supplies and getting ready for the British market. This is what has happened in Denmark. Actually, production fodder was sufficient for a considerable increase in the number of pigs during 1943, and at the end of 1944 the number of pigs reached roughly 2,000,000, or double the number in June, 1942. As soon as shipping tonnage is available for imports of fodder and fertilizer, Denmark could in a very short time resume exports of bacon, butter and eggs on a large scale. There is no doubt that Denmark could then play an important part in preventing starvation in other parts of the continent.
While we have been decreasing production Denmark has been increasing, hers and getting ready to go into the British market, and the policy followed by this government is one which we suggested over a year ago would inevitably lead to a decline in production. It has not been a good policy for Canada, it has nor is the policy which the minister suggested yesterday of maintaining so close a balance between the price of grain and the price of hogs in western Canada a sound policy for the production of these commodities in this country.
I come now to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Souris. The hon. gentleman is a practical farmer and I have had a great deal of pleasure* in working with him in this house and on committees. Very often I have felt justified in supporting certain things which he has said in the house. I am afraid1, however, that I cannot agree* with him on this amendment. I do not think the amendment was written by himself. More probably it was written by certain groups within the Progressive Conservative party, which by the way embraces approximately twenty per cent of members from Toronto and district. They probably wrote the amendment rather than* himself.


James Arthur Ross: They had nothing to do with it.
The Address-Mr. Wright


Percy Ellis Wright: 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.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member cannot find any wording in the amendment which says that they should be satisfied. I clearly pointed that out and I said that our idea would be that, in the period of dislocation following the war, no matter what happened the price should never go below ninety per cent. With regard to the statement in reference to the group of Toronto members, I can vouch that no member from Toronto ever saw that amendment until it was presented to the house last night.


Percy Ellis Wright: Let me read the words of the actual amendment. This is what it says:
. . . immediate consideration should be given bo establishing for a period of years floor prices for all basic agricultural products at levels not less than ninety per cent of parity.


James Arthur Ross: Not less.


Percy Ellis Wright: For a period of years.


James Arthur Ross: Not less.


Percy Ellis Wright: The hon. member knows as well as I, and the other hon. members from agricultural constituencies, do, and he so stated in this house, that once you set a floor price, every time there is a small surplus prices go down to that floor price immediately, and stay here. 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.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, again I must interrupt. I know the hon. member does not want to misrepresent the facts. He was very fair at the beginning of his remarks. He has heard me repeatedly session after session argue with the government about the policy of parity. He is acquainted with what the government said to organized labour, and he distinctly knows the stand we have taken in the past.


Percy Ellis Wright: 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. For a period of years we of this group have always maintained that agriculture should receive its cost of production. That has been clearly expressed by all agricultural organizations in Canada in their published statements and in their representations to the government. Let me quote from
[Mr. J. A. Ross.)
the address of the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture delivered at Quebec in 1944. This is what he said:
The purpose of such a floor would be to support and stabilize farm prices in order to maintain a proper balance between farm incomes and those of other groups; and secondly, to assure to farm people a satisfactory level of purchasing power which at long last is becoming recognized as basic in national well-being. The value and success of such floors will depend upon how and at what level they are set. This is a matter which will require the careful and constant watchfulness of every branch of our industry.
That is why I am going to move, seconded by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. Townley-Smith) that all the words of the amendment after the word "address" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
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.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to join with other hon. members in congratulating you on the high honour that has been bestowed upon you. I trust and hope that in the years to come the manner in which you discharge your responsibilities will add lustre to the record of those who have preceded you and whose distinguished service is a matter of knowledge to us all.
I also wish to congratulate not only the mover and the seconder, but the other hon. and gallant members from all parts of the house whose contribution to the debate has been of such a high order. It indicates that these young and able men will contribute in peace as they have so gallantly in war.
This afternoon I intend to discuss the amendment and the subamendment, but before doing so there are certain general references I should like to make. In the speech from the throne tribute is paid to our men who have served in the armed forces. Coming as I do from the prairies that have contributed so much to the naval forces of this dominion, I once more ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) that consideration be given to the diminution or remission of sentences imposed, both penitentiary and gaol, upon some of those naval personnel following the Halifax riots. In making that request I am not unaware of the fact that suffering and damage were caused to the people of Halifax. But, sir, these young men, and I refer to three who came from my own province, were on active service for more than two and a half or three years. They are not

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
criminals in the ordinarily accepted meaning of that term. Misguided, ill-guided and free as they were that day from discipline, and admitting that they committed wrong, I would say justice has been done in the period that they have served, and that the people of Canada as a whole would ask that mercy now be tempered with justice.
While I am on this subject I ask the consideration of the government for the numbers of our young men who to-day are undergoing penal servitude as a result of the imposition of sentences by courts martial both abroad and in Canada. Now that the war is over, although we have not been able to find out that it is officially over in Canada although it is as far as hostilities are concerned, the Minister of Justice or the law officers of the crown should review the proceedings in connection with those sentences, to the end that mercy be tempered with the justice that has already been meted out to them.
In this connection, when I refer to Halifax, I would point to the kind of sentences being imposed upon men who during the period of war evaded service but to-day are returning to their homes. I point to one example from my own province, that of a man who was called up in February, 1942, and who absented himself on August 24 of the same year, remaining at large until May 7, 1945. He was then brought before the courts and sentenced to six months imprisonment, for the offence of having refused to serve in the armed forces of this country and having deserted for a period of two and a half years. They gave him six months; he was let out at the end of one month, and to-day he has an honourable discharge because, while he was incarcerated, they found that he was unfit for service. I place that case alongside the cases of these young men, in whose behalf I make the plea to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General (Mr. Jean) that the time has come to temper justice with mercy.
As I think of these young members who served during the war and whose contribution so far to the debates of this house has been so great, I think of the years during the war when to all intents and purposes representative government and parliamentary democracy as far as legislation was concerned had abdicated in Canada. I believe the return of these men and the quality of their contribution will assure at.least one thing, that parliamentary legislative authority will be restored. We in this parliament will demand the end of government by order in council, which to-day remains unabated. We will demand the immediate removal of unnecessary 47696-31
boards. In that connection I think of the war information board, which in my opinion no longer can justify its existence. I speak with the support of Liberal newspapers all across this dominion when I say that too often during the period of the war that board, performing a good service, at the same time was performing a service of propaganda on behalf of the government. I say too, sir, the time has come to remove from orders in council, regulations and statutes of this parliament the denial of the right of the individual to recourse to the courts. I could refer to numbers of these regulations in that regard. I am not going to review them to-day; I will take them up on a later occasion, taking time at the moment only to set out the principle in which I believe. Only recently we find the courts of Ontario, referring to the operations of one board, saying:
The power of the board 'was not in any way circumscribed; no limitations were imposed on its exercise, and no standards were set up for the board's guidance. It had a free hand, and was a law unto itself. It might determine its own policy, and expendieney was its only guide.
I believe the time has come to remove from statutes, from orders in council and from regulations any power given to any board to set itself above the courts of this land, although caprice, ignorance or deliberate discrimination has been the reason for the judgments rendered. We have heard much about controllers. Well, the war is over now. Let us bring some of these controllers before a committee of this parliament and ascertain from them why certain of their orders and decisions were made. Let us take the regulations and bring them before a committee of this parliament. I am sure we have enough hon. members who would be willing to serve on such a committee, where the regulations could be analysed and the powers that were exercised reviewed together with the circumstances under which they were exercised. Let this parliament, through this committee, determine which of these regulations shall continue into the days of peace.
Do you realize, sir, that to-day in this country young men returning from overseas are denied their rights under the Veterans Land Act because of the regulations which have been passed pursuant to the powers contained in that statute? Let me give an example. The Veterans Land Act provides that any young man who served under certain circumstances shall be entitled to return and be rehabilitated on the soil. Then regulations were passed, one of which provides that no soldier can qualify to take land under the act unless he has a qualification certificate, and that he shall not be given a qualification

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
certificate unless he had at least two years of satisfactory farming experience prior to the date of his application. In other words the Veterans Land Act is emasculated by a board and by those charged with the responsibility of carrying out the will of parliament. Let me give another example. A young man, having lived on the farm all his life, enlisted at the age of eighteen and went overseas. Upon his return he is denied the right to take land under the Veterans Land Act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, no.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes; I can give the minister other examples. This indicates one thing,- that the board acts without the knowledge of parliament. This is the strongest possible confirmation of the argument I am now endeavouring to advance, that these regulations be brought before parliament so that we may ascertain how in fact they are being carried into effect.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would agree that anyone who interpreted the regulations in that way ought to be brought before a committee.


John George Diefenbaker: I know whereof I speak; I do not make loose statements in the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then bring them here. Anyone who gave that sort of interpretation I agree should be brought here and investigated.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad I have the support of the Minister of Agriculture, at least. I say that any controls, whatever their purpose, which deny our service men the right to establish themselves in the business of their choice, should be done away with as far as these service men are concerned. As an example, a young man was a butcher before going overseas where he served for five years. He returns and establishes himself in a new town, investing whatever money he has left from his service gratuity. An official advises him-and I have the letter here -that he shall not have a slaughtering licence. He cannot engage in business unless he makes his purchases from the packers. The result is that this man who would have established and rehabilitated himself after service is denied the right that we in this parliament have asserted is his-to be rehabilitated at the earliest possible date.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who is the letter from?


John George Diefenbaker: It is from the wartime prices and trade board. When I wrote to the chairman of that board I received a reply in his absence to the effect that there 
was no record that this man had ever applied, and they did not know where the decision had come from. He applied as far back as August 18, and he is still unable to carry on, unable to carry on because of an interpretation of a regulation on the basis of its legal meaning rather than the spirit of it.
The time has come when a committee of this house should examine the orders that have been made under the provisions of the War Measures Act. I was surprised the other day, when the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) endeavoured to ascertain whether the war was over, that the Minister of Justice indicated that there were certain difficulties which would flow from a decision on that matter and that the council had not as yet decided that important question.
I think it is time to review the orders still in effect under the War Measures Act under which boards are constituted. Under certain of these orders a board may bring a man before them, examine him under oath, deny him the right to have counsel, and then make the person so interrogated liable to criminal prosecution. One such case was reviewed by the court of appeal of British Columbia, and the court indicated it could do nothing about it, that the power was exercisable. Similar powers are being exercised to-day under the Excise Act. A police officer who finds he is unable to secure evidence to convict has the power, with the license of the minister, to bring an individual before an inspector of the mounted police, where he is interrogated under oath, without counsel and without protection, and on his statement there given, may be convicted.
Regulations and orders of this kind should be brought before a committee of parliament so that we may once more assert that no controller, no board, no regulation passed beyond the pale of parliament, shall control the rights and liberty of an individual in this country, while denying him recourse to the courts. There is nothing unfair in that; it is reasonable, it is just. The United States went through the war, but at no time was an individual in that country denied the right of recourse to the courts against irresponsible orders and declarations and controls, particularly those affecting the individual. I summarize by saying that the time has come to demobilize all unnecessary controls and, above all, to demobilize the powers of unregulated and uncontrolled controllers and other individuals who operate beyond the pale of parliament and sometimes beyond the control of parliament.
I pass on to the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. SEPTEMBER 26, 1945
The Address-Mr. Diejeribaker
Ross). As I listened to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), as I heard him endeavour to argue his proposition with all his powers of advocacy before the bar, I realized that his arguments were almost insufficient to establish his failure or his inability or his refusal to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Souris. What does the amendment cover? It indicates that to-day parity prices are not being paid to the farmer. The hon. member said that parity prices are being paid to-day, thar he could only take the opinion of those who knew. An hon. member on this side of the house asked a question that was quite easy to answer when he asked, "Who said that?" But there was no reply from the hon. member for Rosthern.


Walter Adam Tucker: I object to that statement, I said it was the statistical experts.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad we have heard of the statistical experts. I presume those statistical experts would be the experts of the dominion bureau of statistics. I have here the latest statistics issued by the dominion bureau of statistics, being a review of agricultural business issued by the marketing service of the Department of Agriculture. This is the August issue, and it sets out the facts with unerring accuracy. It reveals that there is no parity price being paid to-day for Canadian farm products.


James Garfield Gardiner: Where does it say that? Read it.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to have some curiosity indicated, and I shall endeavour to satisfy it if the minister will wait just a moment. I am referring to the Economic Annalist, page 50, which gives the annual and monthly index numbers for wholesale prices, living costs and production indexes computed by the dominion bureau of statistics. Usually 1926 is the period taken as 100, and that is the period taken here in the determination of these figures. I am going to give the latest available figures, and I am not picking out one at the expense of another less favourable figure. The May, 1945, index for the wholesale prices of all commodities was 103 as compared with 100 in 1926. The farm products index is given as 104-6, and field products as 94-8. This index covers the wholesale prices of grain, fruits and vegetables. Next is animal products, 121-1, which refers to the wholesale prices of animals and animal products. Then we come down to the cost of the commodities which the farmer has to buy. There are eleven factors which determine the cost of the commodities and services used by the farmer, and in May, 1945, the 47696-314
index figure for those eleven factors was 142-0; based on 1935-39 numbers. I will tell you what they are. The index number comprises eleven factors; farm implements, building materials, gasoline, oil and grease, feed, fertilizer, binder twine, seed and hardware, and in addition, taxes, interest and farm wage rates. In other words, on these statistics, prices for animal products in this country to-day are considerably below parity. In other words, they represent a relationship of 121-1 to 142, and so far as field products are concerned they represent a relationship of 94-8 to 142, clearly establishing this one fact, that to-day, after more than five and a half years of war, with our field product farm prices as high as they have ever been except for beef, they are still considerably below, some twenty-five per cent below in the case of animal and grain products, the parity price on the -basis of the return that I have just laid before the house.
M-r. GARDINER: It does not show that.


Walter Adam Tucker: If the hon. member wl'"
permit a question-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: I was asked question*
when I was speaking, but the hon. gentleman does not seem to be willing to return the courtesy.


John George Diefenbaker: I have never consciously run away from questions, but at the moment I am answering an argument which I listened to in silence.


Walter Adam Tucker: I take it that the hon.
member does not want to answer my question.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the question?


Walter Adam Tucker: In view of the fast that
the law provides that the board shall establish-a parity price, is the hon. member against a 100 per cent parity price and in favour of ninety per cent parity?


John George Diefenbaker: That is a i-ry
proper question, and I will answer it in this-way. If to-d-ay we had a ninety per cent parity price, the price of wheat would not i<s: fixed at $1 a bushel. It would be at $1.28.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is $1.55 now.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member
for Rosthern made a speech and traversed almost everything, and I listened patiently as he took us from Russia to the horse-meat factories, but now-


James Garfield Gardiner: Will my hon. friend
agree that parity on wheat is $1.28?

The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker


John George Diefenbaker: That is ninety per .cent of parity on wheat, $1.28.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is $1.55 right now.


John George Diefenbaker: We are talking
about a floor price.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not what the
farmer gets. He gets participation.


John George Diefenbaker: Let us get back to the terms of the resolution. There is one thing about the hon. member for Ro3thern. He legalizes and rationalizes, and he said: We have an agricultural prices support act mow wherein the principle of parity was accepted by parliament, and he asks: Are we going to depart from its provisions? What we want, Mr. Speaker, is not only the principle of parity accepted. What we want is the practice of the principle accepted by this government.


Walter Adam Tucker: We want 100 per cent
parity.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend
speaks about what he wants, but I remember that on April 8, 1941, I moved a resolution in this house, which was as follows:
The government should take immediate steps to create a parity of prices as between agricultural and other products in order to improve the condition of Canadian agriculture and in order that it may receive a just and fair return.
That was in 1941, four years ago.


Walter Adam Tucker: And now you have come
down ten per cent.


John George Diefenbaker: My recollection is
that the hon. member for Rosthern voted "no" to that resolution.


Walter Adam Tucker: Because I wanted to keep the government in office. That was most likely to give us parity prices.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I
never say anything provocative. I maintain with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that until the principle is accepted that the farmers are entitled to a fair exchange value of the products of the farm with non-farm products, there can be no future for agriculture. I accept the principle of parity, and the western farmer demands it. We say that until this is established as settled policy and until agreement is arrived at, if you will, the farmer should receive at the very least ninety per cent of parity price for his wheat. In other words, he should receive to-day as a basic minimum floor price at least $1.28 a bushel.


John Bracken: Instead1 of one dollar.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER. As my leader says, he should receive $1.28 instead of the one dollar he receives to-day.

I come to another matter. There is a great difference between the export price that the Canadian government will receive for its wheat and the export price that the United States will obtain. The difference is approximately thirty-five cents. In other words, if we make every allowance in favour of freight, the difference in exchange and the like, the government and people of the United States are selling their wheat for approximately thirty-five cents a bushel more than we are. This disparity has arisen and this sudden fixation of prices has something to do with the international wheat agreement of 1942. Then the nations got together, they got together not only for the present but for the period of the war and after, and they came to certain agreements. They agreed that in the interests of agriculture everywhere in the world and in conformity with the principles of the Atlantic charter, they would join together and stabilize agriculture on the North American continent.
To-day a question was asked of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). He was asked, what about this? And he indicated that there had been a meeting recently in London. Under the agreement it was provided that there should be a meeting in August of each year and I think we are entitled to more of an explanation than the minister gave us to-day. What happened in London? Why have the United States, Canada and the other nations within the international wheat agreement decided within six months after the end of the war not to follow the principles that bound them together during the war?


James Angus MacKinnon: I know the hon. member does not want to give the wrong impression. In my answer to-day I did not say that they had come to any decision. I said they had been unable to come to any agreement and the meeting was adjourned for the time being.


John George Diefenbaker: Although we are not in committee, may I ask the question, when did it adjourn to?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am not sure of the exact date, but my understanding is that the adjournment is until a day shortly hereafter, at Washington.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the whole crux of the situation.


James Garfield Gardiner: That has been going on since 1932.


John George Diefenbaker: We have not information on the meeting. What happened? Who opposed it? Who refused to have any agreement between Canada and the United States upon a common price on exports?
SEPTEMBER 26, 1945	4S5
The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker


James Garfield Gardiner: That is something which has been going on since 1932.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not care how long it has been going on. I want to know what happened in London that determined that nations which have cooperated side by side in war cease to continue the cooperation which has characterized them during the war with regard to agricultural products. We have a right to that information. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce should frankly place the facts before the country so that we will understand.
Before I conclude there are just one or two other observations I should like to make. Representing as I do an agricultural constituency in Saskatchewan, I should like to place several matters before the house and the country reflecting what I understand to be the point of view of the farmers.
The first is this: they demand that a reasonable price approximating to parity shall be brought into effect and assured to them as a floor price.
Second, in the matter of live stock, all over this dominion there is the demand that something be done to assure producers of live stock against the falling away of prices which has taken place during the last six or seven weeks. We gave the power in the last parliament for the government to have a board to step in and make purchases whenever the price fell. Has the board been set up? What has that board done? As the hon. member for Rosthern said, parliament incorporated the principle; we no\v ask the government to incorporate the practice of that act. What are they doing? What are they doing to assure that there shall not be great fluctuations in the price of live stock? Why to-day, having regard to those fluctuations, should the United States market not be made available to a degree to Canadian cattle shipments to that country? All over the Canadian farmer is asking that. The explanation given by the Minister of Agriculture in the March session, as I remember it, w'as that the United States did not have the killing facilities, so for that reason they did not want our cattle. Following that explanation, I took it upon myself to write to five or six different live stock agents in the United States to ask them whether the people of the United States, and in particular the buyers, would be willing to accept Canadian cattle, and the answer in every case was to this effect: "Yes, we cannot understand why the Canadian government refuses us the opportunity to buy your cattle."
Next I say that if you are going to satisfy the cattle producer, the contention of my honourable leader, made over the last two or three years, should be implemented and there should be established a board of live stock commissioners.
Recently in the province of Saskatchewan a number of farmers asked me this question: why is it, having regard to drought conditions and diminished yields, that the minister in answer to your question said that the government had until November 1 to decide whether or not to declare an emergency year? The conditions are known. You do not have to be a statistician to realize the low yields which prevails to-day in the province of Saskatchewan and the widespread failure of the crops. Why is it that the government does not now make the declaration with regard to the emergency year in order to assure those who find themselves on their farms without sufficient to carry on for the year?


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he has spoken already for over forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


James Horace King: With the consent of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall not trespass on that courtesy except to say this, that we from western Canada are not here trying to make raids on the treasury. We are trying to assure the opportunity for Canada to be rehabilitated, to assure jobs, which cannot be done if agriculture be permitted to remain depressed in this country. We read, sir, of the difficulties of farmers in other parts of Canada, such as the failure of the apple crop in the Annapolis valley. I. coming from another part of Canada, feel that some measure of assistance, under similar legislation to the Prairie Farmers Assistance Act, should be given to those who have suffered failures in that particular part of Canada. This is a great country; it is going forward. To do something for Canada requires raising and continuing to raise the standards of agriculture. Give the farmers the opportunity of obtaining the things they are entitled to. Give them that opportunity, especially in the light of the suggestions of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) who has done so much for the prairie provinces. The challenge to us is: build up a demand for industrial products by raising the farmer's income; build up a market for industrial products, thereby assuring jobs in industry as well as a fair standard of living for agriculture.



*COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Townley-Smith
Mr. F. W. TOWNLEY-SMITH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, may I introduce myself as another new member, this time a farmer from northern Saskatchewan. Only three short weeks ago I was riding a binder on my farm in the northwest of that westerly province, and I regard with some dismay the change of circumstances, the fact that I find myself on my feet, and I also have to remark that I am somewhat unlucky to-day in that I have to follow three such eloquent speakers. That is a break of the kind I was not looking for.
First of all I wish to say a few words about my constituency. That seems to be a general practice. It is going to be very difficult to avoid repetition, and to say that my constituency is one of the best in the dominion would certainly be repetition, but it would not be true, because it happens that I was chosen by a constituency which goes a long, long way north-north of lake Athabaska. I am told as a matter of fact that the extent of this constituency is some 530 miles north and south and 150 miles east and west. In the last parliament North Battleford was represented by one of the two ladies who sat in the house. Incidentally, North Battleford is misnamed, because the city of North Battleford is not contained in the constituency, and I would suggest to whoever happens to be .n charge of this particular matter either that ;he bounds of the constituency be changed .o take in the city of North Battleford or that the name of the constituency be changed, because as it stands the name creates the utmost confusion. I understand that it is not the only case of the kind. There are other constituencies in the dominion that arc misnamed.
The north part of the constituency consists principally of lakes, rivers and forests. Not very long ago the canoe and the dog team were the only means of transportation, but since the advent of the aeroplane, journeys are now made a little easier.
Principally the constituency is agricultural. The other day I listened with a great deal of interest to an hon. member to my left as he was making his soliloquy to a sow, and while I do not intend to regale the house with the marital difficulties of my live stock, still I shall have something to say about agriculture.
Coming back to my constituency, the population is varied. The Ukrainian, German, Scandinavian, British and French Canadian races are all found in the constituency, and also of course the Metis and the Indians 'ive in that area. The occupations are as
(Mr. Diefenbaker.J
varied as the people. In the most southerly part, in an area of 100 by 150 miles, a general scheme of agriculture is followed. Cereal grains are produced in this area in great quantities. It is one of the good agricultural cereal areas of the province. Live stock production is also practised, and dairying is well established.
Further to the north, as I have said, we have a change in the situation. The terrain is different, and agriculture of the type I have described is not so easy. The areas for growing grains are much smaller, and the people who live in the northerly part must have other occupations in order to make a living. So that we find some lumbering, some fishing; the people in that area have trap lines, and fur to a considerable value is sent out in the winter. Fresh fish is also caught and marketed from the lakes in this northern area-and when I say fresh fish I mean unfrozen fish. It is caught in the winter and transported to railhead and shipped to the United States market. You will readily see that railways and roads are very important in that part of the country. I may say that they are also very short. There are few roads and scarcely any railroads.
In that particular area we have two railroads, or rather the two ends which were built, the middles having been left out. When my colleague, the member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) was talking about his railway difficulties, he told us that he had the middle. So that is where it went. In any event the brains of the period of 1928 seemed to have supplied his constituency and mine with one railway between us. Now we are hoping, expecting and asking that these railways be completed. At the time my colleague was speaking I was wondering how they managed to get the rolling stock to that piece of railway which did not go anywhere or come from any place. It must have been quite a trick. At any rate, the effect of having this limited mileage of railway, so far as my own particular riding is concerned, is uneconomic and it makes things very difficult for the people who live there.
In a report recently issued, an economic study on land settlement in the representative pioneer areas of northern Saskatchewan, sent out by the department of farm management of the university, we are told that the average distances from shipping points at Meadow Lake, which is an urban district of size in my riding, Loon Lake, a smaller place, and Goodsoil, are from 19 to 60 miles respectively. Sixty miles is a long way to go to a railway. It is entirely too far, and the

The Address-Mr. Townley-Smith
situation, could be corrected by having these lines completed. We hope this will be done at a very early day.
Other forms of communication are also in short supply. I have in mind-besides the railways-roads, telephones, telegraphs and communications of the kind. Pioneers who go into these northerly areas have difficulty enough without having to face this particular variety, and it should be possible for any government to remedy the situation. As regards telephones, when I was travelling through that area, telephones simply were not there. Occasionally, even in villages and small towns, there were none. It may not be any concern of this federal government to erect a telephone line; still I like to call the attention of the house to the fact that the people in that part of the country have no telephones, and they should have them. It is a fact also that the railway lines that are in there are very inefficient. One train a week is probably the general order. One train a week is not enough, because it controls the other services. I have in mind postal services, and one train a week means mail once a week. Furthermore, the health services are also affected; one train a week does not give these people very much chance, if any one becomes ill, either to get the patient out or the doctor in.
Educational facilities are also in want of some adjustment, not only in this riding but in the province as a whole, and I venture to suggest in all the western provinces. I know, of course, this is a matter which is entirely in the hands of the provinces, yet since education is of such vital importance to Canada I do feel that the dominion government should also interest itself in providing some assistance to the provinces for their educational system.
Because Saskatchewan is an agricultural province and has to encounter the greatest of all hazards, the weather, it slips very easily into conditions of distress. Hon. members will recall that not very long ago this western province, owing to a series of disastrous crop failures, was in a condition of near bankruptcy. Because of the particular method employed at that time in financing the schools, the rural school districts of Saskatchewan were called upon to provide in the neighbourhood of eighty per cent of the funds required to operate the schools. The basic grant from the Department of Education at that time was $1.50 a day for two hundred days.
Owing to the crop failures I have mentioned, the ratepayers in a great number of districts found themselves without funds, indeed without food, clothing, seed and things of that nature, all of which had to be provided for them in the form of relief. We therefore find them desperately trying to operate their schools on the $300 grant. They tried that for a number of years. Within limits they actually succeeded in keeping the schools open, but it was largely through the efforts and the good-heartedness of the teachers that this was done. In fact after two, three or four of those disastrous years there was a sum in the neighbourhood of one and a half million dollars owing to teachers in salaries that could not be paid. The teachers' reaction to this was splendid. They kept on teaching; they kept the schools open. Quite a few of them had money sent to them from home to pay their board and buy their clothes. They kept the schools running and the Department of Education of that day let them do it. We now have a much better system of grants and a much more sympathetic government in Saskatchewan, with the result that the educational facilities are gradually being improved. But I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the ideas of the weatherman are still as unpredictable as ever, and the difficulties of getting the children to school are still very great.
As I have said, education is a vital need in this country. We have to aim to make our children good Canadians, not simply just Sas-katchewanese, or good Albertans, or good Manitobans, and because of that I feel that the federal government should be prepared to extend some form of financial help to the provinces to assist them in improving their educational systems, and certainly to prevent such a break-down as I have mentioned. This will call for some change in our constitution, but if we can agree that it will do good, then there should not be any great difficulty about that.
May I say a few words in a general way about agriculture? Saskatchewan has long been known as an agricultural province; that is, the greater number of its people are engaged in that occupation, and by far the greater part of its income is derived from agricultural pursuits. Under the new C.C.F. government a number of new industries are making their belated appearance. They were detailed a short time ago by an hon. member across the way. They will undoubtedly add to the welfare of the province. However, for a long time to come agriculture will provide by far the greatest number of jobs and most of the income of the province.
While it is true that most of the people of Saskatchewan choose to make their living on farms, it is equally true that it is one of
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Townley-Smith
the most hazardous of occupations, and as a result has unpredictable ups and downs not found in most other industries. Anyone who ' flirts with the vagaries of the weather, with the possibilities of too much heat or even frost, drought or too much moisture, of insect pests or plant diseases, is taking enormous risks with circumstances entirely beyond his control. Added to this is the questionable condition of the markets at selling time and the great chance that the whole season's operations may prove to have been conducted at a loss. Then the riskiness of farming becomes apparent.
The growing of food supplies and the1 feeding of the peoples of the world are of vital importance; and I feel that the farmers are among the most important people im our country. It is most unfortunate that they have not received more consideration from those whom they serve. The vital need for food is ever present. Whatever else may be in short supply, the peoples of the world must have food or they will die, so that those who till the earth, plant the seeds, feed the live stock and gather the' edible seeds from plants and trees must rank as the most important of our people. I do not say that, Mr. Speaker, to belittle the efforts of those who are engaged in other industries and professions. Their labours should all fit into the general1 scheme of things, so that all should receive those amenities of life that make for contentment and1 happiness.
The most important thing so far as agriculture is concerned is to secure and maintain the proper relation or ratio between the things that the farmers produce and the things that they buy. This has been referred to several times as a parity price. I do not know whether parity price is the right term, but certainly this relation has to be secured, and as far as I know, nobody has ever made any effort to do it. We have been told this afternoon about the requirements of parity price; it has been suggested that parity price is absolutely necessary in agriculture, and that legislation has already been put upon the books to achieve that end. But my forty-two years experience on a farm have shown me that we have never had a proper relation between these prices, that no government has ever tried to bring it about. They may have put it on the books, but there is quite a difference between having legislation on the statute books and doing something about it. So far as I am aware nothing has been done about it.
James Garfield Gardiner: The sum of $200 millions has been provided under this legislation.

Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH:	Our prices are
still all cockeyed. We also have beeni talking about floor prices, and it has been said these are a means of bringing about parity. I do not see that. I think you can have a floor price under a product and still not be anywhere near parity, still not. have a fair relation to other prices. It does not matter very much whether you give me. 50 cents or $3 a bushel for my wheat, just as long as I can buy other things in the same ratio. The price can go up or down, it does not matter as long as other prices go up or down to the same extent. That is what I have in mind when I talk about this fair relation between prices.
Canadian farmers have been asked to raise a tremendous number of hogs, principally for export to Great Britain. Many people do not know, and many farmers did not know for quite a while, that there is no guaranteed price for hogs. There still is not. We have a guaranteed price for bacon, yes; the packer is protected in that way. The price of hogs, however, may be and is whatever the packer likes to pay; there is no fixed price. Fortunately the prices of hogs have been kept reasonably high, but even at that a great number of our farmers have not considered that the price level has been maintained in relation to the hog, the price of feed and the cost of labour, and many farmers have gone out of hog production. I very much fear that this year our hog production in the western provinces will be down fifty per cent.
Some years ago I was up in the High Prairie region of the Peace river district, when a farmer came and gave me some figures as to his cost of production. I have his name and address, but I need not give those details now. That was in 1932, one of the bad years; that is a long time ago now. This man had shipped 23 hogs, averaging 218 pounds. Those of us who are in the farming business appreciate that this is just about the weight we endeavour to bring our hogs to when we are feeding them for the best market. His net return for the 23 hogs was $73.15. That is not so bad when you say it quickly, but it works out to about $3.15 each or less than two cents per pound. At the same time he shipped 24 turkeys, totalling 244 pounds, which netted him $3.17, not each, but for the lot, or a little less than li cents per pound. They were sent to a packing plant in Edmonton; I also have the name of that company. Well, men who have gone through experiences of that kind take quite a long time to recover. They do not readily jump into something else and take a chance on such treatment again. I understand the price of wheat recently advanced by some nine cents a bushel, but from questions which

Railway Act
were asked the other day I gather that the farmer is not to get that increase for some time, if ever. I hope the purchaser of bread will not be asked to pay it.
Just as long as the proper relationship between the prices of products and commodities is not arranged we shall be in difficulties. We shall have the very rich and the very poor; we shall have shortages and surpluses; we shall have wars and rumours of wars. You see, it does not matter what price we get for our wheat as long as we pay parallel prices,' but this mad scramble on the part of every individual to bolster up the price of his product or his goods or his services in order to get enough money to buy what he needs is sending everybody slightly crazy, and will only result in trouble and distress. I would appeal to the government to do something about this bolstering up and levelling off system.
Now may I say a word about the western wheat grower, arising out of the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) on September 19. The lack of understanding and the complete disregard of the conditions under which Canada's export wheat is produced are again apparent in this decision to put a low floor under this product. As already demonstrated, $1 per bushel is not sufficient; it will not cover the cost of production. In support of that statement I would remind the government that not so long ago the largest delegation of farmers ever to move out of their home districts came to Ottawa and interviewed the government in this connection. The minister told us that because his government are so sorry for the nations of the world who at present are short of money, they have decided to let the western wheat growers give these people their wheat at a price which must not go higher than that of September 19. He did not say anything about the price of clothing or, indeed, any manufactured article. I take it that the prices of these commodities are to be, as usual, what the traffic will bear. His government is not sorry enough as yet to help these importing nations clothe their people, or provide them with the goods war has destroyed, at moderate prices. Well, let me say for the western farmer that when it comes to helping anyone he is second to none, and he does not have to be told to do it. But when he is singled out and made to do it; when he realizes that he is to be made to sell his products at less than the cost of production in order that the purchaser may have sufficient funds to pay exorbitant prices for manufac-47696-32
lured imports, then he is going to have something to say. Treat us all alike, farmer and manufacturer, and we will give until it hurts; but I protest with all my being at the astounding unfairness of the government's proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, September 27, 1945.