1946-03-27

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: 

REPORT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
First report of the special committee on war expenditures and economies.-Mr. Isnor.


[Stage Direction]
"dominion"
Mr. A. P. COTE (Matapedia-Matane) moved the first reading of bill No. 8, respecting Canada day.
Mr. GRAYDON:: Explain.


Mr. COTE (Matapedia-Matane):: The bill is intended to repeal the Dominion Day Act and substitute therefor a Canada Day Act. The only changes are in the title and in section 2 where the word "Canada" is substituted for the word "Dominion". The purpose served and aim pursued in introducing this bill is twofold:
First, it is for the purpose of achieving a better identification of Canada outside the country.
Second, it is to create another element conducive to a greater patriotism towards Canada by Canadians all.
In replacing the word "Dominion" by the word "Canada"-and that is all that my bill is doing to the Dominion Day Act, chapter 49 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927-it surely is a clearer way of identifying our country in a shrunken world, where at least curiosity is rapidly growing for information about us.
Now, as far as we are concerned within the limits of our country, may I be permitted to suggest that it surely is not too early to give to Canadians all a common denominator for calculating their yearly achievements and a yearly holiday to celebrate the results all over Canada.
Such a holiday will certainly not put into shade the various colours of our Canadian mosaic, shining under the sun some other days in the year; but I believe the whole pattern should go on exhibition at least once a year and under a proper appellation.
_ Mr. CHURCH:	We have had one Canada
day since confederation-Dominion day July 1.
Motion agreed to and' bill read the first time.



NAVIGABLE WATERS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 9, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Mr. FRASER:: Explain.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: The purpose of
the bill is to amend subsection 2 of section 5 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The section as it stands reads:
The governor in council may approve of works constructed, or in process of construction, on the first day of June, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, subject to the provisions of section seven hereof, and such approval shall have the same effect as approval of works to be constructed.
The only change is to substitute, for the words "first day of June, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen", the words "first day of June, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-eight".


Gordon Graydon: What is the purpose?


Alphonse Fournier: This applies to
section 7, which reads:
The local authority, company or person proposing to construct any work in navigable waters, for which no sufficient sanction otherwise exists, may deposit 'the plans thereof and a description of the proposed site with the Minister of Public Works, and a duplicate of each in the office of the registrar of deeds for the district, county or province in which such work is proposed to be constructed, and may apply 'to the governor in council for approval thereof.
In the interval between 1918 and 1938 certain works were proceeded with. We have no authority to legalize them under the act as it stands, and this amendment seeks to cover such works as have no other sufficient sanction.


Mr. CHURCH:: Has this bill been submitted to the Department of Justice, seeing that it involves boundary waters and interprovincial and international streams?


Alphonse Fournier: All these bills do go to the law clerk of the house for preparation and are submitted to the Department of Justice in every case.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 10, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
Gordon Graydon: Is this the annual bill?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Yes, this is the ordinary annual bill for the appointment of auditors for the Canadian National Railways. It is the same as the bill introduced last year, with the exception that the figures "nineteen forty-six" have been inscribed instead of the figures

The Address-Mr. Quelch
"nineteen forty-five." It seeks again the appointment of George A. Touche and Company.


Thomas Langton Church: Bow long have they been auditors?
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time CANADIAN ARMY



PACIFIC FORCE PAY TO RADAR TECHNICIANS AND OTHER SIGNALS PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, a copy of which I have sent to him. Is the minister yet in a position to advise the house if Pacific pay has been granted to radar technicians and other personnel of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals who served in the Pacific theatre between July, 1944, and February, 1946?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: Personnel who enlisted
in the Canadian army Pacific force and who proceeded for training or as observers to the United States or to the Pacific theatre of war received special rates of pay authorized for the Canadian army Pacific force; but personnel other than those who had enlisted in the Pacific force were not entitled to and did not receive rates of pay authorized for the Canadian army Pacific force. There is no submission at present under consideration providing for the special rates of pay for personnel other than members of the Canadian army Pacific force.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. It has to do with the need for specialized labour in western Ontario for sugar beet growing and other specialized work. What is being done, other than releasing conscientious objectors, to make available the necessary labour for the purpose I have just mentioned? Where other labour is not available is it the intention of the government to utilize prisoners of war for this purpose as was done in previous years?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I take it my hon. friend is concerned mainly with the sugar beet situation.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Humphrey Mitchell: Questions of the type of labour for the kind of work my hon. friend
has in mind are under consideration at the moment. I do not know that I can add anything to that.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fernand Viau for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Just
before the debate was adjourned last night I was pointing out that the speech from the throne showed that the government was depending on pre-war policies to maintain prosperity. I pointed out that whilst the policy of foreign investment might help to maintain full employment, it must on the other hand result in a reduction in the standard of living of the people.
I think we must all agree that there is nothing in the speech from the throne to inspire the people to maintain a really worth-while peace effort. I believe we all agree there is a dangerous air of complacency about it, and that attitude has already been taken in this debate by at least one minister. I have in mind especially the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe). On the other hand I do not think it can be said that that air of complacency is general throughout the country. I know that because I have, spoken to many people in various walks of life and from various parts of the country. Speaking in the vernacular I find that that ain't the way they see it'. They are greatly perturbed by the shape of things to come. The government is placing altogether too great dependence upon the Bretton Woods agreement to make its policies a success. I deeply regret that the government sought fit to railroad that measure through the house the way they did at the end of the last session. The house will recall that we on this side of the house spent a fair amount of time discussing it and there were loud groans from the Liberal benches. Let me warn the members of the Liberal party that unless they get off the bed of Procrustes before the screws are turned, their backbones will refuse to act and they will no longer have the power to get off.
When Mr. Rasminsky, the government's financial expert, appeared before the banking and commerce committee, he said in reply to my questions that the success of the Bretton Woods agreement would depend to a very large extenj upon a change of heart on the part of the creditor nations. Both Mr. Rasminsky and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) told us that they thought that some of the main objections we were making with
The Address-Mr. Quelch

(id) should provide for the full application of non-discrimination in the use of such restrictions after the transitional period.
There you have the case to which I have already referred. A nation wishing to place any restriction upon the imports of any one nation is obliged to place the same restriction against all imports it may bring in from other nations even though these nations may be playing the game and balancing their exports with imports. The purpose of the Bretton Woods agreement is supposed to be to help expand trade; but I would point out that unless the creditor nations are prepared to play the game-and there is no sign of it in these proposals-the result may very well be an intensification of economic nationalism.
I want to quote from a speech by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Attlee, to sjrow that this is exactly what is already talcing place in Britain; and, remember, Britain signed the Bretton Woods agreement. I hold in my hand British Hansard for January 22, 1946, and I refer to column 25. Mr. Norman Smith, who I think is Labour member for Nottingham South-
-asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the difficulties .i.n paying for imports, he will direct scientific research to the substitution of home-produced for imported raw materials used in British factories.
Mr. Attlee replied:
The circumstances of war have .already obliged us to do our best to substitute home-produced for imported materials within the 'limitations imposed by our natural resources. The government consider that these efforts should be continued .both by the government and by industry, with the full support of scientific research, in such a way as will contribute effectively to the solution of our balance of payment difficulties.
So in spite of the fact that the Bretton Woods agreement has been passed, apparently Great Britain still finds it necessary to

The Address-Mr. Quelch
adopt a policy of economic nationalism in order to try to solve the balance of payment difficulties; and I am very much afraid we shall find that policy followed by many other European nations-as well as nations such as Australia-which have had great difficulty in balancing their payments in the past.
One may well ask what would be the consequences of the government's supine adherence to the reactionary form of laissez-faire capitalism. I should like to quote to the house the warning that has been issued by the governor of the Bank of Canada in this regard. On page 9 of the report of the bank dated February S, 1946, the governor refers to the present situation and states:
At present, government outlays are still comparatively high. Time is required for demobilization, and large payments of war service gratuities and reestablishment credits are in process of being made. Moreover, our exports, which reached unprecedented volume under mutual aid, are being maintained at a high level in part 'by government loans to assist .allied countries to rebuild their damaged economies and to secure necessary foodstuffs.
That no doubt is the reason the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply sounded so optimistic when he spoke in this house, but I should like to go on and quote the warning that Mr. Graham Towers issues:
Looking to the future, however, there is no reason for complacency. Most of our real problems of post-war adjustment are still ahead. The backlog of demand will not be large in relation to productive capacity when industry [DOT]has been fully reconverted and inventories built up to normal levels. When the time lag involved in demobilization is over, government expenditures will fall rapidly. Nor will ou.r foreign lending to finance the purchase of Canadian goods remain indefinitely iat the present level. The prevailing optimism on the North American continent is dangerous if it diverts attention from the problems which have to be faced.
I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the problems referred to there by Mr. Graham Towers are exactly the same problems that faced us between the two wars. They are the same problems that have always faced heavily industrialized nations. Those problems may be boiled down to this: the way in which we maintain an effective demand as against our production, the way in which we maintain home markets and export markets for the total production of our factories, farms and other industries. In the past, especially from 1935 to 1939, we emphasized the reason for that situation. Time and again we pointed out that owing to certain practices which are inherent in the capitalistic system, industry is not able to maintain an effective demand against its own production except in times of abnormal capital goods construction, such as you have in war time or in any newly developed country before it becomes industrialized. Therefore if your objective is to bring about the fullest possible development of your resources you are bound to be faced with one of two alternatives. Either you will have to export your surplus goods-that is, goods not surplus to the needs of the people but surplus to their ability to buy within the country-and refuse to accept imports in return; or on the other hand you will have to expand the purchasing power of the people to the point where they will be able to buy the total production of the country and the exports of other nations exchanged for your own.
It is evident that if your objective is merely full employment; if your objective is simply to put people to work, the first of these two solutions may be satisfactory.1 Undoubtedly by such means you could maintain full employment, if you could get other nations who were willing to maintain an unfavourable balance of trade and to go further and further into debt, indefinitely. What nations are willing to do that? None have shown their willingness in the past; but if that were the case then you could succeed in getting everybody in the country to work. But if the objective is not merely to put people to work but to maintain the highest possible standard of living the people desire, then I think everyone will agree that the first solution is not satisfactory, because when you export more wealth abroad than you bring back in return, you are bound to reduce the standard of living of the people to the extent of that unbalance.	.
Therefore it should be the responsibility of the government to maintain the purchasing power of the people at a level sufficiently high to enable the people to consume to the limit of their desires or their power to produce, whichever comes first. If that is done I do not think we shall need to worry about a lack of effective demand; we shall not need to worry about a lack of markets. We shall have the greatest market this country has ever seen, the market provided by satisfying the needs of the people of this country. I suggest that under such a policy we could very well grant old age pensions of $50 a month at the age of sixty. Remember, when that matter was discussed1 in this house it received the support of hon. members on all sides, and the sooner the government implements a policy of the kind the sooner the people will really believe the Prime Minister means what he says when he talks about a new social order. Similar pensions should be paid to all people who are physically inca-
The Address-Mr. Quelch

pacitated and unable to seek gainful employment. To a certain extent we recognize that principle now so far as the blind are concerned, but there are many other classes of people who are incapacitated. I have especially in mind people who suffer so severely from arthritis and many other diseases.
Then we emphasize the fact that income tax exemption should be increased to at least $2,000 for married people and $1,200 for single people. After our action in this house, last session taking care of ourselves in a very gracious way, I think the very least we can do is pass on some similar benefits to the people of Canada. I believe all hon. members will agree when I say it is evident that people across this country, from one end to the other, are feeling that way to-day. They expect'that when the budget is brought down it will provide substantial reductions on income tax to be paid by people in the lower income brackets.
We believe that parity prices for primary products should be a matter of permanent government policy. When the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) spoke in this debate he placed our stand in respect to agriculture before the house. I repeat in passing, however, merely that, owing to increasing costs and the fact that to-day wheat at Chicago is selling at about $2 a bushel, the initial payment might very well be raised from $1.25 to $1.50. We are not criticizing the government for selling wheat to Great Britain at $1.55; but we do look upon that as a sacrifice which should be borne by the people of Canada as a whole. We do not believe the government has any right to ask one class of society to stand the whole sacrifice. We believe, too, that for the next four years the floor might very well be raised from $1 to $1.25.
There are many urgent projects which could be carried out. We believe the Minister of Reconstruction is making a mistake when he postpones the day when he proposes to put these projects into operation, and for that purpose keeps them on the shelf as insurance against unemployment.
There is no doubt, for instance, that as rapidly as possible irrigation projects should be proceeded with, thereby providing farms and homes for many thousands of people. This 'will help maintain a demand for goods and services of various kinds.
Then there is the question of housing. While we have many housing projects which, when materials are available, undoubtedly will help people in the higher income brackets, or even those in the medium brackets, to build houses,

I believe every hon. member will agree that these housing projects will not make it possible for the people in lower income brackets to obtain houses. After all, they are the ones in whom we should be specially interested. Therefore we favour a subsidized housing programme which would make it possible for all people in all walks of life to obtain decent housing.
It is very necessary that interest rates should be substantially lower. One thing that has been puzzling to people in Canada is that while we can make interesb-free loans to foreign countries, and can make loans at a rate as low as two per cent, yet we have to soak our own people about 4J per cent for our own housing programme.
One might criticize severely the making of loans to foreign countries at two per cent, while at the same time we are charging our own soldiers who helped win the war 3i per cent on the loans they wish to obtain. Surely they should be eligible for the same rates that we charge on loans to foreign countries.
I realize these things cannot be accomplished either under the present Conservative or Liberal financial policy, without steadily expanding debt and taxation. But let me point out that you cannot tax yourself into prosperity ; you cannot borrow yourself out of debt. Therefore, as the control of the issue of money can determine the volume and nature of production, and as it is a sovereign power, we urge the establishment of a national finance commission, responsible to parliament, through the Minister of Finance, for the issue and withdrawal of all moneys in accordance with the nation's requirements, and for the administration of the monetary system in response to the will of the Canadian people. We believe that in this way and in this way alone will it be possible to maintain and develop all the resources of the people of Canada at the highest possible level, and make the resulting wealth available to the people of this country, without at the same time dragging the nation down into the mire and morass of unpayable debt.
We have been told that one of the chief reasons for our magnificent war effort was that the people were inspired by the need for victory over the enemy. I am sure all will agree that in the speech from the throne there is nothing very much to inspire people. Certainly there is no inspiration in high taxation; there is no inspiration in expanding debt. Nor is there inspiration in a steadily lowered standard of living.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore):
That the following ibe added to the said
address:
"We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's ministers ought to have advised Your Excellency that they would introduce in the present session, such changes in Canada's financial, economic, and political organization as would ensure the immediate establishment of a revitalized Christian democracy wherein the standard of living of all Canadians would be raised to conform with the greatly expanded capacity of Canada to produce and deliver goods and services."


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, when I rose to speak on the amendment to the amendment, which was disposed of last evening, because there had been some discussion prior to beginning my observations . I neglected to pay my respects to the mover (Mr. Viau) and the seconder (Mr. Winters) of the address in reply. Therefore I take this opportunity to join with other hon. members who have extended their congratulations to those hon. members upon the able manner in which they presented the motion to the house.
I had not intended at that time to say anything further about agriculture in this debate. However I am sure hon. members will agree that, in view of the statements made yesterday afternoon by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) something should be said as soon as possible.
I rise to address myself to this new motion of want of confidence which has been moved by the Social Credit section of the house. First I should like to express my appreciation to hon. members in that group for the support they have given to the main matter of contention in connection with agricultural policy in Canada. In doing so perhaps I may be permitted to call attention to the fact that probably the one group in the house more dominated than any other by farm representation is the Social Credit group. Most of them are practical farmers from that section of the country we have been discussing when we have spoken about summer-fallowing and other systems of agriculture in an area which has had great difficulty in maintaining its population at a proper standard of living. For that reason I appreciate deeply the remarks which have been made, and the support which has come from that section of the house for the summer-fallow policy.
In the discussion which has taken place up to the present time I have reason to be satisfied with the position I took very early in my political experience. It was, Mr. Speaker, that never at any time would I criticize lengthy discussions in a deliberative assembly
on any question which might come before such an assembly. As a matter of fact I have always thought it was a mistake to take away from private members, in a house of commons particularly, or in any deliberative body convened for the purpose of discussing public questions-and particularly when such body is composed of elected representatives-their right to express themselves freely before we pass upon public questions in order that we may learn the point of view of people coming from different sections of such a far-flung country.
So throughout the thirty-two years in which I have been in deliberative assemblies, conscientiously I have carried out the decision I reached not to criticize people for discussing at great length subjects which might come before a deliberative body such as the House of Commons. I was never more pleased at having reached that decision a long time ago and having maintained it than I was when I listened yesterday to the leader of the opposition.
In the first speech that he delivered in the house this session he called the attention of new members particularly to the fact that this was his second session in the House of Commons; that during his first session he had sat and listened and had taken in all the different activities of members in this house, and, basing his decision upon his experience of over twenty years in another place and his one year's experience in this place, he felt called upon to give some advice to all of us. He stated that he did not intend on his first appearance before the house and in giving that advice to be brief in the remarks he proposed to make. He then proceeded to give us an address lasting somewhat in the neighbourhood of two and a half hours:
I take no' exception to his doing that. It was his right; it was his privilege. We expected, of course, that that privilege would be utilized on one" occasion, but probably not extended to another so soon. But yesterday we had the privilege of listening again to him for an hour and a quarter. On this occasion he was attempting to answer some of the remarks I made in a speech of about an hour's duration which I delivered a week ago. In his speech he raised three different questions.
The first was as to whether or not I had deliberately misrepresented him in any of the remarks I made in my speech of a week ago. He paid me the compliment of saying that he did not think I had done it deliberately, but that likely it was because I had not given full consideration to the matter. I want to say that everything I did a week ago I did deliberately, and I did it believing I

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
had in my possession all the facts. An examination of the figures which were used both then and which I will use to-day bear out the position which I took a week ago.
When we were discussing this matter a week ago I read to this house the definition of summer-fallow which was given by the leader of the opposition when he was teaching agriculture in the agricultural college of the province of Saskatchewan, and said that I agreed with it. That definition was to the effect that land which is kept out of crop, not growing any crop, not growing anything so far as you can prevent it from growing anything in one year in order to store up moisture for the next, is what is generally known in western Canada as fallowed land.
. Back in 1915 and 1916 and periods earlier than that, fallowed land was composed almost equally of two different classifications of land. The first was land that had never grown anything but prairie grass. That land we broke up in the latter part of May or the early part of June. We were accustomed to calling it "breaking". That land was kept from growing prairie grass or anything else for the first season after it was broken up, and then in the succeeding year it was put into crop. Usually the first year after it was broken up from prairie it was seeded to wheat. Then in the second year it was what we called back-setted and was again seeded to wheat. We put it into wheat for two years, believing that new prairie would grow wheat for two succeeding years after it was broken up. Then, under our practice of farming, usually in the third year we summer-fallowed it, kept it from growing anthing for another year in order to store up moisture.
Those are the lands that I was speaking of when I was speaking a week ago; those are the lands that the leader of the opposition was speaking of yesterday. If you take into consideration the classified lands which were broken up in 1915 along with the lands which were summer-fallowed, all the lands not producing anything for one season in order that they may produce more abundantly the next, then the figure which should have been used by me a week ago if I had used any figure at all, and I did not, was 32 per cent and not 26 per cent or 30 per cent. In other words, the policy supported in 1916 involved keeping fallow' 32 per cent of the area to be cropped the following year.
Another point is raised in connection with the discussion. It is suggested that when the statement was made a week ago the leader of the opposition was dealing with a proposal which he made to reduce summer-fallowed acreage this year down to 26 per cent. That 
is not the fact. The fact of the matter is that the leader of the opposition did what he suggests that I do on occasion. He suggested in his speech that on occasion I take a certain position and then try to bolster it up w'ith any information that I can find lying about. I submit to this house that is exactly what he did yesterday.
What did he do? He took certain figures which he had compiled from somewhere or other showing that we have 61,000,000 acres of cultivated land in western Canada at the present time. We have 65,000,000 acres. He first took the figure of 10,500,000 acres and then he added a figure covering breaking and summer-fallow and figured out that 3,500,000 acres was 26 per cent of that particular figure of 13,300,000 acres. He then estimated that if 19,300,000 were reduced to 15,800,000, that would provide 26 per cent of our present acreage, stated to be 61,000,000 acres. Then he started from the 15,800,000 figure and figured everything else in his speech on the basis of 26 per cent.
The mistake in that kind of reasoning is that the present acreage is not 61,000,000 acres but 65,000,000 acres. Then there is the further fact that when the leader of the opposition was speaking a week ago the figure which he used was 15,000,000 and not 15,800,000. He said that the summer-fallowed acreage of western Canada should be reduced from the 19,300,000 acres that we are proposing the farmers might have this year, down to 16,000,000 or 15,000,000. He then suggested that that would save some three or four million acres with which to produce some 30,000,000 bushels of wheat.
I submit that when the figures are righted to check the position which was taken a week ago, the figure of 65,000,000 acres, the summer-fallowed acreage of 15,000,000 acres is not 26 per cent but 23 per cent. The proposals which were made the other day were to the effect that we should reduce the summer-fallowed acreage, which now stands at between 29 and 30 per cent, down to a level of 23 per cent, and that by doing that we could produce more wheat with which to supply those whc are in need at this present time.
I submit these figures in order to indicate that I have nothing to withdraw with regard to what I said a week ago. The position I took a week ago was to the effect that back in 1915 and 1916 the present leader of the opposition, as professor of agriculture in the agricultural college of Saskatchewan, was teaching our young farmers that over a considerable part of our province we ought to have 50 per cent of our land summer-fallowed;

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
over another very considerable part of it we ought to have 33| per cent; over another much smaller part of it we ought to have 20 or 25 per cent, and that the average should be around one-third.
I know he took that position because I was in the house in Saskatchewan as a member in 1914. I was in the house in 1915 and in 1916. During some of those years the leader of the opposition was working for the government of Saskatchewan as a civil servant in the department of agriculture, and during others he was in the university in the province of Saskatchewan. I think hon. members will agree that I knew the grand old man who was Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan at that time

Hon. W. R. Motherwell-about as well as anyone in Canada could have known him. I know what his views were on the question; and I know that no man could have worked for him as a promoter of proper agricultural methods in Saskatchewan and not have been in agreement that we ought to have at least 331 per cent of the lands of that province summer-fallowed each year in order to make provision for a succeeding crop. So that in so far as that particular position is concerned I have no hesitation in making the statement that was the intention of the leader of the opposition when he was teaching the subject at that time, and that everyone in western Canada believed that was the position taken in his articles.
But if I had any doubt about it I do not have to go very far for an answer. Since this discussion came on I had sent to me the opinion of Mr. D. G. Mapkay, of Indian Head, Saskatchewan. One only needs to mention the name of Mackay to recall Doctor Mackay, the father of D. G. Mackay, who was the first superintendent of the experimental farm at Indian Head, and one only needs to mention that name to anyone coming from western Canada to recall the fact that Doctor Mackay was the originator of the idea of summer-fallowing, that he was the first one to advocate that policy in western Canada, that the reason he was given his position as head of the experimental farm at Indian Head when it was set up was that he had established on his own land the fact that in a dry country you can grow crops by summer-fallowing that could not be grown in years of drought unless you did summer-fallow. He started out to teach that idea to the people of western Canada, and' one of his students was the present leader of the opposition. I did not give the leader of the opposition credit for having established this particular policy in western Canada; I simply said that he was teaching the subject. Prior to the time
he began to teach it he1 had his experiences on an Ontario farm, where summer-fallowing is an entirely different matter. When he came to western Canada to work on the staff of Hon. W. R. Motherwell, who- was a bosom friend of Doctor Mackay-the two men together had preached this doctrine for years throughout the length and breadth of western Canada- it went without saying that he was employed to teach the idea which had been instilled into the minds of all good farmers by the two best advocates of the policy that we ever had. So that the present leader of the opposition was then under instructions from men who believed in this policy, and he did what a good civil servant does, he went out to teach the policy, as the figures which I have indicated bear out.
D. G. Mackay has something to say about this. He is looked' to by grain marketing authorities throughout the world for information; and this particular information which I have in my hand, and which was sent to me during these discussion, is noted as having been sent to Broomhall. It states this:
A large proportion of the 1945 wheat crop in Saskatchewan was due almost entirely to the practice of "30 per cent crop, 50 per cent fallow," by the majority of farmers on the lighter lands; and on the heavier soils, to the plan of summer-fallowing at least one-third of the cultivated acreage each year.
It goes on to say;
Despite the well recognized fact that in dry seasons wheat is a safer proposition than either of the coarse grains, anything that will tend toward a reduction of the oat and/oT barley crops-thereby necessitating a further reduction in the live stock population-or in a decrease in the acreage to foe summer-fallowed in the areas that for two years have suffered severe drought, must be regarded with very considerable misgiving.
That is the advice given to the people who are passing out information to grain markets all over the world, advice that they can rely upon. And what is the proposed policy he is referring to?
In recommending an increase of over 30 per cent in the wheat acreage for 1946, the . . . government of Saskatchewan, backed by the wheat pool, seems to have completely lost sight of the fact that one-half the province has been, and is, suffering from drought conditions, that a large proportion of the other half will commence the next crop season with reserves of moisture more or less depleted, 'and that there will be little or no carryover of feed grain.
Those who are going to buy wheat all over the world are looking to this organization for advices on what to expect from the crops this year. This man who gives them advice says that if the policy which is being proposed before this house by the leader of the opposition is followed, they can look upon their
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

desire to have more wheat with great misgivings; and everyone in western Canada who knows anything about the policies of farmers in western Canada knows that to be true. That statement was made on February 14, 1946.
In making a further report, on March 11, 1946, he says:
Deliveries of commercial feed grains in the current season to date-oats 73. barley 56.- might appear to indicate that at least 2 million each of oats and barley iacreages could be changed over to wheat without seriously affecting the live stock situation in the three provinces. This however is not a sound basis for even a partial solution of the problems of increasing the acreage for the production of feed . . .
This, then, would appear to leave lands intended for summer-fallow as the cultivation that must necessarily be changed over if a serious attempt be made to meet, even partially, the requirements of The stricken countries. Acreage changes of 3 to 10 million have been suggested, and under the latter an increase of 160 million bushels of export wheat has been mentioned as a possibility.
Under existing moisture conditions in the plains areas the production of 160 million bushels of ^ wheat from 10 million acres of second and third crop lands would seem to be merely a pipe dream, but the effect of the reduction of 3 to 10 million acres in the summer-fallow acreages for the crop of 1047 would be far from that

it would indicate the probalility of the smallest wheat crop in many years.
That, Mr. Speaker, is not the opinion of a man who is a politician, it is the opinion of a man who is still a scientific agriculturist, who has been bred in the ideas of summerfallowing in western Canada, and who I believe knows the position as well as anyone in Canada can know it. Certainly some people think he does, when an organization such as this relies for its information upon him, and he sends that information out as an indication of what we can expect from the people of this country if we follow some of the advices which are given to us from time to time.
I think that pretty well deals with the first point mentioned by the leader of the opposition. I still maintain that the proper system to follow m this country is not to have even the 23.300.000 acres which we had consented to ask farmers to seed this year, but the proper policy to follow in this country is, 21,500,000 acres in wheat, 21,500,000 acres in summer-fallow each year, and the other 21,500,000 acres in either grass or coarse grains for the feeding of live stock in order that we may keep up our supplies of other feeds as well as wheat.
That is about as plainly as, I think, I can state the position in relation to it, and I hope that the leader of the opposition, who 
is not here this afternoon to receive the answer I am giving to what he said yesterday, will examine the figures again. I may tell him that I am making this speech now because it gives him an opportunity of replying to it if he desires to do so. If I had waited, as I might have done, until the main motion-because I had not spoken on the main motion-he would not have had the right to speak again. But since I am speaking on this amendment and he has not spoken on it he still has the right to speak on it. Well, all I would say to him is this. I think he has depended too much upon the group of young men whom he hired out of t,he agricultural college of Saskatchewan- very capable young fellows-and from other agricultural activities throughout Canada, and whom he placed in charge of his propaganda office and of his organization.	.
These men up to that time were scientific agriculturists giving advice to the people of the country upon the basis of scientific experience; and I would suggest to him, when he takes a week of the time of officials of the department and of, the statistics branch of the Department of Tra'de and Commerce for the purpose of compiling information necessary to the making of a speech, he should get someone in one of these departments to write his speech for him, and not be reading a speech provided by men hired out of the departments who have become politicians.
In the discussions yesterday the leader of the opposition stated the second major point was this, that the minister said the establishment of a certain percentage of summerfallowing will produce better results than by summer-fallowing less. It will be noted, when that appears in Hansard to-morrow, that I have not used the figures which were used by the leader of the opposition in making the statement.
These figures, as I stated a moment ago, were based upon figures which were not properly interpreted and which were not given full expression to in the statements read to the house yesterday-and I am not 'blaming the leader of the opposition for that. I do not think he wrote the speech, and therefore I would say again that I believe with him that the rules of this house and fortunately that which states one shall not read a speech ought to be enforced. That rule is put there for a purpose, that purpose being that no one outside this house and not elected by the people may make a speech in the house through some elected member.


Gordon Graydon: Does that apply to everyone? Does it apply to the government?

The Address-Mr. Gardiner


James Garfield Gardiner: It applies to me anyway. When anyone is making a speech in this house which is being read, it does not necessarily follow that someone else wrote it


Gordon Graydon: That is an insult to the Prime Minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: -though there is a possibility that someone else wrote it. My hon. friend says that is an insult to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has proven himself on many occasions in this house capable of delivering his own speech, either read or spoken.


An hon. MEMBER:: So has the leader of the opposition.	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do not worry about,the Prime Minister.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He will have lots of
worries.


Gordon Graydon: It should apply to everyone if it applies to the leader of the opposition.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not intend to quote again figures which were not correct.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: All out of step but my son John.


James Garfield Gardiner: Another suggestion has been made; it is that I was wrong in maintaining that we had kept the crop up through summer-fallow-kept the total yield up through summer-fallow-and in order to answer that, the leader of the opposition dwells upon a suggestion that, because in a certain season I had said that the acreage ought to be so-and-so, and in another season I said it should not be any more, I was not advocating greater production of wheat.
The fact is that the leader of the opposition thinks you can get more wheat by merely increasing the acreage. I do not believe that. I have been attempting to demonstrate to the house, every time I have spoken on the question, that the one way to get a higher quantity of production in the west is to summer-fallow one-third of the land on an average, and over a very considerable part of the area one-half of the land. If we do that we can get a much higher production of wheat and feed and live stock and dairy products and all other farm products in that country, and as a matter of fact all dairy and live stock products produced in other parts of Canada, because in no other part of Canada do they produce enough feed grain to feed all the live stock they can maintain on their pastures and by other means on their land. Therefore
we must produce feed grain that is to be utilized, and elsewhere increase these productions right across the country.
In dealing with this matter, the leader of the opposition became eloquent, maintaining that I did not give sufficient credit to Providence or to someone else. I might say this,
I would far rather be guilty of not giving credit to the Lord than be guilty of blaming our difficulties upon Him, and that is exactly what the leader of the opposition did. He said it was the drought and grasshoppers, the sawfly and the cutworms-these were the things which caused the difficulties from 1935 to 1939; and because I did not mention them, I gave all credit to the government for the summer-fallow policy which I maintained had increased production from 1941 to 1944.
The fact is that I did not choose that period at all; the leader of the opposition chose that period. In his speech a week ago he challenged me as Minister of Agriculture to ask the people of Saskatchewan and of western Canada in general to go back to the acreages in the period immediately prior to the war, and I took him at his word and compared the two periods. I simply stated that we had this production in the one five-year period, not only of grain, but of live stock and dairy products and everything else that goes on the market; that we had another production in the other period, and that the production in the second period when we were encouraging summer-fallow was much higher than in the preceding period. And now he says to me that in making that statement I have said it was better than at any other time.
Probably I am a little guilty of having said that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Just a weeny bit.


James Garfield Gardiner: I certainly said that one year of the period, 1942, had produced more than any other year in our experience, but I am quite prepared to accept the criticism; for where did he go in order to check up on that statement? He went back to the years prior to 1929, in the twenties. I would call his attention to one fact in that connection.
We were told in this house that certain things have happened because of certain policies which this government had. We were told that we had certain support because of certain things we did, while there was lack of support because of things we did not do. Then he goes back to the twenties to find a period he thinks was better than this period during the war, although he does give us credit for having had the best period of all in the last three years.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

What does that bring us to? It brings us to this fact. We have had changes of government from time to time in this country. The government under the leadership of the present Prime Minister came into power in 1922-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1921.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, December, 1921;,
and continued in power down to 1930. In that period what happened? Agriculture rose from one experience to another, from an experience which it had had in the years following the first world war to the early thirties. It rose from one position to another until the only period that the leader of the opposition can take us back to in order to find better conditions than those prevailing at the present time, according to his story, is the twenties following the last war. That brings us down to about the time that a previous leader of his party whose policies he would like us to follow was in office. No one w'ould suggest we return to the early thirties. What about the period following that to- which he advised us to go the other day?
In speaking of the last three years of the war period he did not emphasize this; the highest heights to which we as a farming population ever rose prior to -the last five years were in 1928. The total gross cash income of the farmers was $1,060,000,000 The average for the total cash farm returns in this country for the last three years has been $1,600,000,000, and in one of those years, 1944, it was $1,800,000,000. In other words, if one takes the three-year period during the twenties and compares it with the last three-year period it will be found that we are from $600 to $700 million higher on an average than we were in the preceding period.
If the policies of the government have led us to the present position in the last three years, what about the next three? Yesterday I had the privilege of bringing down in this house the agreements which have been arrived at between this government and the British government. They showed on a firm basis for this crop year, the next crop year and the following crop year, price levels and other returns for farm products equal to those we have had during the last three years. I have showed in this policy that we have not only laid down for a three-year period, which is admitted by the leader of the opposition himself, a programme which will assure as good returns, but also for at least another three years which will assure as high returns as have already produced a record.

That brings me to the suggestion that I did not take into consideration pests such as wireworms, cutworms, grasshoppers and some other things.


Gordon Graydon: And the C.C.F.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am beginning to
wonder whether the C.C.F. is as much a pest as my hon. friends directly opposite. I hold in my hand a map which shows the areas that- are infested from time to time by grasshoppers. It is the same area that we speak of as the Palliser triangle. Then I have another map which shows the same thing for wire worm.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did you make it up?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; some of the people who gave my hon. friend some of his information made it. Then I have one with regard to the sawfly which shows -the same area. Then I have another one that shows the saw-fly in 1938, and it gives the same area. Then I have another one that shows the sawfly in 1942 and it covers the same area. I could go on throughout all the years that we have had experience with the different kinds of pests and indicate that they thrive in the drought area known as the Palliser triangle in western Canada. Then I hold; in my hand the advice which is given to the farmers from time to time by the scientists in relation to this particular problem. Here is what they say with regard to grasshoppers:
Careful planning is essential to best control. This is particularly important in the areas of open plains, where widespread infestations of the lesser migratory grasshopper are likely to be found. The work should be so timed that summer-fallows will be completed before the grasshoppers migrate from the stubble to adjacent crops.
Note that the grasshopper's eggs are laid in the stubble. They are there in the fall of the year. It is pointed out that the summerfallowing should be done sufficiently early to destroy as many of these pests as possible before they can move out of that stubble land on to the land that is growing a crop. The scientists say, "Take care of your summer-fallow, but do it early, and that in itself will assist you in treating grasshoppers." The article goes on:
As much as possible of the infested stubble land and recently abandoned land, which may be heavily infested, should be summer-fallowed and worked in a manner that will destroy the grasshoppers or- their eggs and prevent migration. In severely -infested areas it is folly to "stubble-in" any crop.
In other words, they are emphasizing cultivation and more, particularly claiming summerfallowing as a means of contesting grasshoppers.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
I now come to another of the pests mentioned, the stem sawfly. We are told much the same thing. This statement is made:
Any type of farming practice or rotation in which wheat is seeded on land containing infested stubble or adjoining such land tends to increase the abundance of the sawfly. Infestations in large field units, which are summer-fallowed in alternate years, are usually found to be confined to the margins.
In other words, the only places where you have the sawfly in a well summer-fallowed field are where the sawfly comes in out of the areas immediately roundabout. Therefore summer-fallowing is a means of dealing with all these infestations. I do not need to say to men from western Canada who have had experience in farming that in so far as the cutworm is concerned that is more particularly true. The cutworm comes from ah insect. It lives on top of the ground. Naturally the grub goes into the ground when conditions are suitable, and they are suitable to it only when there is not much moisture in the land. When the land is properly summer-fallowed and maintained there is less likelihood of cutworm being prevalent than if that process is not carried out.
I go into this in some detail to show that not all the pests are of the insect variety. These people who are going around the country telling us that we ought to have less summer-fallow in the area when the experts tell us that we have already had two drought years are, I think, greater pests than all the army worms, wire worms, cutworms and grasshoppers that we have ever had. We ought to get rid of some of these.
Since listening to the discussion and looking at the statistics that were placed on Hansard yesterday, I have come to the conclusion that scientists when they get out of their element and into politics giving information are just about as dangerous as any pests we have ever had. We have had some experience with that kind of thing. Scientists have their noses glued to a task. They are working at it. Their minds are upon the accomplishment of it, and while they are* working at these tasks they do some wonderful things for all of us. But when a man who has been studying matters of that kind during the early part of his life and instructing the youth how to carry out those ideas and then in some way or other gets shoved into something else in which he has had no previous experience and tries to instruct the people he gets into trouble. I believe the leader of the opposition is the one man in this country at this time who demonstrates that to a greater degree than anyone else. He has been shoved over into that position. I do not know that
he desired it. I am going to deal with that in a few moments. He has been utilized in a certain way and I shall deal with that in a few moments. In the meantime all I wish to say is that we have had some difficulties as a result of scientists taking over other responsibilities and trying to give us advice in other fields. Some scientists are in the organization offices of the Progressive Conservative party and some are in that leadership going around the country talking to( our people on the ground that because at one time they were considered to be experts in agriculture, therefore every farmer should follow them. I am not greatly worried about that. It is pretty well known what the intention was when these leaders took over; it was fairly clearly stated to us yesterday. The intention, of course, was to appeal to the agriculturists of Canada, and more particularly to the agriculturists of western Canada to support a certain party. Well, if anyone benefited from that appeal it was not the Progressive Conservative party; probably it was our C.C.F. friends. The appeal made to the farmers of western Canada under the present leadership did not return more Conservatives to this house from western Canada. Two very able men at whom I used tp look across the way, coming from the province of Saskatchewan, are not in their seats this parliament. True, these leaders succeeded in removing quite a number from this side of the house, but after all they did not accomplish very much toward the objective they had in mind in establishing one set of principles as against another set of principles. I would suggest that when we go to the country again we place our principles squarely before the people and rest our case upon those principles. Then I think wd shall get much better results than by simply trying to encourage men who were scientists and experts in certain lines of activity to go out and tell our people that more can be accomplished by following some particular individual than by following sound scientific practice.	v
The third point which was raised was to the effect that the government had claimed to have switched its policy, which up to 1943 had been to encourage the production of live stock; that from that time on we encouraged the production of wheat, but that we had not done so. In dealing with this matter yesterday the leader of the opposition read from the reports of the dominion-provincial conference which has been held each December since 1939, to substantiate the position he took, and said that according to those reports I had not advocated an increased wheat acreage during the last three years. Then he went on to
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

quote from a newspaper in western Canada which he said was a supporter of the government. Of course we like to get support from any quarter, and to the extent that this newspaper supports the government we appreciate it.


An hon. MEMBER:: You will need it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I have not needed it as much as some people, so far. I have here some of the opinions expressed by this same newspaper just a year ago, and I should like to place one or two of them on Hansard in .order that we may understand just what the position is' from time to time. I have here a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press of March 23, 1945, just about a year ago. The first sentence is:
The supply of foodstuffs during the coming year has become a matter of urgent concern to the governments of .the united nations. The /prospective deficiency in the supplies of meat is the main cause for anxiety.
Then further:
The first matter to be examined in. this connection is the recently announced policy regarding wheat. The government has decided to increase substantially the returns which western farmers will receive from wheat . . .
This policy is bound to have important repercussions -on the nature of agricultural production in the prairie provinces. It is widely expected that the increase in the returns from wheat, coming on top of the shortage of labour and the growing strain on the agricultural population, will result in a further expansion in wheat acreage at the expense of animal feed stuffs and live stock production. It is clear that such a development would be directly contrary to the real needs of the situation.
That was just about a year ago, that this paper was saying that to encourage wheat production in Canada in order to take care of the food situation that was developing would be a mistake. I could go on and read some two or three more issues of the same newspaper along the same lines. I think I shall read only one portion from the issue of April 11, 1945:
When Canadians think of food relief for Europe they think, too often, of wheat. We have great wheat surpluses, but wheat is not the answer. It cannot be ground quickly into flour in Europe because of the war-damaged mills and power shortages. Every flour mill in Canada is working to capacity, so there is little chance of our increasing our flour supplies.
Having read those three statements from the editorial page of the Winnipeg Free Press, I do not think I need go farther than to say that even newspapers sometimes change their minds. A year ago they were advocating a policy entirely different from that which was read to this house yesterday in order to

indicate that the statements I made a week ago were not based upon the facts, were not based upon the experience of farmers, and were not in the best interests either of the farmers or of the people who were depending upon us for food. Yet within twelve months the same newspaper was arguing that we ought to have been doing what I maintained last week we were doing I may say I had some controversy with the newspaper at that time. The suggestion was made that we had raised the prices of grain and that by doing so we were going to deplete our live stock because we had not raised the prices of live stock sufficiently. They went on to suggest that we had not increased the price of bacon at all after having increased the price of grain. I wrote them to point out that we had increased the price of bacon after raising the price of grain, and that we did consider there was a pretty fair balance, as a result of which we believed the farmers would make their own choice. It is true I did not come out and say, "Seed a greater acreage." A great many people were saying that, and it was being said by some from whom I was quite sure it would be just as acceptable to the farmers of western Canada as any advice I could give in a matter of this kind. So that what I said the other day was this, that in 1943 the government had announced an increased .price for wheat, and increased prices for oats and barley, and by those increased prices had encouraged the production of grains as against live stock; and that we had done so advisedly. As I stated a week ago, I went across this country and addressed twenty-five audiences in the part of the country concerned, indicating that we were not asking the farmers any longer to keep down the production of wheat, that we were desirous of having them make the decision on the basis of their own needs. If they required cash immediately they could produce live stock and sell it upon a market which was available at all times. 'If they did not require cash immediately it was quite safe to produce wheat, and store it in bins against the time when we would require it. I believe the farmers acted upon the suggestions which were made over that area which is, pictured in the maps I exhibited a few moments ago. We had great increases in wheat acreage, greater than we desired. So that on every occasion that I spoke to the farmers with regard to this matter I said that 23,000,000 acres was too high, that it should be brought down to 21,500,000 acres as soon as possible. Last year for the first time we told them to main-

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
tain it at 23,300,000 acres for this one year; then we could again size up the situation in Europe and tell whether it would be essential to do the same thing in the years ahead. We were two years in advance of either the Free Press or anyone other than the government in encouraging increased acreage.
I think I have fully covered the position I took the other day. I have repeated that the policy of the government is one of having one-third of the land in the three prairie provinces summer-fallowed, one-third in wheat and one-third to provide feed grains and fodder for live stock; and on that basis we shall produce more food than we shall in any other way. We did agree to continuing this year with an acreage of 23,000,000 acres, which is 2,000,000 acres higher than our judgment suggests in normal times.
In order that I may not be misunderstood with regard to this, and in order that this house may know that the Free Press is fully informed with regard to it, may I point out that I have here an editorial which was written on the 19th day of this month. The other one, which was read yesterday, was written on the 22nd. My telegram is dated the 23rd, in reply to the first editorial. In that editorial it was stated that the government did not seem to be very firmly convinced as to what way the farmers ought to go, and that we were not giving the kind of leadership that ought to be given. It was stated that some others, including provincial governments and grain concerns, were giving definite leadership, and that they agreed in that leadership to the effect that we should have increased acreages in wheat.
I sent this telegram on March 23 to the editor:
Have just read your editorial headed "Greater cultivation needed", in which you refer to leadership and uncertainty.
There has been no uncertainty since last December as to the wishes of the'federal Department of Agriculture or the government of Canada. The advice of this department to the western farmers is that they do not take any land out of summer-fallow or feed grains this year and sow it to wheat.
This advice is based upon every experience we ever had in western Canada to get increased food production immediate or long time.
If the Free Press on its own responsibility wishes to advise otherwise they are of course free to do so without it costing them anything as are some others referred to. It has been the dominion treasury and the farmers that have* had to pay the costs of poor farming practice coupled with drought in the west over the past twenty years.
The only direction some desire to recognize as leadership is their own. We are not leading in the direction you appear to wish to go but we are leading in the opposite direction.
I wanted to make that as clear as I possibly could make it. I hope it has been published. I say that because it cost this government and others $217 million in the last drought period to take care of those who during the years immediately after the last war followed a policy similar to that being advocated now. Those of us who had experience with that situation, have no desire to return to it-even if the government were prepared to pay the money.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What was the length of time over which the government had to give $217 million?


James Garfield Gardiner: From 1930 down to 1939, probably. It 'included the last two terms of government. That is an enormous sum of money. And those of us who are entrusted with the care of the money in the treasury of the country feel that we have some responsibility. If others persuade farmers to go in another direction, and the farmers go along and suffer as a result of it, then so far as I am concerned, following the experience-1 have had in the last twenty years, I want to be on record everywhere possible as having said that the only policy to ensure us against drought and the only policy to ensure us against pests is a summer-fallow policy which puts one-third of our land under summer-fallow.
Had it not been for the closing observations of the leader of the opposition I would have had nothing further to say. However, he did say something further, which requires some comment. I do not know why the leader of the opposition thought he had to make some explanation about his becoming leader of the Progressive Conservative party. Most people do not require to make explanations after having made moves of that kind.
No, most people are well understood by all, and particularly people who rise to the height of becoming leaders of great political parties. Everyone knows they are the leaders of those parties. Everyone knows they are leaders because they have always-or at least for a very long time-been members of those parties. They have fought for them, worked for them, led others into them, and so have gained leadership. They require to make no explanations whatsoever.
For instance, we understand why the bon. member who sits at the far corner of the house is leader of the Social Credit group. We understand why the hon. member who leads the C.C.F. party is leader of that group. We understand why the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is leader of this group. No one needs to explain it.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner


Mr. JACKMAN:: Stopped thinking.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says "stopped thinking". They may do that in his party, but they do not in this. Thos,e of us who started early and^ kept right at the job of trying to convince the people of Canada that our policies are best for the country do not need to go around explaining our position. We do not need to try to convince the people that we have taken a certain position for the first time. We have

The Address-Mr. Coldmell
been taking the position which we take to-day with regard to farm policy and other matters for a very considerable period of time. That is the position we took during the period from 1921 down to 1929, which was the best period for agriculture that this country had experienced down to that time. Just as my hon. friends opposite in the short period of five years demonstrated that their policy was the worst possible policy for agriculture. So have we, since 1935, been working at the job with the same set of principles, with the same views with regard to agricultural methods and practices, demonstrated to the people of western Canada as well as to those of eastern Canada that we have arrived at the point where agriculture has passed the heights it rose to under the previous Liberal government. Even the leader of the opposition says that in the last three years agriculture has been in the best position it has ever been in, even back in the twenties. But he goes on to say even mpre than that; he says, "What we are worried about is the future." The only thing if he is concerned for agriculture that he needs to be worried about is whether anyone will ever put him in office.
This government with the policies which have been in effect during the last ten years, developed to fuller completion in the last five or six years and which are guaranteed by the agreements which were read yesterday by me and which will be submitted on grain later 'by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) and by the further arrangements that will eventually be brought down will satisfy even some of the criticisms that have been made in this house. Some people may be sorry before it is all finished that they made the criticism they did. They may find that some of the things they proposed are not only already arranged for but are in position to be brought down in sufficient time to take care of what they are worrying about in connection with farm production and the condition of the farmer in the immediate future.
Therefore I say that in voting on this motion of want of confidence that is now proposed, the thing for this house to do, first, is to vote down the amendment in order that we may get on to the main motion and, then, vote the main motion through in order that this government may get on with the job of further improving agricultural conditions in this country.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I had not anticipated speaking again in this debate, but since the opportunity has arisen, and, as the Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Gardiner) has quite properly stated to the house, this debate affords an opportunity to discuss some matters that are before the country, and there may be a danger of some misunderstanding as to where we stand in this controversy regarding price ceilings and the production of food, I felt that I should like to say something further this afternoon.
Before I proceed may I say that I was greatly interested this afternoon in hearing the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) rise on a question of privilege and read into the record a short statement by Tim Buck. I presume that the marriage of convenience which seemed to have been consummated before the elections has now been very happily dissolved.
As I said a moment ago, I am rising to say something about the discussion on the removal of price ceilings. The other evening the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) urged the removal of price ceilings in the building trades. He complained about the difficulties of the builders in obtaining labour because of insufficient wages, and in obtaining materials because of insufficient prices. I listened last night to the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) who stated that in his opinion butter should be seventy-five cents a pound, or, indeed,'perhaps even a dollar a pound. I believe that some adjustments must be made in the prices of farm commodities, but let me say to these gentlemen a t once that if prices are allowed, to take flight, then we are in for a severe trimming of the consuming population of this country. Inevitably the prices of all the things the farmer has to buy will rise, but the prices of the things he has to sell will trail -the prices of the things he has to buy. The worker will find himself chasing prices upward and wages never catching up with them. Then when we get to the peak, as we found after the last war, there will be the collapse and inevitable suffering by the working people and farmers of this country.
May I say that the demands we have been listening to in this house from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and from some of his followers are strangely like those that are now being heard in the United States, where the former isolationists in the senate and house of representatives, and the newspapers which supported1 the isolationists in that country, are demanding the removal of price ceilings and the elimination of controls. I venture to say there is no desire on the part of those in Canada who are really behind this move to benefit either the worker or the farmer. In reality it is engendered by powerful business and financial interests in this country
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

who want to puncture the price ceiling and get rid of controls in order that they may have a Roman holiday.


Gordon Graydon: You could not believe
that.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I may say this, that the past record of these same big business people, as was noted yesterday by the hoa. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), fully confirms the opinion I have just expressed.
I want to place before the house exactly where we stand in this controversy. We have always urged, because we believe in it, economic and social planning of an intelligent sort. We believe that our economy should be intelligently directed in the interests of the Canadian people. And may I say to the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), who objected to voting for our subamendment last evening on the ground that his group had not a mandate for the establishment of a socialist state, that that amendment did not ask for a socialist state but asked for the institution of intelligent national planning. At the moment there is a need for such planning. If ever there was a need of intelligent planning of our economic life and of our production of food, it is now, when starvation faces millions of people from one end of the world to the other; and this can be met, it seems to me, by encouraging the production of food and of other materials. In order to encourage that production, the people who work and produce must be guaranteed, not only now but in the day's to come, the reward of an adequate and rising standard of living. That means, of course, that the prices of consumer goods and of farm commodities must bear a direct relationship with one another.
Floor prices and minimum wages are essential, but in considering floor prices and minimum wages let us remember that if we are to have floor prices, minimum wages and adequate standards, we cannot allow speculation of the type that will shoot prices high in one period and depress them in another. Under present conditions, ceiling prices and fair wages are essential, and in order to arrive at both fair prices and fair wages we require a national plan under which negotiations to set these fair wages and proper prices would be conducted by the representatives of agriculture, of labour, and of industry. That is what we mean when we talk about a national planning authority. A mad scramble for higher prices and higher wages obtained by strikes and by pressure groups will sooner or later cause economic and social chaos.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Does the hon. member think the farmer is getting a fair price now?


Major James William Coldwell: The farmer wants a fair, reasonable and stabilized price for his butter, his eggs, his wheat, his hogs and other products; and I told my hon. friend how that might be arrived at-if he had listened to me-in the very last statement I made before the one I am making now.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member did not answer his question.


Major James William Coldwell: I answered his question. I said that in order to achieve a fair price, that price must be based on negotiation among all those interested. I am not one of those who guesses, as the hon. member for Stanstead did, that the farmer might get a dollar a pound for his butter, or guesses, like somebody else, that he might get $3 a bushel for his wheat. The only manner in which prices can be found to be reasonable, fair and stable is by intelligent examination and by negotiation among the parties concerned. That is the manner in which I would answer the particular question.
I do not believe that the farming population of this country desire to take advantage of the widespread starvation which exists throughout the world to-day. I was reading only this morning an account of the recent by-elections in Great Britain, and I was greatly struck by the attitude of 'the British people who -today are enduring a greater austerity programme than they endured even in the days of the war. One of their constituencies, the Hey-wood and Radcliffe division, up to 1935 was regarded as an entirely safe Conservative seat. In the general election last summer the Labour party won the seat by a small majority. In the by-election that was held last month the Labour party won that constituency again, by a slightly reduced majority; and when the result was made known the successful candidate, Flight-Lieutenant Greenwood, summed up the whole matter in a single sentence. This is what he said:
I have won this election because the people of this division were not prepared to sell their birthright of two thousand years of Christian principles for a packet of dried eggs.
To-day, Mr. Speaker, a packet of dried eggs or the lack of it-Is a symbol of the austerity programme in Great Britain. And I do not believe that the farmers of this country are prepared to forgo the teachings of two thousand years of Christianity and try to wring the last cent out of a starving world.
I am rising this afternoon because I find that lately, in the Winnipeg Free Press and some other papers, we have been bracketed with the Progressive Conservatives.


Gordon Graydon: That is a compliment to
you.

The Address-Mr. Coldwell


Major James William Coldwell: No. If it is a compliment it is a very left-handed one.


Gordon Graydon: Think of us.


Major James William Coldwell: I am rising because I want to make it very clear that we are not joining them in the propaganda to get rid of all price controls including the controls on the prices of farm produce. In order to show that I am not saying this only this afternoon I should like to refer to the speech I made in this house on March 18. At that time- and I do it again 'this afternoon, in spite of what the Minister of Agriculture has said- I criticized the government because I believed that they were failing to take a risk this year in increasing the production of cereals, which I believe is warranted. The house will remember I expressed the opinion that if we did increase wheat acreage beyond a certain level, we were incurring some risk. But I believe that that risk is warranted this year; and about that may I add at once that there may be an honest difference of opinion. I went on to say this, Hansard, page 57:
Uncertainty wtih .regard to prices of farm products is already causing a serious decline in some products. Agriculture needs the assurance of floor prices which will be reviewed from time to time and be set in relation to the cost of production and the sacrifices farmers made or are making to the maintenance of price ceilings. 1 wish to say at once that we cannot subscribe to the propaganda that farm prices should be allowed to find their own levels by open market trading. True, levels of some" farm products, notably wheat, would reach a high level now; but inevitably the day would come when they would become equal! v low. Consequently we believe the fanner desires, not high prices at one period and low prices at another, but some stability in price levels.
The farmer, like the industrial worker, wants fair, stabilized returns so that he may maintain a decent standard of living every day of every year.
The Minister of Agriculture pointed, out that many of my hon. friends who sit in the Social Credit group are from farm constituencies, representing a farm population to whom this problem is of vital interest. Let me say to him that around me in this party are men who in the main, with only three or four exceptions, represent farming areas.


James Garfield Gardiner: My distinction was
different from that. I said that the Social Credit group, I thoqght, had the largest proportion of men who are actually farmers, men living on the farm.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not sure about that. I have not checked it up, but I doubt whether even that is true. In any event, however, it is correct to say that the two parties sitting to your far left, Mr. Speaker,
do represent largely the wheat-growing area of this country; consequently this matter is of vital interest to us. It is true that the farmers during these war years, in spite of improved prices, have not received either the returns for their labour or the recognition which they deserve of their contribution to the maintenance of price ceilings.
I have stated on a number of occasions in this house that the assessment for income tax, for example, which has been mentioned several times in the debate, is wrong so far as farm families are concerned. Some allowance should have been made long ago for the farmer's wife and the farmer's family'. These wives and families have contributed a great deal, in their long hours of labour on the farm, to the building up of farm incomes, and some recognition should have been given to them long ago. I hope that when the new budget comes down their remuneration, if you like to call it that, will be considered a legitimate part of farm expenses.
I wish to say something about the wheat policy of the government, and I shall deal with wheat for the reasons I gave a few moments ago. The policy of the C.C.F. prior to and during the early part of the W'ar was a pretty continuous demand for increased prices for wheat in order to give the farmer a return which would enable him to hire the necessary labour, buy the necessary machinery, and attain a reasonable standard of living; and as long as wheat prices remained at 60 cents, 70 cents, 90 cents and SI a bushel we fought for increased prices for wheat, and fought continuously.
Farmers organizations want stabilized prices, and I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture was able yesterday to place before the house the outline of the agreement that has been reached with Great Britain. I had hoped that some such agreement might be reached, and now we have before us an agreement which does guarantee certain prices to farmers this year and the two succeeding years. I have not examined all the details of the agreement. Some of these prices may' be out of line, too low. If so, then I agree with the member for Acadia that if the farmers are asked to take any price that is too low, they should not be penalized on that account but the difference should be made up by all the people of Canada. It should not fall on farmers alone.
Farmers organizations, as I have already said, continue, as they continued in those years, to demand adequate and stabilized prices. Our- position now is this, that the act establishing a floor price of $1 a bushel
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

ought to be amended and at least SI.25 substituted as the floor. I should prefer to see an amendment made, not on the basis of SI.25 but on the basis of a thorough discussion with the farm organizations concerned, and by negotiation and by intelligent appraisal, to find out what the floor price really ought to be at this time. Perhaps it might be nearer SI .55. When this floor price is set it should take into consideration the average cost of production, and some consideration should be given to the contribution that agriculture made during the course of the war.
I want to make this abundantly clear, as I said a short time ago, because of articles that have appeared in the press linking us in some degree with the propaganda of the Progressive Conservatives, and incidentally with the private grain trade of the country. The C.C.F., in common with western organizations, including, may I say, some western Liberal organizations, have always condemned reliance on open market trading as a method of fixing prices. We have consistently urged and we urge now the abolition completely of the Winnipeg grain exchange. Why keep it in existence, particularly when these new agreements are before the house? We have condemned the grain exchange and that method of marketing because of fluctuating prices, high at some period and inevitably low at another.
We believe in a democratic and intelligently planned economy in which prices would bear some relationship to each other. I think we can be proud of what Canada did during the war in the provision of food, when we came to the fore in the supplying of all kinds of commodities to the united nations through mutual aid. Our principal contribution even then was of great quantities of wheat.
My hon. friend the member for Swift Current last night outlined part of the history of the wheat problem. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) announced on September 28, 1943, that all the Canadian visible wheat had been taken over by the wheat board in order that we might carry out commitments we had then made under mutual aid, and the wheat board became the only marketing agency. It was at that time, I believe-in fact I know-that the initial price of $1.25 a bushel was set, an increase incidentally which pleased us, because it was 35 cents a bushel more than had been prevailing up to that time; and subsequently the government purchased from the wheat board for mutual aid the wheat it needed, which 
I believe at that time amounted to 150 or 160 million bushels, at a price of $1.43 a bushel or thereabouts.


James Garfield Gardiner: 


Major James William Coldwell: I thought it was $1.43. Then came an interesting development which caused a great deal of discussion throughout western Canada. There was a shortage of United States bought wheat from us, about wheat in the United States. We had built up surpluses, and thank heaven we did. The United States took 200 million bushels, and at $1.46 a bushel.


James Garfield Gardiner: It started at $1.25 and gradually went up to $1.46.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. I want to draw attention to this, because we are told that the United States price was the true price. About two weeks ago I listened to the able and genial gentleman who is the economic adviser of the Searle Grain company, Major Strange, speaking over the radio. He was arguing about what the true price of wheat was. He argued that in the United States it was arrived at on an open market, but as a matter of fact at that time the price of wheat we sold in the United States was based on the United States price, which was determined in relation to something they called parity and I understood was kept under a ceiling price the United States had established. Therefore the Canadian farmer obtained what was in effect the United States parity price together with the premium in exchange on United States funds, less, of course, the cost of the freight and handling charges to the United States.


James Garfield Gardiner: And the duty.


Major James William Coldwell: And of course the duty of forty-two cents a bushel. The line elevator companies, the western pools and the farmers all seemed satisfied with the results that were being obtained in that way. In the autumn of 1945 the position changed in the United States. The United States had reaped a good cereal crop and did not need to import from Canada. It became the only other exporter of wheat in any large quantity for the use of the starving world; in fact we in North America were the only sources of supply.
During the last few months there has been much discussion in the papers, in farm organizations across the country, and, as we have noted, in this house, as to the reasons why our wheat - price in Canada should be lower than the wheat price in the United States. Let us not forget this, that after Japan was defeated last August mutual aid suddenly came to an end, as did lend-lease in the United

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
States. When that occurred I suppose it was necessary for the governments to get together and negotiate a price for Canadian wheat. I suppose that is how the $1.55 was arrived at What was actually done Was to maintain the $1.55 that had been in effect for some time. When I speak of this $1.55 price I have it in mind that I understood from the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he spoke that that price might not necessarily be what I might call the long-term price; that there is room for variation in that figure. If $155 is not a fair price after the method of arriving at it has been properly discussed with the producer organizations and the government, then the price can be varied and brought into line with what it should be.
In discussing this price and opposing the propaganda for uncontrolled prices for farm products, I wish to make it clear that the position I take is that we approve price controls, but without more facts than we have at our disposal at this time we are not committing ourselves to-day as to whether $1.55 is the right and proper price or not.
I said that I listened to Major Strange a little while ago and when I heard him arguing about these prices I thought of the days when the grain exchange was really functioning, when following the last war we had a price of over $2.73 a bushel for our wheat at Fort William. One year later, if I remember correctly, the price had dropped to just above $1. That was between 1920 and 1921. What we are anxious about is that this does not happen again. As I have said before, the producer of foods is not interested in a high price now and a low price hereafter. If we try now to gouge from the world the last cent for our wheat and other Canadian products, the world will do exactly what it did after the high prices following the last war. The countries of the world will endeavour to bring about their own selfsufficiency; they will endeavour to free themselves from the prices that we have exacted, and then our position will be exactly the same as it was when prices fell to low levels following the period I have mentioned. I have here the average cash prices for wheat. In September, 1920, the price was $2.73^. One year later, in November, 1921, the average price had fallen to $1.10 a bushel.
The C.C.F. stands for what? A policy of marketing boards, a policy of intelligent price levels. We demand stable and adequate prices, set by negotiations for a' period of years, and varied by taking into consideration the cost of living and production from time to time. May I add that what I have just said is really a repetition of what the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton) said earlier in this 63260-21
debate when he was placing before the house substantially our point of view on agricultural matters. It seems to me that this is the intelligent policy for this house and the country to pursue at the present time.
May I repeat, to take advantage of shortages and of starvation now in order to obtain high prices, when incidentally wheat producers have very largely disposed of the last crop and of their reserves, would in my opinion be a suicidal policy benefiting no one. When supplies are adequate it would result in a similar disaster to that which occurred between 1920 and 1921. National planning, in which the stability of farm prices is the fundamental consideration, must be based not on speculation but upon the stability of purchasing power of the farming population.
In conclusion may I say that I believe it would be in the interests of this country and of our wheat producers in particular if we could establish under the leadership of the united nations organization a method by which we should be able to guarantee quantities and prices both to the producer and to the consumer, on a world-wide scale, and that Canada should take part in such an organization and indeed help promote it. If I may say so, the social and economic council of the united nations organization in some of its phraseology clearly visualized such a plan. When I was present at San Francisco and on the committee which established the social and economic council, this was both formally and informally discussed by the delegates.
What we need, in the words of Henry Wallace, is an ever-normal granary not only for our own country but for the whole world. There is no reason why a series of good crops should be regarded as a disaster. A series of good crops surely ought to be an inestimable blessing to this country and to the world. My mind goes back to the bible, to the story of Joseph; to the story of Pharaoh's dream of the fat kine and the lean ldne, the seven fat years and the seven lean years. Often in the old book you can find a parable or a story that is applicable even in these most modern days. Joseph planned in Egypt. Joseph built granaries in the seven fat years, and, as we are tpld in the bible, there was com in Egypt during the seven lean years. In my opinion that is what the world must do in future-plan so that there may be foodstuffs in the event of widespread disaster such as we have at the present time; and I am not thinking only of the disaster of war. We have been told authoritatively, and I saw this repeated in London, in the U.N.O. records I have read, that even in peace time two out of every three living human beings in the world

The Address-Mr. Jaques

have never known what it was day by day to be guaranteed a full stomach. There is something wrong with a world of that description.
To the extent that this house, this country and this government are prepared to plan our production, to see that our producers and workers obtain adequate returns for their production and their labour and are in a position to build up reserves against evil times, to that extent the programme will be supported by the party which I represent.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: 
Mr. BRIDGES:: I was paired with the hon. member for Parkdale . (Mr. Bruce): Had I votjed, I would have voted against the amendment.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was paired with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
On motion of Mrs. Strum (Qu'Appelle) the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 28, 1946.