1946-05-09

[Stage Direction]
ANNOUNCEMENT OP MOVEMENT OF FIRST GROUP FROM CANADA TO JAPAN	.
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, because of the general interest in the matter I thought I should inform hon. members that definite arrangements have now been made for the movement of the first group of Japanese nationals from Canada to Japan. The group being sent consists of those who elected to be repatriated to Japan and who have .not asked
[Mr. Coldwell.l
that their requests be cancelled; in other words the group being dealt with at present are those who have asked for the privilege of returning to Japan, and who are being assisted to go.- The details of the arrangement I think are well known to hon. members.
In the class I have been speaking of will be those who are perfectly satisfied to be repatriated to Japan, and it is anticipated there will be approximately 1,500, including men, women and children. Most of them are coming from the settlements in the interior of British Columbia, but a few are coming from Alberta and Manitoba and some who have been in internment camps at Angler, Ontario. All arrangements have been made for the movement to Vancouver, and it is anticipated the first boat will leave Vancouver on May 28, carrying some 680, while the second boat will be leaving about the end of May carrying approximately 900.
While on the subject I might say that we will defer deportation proceedings pending the decision of the privy council, to which authority the case has been appealed. The department is proceeding as rapidly as possible with the dispersal of others to various parts of Canada, seeing to it that only a limited number are sent to each place and emphasizing placement in agriculture or lumbering or logging.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: The minister has indicated Jhat about 1,500 are going in these two boats. Would he advise us how many Japanese indicated their willingness or their desire to go, in the survey made some time ago by the government?


Humphrey Mitchell: I was looking at the figures yesterday, and speaking from memory the number is just over 10,300.



CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCES


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Under standing order 31 I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of urgent public importance. News reports since we adjourned last evening indicate that the Prime Minister is to leave almost immediately for London to confer with Prime Minister Attlee and other commonwealth prime ministers regarding matters of common interest. The failure of the dominion-provincial -conference to reach agreement regarding urgent domestic problems, and the immediate necessity of reaching agreement with such provinces as are prepared to accept proposals

Conference with Provinces
for the general well-being of Canada, demand an explanation by the Prime Minister and consideration by the house. I therefore ask leave to move the adjournment in order that we may have an opportunity of discussing this matter before the Prime Minister leaves for Great Britain.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Having considered the
hon. member's motion, I regret to say that I do not see any urgency in' the matter, and I therefore declare the motion out of order.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister will be absent from the country, and the necessity of coming to some understanding regarding these matters, \f I may so I think a discussion of the subject is urgently necessary. However, if that is Your Honour's ruling, may I suggest to the Prime Minister that a statement be made to the house and an opportunity given for discussion before he leaves for Great Britain. If that is the alternative, then I would suggest it.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: May I say at once to my hon. friend-if I am not speaking at the wrong point of proceedings as set out on the order paper-that, as he is aware, the conference with the provinces is adjourned sine die. It is adjourned on the understanding that the Minister of Finance, in the preparation of his budget, upon which he is engaged at the present time, will take full cognizance of the representations made during the course of the conference. He will make a statement to the House of Commons as to the course which, in the light of these discussions, he thinks it most advisable for the government to follow.
I submit it would be prejudicial to the Minister of Finance, in the statement he may wish to make, were I to attempt to review the conference proceedings at this stage, or to indicate what the government is likely to do. I submit it is for the government to exercise its own judgment as to the right time at which to make any statement on conference matters, or a statement of its own position. I suggest further that any discussion in advance would prejudice the situation.



PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF PROCEEDINGS AND OFFICIAL STATEMENTS

John Bracken: In this connection when the matter was brought up some time ago I asked the government if it would see that the proceedings of the conference were published. I should like to know if that has been done. Have copies of the proceedings been distributed to all hon. members? Further, have
the official statements at earlier conferences during the last nine months been made available to hon. members? I believe the whole record is to be found in those statements.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the Leader of the Opposition raised the point of bringing together certain statements under one cover, I gave instructions to have that done as soon as possible. My understanding is that it has been done. Whether copies have as yet been distributed I cannot say. Similarly, with regard to the proceedings of the conference itself, I have given instructions that they should be distributed at once to the members of both houses. I must apologize for not knowing at the moment whether that distribution has been made, but I shall make immediate inquiries.


Major James William Coldwell: Some have been
distributed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am told they have. I believe that answers my hon. friend's question.


John Bracken: And would the Prime Minister see that the official statements from previous conferences are also distributed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.



POSSIBILITY OF MAKING AGREEMENTS WITH SEVEN PROVINCES

Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, arising from something I said a minute ago, may I ask if the government is giving any consideration to making agreements with the seven provinces which have indicated their willingness to accept the dominion's proposals, with minor adjustments?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend's question was addressed to the government. I might explain that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) is apparently too modest to reply in respect of what he is contemplating with regard to the budget. I would say on behalf of the government that I have nothing to add to what I have already said.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. POULIOT:: What amounts have been (a) given; (b) loaned: (c) advanced, in virtue of each act of the parliament of the dominion of Canada to any other country from September 1, 1939?
Questions


Mr. MAYHEW:: The hon. member for Temiscouata has agreed to have this question dropped.
Question dropped.


OBSTRUCTION OF FRASER RIVER AT MISSION
Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	What is the width of the Fraser river at the C.P.R. bridge at Mission?
2.	Is the said river navigable at this point?
3.	Are private companies permitted to obstruct the river by dumping rock in the channel?
4.	If so, for what reason?
5.	Is a record kept-of all rock so dumped?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	1,735 feet.
2.	Yes.
3.	No. Rock has been dumped only to replace bottom scour endangering piers.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	No record kept by this department.


COAL STRIPPING AT CASTOR, ALBERTA
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: 1.	What capital or other expenditure was incurred by the dominion government at Castor, Alberta, in connection with the stripping of coal?
2.	What has been the total cost of work undertaken at Castor in this connection?
3.	What has been the revenue received?
4.	Has this mine been sold; if so, to whom and for what price?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1-	Capital Advances
From January, 1944 Capital expenditures $105,997 13
Interest accrued.. 5,512 78 Amount Repaid....	$111,509 91
$111,509 91	$111,509 91
Operating Advances From September, 1944 Operating charges.. $185,425 15
Interest accrued.. 2,865 08
Amount repaid	
Balance of operating
expenses

2.	Total cost (in- '
eluding interest accrued)	
3.	Revenue received
Net cost to this date	
4.	This mine is not the property of the federal government but was operated under the supervision of the federal government by special contract.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McKAY:: 1.	In what year were the present post office buildings erected in (a) Foam Lake; (b) Lani-gan. Saskatchewan?
2.	What was the revenue of the Foam Lake post office in each of the years, 1938 to 1945 inclusive?
3.	What revenue is required from a post office to warrant the erection of a postal building by the federal government?


KURT METER
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Has a protest against the imprisonment of Kurt Meyer at Dorchester been received by the Prime Minister from the Amherst branch of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League?
2.	If so, what action if any. has been taken to transfer this prisoner to another prison?



FARM PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: Mr Speaker, I should like to ask a question of either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Finance. I have not given either minister notice of the question, because the matter came to my attention only a few minutes ago. If it is not possible to give an answer to-day, perhaps it may be possible to do so at an early day. Has either of these ministers been informed of the reported authorization by United States government authorities of an increase in the price of agricultural products in that country, to the extent of 25 cents a bushel on corn, 15 cents on wheat, 9 cents on barley and 5 cents on oats? If so, will the government now give consideration to these increases, and announce its general farm price policy in the light of these circumstances and other changed conditions in Canada?


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I noticed the news item this morning respecting these price increases in the United States. There has been no opportunity to give consideration to whether those increases should affect the price policy in Canada. As soon as there is anything definite to state with regard to prices, a statement will be made in the house. I do not think the question can be answered any further at the present time, either to-day or to-morrow.


John Bracken: I did not press for an immediate answer.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I understand.

The Prime Minister



INQUIRIES OF MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: May I say that I wish the Prime Minister a pleasant voyage and a safe return from his proposed journey. I wish him good luck for Canada in the work he proposes to do. There are three questions to which I should like a reply before he goes. I have sent him copies of these questions and I am sorry I was not able to send them earlier.
During his last visit to the United Kingdom I understand that the Prime Minister extended an invitation to Field-Marshal Montgomery to visit Canada. I hope when he is there again he will see if something cannot be done about this invitation.
The second question is with regard to the statement made by President Truman over the radio a week ago in connection with a joint defence plan for the future of America. I should like to know if any such plan has been brought to the attention of the government, and by whom, and what if any action has been taken as to joining what is known as a Pan-American union for defence.
The third question has to do with an exchange of high commissioners between Canada and India. Before any action is taken will an opportunity be afforded on the Prime Minister's return to express my opposition to this innovation?


James Horace King: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that his questions should be placed on the order paper.


Thomas Langton Church: I am not asking for answers to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will permit me to answer my hon. friend immediately as a' matter of courtesy. First, I should like to thank him for his good wishes and for his kindness in sending me copies of the questions he had in mind. The first question referred to a statement made by President Truman over the radio. My hon. friend will find an answer to that question at page 1273 of Hansard of May 7. At that time the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) made a reply on my behalf-I was prevented at the time from being in the house-to a similar question.
My hon. friend's next question was in relation to a possible visit to Canada by Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery. I can tell him immediately that the field-marshal has accepted the government's invitation and at the
present time arrangements are being made for the visit of Lord Montgomery toward the latter part of the month of August.
With regard to my hon. friend's third question, wherein he asks if an opportunity will be afforded him to oppose the exchange of high commissioners with India, I promise him that nothing will be done until he has been afforded an appropriate opportunity to speak on that matter.



THE PRIME MINISTER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the house have been interested in the various press reports about the Prime Minister leaving us. I would ask if he could not give us now some idea of just when he plans to leave. Since it seems to be certain that he is going, may l, on behalf of this section of the house, extend to him our best wishes for a safe landing, a satisfactory stay, and a safe return. I think I can assure him that we shall do all in our power to help the government to carry on sanely while he is away.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, since the leader of the opposition has said that he is speaking only for one section of the house, I should like to assure the Prime Minister that those who are associated with me in this party also wish him a pleasant voyage and a very fruitful visit to Great Britain. May I suggest also that when he comes home he be a little more communicative on certain matters.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, since the'leader of the opposition did not include this group in his remarks I should like to join with him and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar in extending to the Prime Minister our best wishes for a fruitful trip to the old country. We hope that he will come back soon and take a lead in trying to get this session over before the hot weather starts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I express to the leaders of the different parties and those who are supporting them, as well as to hon. members on this side of the house, my very warm appreciation of the kind manner in which they have recognized the necessity of my going overseas for a short time and for the good wishes they have extended for that sojourn abroad.
The leader of the opposition has relieved my mind of one consideration when he assures me
The Prime Minister

that he will see that the government carries on successfully while I am away. To that extent, I shall be tremendously relieved. My hon. friend the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation has said that he hoped I would be more communicative. May I say to him that I have found that more public men get into trouble from what they say than from what they do not say. If I am not over-communicative at times it is because from long experience in public affairs I have learned that silence is often golden where speech is merely silvern.
May I say to hon. members that I have been very much of two opinions as to what my duty was at the moment in the matter of going overseas. Early in the year I received from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom a communication saying that he hoped a meeting of all the prime ministers might be held in London, I understood in connection with the approaching peace conference at Paris. It seemed to me that a meeting of prime ministers held at that time would probably bring together the prime ministers from the different parts of the empire, and as I had planned to attend the peace conference in Paris, that seemed to be a suitable time for such a meeting. I therefore said that I would welcome such an arrangement. However, on communications being sent to the different nations of the commonwealth, it was found that Mr. Chifley, Prime Minister of Australia, could be in England only at a certain time; that Mr. Fraser, Prime Minister of New Zealand, would not find it possible to make the trip himself, and that General Smuts of South Africa could not leave South Africa before a certain time. Early in February I had been a party to the agreement with the provinces that the dominion-provincial conference would meet here at Ottawa at the time it did, so I was obliged to say that I could not possibly think of going over until that conference was concluded.
The result was that the idea of having the prime ministers meet collectively on a particular date was given up, and instead it was suggested that there might be consultations between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and one or more of his ministers and the prime ministers of the dominions arranged in different stages. Hon. members have seen that such has been the procedure that has been followed, that certain consultations have already been held. To permit of my being present there has been a postponement of some of the consultations until next week or the week after.
I wish it were not necessary to go because I feel that my duty just at this time is 
primarily in Canada, When we have the important questions that have been referred to this afternoon concerning the discussion of relations between the provinces and ourselves, as well as other important matters coming up. I do not see how I or persons holding a similar office ' in the different dominions can be expected to be in Britain all at the same time. I think a man's first duty is to his own country and to his own parliament. If I had consulted my own feelings at this time I would have remained here, but I realize that there are reasons why consultation in reference to some of the matters that have been mentioned is advisable and I have given my word that I would go across to take part in those consultations. I plan to leave on Monday of next week.
I think it is important to realize that we have in this country and in all parts of the commonwealth a system of consultation which can be effected by means of cable, as was followed out throughout the years of the war, and which I believe is about as perfect as any system could be. It enables a prime minister when sitting in conference to speak with the authority of all his colleagues. I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am not going to attempt at any consultation to say what this government's opinion is with regard to questions of defence, questions of trade, preference and the like, because I am not one of those who pretend to speak for the entire cabinet without the opportunity of conferring with its members. I shall be very happy at any conference to give my views in a general way as to opinions that I think this country would wish to have fully considered. But as for presenting at a conference the official view of Canada in great matters of defence, trade and numerous other important questions, without the presence of the ministers who are responsible immediately concerned for the different departments of government and without the presence of their experts as well, I can assure the house that I shall be careful to refrain from committing anyone in a manner that is likely to occasion embarrassment.


Mr. McIYOR:: I think the Prime Minister is to be commended for starting out on his journey on Monday and spending the Sabbath day as he ought to spend it.



INQUIRY AS TO THREATENED STRIKE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN L. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Labour to advise the house what steps his department is taking to avoid a- threatened

Supply-A griculture
strike- in the lumber industry in the province of British Columbia which has been called for May 15.
Humphrey Mitchell: 
Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, it is necessary to say these things sometimes to irresponsible people, and I am not saying that in a kindly way either. I do not think that any leader of a labour organization is rendering the service that is due to its membership when, in defiance of the regulations which have been built up in consultation between labour and industry, a strike is threatened in an important industry such as the lumber industry is at the present time. I would appeal for cool counsels to prevail, and I say that in all sincerity, especially in the light of conditions in this country and, more particularly, to assist in the tremendous construction programme for veterans' homes, and generally the necessity of expansion of the industry in the light of conditions throughout the world.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $163,190.
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Chairman, the amount we are asking the house to vote this year for ordinary purposse is $13,692,713; that is an increase of $1,615,444 over the estimates of 1945-46.
In the four years preceding the war we had been following the policy of building up the agriculture estimates from a low in 1935 to the figure at which they had been five years previously ancT we had just about reached that level when war was declared. After war was declared we cut down the ordinary estimates for agriculture, but during the last two years we have again been building them up so that this year they are $1,615,444 higher than they were last year. The increases have been made up as follows: Scientific services, $913,591; experimental farms, $223,223; production services, $321,225; marketing services, $112,675, or
a total of $1,570,714; increase in administration, $44,730, making a total increase of $1,615,444.
The estimates of the department are divided into ordinary and special. Under special we are asking the committee to vote this year, $5,725,000, as against $5,126,700 a year ago. The increased amount of $598,300 is divided between P.F.R.A. and cheese. There is an increase of $1,122,000 in P.F.R.A., with an additional amount not yet determined which will be taken out of the $10,000,000 vote for reconstruction. The increased expenditure on cheese, for the purpose of promoting the production of better cheese, is $200,000, making $1,322,000. The difference between the increase in these two branches and the total increase is accounted for by reductions in prairie farm asistance. That figure has not been finally determined because it depends very much on the weather this year, and there is a possibility that the actual expenditure may go back to what it was a year ago.
The other has to do with wheat acreage reduction. The greater part of the difference is in wheat acreage reduction. During the last two years we have not been carrying on the policy of promoting wheat acreage reduction and for that reason no payments are being made and no vote is necessary for the purpose this year. So while the balance shows an increase of $598,300, there is an actual increase in the operative part of the estimates of $1,322,000.
I wanted to make those explanations before we start upon a consideration of the individual items, and would suggest, Mr. Chairman, subject of course to the opinion of the committee, that we can advance most satisfactorily and obtain the greatest amount of information by dealing with the matters which come under each item as we proceed. I assume that some hon. members will want to make general remarks before we do proceed on this basis, but I hope we can get to that basis as soon as possible.


Mr. HACKETT:: Has there been any diminution of the amounts spent to encourage the manufacture of butter? The minister has stated that additional amounts have been spent to encourage the manufacture of cheese.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount spent in connection with cheese is not- to encourage increased production, but to encourage better quality. It is the premium we pay for the production of 94 and 93 score cheese, and, together with the assistance we give for putting in storage rooms and other equipment, to make it possible to produce a better product. The promotion of the production of each of these commodities will be dealt with under produc-
Supply-A gricul ture

tion, when we come to the votes in connection with production, and we shall be better able to determine at that time the amounts which are spent in various directions in order to promote production.


John Thomas Hackett: As a matter of fact, nothing has been voted to encourage the production of butter?


James Garfield Gardiner: As far as I can recall at the moment, there is nothing specifically in the items, although we may come across something as we go through that might be so stated to be estimated; but that kind of expenditure is made out of the different items which provide for publicity, and we do take sums of money for promoting the production of different products from time to time during the year out of those amounts, and run advertisements in the papers and take other action to assist in obtaining higher production.


John Thomas Hackett: I hope the minister will not think that I am trying to ask him a lot of questions at once, but I have to go to the flag committee. Is the minister aware of the great number of dairy cattle that are being exported from eastern Quebec to the United States at the present time? I received a letter this morning which told me of thirty-two carloads of cattle passing through one station in the first two days of this week, and of a great number being taken across the international line by truck.' I am anxious to know whether the government deems that a policy which encourages the export of dairy cattle is a good policy, and whether anything is being done to stay the loss to Canada of those herds.


James Garfield Gardiner: I repeat that I think we can more satisfactorily discuss that question when we get down to production. But I can give at the moment figures which will, I think, satisfy the hon. member that the problem is not as serious as might be suggested by figures taken from any locality. I will just take the last six years for which I have the records here. I have the records from 1928 down to the present, and could place them on Hansard if it were desired, showing, first, the exports of dairy cattle, and showing the numbers on farms; for every year but the present, the numbers on farms in June; and giving the number on farms in December of 1945.
Beginning at 1941, the number of exports was 13,719. I may say that that is the highest export that we have had since 1929. In 1942 the number was 19,139; in 1943, 37,327; 1944, 36,315; 1945, 47,304; 1946, down to March, 11.572.
The figures which one must put alongside of these are the figures of dairy cattle on farms in June of each year: 1941, 3,623,900; 1942, 3,680,500;	1943, 3,784,,700; 1944, 3,929,600;

1945, 3,998,200; and then in December of 1945, 4,012,600. In other words there has been a constant rise year by year down to the present of the number of dairy cattle on farms, until the figure of 3,929,600 in 1944 was the highest figure of any year from 1928 down to 1944, and, I assume, the highest figure right back through the years.


Mr. SENN:: Would the minister explain why, if there is this increase in the number of dairy cattle-and I am not denying it-there has not been a corresponding increase in the production of milk?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has. We will finish this question first. In 1945, as I indicated, the number wrent up to within two thousand of four million, which was much higher than any year we ever had; and in June 1945 we were over the four million mark.
The suggestion has been made that we might explain why there has been a lower production of milk, or, to put it in exact terms, I think the question was why there has not been a corresponding increase in the production of milk. Well, I am not in a position to state at the moment whether the increase is proportionate to the increase in the number of cows, although I am under the impression that the increase is greater than the increase in the number of cows. That is my opinion at the moment, unless I get something to the contrary which is not before me, that the production per cow has improved during that period; and it is natural that in times like these, when returns are good, farmers should get better stock and better bred stock on their farms. The actual fact is that last year the ' milk production was the highest on record. If it was not, the figures I have are not the same as those which my hon. friend has.
,Mr. SENN: Would the minister care to have me give the figures I have from the bureau of statistics?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the figures from our own officials, and sometimes I would rather rely upon those than upon the figures from the bureau of statistics because quite often the bureau's figures are made up on a basis a little different from that of the figures in the Department of Agriculture. My information is that our production of milk is up, and if it is not it is only slightly down. In any case, it has been up year by year throughout the years.


Mr. PEARKES:: Has the minister figures of the dairy cattle exported overseas in the pre-war days?


James Garfield Gardiner: Will the hon. gentleman wait until I answer this other question? I understand my figures are from the bureau of

Supply-Agriculture
statistics. I do not wish to have too many on hand. Total milk production in, 1940 was
15.999.000.	000; in 1941, 16.549,000,000; in 1942,
17.488.000.	000; in 1943, 17,518,000,000; in 1944,
17.604.000.	000; in 1945, 17,618,000,000. If these figures do not go up exactly proportionately, they do go up every year, and it is on these figures that I base the statement. '
What I was going to say in answer to the question asked a few moments ago was this. This increase in the exports of dairy cattle is just as important to the farmer who is milking cows as is the sale of milk itself. The farmer is raising dairy cattle not only to produce milk but to raise breeding stock that he can sell, and if the farmers had four million of dairy stock on their farms in 1945 as against 3,623,000 in 1941, and sold 47,000 head of dairy cattle in 1945 as against 13,719 in 1941, then I think it is only fair to say that they took in at least three times as much; and when you add the increase in price for cows over that period of time, they took in a greater increased amount from the sale of dairy cows as compared with the years from 1941 back. In addition to that, they have been taking in, as I have indicated by the figures with regard to milk, more every year, first because of increased production, and second because of increases in price as compared with 1941 and 1945 from the milking of cows. In the light of those two facts I do not think anyone will contend that the dairy farmer is worse off as a result of anything that happened during those years.


John Thomas Hackett: The point I would like to call to the attention of the minister is the precarious condition in which that branch of the dairy industry which lends itself to the making of butter finds itself to-day. The remarks of the minister referred to the dairy industry as a whole. He has explained on previous occasions what the department headed by himself has been able to do to capture a very desirable British market for cheese, and I think it is beyond dispute that milk converted into cheese yields a much greater return to the milk producer than does milk containing an equal quantity of butter-fat converted into butter. The figures the minister has given with regard to exports of cattle and the number of cattle on farms were general. They do not apply to Quebec and southeastern Quebec, to which my remarks on previous days in the house have been specially directed. In that area there is a vastly accelerated disposal of dairy herds to the United States. There is more than one reason for that. The first is that raw milk commands a much higher price in the United States than in Canada, and secondly there
appears to be great difficulty in getting labour to perform the work incidental to caring for herds on the farm and conveying the cream to the creamery.
The price of butter in Canada is much lower than in the United States. A quantity of milk converted into cheese gives the producer a much better return than if it were converted into butter. The dairy farmers find that it is not profitable for them to make butter and are therefore selling their herds. I believe the minister will find, if he compares the figures he has given of dairy cattle sold during the first four months of the current year, that the number per month is much greater than it was for the corresponding months last year, and the fear of many people who live in southeastern Quebec is that this most important of agricultural pursuits is going to be irreparably damaged if the price of butter be not raised so that the producers of butter can find enough profit in that pursuit to warrant retention of their herds rather than the sale of them across the line.
I agree with the minister that the dairy farmer in , southeastern Quebec has always derived a certain benefit from the . raising of dairy cattle of high productive capacity and the sale of them to the United States. In other days there was a very great trade in horses to the United States, and the trade in dairy cattle has been a source of revenue. But it has now reached the point where the sales are so greatly enhanced that the industry itself is jeopardized. Quebec, it is admitted, makes butter in preference to cheese. Canadian cheese commands a respected place in the foreign markets, the minister is to be commended on having secured these foreign markets for a commodity in the production of which we excel. But temperance in this, as in all matters, is a virtue; I ask the minister if he has considered the peril which overhangs the butter-producing industry in southeastern Quebec if he does not take the necessary steps to make one hundred pounds of milk of a given butterfat percentage when converted into butter give the farmer more nearly the return now obtained from one hundred pounds of milk converted into cheese. It seems to me that in order to get into the British market he has encouraged the manufacture of cheese to the detriment of the manufacture of butter, and that in consequence there is a shortage of butter which is accounted for by the disposal of herds and by the fact that the element of the community which manufactures the most blitter in Canada does not find it profitable to continue' in the manufacture of that, commodity.
Supply-Agriculture

' Mr. WRIGHT: I should like to support what has been said by the hon. member for Stanstead in regard to the position of that portion of the Canadian dairy industry engaged in the manufacture of butter. We in western Canada find ourselves in very much the same position. The greater part of the dairy industry in the west is concerned with the manufacture of butter, outside of that portion concerned with whole milk. We have very few powdered milk factories; we have comparatively few cheese factories; and the dairy industry there has found itself, together with that of the eastern townships, ' in an awkward position in comparison with the industry in other parts of Canada, owing to the fact that milk going into the manufacture of butter does not bring the same return as milk used for cheese, powdered milk and whole milk. I do believe the time has come when there should be some levelling out of these prices so that a producer of milk would receive at least approximately equal price for his product, no matter in what portion of the dairy industry it was used. This is quite a sore point in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta as well as in the eastern townships, and I believe sojnething should be done to rectify the matter. Otherwise, as in the eastern townships, I am quite sure the production of butter will continue to decrease.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to report from another province where similar conditions exist, namely the southern portion of Vancouver island, where a great many of the farmers are engaged in the manufacture of butter. We have not a great number of creameries, but they are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain sufficient milk and cream to turn into butter in order that they may be able to cover their overhead expenses. To-day farmers are not only exporting some of their cattle; they are refusing to raise the young heifers unless they' have an opportunity of selling whole milk to the cities on the island. Herds are being depleted because farmers are unwilling to run the risk* of raising female stock in order to produce butter when the price they receive from the sale of butter does not cover their expenses. Those expenses are quite heavy on Vancouver island because, as we know, a great deal of the feed grain has to be imported from the prairie provinces. In order to complete the picture in regard to the export of dairy cattle I wonder if the minister would be able to give us some indication of the number of cattle exported overseas in pre-war days. There was quite a flourishing trade in the export of dairy cattle from Vancouver island to the orient. That, of course, ceased during the war years, and practically'' all exports have been

to the United States. However, I do know the situation on the island is critical for those dairy farmers who are engaged in the production of butter.


Mr. CHARLTON:: Can the minister state whether the 'production figures he has given include milk to the concentrated milk plants, milk that goes to cheese factories and whole milk, or whether these are split up?


James Garfield Gardiner: To answer the last
question immediately, the figures I gave on milk are for all milk produced for all purposes. That is the production of milk for butter, for cheese, and everything else, the total production of milk.
On these other questions which have been raised, taking first the question of butter versus cheese in the province of Quebec, I know the statements made in that regard are the generally accepted view, I think largely because w'e listen to discussions concerning something with which we may be very intimately concerned for the time being. There has been a shortage of butter in Canada recently; people have found it difficult to get butter, so naturally they believe something has happened to the production of butter, and are perhaps inclined to attach greater importance to quoted statistics having to do with the last two or three weeks or the last month than one might be justified in attaching to them. The general position, in the province of Quebec is that in most sections where they produce butter and cheese they have what is known as the duplex plan. It is the only place in Canada where that plan is followed to any great extent. They can change over from butter to cheese at any time; and they do so with very little provocation. In other words if they can make more by producing cheese than by producing butter, they produce cheese. If they can make more by producing butter than by producing cheese, they make butter, and it is all done in the very same plant; they just switch over from the one to the other. That is not the practice in most other parts of Canada. Perhaps one can answer the questions raised with regard to Quebec more completely by quoting the figures as to the production of these two commodities in that province. The production of creamery butter in Quebec, in round figures, has been as follows:
1936		 74,000.000
1937		 74,000,000
1938		 79,000.000
1939		7	 80,000.000
1940		 74,000.000
1941		 76,000,000
1942		 73,000,000
. 1943	 85.000,000
1944		 81,000,000
1945		 88,000,000

Supply-Agriculture
They had their highest production, therefore, in 1945, at least since 1933, beyond which I have not the figures here. When we come to cheese for the province of Quebec, the production in round figures is as follows:
lbs.
1936		 25,000,000
1937		 30,000,000
1938		 28,000,000
1939		 27,000,000
1940		 35,000,000
1941		 39,000,000
1942		 64,000,000
1943		 49,000,000
1944		 61,000,000
1945		 59,000,000
If one desires to have an explanation of the variation in the last few years in Quebec- and it will be noted that there is a considerable variation between 1941 and 1942- it is' found in the fact that at that time we were promoting the production of cheese for the British market. Not only did we put on premiums just prior to that, but the government of Quebec put a subsidy of two cents a pound on cheese. Yet in the next year we were promoting the production of butter, with the result that cheese production dropped to 49 million pounds. The next year the subsidy was again emphasized. I believe it was off for part of 1943.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Off milk?


James Garfield Gardiner: Off cheese, because of the desire to get more butter. There was a shortage of butter. The subsidy was taken off cheese, with the result that cheese production went down. Then, again in 1944 we made a special effort to get cheese for Britain. The minister of agriculture for Quebec came to Ottawa to discuss the matter with me. They reinstated the two-cent subsidy on cheese, with the result that it went back up to 61 million pounds. Then, in 1945 production went down to 59 million pounds.
I believe these figures bear out the contention that there is not a very wide margin of difference between the desire of the people of Quebec to produce cheese and their desire to produce butter. A two-cent subsidy either put on or taken off cheese has resulted in its production either going up or coming down, and in the production of butter going up or coming down. The reason for that is borne out by the fact that the average return in 1945 on milk entering into cheese in Canada was $1.92 per hundred, and the average return on milk entering into the production of butter was $1.68 per hundred, without the skim milk.


Mr. BOUCHER:: May we have the same statistics for Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: I can get them, but for the moment I am answering one question in particular.


John Thomas Hackett: That is the average across Canada, is it not?	.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I had better make a full'explanation. The cheese price is the same in 1946 as it was in 1945 across Canada. It is down, of course, in Quebec as a result of the fact that the subsidy has been taken off.	.


John Thomas Hackett: At the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, at the present time. But to give a full explanation, the average return for cheese this year will be about the same.* The price has not been changed, to date. But the average return for butter this year-that is, 1946-being four cents higher, is $1.68. The skim milk is estimated to be worth somewhere in the neighbourhood of from 30 to 40 cents.


Mark Cecil Senn: What about whey?


James Garfield Gardiner: Whey is worth a little, but it does not enter into the picture to the same extent as skim milk.


John Thomas Hackett: Not quite so much, no.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am now dealing with a point that has been raised. If one takes skim milk at 30 cents-or he can make it less than that, if he wishes, and put it down to 24 cents-the return on milk entering into butter is just about the same as on milk entering into cheese. Those are the figures used in making the comparisons. They may be different in one district as compared with another. Perhaps there are areas TOiere there are not very many hogs or calves fed.


John Thomas Hackett: Some allowance should be made for the work incidental to the separating of the milk and the washing of the implements. It is the whole milk that goes to the cheese factory, and the work incidental to getting the milk off the farm and to the point of production is much less when milk is converted into cheese than when it is converted into butter.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I want it understood that I am not arguing that question at the present time.


John Thomas Hackett: But would not that have a bearing on the 24 cents, or 30 cents?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not even attempting to prove anything of that kind, and I hope no one will put me in that position. I am not arguing whether milk entering into butter is or is not bringing in enough. I am

Supply-Agriculture
simply giving statistics to show the position as it now stands. The question as to what final payments are going to be made is, as I indicated the other night, still under consideration. Tire reason is that a month or six weeks ago those' interested in the production of dairy products, particularly milk, interviewed the government and placed their position before us-at least they placed their position before the Department of Agriculture. I might add that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture placed its position before the whole government. Certain suggestions were made as to dealing with the matter. However those suggestions did not receive final consideration, largely because the dominion-provincial conference was being heljl. As the matter of finance as between the provinces and the dominion was under consideration, questions of this kind were not finally decided. On the last day of April, therefore, I made a report to the house to the effect that until the opportunity came for final consideration of the matter we were going to hold the subsidies exactly where they had been for the last two years. The government has been receiving resolutions-and I am sure hon. members have been receiving them -condemning the government, or at least suggesting to it that it should not have reduced the subsidies as of May 1 this year. We have not reduced the subsidies as of May 1 this year on any milk production. We have made them exactly as they have been in the last two years. And I explained at the time that change was made that final consideration had not yet been given to the question.
I make that explanation in order to emphasize the fact that I do not wish to be considered this afternoon to be arguing the question whether or not the price of milk entering into butter production is high enough. That question is under consideration; I am simply giving the facts. Those . facts indicate that, down to the last period for which we have statistics, the production of butter has been quite high in Quebec.
Coming to Saskatchewan, concerning which province a question was asked by the hon. member for Melfort, the figures for butter production are as follows:
lbs.
1936		  24,000,000
1937		 23,000,000
1938		 23,000,000
1939		 25,000,000
1940		 28,000,000
1941		 37,000,000
1942		 41,000,000
1943		 47,000,000
1944		 48,000,000
1945		  41,000,000

It will be noticed that in 1944 they were producing just twice as much as was produced in 1936. While there was a drop in 1945 down to 41,000,000 pounds, the production was still higher than in any year prior to 1942. Anyone who knows what has happened in Saskatchewan during the last year can explain that without any stretch of the imagination. In 1945 we had the poorest crop in Saskatchewan that we had had since 1937. We had a drought almost as serious as the one we had in those years when we used to spend hours in this house talking about it. Now there is no discussion at all. The area affected by the drought is just as great as the area affected back in the thirties. That in itself is sufficient explanation for the fact that the production of milk is down.
My hon. friend asked me for the same figures for Ontario. Beginning with 1936 the butter production in that province was as follows:
lbs.
1936		 86,000,000
1937		 81,000,000
1938		   87,000,000
1939		 88,000,000
1940		 87,000,000
1941		 86,000,000
1942		 81,000,000
1943		 82,000,000
1944		 74,000,000
1945		 77,000.000
In this case the 1945 production is up as compared with 1944.


Mr. LOW:: Has the minister the figures for Alberta?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have them all here and perhaps I had better put these tables on Hansard. I was asked to give the cheese production in Ontario. It will be realized that Ontario and Quebec produce almost 93 per cent of our total cheese production. The figures for factory cheese production are as follows:
lbs.
1937
1939
1941
1943
1945
88,000,000
93.000.	000
87.000.	000
89.000.	000
100,000,000
103.000.	000
128.000.	000
106,000,000
105.000.	000
113.000.	000
Cheese production was up considerably in 1945, there being only one other year in recent times, 1942, when Ontario produced as much cheese as was produced last year. I think it was the hon. member for Stanstead who asked why we were promoting the production of cheese rather than the production of butter. I would not like the impression to go out that

Supply-Agriculture
we were promoting the production of cheese at the moment as against the production of butter. We promoted the production' of cheese as against the production of butter at certain times during the war for certain reasons. The first was that Britain was pressing us for cheese. As hon. members of the committee know, Great .Britain stands at the top of the list of cheese eaters in the world, while Canada is at the bottom. The people of Great Britain eat the most cheese per head of population, while we eat the least, according to the records of the sixteen countries in which records are kept. We produce one of the kinds of cheese that the British like best, cheddar cheese. They have been willing to pay a premium for this even in ordinary times. That is the first reason the British wanted it. We tried to give them what they desired. Cheese has stored up in it a certain amount of butterfat in a way that permits it to be kept and therefore it is utilized in time of war.
The second reason is one that I believe most of those who are interested in agriculture are familiar with. There is an area in Canada which begins west of Toronto, perhaps as far west as Ingersoll, and extends down to Ottawa and as far as Kingston, then into Quebec as far as Three Rivers-we see an example of this area as we drive out from the city-where rock is very close to the surface and at times great boulders extend above the surface. But in between there are areas of luscious grass. We believe that if agriculture is to be continued successfully in this great area it is important that the farmers should be encouraged to produce cheese. We believe that if they are going to be encouraged to pro. duce cheese they must have a good market, and we think the only good market is in Great Britain. Therefore we have been trying to supply the best cheese, and I think we are putting out the highest graded cheese we have ever had in Canada, partly because of the premium we have paid for high grade cheese and largely because of the desire of the producers themselves to get the best possible product over in the greatest quantities. So we have been promoting the production of cheese. There is a question as to whether we have overdone it so far as providing sufficient butter for consumption in this country is concerned.
There is a third reason which I think should be mentioned here. We cannot produce butter in competition with New Zealand or Australia, and I do not think I need to go into the reasons. Those countries run their cows out the year around while we have to stable ours about seven months in the year if we are to
get much milk. When we attempt to place our butter on the British market in competition with their butter, we are not able to sell at the level they can sell at and still have a profit. What we have been trying to do is to maintain a Canadian market for butter and produce just about what is required by that market. As the opportunities to purchase have increased we have had greater difficulty in supplying the butter that is required in Canada. In spite of the fact that our creamery butter production was up on an average of about 40,000,000 pounds during the last three or four years as compared with the years preceding the war, we are still having difficulty in making the butter go round. For that reason, if for no other, there is some justification in believing that the time has come to promote the production of butter to a greater extent than it is being produced at the present time.


John Thomas Hackett: More people are eating it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Some people who eat very little are eating what they require, while other people who eat more than they really require are having difficulty in getting what they want.


An hon. MEMBER:: They cannot get it.


James Garfield Gardiner: As my hon. friend says, they cannot get it. That is the position; that is what we are attempting to do* and those are the reasons why we are attempting to do it. For one thing, we want to keep the farmer in cheese production, and I am pleased to be able to say that in 1945 the production of cheese was higher than it has been for a long time, I think as far back as 1942.


John Thomas Hackett: To complete his statement will the minister state what aids are given to the manufacturer of butter as compared with the manufacturer of cheese? I understand, for instance, that Ontario bonuses cheese to the extent of two cents a pound. Then there is a bonus from the dominion government which depends upon quality and flavour. I suggest to the minister that he tell us, if he will, the whole story as regards governmental encouragement to the butter maker and the cheese maker so far as his own department is concerned.


James Garfield Gardiner: All those facts were taken into consideration in compiling the figures I gave a few moments ago; that is, the provincial subsidy on cheese, the premium that is paid by the dominion government, and the 20 cents a hundred on the milk entering into the production of cheese. All that was included in the figure which gives a return of $1.92 a hundred. The ten cents a
Supply-Agriculture

pound on butter fat given by way of subsidy is also included in the figure of SI .68 for milk entering into the production of butter.
As to the subsidies on fluid milk, I do not think I need go back to the earlier years but just give the later years.
Mr. HACIvETT: Would the minister give the figures from 1936 on, as he did in the other case?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think I need give all the variations, because there are some areas in which the subsidy went down to 25 cents. But the general subsidies are 35 cents a hundred in summer and 55 cents in winter. That is on whole milk.


John Thomas Hackett: Milk of certain quality?


James Garfield Gardiner: On all fluid milk. On creamery butter it is 10 cents per pound butter fat throughout the year, and on milk entering into cheese 20 cents throughout the year; on concentrated milk products, 15 cents in the summer and 20 cents in the winter. Those were the subsidies given, taking everything into consideration, in order to equalize returns.


An hon. MEMBER:: Then there is a special subsidy, is there not, on cheese?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, there is no special subsidy, just the premium we paid before the war of two cents and three cents depending upon the point score. That has been paid since 1939.


John Thomas Hackett: And Ontario pays two cents a pound on cheese?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and Quebec paid two cents in some years.


John Thomas Hackett: Yes, off and on.


George Randolph Pearkes: What are the figures for British Columbia?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will put the whole table on Hansard, if I may, in a few moments. But answering first the point raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo as to the export of cattle to the orient, the figures I gave include all exports, wherever they go, both before the war and after. They include all exports of beef cattle, and the figures show that the exports were very much higher in recent years than in the years prior to the war.


George Randolph Pearkes: The point I was raising was that there has been no export of cattle to the orient during the war years.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Has the minister consent to place the tables
on Hansardt


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.

The tables follow:
Dominion Department of Agriculture Marketing Service Statistical Sheet No. 1
Production of Creamery Butter in Canada, Year 1933 Onward
Province	lb.
Prince Edward Island	 2,084,988
Nova Scotia	'	 0,089,615
New' Brunswick	   2,879,673
Quebec	 63.594,688
Ontario	 76,829,463
Manitoba	 19,557,688
Saskatchewan	 19,318,542
Alberta	 23,852,350
British Columbia	 5,023,539
All Canada	 219,232,546
Province	lb.
Prince Edward Island	 1.834,836
Nova Scotia	 5,732,666
New Brunswick	 3,220,003
Quebec	 69,325,144
Ontario	 81,630,231
Manitoba	 20,674,148
Saskatchewan	 20,871,603
Alberta	 25,601,447
British Columbia	 5,962,883
All Canada	 234,852,961
Province	lb.
Prince Edward Island	 1,672,822
Nova Scotia	 4,907,624
New' Brunsw'ick	 2,973,856
Quebec	 73,397,096
Ontario	 84,430,273
Manitoba	 21,531,855
Saskatchewan	 22,851,198
Alberta	 23,094,707
British Columbia	 6,059,368
All Canada	 240,918,799
Province	lb.
Prince Edw'ard Island	 2,068,065
Nova Scotia	 5,754,887
New' Brunswick	 3,502,529
Quebec	 74,487,024
Ontario	   86,705,979
Manitoba	 23,011,056
Saskatchewan	   24.097,537
Alberta	 25,491,105
British Columbia	i		5,813,595
All Canada	 250,931,777
Province	lb.
Prince Edward Island	 2,131,508
Nova Scotia	 5,874,068
New Brunswick	 3,623,787
Quebec	 74,557,923
Ontario	 1 81,396,261
Manitoba	 24,343,485
Saskatchewan	  23,571,938
Alberta	 26,323,562
British Columbia	 5,234,214
All Canada	 247,056,746

Supply-Agriculture
1938
Province	lb.
Prince Edward Island	 2,557,447
Nova Scotia	 6,716,643
New Brunswick	 4,521,525
Quebec	 79,758,453
Ontario	 87,754,385
Manitoba	 25,703,684
Saskatchewan	 23,524,260
Alberta	   31,242,357
British Columbia	 5,568,517
Province	lb.
Prince Edward Island	 4,301,535
Nova Scotia	 7,660,420
New Brunswick	 7,016,613
Quebec	 85,532,153
Ontario	 82,023,800
Manitoba	 33,922,078
Saskatchewan	 47,721,150
Alberta	 38,656,940
British Columbia	 4,874,787
All Canada	 311,709,476
All Canada	 267,347,271
Province	lb.
Prince Edward Island	 1,937,272
Nova Scotia	 5,681,607
New Brunswick	 3,987,318
Quebec	 80,235,791
Ontario	 88,010,276
Manitoba	 26,524,240
Saskatchewan	 25,400,005
Alberta	 29,749,958
British Columbia	 6,086,079
All Canada	 267,612,546
Province	lb.
Prince Edward Island	 1,984,487
Nova Scotia	 5,870,210
New Brunswick	 3,923,752
Quebec	 74,084,973
Ontario	 87,278,149
Manitoba	 27,289,731
Saskatchewan	 28,306,811
Alberta	 29,796,520
British Columbia	 6,189,036
All Canada	 264,723,669
Province	lb.
Prince Edward Island	 2,644,674
Nova Scotia	 6,540,837
New Brunswick	 4,542,039
Quebec	 76,266,197
Ontario	 86,242,850
Manitoba	 31,106,320
Saskatchewan	 37,126,694
Alberta	 35,316,143
British Columbia	 6,062,442
All Canada	 285,848,196
Province	lb.
Prince Edward Island	 3,523,310
Nova Scotia	 6,660,147
New Brunswick	 4,981,868
Quebec	 73,109,919
Ontario	 81,025,298
Manitoba	 31,641,708
Saskatchewan	 41,306,186
Alberta	 36,985,909
British Columbia	 5,357,027
284,591,372
Province
Prince Edward Island. .
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
lb.
4,009,756
7,148.331
7,049,784
81.977.292
74,802,746
31,571,555
48,226,769
37.784,393
5.687,299
All Canada
298,251,925
Province
Prince Edward Island. .
Nova Scotia	
New' Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba ...'	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
lb.
4.233,386
7.387.362
7.422.269
88,110,958
77,496.537
26.995,379
41.039.582
34.652.528
6.203,340
All Canada
293,541,341
Dominion Department of Agriculture Marketing Service Statistical Sheet No. 2
Production of Factory Cheese in Canada, Year 1933 and Onward
Province
Prince Edward Island .
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
lb.
563,376
313,994
25,521,945
81.260,644
677,864
758,071
1.437.387
613,212
All Canada
111,146,493
Province	lb.
Prince Edward Island	 340,032
New Brunswick	 347,355
Nova Scotia	 [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
Quebec	 21,676,736
Ontario	 73,301,029
Manitoba	 1,011,468
Saskatchewan	 664,259
Alberta	 1,370,425
British Columbia	 635,313
All Canada 63260-86

All Canada
99,346,617
Supply-Agriculture


John Bracken: Mr. Chairman, I have to leave the house in a few moments, and I should like to ask two questions before I go. One is on the matter we have now under discussion. I had not intended to deal with the subject, but since it has been referred to by other members I would like to ask a question.
The discussion has been largely on butter. The impression abroad, whether correct or not, is that butter has not been receiving a fair price in relation to that of other dairy products and other agricultural products. The minister has explained that the numbers of dairy cattle in Canada have increased over the past nine or ten years and that the production of dairy butter has increased over the same period. That is understandable and is accepted because of increased feed, increased numbers and increased prices.
But, Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether there is any conflict between the figures which the minister is using and figures used by the bureau of statistics. I had some figures extracted from the bureau of statistics reports which I should like to give, and perhaps the minister or some of his officials can tell us if they are wrong.
These summarized figures with respect to butter were given me as having come from the bureau of statistics. Let me quote the round figures. Butter production, according to these figures, in the prairie provinces in 1943 was 120,000,000 pounds; in 1944, 117,000,000 pounds; in 1945, 102,000,000 pounds. That shows a consistent reduction in butter production over the past three years. The summarized figures from the same source show a reduction also in butter production for the whole of Canada. For 1943 the production is shown as 367,000,000 pounds; 1944, 352,000,000 pounds; 1945, 346,000,000 pounds. The figures I am given also show that that trend is continuing.
Mr. GARDINER; Those are the same figures I have.


John Bracken: I thought the figures which the minister gave indicated an increase.
63260-86i


James Garfield Gardiner: I gave figures for only three provinces. There was an increase shown in Quebec.


John Bracken: But with respect to butter alone there has been a continuous drop in production both in the prairie provinces and in all Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: The figures for all
Canada are 311,000,000 pounds in 1943. The statement I made a few moments ago was that the average production of creamery butter in recent years was about 40,000,000 pounds above what it was prior to the war. The production in 1938 was 267,000,000 pounds; it rose to 311,000,000 in 1943; then it went down to 298,000,000 pounds in 1944 and 293,000,000 in 1945. I am quoting the figures for creamery butter. I have not used any dairy butter figures, because those are only an estimate that somebody makes without very much upon which to base it.


John Bracken: Perhaps this discussion has helped to clarify the matter. I thought that the figures which the minister first gave left the impression that butter production had kept on increasing. The only point I wished to make was to be sure that these figures were correct, or to know in what respect they were wrong. They show that in the last three years the production of creamery butter has been going down steadily. My information is that that trend is still continuing. In the prairie provinces, if you compare January of this year with January of last year it is 4-2 million pounds as compared with 4-9 million; in February of this year compared with February of last year, 4-2 million as against 5 million; in March of this year, 5-1 million as compared with 6-7 million in the corresponding month of last year.
For the whole of Canada-comparing the first three months of this year with the first three months of last year-in January this year, 9-6 million pounds were produced as compared with 11-4 million; February, 8-6 million as compared with 10-6 million; and March, ITS million as compared with 14-7 million. It is summarized in this way; in the first quarter of 1945 prairie butter production was 2-2 million pounds less than for the first quarter of 1944; in the first quarter of 1946 it was 3 million pounds less than in 1945. In two years, production in the prairie region has declined 28 per cent. The minister has explained, and everybody understands, that the crop was not as good last year as the year before. Nevertheless for the whole of Canada creamery butter production for the first quarter of this year is 18 per cent lower than it was a year ago.
Supply-A gricul ture

My question, has been answered: the minister has explained that the figures he quoted were for ten years; I have been referring only tor the tendency of the last three years and particularly the last few months.
The other question I wish to leave with the minister, and it is one he cannot answer to-day, is related to the question asked this afternoon just before the orders of the day were called. Will the minister be good enough to have his officials set down side by side for the members of the house a statement of the prices under comparable conditions in Canada and the United States of all the major products of the farm-dairy products, meat products, [DOT] poultry products, grains, and any other major farm products, for the information of the house.
I do not suggest for a moment that the prices of these things should all be as high here as they are on the other side. Wages are not the same, and other conditions are different. But I think it would be interesting and informative if we could have the figures- reliable figures-showing a comparison of farm prices in this country and over there; and it would be well if those figures could be prepared showing what the figures on the other side are, or will be on the 13th of this month, when the increases announced to-day in the United States come into effect.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can give the information with regard to the product which was discussed the other night; I made a statement with regard to it; and I imagine the other figures could be got on much the same basis. I could probably give them as we go along with the discussion of the estimates.
I mentioned the other night that we have been rapidly overtaking the United States prices on hogs. Here is the position as of May 8, 1946, at Winnipeg and Chicago. On live weight basis the selling price at Chicago is $14.85, plus exchange of $1.48, which is $16.33. The statement I made the other evening was to the effect that our hogs could be sold on this market at a better return at present, or at least from day to day recently, than they could on the United States market. To begin again and repeat the figures: selling price Chicago, $14.85, plus exchange $1.48, $16.33; less shipping costs, $1; less duty, $1; net return Winnipeg $14.32. Winnipeg: market price grade A live basis, $14.03; premium on grade A, $1; return $15.03. The margin of Winnipeg over Chicago is 70 cents. Then the Winnipeg market price of B-l's, live basis, $13.73; premium on grade B-l, 50 cents; making a total of $14.23. The margin of Chicago over Winnipeg on B grade is 10 cents a hundred pounds.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is the minister quoting comparable grades for both markets? There is no grade A over there, is there?


James Garfield Gardiner: They have what they call the fat hog. We have the bacon hog. But on the top grades of hogs, grades which are as nearly comparable as you can get them, these are the prices. I can get the others made out on a similar basis and have them produced.


Mr. HARKNESS:: Would the minister
explain what he means by the dollar duty and why it is added?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the duty a Canadian farmer has to pay if he wishes to market his hogs to-day on the Chicago market. He would not get quite as much for them as if he marketed them on the Winnipeg market.


Mark Cecil Senn: But the United States farmer would get more.


James Garfield Gardiner: The United States
farmer would get more, yes, but the Canadian farmer is the one being discussed. The United States farmer would pay more for a great many things, even his labour. While I am mentioning that I want to say that I quite agree with what has been said with regard to the increased cost of production of all these products, owing to increased labour costs and the great difficulty of getting labour at all with which to produce them. That is admitted all across the country. I know that because I hire farm labour myself and I know that I am paying as much for farm labour to-day as I have ever paid at any time, even at the end of the last war. There is difficulty in that as it is related to the cost of production of all farm products. The more labour that is involved-there is more labour in producing butter than in producing cheese, more labour in producing hogs than in producing cattle, and so on-whichever one involves the greatest amount of labour in the cost, of course suffers the most in production from time to time under present conditions. The production of that which requires the kind of labour which some people object to doing suffers more greatly at a time of high return than it does at a time of low return.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Following that production of whole milk, added to the figures the minister put on record, I have the current Review of Agricultural Conditions for April, which points out, at page 13, that the production of whole milk shows some decrease for March and April as compared with a year ago. So the production of whole milk is on the downgrade, and as the hon. member for Mel-

Supply-A griculture
fort said, when you get west of the Red River valley there is very little cheese production. I am told by dairy officials in Manitoba, where conditions favour us to a far greater extent than in Saskatchewan, that our creamery production is down over 20 per cent. However, the figures which the minister is putting on the record will show exactly what the position is. I should like to couple; my request with that of my leader as to the cost on each side of the line, including grain, which of course does not come under the Minister of Agriculture but under the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The price of wheat to-day in the United States is a little over double what it is in Canada, not taking into account the participation certificate. But the question I should like to ask the minister is based on his own argument of last Monday and this afternoon. A considerable number of dairy cattle are exported to the United States, and they should be; I do not disagree with him on that point. I have asked repeatedly in the last two or three years that we be allowed to export beef cattle on that basis to the United States market. But if it cannot be done, as it was done at one time on the quota basis that prevailed before the government put on the embargo, then the request of some of the provincial ministers, including the minister in the government of Manitoba, might be given serious consideration. That is to say, when we have a glut on the market in the fall, or a condition such as existed in the yards about the end of April, when the packers took control of things and gave the producers a rather raw deal, permits might be issued for the shipment of a limited number of cattle to the market in the United States. All the ramifications of this suggestion have been pointed out by the provincial ministers. They have shown how the matter might be worked out and the differences pooled, as was done in connection with exports of barley and oats in the case of the Canadian wheat board. Can the minister say whether we may expect some entry into that market to the south of us for our beef cattle on the same basis as for dairy cattle exported at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: we can send them, and they are not dickering in any way about the price. That simply brings us back to this position, that if we are to maintain price controls in order to have any food at all in this country-that is, food of that kind-we must maintain certain levels with respect to it. If we are desirous of raising the prices to where there is no control at all, then I suppose the price in Canada would go as high as the bid from either Britain or the United States for beef. If we permitted that to happen we would consume whatever we desired here; the Americans would get whatever they could at whatever price they might pay, and the British would have to take what was left.


James Arthur Ross: I suggested that the government might consider the permit question. The prices of oats and barley were just as far out of line as the price of beef, but when we had the commodity to spare it was exported under a permit system. The provincial ministers of agriculture have asked the federal authorities to institute such a system so that we might have exports on a permit basis. Is that possible?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a very difficult thing to do. 'Grades often run all the way from canner cows, up, and much of what we send to Europe consists of canner cows. It would be difficult to carry that out. Of course, it is possible to do almost anything, but I am sure that the administration of a policy of that kind would be almost impossible. With grain, it is a simple matter. All our grain is graded in Winnipeg; there is no difficulty establishing grades and relationships between grades. But it would be difficult to do that in this matter, having regard to the United States position. We have limited the amount of red and blue beef which can go to Britain. We have said that our people are entitled to the top grades, the blue and red brands of beef, and we insist that only a certain proportion shall be shipped out. If you open the United States market wide, that is, to the kind that goes to the United. States, the only kind that goes to advantage, which is the very top grades of beef, you introduce a questioti that must wait for final decision until we are prepared to change our policy with respect to price control.


James Arthur Ross: Would the minister mind doing what he did in connection with dairy production, putting on Hansard the figures for cattle production from 1939 to date? It is my belief that beef cattle increased in far greater numbers than dairy cattle throughout the war years. West of the great

lakes the increase I believe has been 42 per cent from 1939 to date. If the minister could put those figures on Hansard it would be enlightening.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have them here and I will try to get them put on Hansard.


Mr. BRYCE:: Have we any agreement with the United States to take up in the post-war period the commitment we had previously, or has Mexico taken over what we lost? As the minister knows, Mexico had a percentage, and we had the rest. Have we lost that entirely now, and shall we have to reestablish that when we return to normal conditions?


James Garfield Gardiner: Before the war Canada's quota was 76 per cent of three-quarters of one per cent of the consumption of the United States, which of course is a very small part of their consumption. As I say, 76 per cent of that was allowed to come in from Canada, provided that we produced it, and 24 per cent came from Mexico. When by arrangement between Britain, the United States and ourselves the boundary between Canada and the United States was kept closed, we entered into an arrangement under which we agreed that they should take whatever beef they could get from Mexico, but at the same time it was agreed that when conditions changed and we were desirous of having that market again, the relationship would be reestablished.


William Scottie Bryce: I am pleased to hear that.


Mark Cecil Senn: As I recall the discussion in 1942, I believe the minister indicated that at that time the United States were anxious that we should not send beef over there, even to the amount of our quota. Are they still of the same opinion, or are they willing to take our cattle now?


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Mark Cecil Senn: I do not recall the minister's words exactly, but a moment ago I understood him to say that we were realizing a higher return on beef sent to Britain than on beef sold on our home market. Is that correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I did not make that statement. The position is that in connection with red brand beef under the agreement we buy beef to send to Britain only when it is a quarter cent or more under the ceiling, until we get up to a certain level in quantity. If we get up to that level, which we have not reached so far, the spread goes to one-half cent. On the lower grades of beef the margin is SI.25; in other words, we do not purchase it until it is $1.25 below the ceiling. So that they are never paying more for the beef than is paid for it here.
Mr. PATRICK H. ASHBY (Edmonton East): It is a well known fact that the price of beef cattle drops in the fall, because it is claimed that grass-fed cattle are not as good as grain-fed cattle. Extensive tests have been made in this connection, and if there is any difference between grass-fed and grain-fed cattle it is in favour of those fed on grass. The beef from grass-fed cattle is of superior quality to the beef from grain-fed cattle, as can be observed by any farmer who raises beef. In the fall the cattle come in from the grass in good flesh. They are in wonderful, healthy condition. Put them in the barns and feed them on dry feed and grain, and no matter how well you may take by the following March, when prices are better. I say prices are lower in the fall, instead of saying they are higher in the spring, because that is true. If anything, however, the price of beef cattle should be highest in the fall. A great many people do not realize that when the packing plants slaughter these animals the meat is not consumed immediately. All during the winter this meat is sold at the same price as grain-fed cattle, and that continues away into the next summer.
When we speak of agriculture I am interested in this subject, for my father and grandfather spent their whole lives in this business. The other day I picked up the Western Producer of April 4 and saw a little paragraph which I should like to read:
The Fanners Grow Old
There is a startling and nonetheless disturbing inference to be drawn from a recent report that the average age of farmers in Saskatchewan is 53 years. The Saskatchewan government reports further that 5,000 farmers are over the age of 68. There is no reason to believe that this condition is not reflected in the other prairie provinces and, possibly to a similar extent, in the other areas of this country.
While the world pleads for food and more food, Canada's agricultural population progressively grows older, and, consequently, weaker and less able to produce. This condition started some years before the war, as the cities drained off the more adventurous and virile of the farm manhood. It was accelerated in pace by the war, as tens of thousands of young men left their plows and harrow's to join the services or seek higher pay in the w'ar manufacturing centres. There is little indication that the men are going back in anything near the numbers m which they left; if anything, the depletion continues.
Figures show that during the last four years of war alone 300.000 persons left rural areas in Canada for the cities. Four-fifths of the migration came from the prairies, half of that from Saskatchewan, where the need for farm labour presently is greatest. Whence comes then the new' and strong blood and sinew for the nation s farms? That it must be found is inescapable. How it is to be found is another matter.
-un sup joj asnuo Sui^ijapun oq ^smu ajoqi happy and disturbing picture. Is the risk of agriculture, especially specialized agriculture as we practise it in this country, too high and the reward too small? Are the hardships of farm life not compensatory for the basic security which it is designed to provide? Is the wage scale in relation to effort for farm labour too low?
In 1944, at the general synod of the Church of England in Canada, Rt. Rev. A. H. Sovereign, Bishop of Athabaska, pointed out, in a survey of farm conditions in this country, that, although one-third of the nation's population lived on the land .it received only one-seventh to one-tenth of the nation's income.
The Lever Brothers' report of last October showed that only one-third of Canada's farms have inside running water; that only 35 per cent of the farms have inside toilet facilities; that very few have bathtubs or other .amenities regarded as normal by the vast proportion of city dwellers. Further, despite the enormous strides
Supply-Agriculture

made in recent years in the development and distribution of electric power, the proportion of farms with electricity is still relatively low.
There must be a reason for this migration from the farms to the cities. I think I can give that reason by just reading a sentence from a letter I received from my sweetheart- my wife. I had written asking how the boys were getting along. One of those boys I took out of school, the other from college, so that they could work on the farm during the war, sacrificing their education and possibly their future in order to produce food for our boys overseas and our people at home. She said in her letter that the boys work from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. That is sixteen hours a day. Mind you, my wife got up around half-past three or four o'clock in the morning, because she had to get breakfast for those boys. They do the chores before five o'clock, and are out on the tractors by that hour. They continue steadily, driving those tractors all the time until nine o'clock in the evening.
Now, what about my daughters, my little girls? What are they doing? They are cooking and helping with the chores; they take out the sandwiches and, as the boys go by, they hand the sandwiches to them while they are on the job.
Let us compare the work of my boys with that of an engineer on a railway. I think it is a damnable disgrace that any country like this should compel boys and girls to work sixteen hours a day on the farms, for their ordinary bread and butter. I tell you, it is a damnable disgrace.


William Henry Golding: I hope the hon. member will not continue to use language of that type.


Mr. ASHBY:: Well, that was in the nature of a prayer-but I have not finished yet, and I quote from this letter: "The girls take over, so that the tractors never stop, except for oil and fuel." And these conditions exist in this day and age, in the Dominion of Canada. I wonder what the engineers on our railroads would do if they were compelled to drive their locomotives-a comparatively easy task, when compared with that of driving a tractor and handling the machinery behind it-for twelve solid hours each day, or for sixteen hours as these boys are doing.
The average railway engineer drives his locomotive under conditions of comparative ease, for a matter of four and a half or five hours each trip, and for that they receive about $15 or $20. That is the truth. It is not too much. What about the farm boys? Well, if they began to charge up to the costs of production at the same rates I am sure no one could buy a pound of butter for less than $5 or a pint of milk for less than a 
dollar. What is the solution? The answer is subsidies.
"Do we need butter to-day?. Are we producing? Well, I told my boys to kill off the cows, to take them to town and sell them. I said, Do not milk any more; you are working hard enough." All my dairy herd has gone. Do we want butter? I can get back into the dairy business, but it requires a long time to do that-not just a year. It requires at least ten years to do it properly. A farmer is not one who looks only from one day to the next; he has to plan on and on, years ahead. I am sure no other industry would accept for one moment the financial returns that are found in connection with dairy production. The only reason the farmers accept the prices paid is that, above all else, they want freedom and security. They are willing to make great sacrifices in order to secure this freedom, that natural form of life which the farm can give them.
Just imagine! Young men by the hundreds of thousands leave agriculture, their homes and farms and all that life in the country means, to go to the cities because they have suffered the trials and tribulations on the farm-the debts, the sweat, the tears; yes, and the blood, mind you, because there are more accidents and fatalities suffered on our farms than in any other type of industrial activity. Anyone who doubts that should read the records of the United States.
Why do we have this condition? Because the farmers are overworked, overtired. No other animal, certainly no human being should be expected to keep going on and on for twelve or sixteen hours each day. No wonder that some of the women on the farms go to insane asylums, and that after twenty, thirty and forty years or more of toil, and some of the men become similarly affected. They have too much work and worry.
Surely this is a disgrace. But I did see a ray of sunshine in the speech of the Minister of Labour when he said that we were living in a comparative paradise. Yes, he said that this country is a paradise. True-but at the expense of those who work and toil.
Any hon. member who doubts that we live in this paradise should set his alarm clock for four o'clock in the morning; jump out of bed-don't bother dressing, because there are very few around at that time of the morning. Just run outside as you are, and if you go up or down the street in any city you will see bottles of milk sitting on the doorsteps of almost every house, where the pixies left them during the night. But the majority of people have not for one moment considered where that milk came from. They take all

Supply-Agriculture
these things for granted. They will say, of course, that the milk man was there early in the morning making deliveries. But those of us from the farm know that before he made his deliveries the farmers were hard at work. The farm men, women and children were milking the cows.
We take too much for granted these days; and that is one reason I disagree with the Minister of Labour when he says that he does not like strikes. I think strikes are a wonderful thing, if for no other reason than that they remind us that there are human beings who work, toil and slave to produce the abundance we are able to enjoy in this comparative paradise.
While it is not true that we are living in an actual paradise, it is true that we do have a paradise, right here; for I believe God's work is always perfection. Most of these trials and troubles are not due to God's stupidity, ignorance or negligence; rather they are due to our own foolishness and stupidity. We can blame our so-called experts. I heard one minister make a reference to "his experts". They are the ones we should hold responsible. They are the ones upon whom we can put our finger and say, "You are responsible. Now, answer a few questions." We have not yet begun to hold our peace-time crime trials; the war-time crime trials are not yet completed. But I believe we should hold a few sittings, when we could call some of these experts to the witness stand and ask them a few questions. We could ask them why there was all this poverty and wretchedness before and since the war. Did we win the war? Have we won? Well, when it was declared that we had won the war hats were thrown in the air and everyone was happy. But we have not won; no, we are still being robbed of our production and hard-earned money. At the same time we are not producing to capacity.
I am a farmer and I should like to go ahead and produce dairy products because I specialized in dairy bacteriology. I should like to have on my farm a good dairy herd and to produce something of real value. Farmers are like gardeners and artists. Now, take this gardener-


An hon. MEMBER:: You take him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: I mean .the gardener outside. Look at the beautiful flowers he has placed at the front of the building for us to look at and enjoy. Why did he not put them over the hill down by the river bank? He did not do that because people would not be able to enjoy them. The farmer is just like that; he 63260-87
likes to produce something that the people can enjoy. Then take our Gardiner, the minister. I was pleased to hear him say that the fanners down through these valleys in Ontario were proud to produce cheese that was enjoyed by the people of Britain.
That is true with us all. The majority of people are proud of their work and want to do their best. But many of these rules and regulations, this orthodox economy and these crackpot ideas prevent us from going ahead.
We have the ability; we have the natural resources; we have the need and we should be able to go ahead. But the experts say, "You cannot do this."
There is another matter I should like to deal with-wool. The price of woollen goods indicates to me that wool is a necessity and that it should be produced. Yet on my own , farm I have cut the production of wool at a i time when after twenty-five years I am in a V position to produce it to capacity. Many 'V people take wool for granted and do not stop to think what goes into its production. Considered from a practical point of view the wool grower has an investment in his land equal to that which the average professional man has invested in his business. In addition, he has to buy thousands of fence posts at twenty to twenty-five cents apiece. If he employs someone, say a dentist, to bore holes in the ground and he is charged the same price as would be charged for boring a hole in a tooth and filling it, the added cost of producing wool would be such as to make it impossible for people to buy it, except in very small quantities. Under such circumstances wool would probably be framed in glass or in a glass bowl for people to admire as the marvelous product it is. The risks involved are the same as those involved in any other form of live stock raising, with certain exceptions.	_
When I started out in sheep I was advised by agricultural experts not to start with pure-breds but to buy a few good range ewes. I bought those range ewes and tried to fence them in. I found I had to go to town to buy some snare wire, not to be used as most hon. members may think, but for the purpose of catching some jack-rabbits. I lived on Jack-rabbit for about three weeks in the hope of building up enough speed to be able to round up the sheep.
When it came to shearing time I did have some difficulty. I remember my little boy looking up into my face with his big brown eyes and asking me what I was going to do.
I said, "Daddy is going to shear the sheep." All right, if daddy says he is going to shear the sheep, the sheep will be sheared, thought

Supply-A gricul lure

the child. Was not daddy a big soldier man from the war; was not daddy a redoubtable man? Of course he was. But I had my doubts.
I started forth with a hired man. The hired man was inexperienced and we did have some difficulty. I remember that I was nearly played out catching the first one but I finally got it on its back. Then I found I was faced with a worse job than ever before because there were four sharp feet flying around in all directions. However, I finally managed to get it up on its rump and started in to shear. I am pointing out these things to show the real value of wool and the tremendous real cost of producing it. I have read of similar instances which had occurred in basements of department stores at bargain counters during recent years in which certain members of the fair sex were involved, but I had no experience along this line.
I had no sooner got the wool off one side than the sheep managed to run its front feet up under my shirt and ripped it off my back. My little boy was jumping up and down and shouting, "You are winning, daddy." I got the other side off, but the perspiration was running into my eyes and falling off the end of my nose. I was just about to finish cutting the last little lock off the end of its tail when it got both hind feet up the legs of my pants and after a tremendous struggle it broke loose and we parted company. The sheep staggered off minus its coat while I sat on the ground minus my pants which my little boy retrieved for me. The hired man called it a draw.
These are just some of the trials and tribulations of producing wool. Then to think that all I received for that wool was from twelve to fifteen cents a pound!


An hon. MEMBER:: Look at the fun you had.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: Then it was minus the cost of the sacks, minus the twine and freight, minus this and minus that, and by the time I bought a shirt to replace the one that I lost I was in debt. What is the solution?


An hon. MEMBER:: Tie up the sheep.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: The solution is really very simple. It is not for us to decide how it shall be done because the minister has indicated that there are experts available. All we need to do is to tell the experts: "Ways and means must be found so that all those employed in agriculture shall receive a just and fair price for"-I was going to say for everything they produce or for all they produce, but it is not my duty simply to produce something and then say that I shall be paid for it, like it or lump it. Somebody should decide what I as
	^
a farmer should produce, and the quantity that I should produce. The producer should receive a sufficient return, and, what is more, his dollar should be able to buy one dollar's worth of goods instead of thirty cents worth, which is all it buys to-day. His dollar should have a full dollar's worth of value. The consumer should be able to choose what he wants from our farm production and the farmer should receive a fair and just price for the products the consumer demands from him. That means bonusing, and keep on increasing those bonuses. It can be done without increasing the price to the consumer.
I was ashamed of the Minister of Labour on Monday, a man from Sussex, from Britain, actually saying-and if I had been sitting beside him I would have slapped his wrist- "It cannot be done. Grown-up men know it cannot be done." If that be true, and it is not, then I hope I never become a grown-up man because I assure the minister that it can be done and will be done, and I am certain that it will be done in our life time. It requires only simple adjustments to be made to our present financial system, which is all right, mind you. I do not think there is any financial system ever devised by the mind of man which is equal to ours, with one exception. It is not up to me to say what that dxeeption is or what minor adjustments should be made or how they should be made. They are simple and can be made, and if the experts do not bring about those needed changes there is only one alternative, and that is an ultimate world dictatorship. Then, indeed, we shall all be slaves.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH (North Battle-ford) : Mr. Chairman, I listened with a good deal of pleasure to the hon. member who has just taken his seat but with some trepidation when he got to the point where the sheep appeared to commandeer his trousers. But he did not explain and I should like to know just how he managed to shear the rump of the sheep while it was sitting on it. Perhaps at some later date he will tell us.
At the outset I wish to express my appreciation of the fact that the agriculture estimates are going up and to compliment the minister on his success in being able to do this little trick, because in times like these, when everybody is so anxious to cut down all expenditure, I realize that it is only with the greatest difficulty that any estimate can be boosted upward. Of course, I still feel that these estimates are too low. Our agricultural people have always considered that the amount that was spent on agriculture to improve its methods and do the different jobs that had to be done to that end was very low

Supply-A gricul ture
indeed. The last figures available, those in the "Canada Year Book, 1942" show that $2,136,000,000 odd was realized from the sale of agricultural products of all kinds in the previous year. Two and one-quarter billion dollars is a considerable amount of money, and when we spend only 819,000,000 on trying to boost that figure, it is not very much. However, we must be thankful for small mercies and as an agriculturist I appreciate the fact that attempts are being made to improve the position of the industry.
When I had an opportunity of speaking in this house some time ago I made the statement that a country which could produce at the lowest cost, the highest quality article, would get the world market. The Minister of Agriculture this afternoon referred to that phase when he said that he did not consider it was possible for us to enter into successful competition with New Zealand, for instance, in the dairy industry, because we cannot compete- with their climatic conditions. I still believe as I have said before in the house, that in the last analysis we shall find all the nations of the world compelled to grow or produce or manufacture that thing which they can most economically grow or produce or manufacture.
Those countries will be able to capture the world market which can keep down costs of production. Costs of production establish the selling price of any commodity, and I was wondering how we can reduce production costs in agriculture.
There are two things that can be done if and when these production costs are reduced. The manufacturer or producer can secure more profits or, second, he can reduce the price at which he sells his commodity. I think the latter is the more desirable because in that way it will be possible to secure and make sure of a market, if we keep the price down and the quality up. But keeping the price down is a very important factor. With that thought in mind I give it as my opinion that tariffs, quotas and trade restrictions will have to go. I believe, as a matter of fact, they are out. Undoubtedly they have been war-producing. They have been the means of creating more ill will and trouble between nations than any other thing.
How can we cut down costs of production in agriculture? It is said that when Marquis wheat was king we lost one crop in five from a disease which we have all heard of and which is known as rust. That is, twenty per cent of our crop was lost because of this terrible scourge which we experienced for so many years in the western provinces. When eventually our plant breeders and plant path-63260- 87}
ologists were successful in producing a variety of wheat which was resistant to rust we saved one crop in five, or twenty per cent of our crop. In other words, our production costs were cut twenty per cent by the single factor of producing a variety of wheat resistant to rust. Any time that we conquer a plant disease, and any time that we conquer the effects of insect pests in agriculture, we are reducing our costs of production. This work is being done by our agricultural scientists, and I want to touch briefly on them in passing.
They have done and are still doing an extraordinarily good work in agriculture. It is of the highest importance that we should see to it that the services of these men are retained and encouraged in every way. I wish to acknowledge what the minister has done in this respect and to commend him for having started to raise the salaries of our agricultural scientists. I have in my hand a list of the men whose salaries have been raised, and I notice that the increases range all the way from $60 to $900 and that very few received only a $60 raise. Most of them received liberal raises. I have no doubt that this will be the means of encouraging these men to stay on the job and give us further assistance in our agricultural work.
Recently one of these men has been the means of discovering or originating another variety of wheat which has proved itself resistant to a pest known in the west as sawfly. Every year for a' good many years the losses from sawfly in the western provinces were anywhere from $15 to $20 million. So that it does seem as though we could afford to pay a reasonable salary to a man who can provide us with a variety of wheat which is resistant to the attacks of the sawfly. Losses in the western provinces from weeds amount to $70 million per annum. It would be worth a lot of money to us if some of these men could tell us how to avoid these weed losses. Another disease we have in the west is known as smut, and that costs us $20 million a year. If we could get rid of these things our production costs would be cut down and we would have a much better chance to compete in the world market. The agricultural scientist can save us all these losses if he is encouraged to do so, if the money is found for him to work with, in his laboratories and in other ways. These men must never be allowed to ease up on their work; it is never finished. I think I have told the house before, but it will bear repetition, that rust, which cost us so many million dollars a few years ago, and which we think we have conquered, could easily come at us again from another angle. We know there is a considerable number of varieties of rust. We have successfully stopped the
Supply-A griculture

attacks of this particular disease in the wheat fields; but there is always a chance of another variety of rust turning up which will immediately knock all our plans galley-west, which will upset all the work that has been done, and we shall immediately run into the difficulty all over again. So that our men must be kept working all the time. They cannot stop when they have succeeded in what they have set out to do, because hazards are always present and must be considered at all times.
One aspect of agriculture about which I should like to talk for a few minutes and which I do not think has been discussed very much in this chamber, is the question of seed. In the last few years there has sprung up in this country, a seed industry the value of which is not appreciated by a great many people. We used to import a tremendous quantity of our seed. The situation is now changed, and we find ourselves with an export trade.in seed. It affects not only the prairie west but all the provinces. As a matter of fact some of the eastern provinces are gaining substantially from the growing of vegetable seed, as also is the far western province of British Columbia. Some of these figures might be interesting to the committee.
In 1939 this country produced 104,000 pounds of beans; in 1944 we produced 850,000 pounds of seed. Beet seed in this country increased from 4,000 pounds in 1939 to 80,000 pounds in 1944; cabbage seed, from 55 pounds to 6,500 pounds. ,Perhaps 6,500 pounds does not seem to be a very large quantity, but all things are relative, and a pound of cabbage seed is really a lot of seed. As a matter of fact-to come to one other kind of seed-in one ounce of tobacco seed there are roughly 90,000 seeds, which will plant ten acres. That is, one ounce of tobacco seed is in this respect the equivalent of fifteen bushels of wheat, for it will plant ten acres of land. The production of carrot seed has advanced from 10,000 to 221,000 pounds. There was no corn seed produced until 1943, and in that year we had 560,000 pounds, and so on all down the. line. There is a swede turnip seed which is grown by farmers in the maritimes, the amount having increased from 11,000 pounds in 1941 to 161,000 pounds in 1944; and that, as I have said before, is a tremendous lot of seed.	;
Tobacco seed is grown principally in Ontario, It is a very difficult thing to secure, because it has to be disease-free, and even the soil in which the tobacco plant is grown has to be sterilized before it can be safely used for this particular seed. Turnip seed is grown in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. The Laurentian seed, as it is called, provides hundreds upon hundreds 
of carloads of turnips grown from Canadian seed. In Nova Scotia, where this seed is being grown, the authorities marked off one area in which no other variety of seed was allowed to be grown except this one particular variety. It is the first time that any such experiment has been made. Beetroot seed is being grown in the maritimes to a great extent. I could name the number of thousands of pounds, but I do not wish to bore hon. members. But an interesting thing happened in this connection. One pound of a very special variety, Detroit dark red, was sent out to a trained grower, who returned the next year, for the one pound which he used, 275 pounds. The five other pounds which, constituted the remainder of that particular seed was sent out to untrained men. All this seed was lost; it became mixed with other varieties. Hydrid corn is another strongly entrenched seed product. It takes a long time to get a start. Twenty years are taken in developing the inbreds, and then the matching, as it is called, is done on an Ontario farm and produces a single cross which is used for the seed. There has been a tremendous increase in the amount of corn and a tremendous change in the type of plant which has been grown. It is stated that the type of plant grown from these hybrids has made possible the use of harvesting machinery for corn. Previously this was not possible because of the weakness of the stem; when there was a rain or a wind storm the plant went down; but now it stands up; machinery can be successfully used, and the saving has been tremendous. Vegetable seed is grown particularly in Ontario and British Columbia. There are six strains of onions developed by British Columbia groovers and now used all over the world. That is particularly interesting because I haye been told that the bulbs which are used to produce this onion seed are sometimes more valuable than the seed itself. Yet the growers continue to use them, and having established their market they have continued to keep it supplied.
In 1943-44 export seeds were as high as 4,500,000 pounds from Canada to the United Kingdom, consisting of carrots, beans, peas, cauliflower, lettuce, parsley, spinach and so on, and it is said that on the basis of average seeding and yields, these seeds produced 2,500,000 tons of food. In other words, that was the quantity of seeds that Canada shipped over in 1943-44 at a time when they were badly needed.
As regards cereals in the western provinces, in 1943 there were sown to wheat seventeen and a half million acres, representing 26,000,000 bushels of seed, and in the same year 15,000,000 acres were sown to oats, requiring 40,000,000

Supply-A gricul ture
bushels of seed, and 8,500,000 acres of barley-requiring 13,000,000 bushels. In fact, in one year, 1940, we sowed 28,750,000 acres to wheat, which required 42,000,000 bushels of seed. That is a lot of seed, and that particular crop produced over $540,000,000 worth of wheat, even at fifty-two cents a bushel.
It can be seen, therefore, that this matter of seed is very important-important as a seed industry, and important as a means of securing good seed for our own country, and because seed plays such a fundamental part in our own production. I often wonder whether hon. members as they sweat over their garden patches pay sufficient attention to the quality of the seed they use, because all those backaches they endure at the end of a spade or shovel handle are wasted if they buy inferior seed. It is important that they should secure seed of the best quality.
There are in this country many agricultural organizations who are doing very good work but who are not known much outside their own orbit. They work in a little district or community and that is the only place in which they are known. There is such an organization, probably new to a great many members of this house, known as the Canadian Seed Growers' Association, or C.S.G.A. to use its initial letters. These people are responsible for taking care of all pure-line seeds.
A point that is not generally recognized is that when a plant breeder has secured what he was after, either a rust-resistant or an insect-resistant seed, he has only a very small quantity of seed, probably only a handful. The important thing is to get this handful out to the farmers in the country who require, in some years, 42,000,000 bushels of seed. But this very small handful is all there is, and. if it becomes mixed with anything else, it is useless because all its good qualities are lost. Someone has to take over the job of multiplying this small quantity of seed, and he has to take care in the process that it does not become fouled or mixed with anything else. This work requires training and patience and it takes a great deal of time. That is one of the principal objects of this organization known as the Canadian Seed Growers' Association. The association has not a very large membership, but these special seeds are handed over to the members for production and multiplication purposes, and they are the people who, because of special training and because of their willingness to devote their time to this kind of work, reproduce and multiply this small quantity into larger supplies, so that they may become available to the farmers of the land.
The scientific work is useless until all the farmers who require the seed can get it, and if these trained workers produce a rust-resistant seed all the farmers in the west should be supplied with it. It takes a great deal of time to multiply that seed, and purity is the important factor. Indeed, everything has to be taken into consideration. The land itself in which the seed is to be sown is generally a piece of summer-fallow. But that summer-fallow has to be cleared of all other growth and of all extraneous matter. If animals went across it last year it is absolutely useless for the purpose of growing the new variety of seed. If the machine that is used to do the seeding, the seed drill, is not thoroughly cleaned and every last seed taken out of it, it is of no use and it will spoil the whole set-up. It has to be thoroughly cleaned so that the crop will be absolutely pure. The same is true of every other implement used in the process. The threshing machine is probably the most difficult for the grower of pure-bred seed, because it is a physical impossibility to get every seed out of that piece of machinery. Any hon. members who have had experience with a thresher will realize the difficulties it presents. The result is that a good deal of pure seed will not be threshed in a threshing machine but by hand, with the use of a flail. Older members who were raised on farms will know what a flail is-a long stick with a short stick tied to it, the object being to swing it round the head without hitting the head but, instead, bringing it down on the sheaf of grain. In other words, we have to go back to the old methods because we are afraid of introducing foreign matter into the seed. Again, we have to use a floor that has not been used before because there may be in the cracks some grain from a previous occasion.
It is a terribly tedious job, and all these dangers of impurities getting into the seed are not the only things we have to worry about. There are other things the members of the association have to cope with.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: When the committee rose at six o'clock, I was trying to show the importance of an organization known as the Canadian Seed Growers' Association, and was pointing out the difficulties they encountered and the excellent work they were doing in keeping pure, certain lines of seed. The possibility and danger of mixtures which I
Supply-Agriculture

described was purely a mechanical matter. I mentioned those which might take place in the ground and those which might take place in the drills, and the machines used by these growers. When mixtures happened for these reasons, that would be purely a mechanical matter. However, other mixtures take place in the natural growth of the plants. You get cross-fertilization between plants of the same family, so that great care has to be exercised; and there is difficulty in differentiating between a cross-bred plant and one of pure strain. The members of the Canadian Seed Growers' Association have trained themselves so that without a great deal of difficulty they can recognize cross-breeding in the different plants, in their fields and plots. They have to keep great distances between those plants which are of pure strain, and those which are not. In the case of corn, for instance, there has to be at least a mile between the pure lines and other lines. A distance of sixty feet is common between ordinary cereal lines in the close pollinated plants and greater distances have to be maintained in regard to those which are open-pollinated.
It is fortunate that all these different types of plants have something which enables the onlooker to distinguish them. The matter of the shape of a plant is very important, and is perhaps the first thing noticed by the breeder or the man going into pure lines. ' All these different plants have different shapes. Even different varieties of wheat have different shapes. Some varieties are bearded; some are not. So that these different distinguishing characteristics are observed by these members of the Canadian Seed Growers' Association, in their special work. There is no great harm in having a plant with a different shape, except that it indicates cross-breeding. There is no great harm in a plant having a glume of a certain shape, any more than there is any great harm in a Holstein cow not having a white splash at the end of its tail. The white tip on its tail is simply an indication of pure breeding, and if an animal does not have that white tip you cannot register it. That is an indication of the breed, and the same thing occurs within limits in plant life.
As I say, these men are trained to detect these different changes. Such variations or off-types are severely dealt with in the examination of the plots by members of the seed branch. That is one thing I have not mentioned. The registration of plants is obtained in exactly the same way that we have registration of animals. Just as we get a registered Clydesdale or a registered Shorthorn, in the same way we get registered varieties of wheat, oats, vegetable seeds and so on. Pure lines

are obtained in this way, and certificates are issued. The Canadian Seed Growers' Association has the issuing of all these certificates, but the _ examination of the plots is done in cooperation with the scientific agriculturists of the Department of Agriculture. These men go around to the fields and examine them, in company with the grower and a representative of the association, and report what they find in the field. If sufficient impurities are in a field the field is not registered, and it is thrown out. Just there it may be of interest to hon. members to learn that a grower is allowed one plant in one hundred thousand slightly off type. In other words, his plot must be 99-999 per cent pure, which is extraordinary purity, reminding me somewhat of the C.C.F. party. Such purity is difficult to attain, as I am sure hon. members will agree.
Another point I should like to make is that somewhere there must be a source of pure seed, in exactly the same way that there must be a source of pure-bred animals. Certain men undertake to breed Hereford cattle. They keep the line pure, and other breeders know where to go if they want a purebred cow or bull. In exactly the same way you must have sources of pure-bred seed, and that source is the membership of the Canadian Seed Growers' Association. It must be quite obvious to hon. members that unless someone did carry on this work, very soon our strains would be all mixed up. We would have wheat, and that would be about the only way you could describe it, because it would be so badly mixed that we would not know what kind it was.
I wish to speak about this organization for a short time because I realize that it plays an important part in connection with the crops which are grown from seed in this country. Of the total of $2,146,000,000 I mentioned previously, some $1,120,000,000 represents crops grown from seed; that is, grain, vegetables and plants which have their origin in seed. So that it is quite important that this seed be kept pure. As far as the association is concerned, none of the officers receive any remuneration. The office staff, the secretary and those who are occupied in doing this work are the only ones who receive pay. The organization operates on a grant it has received for a number of years from this government. There was a time when the grant got as high as $25,000 per annum, and it will be noticed that in the estimates for this year the same amount is again being asked.
During the war years, however, it sank down to as low as $18,900. The organization has discovered it is not able to give service to its members on the allowance made to it at

Supply-Agriculture
the present time. On its behalf I am asking that consideration be given to increasing the amount of this grant. As I have already said, it is being increased in the estimates from $18,900 to $25,000 for 1946. Unfortunately, however, the organization had hoped that it would get that increase in 1945, and it worked on that assumption, with the result that it finished up somewhat in the hole. I am suggesting, therefore, that the minister consider making arrangements for the amount short of $25,000 which was given last year, and that there be included in the supplementary estimates a further grant of $6,100.
I believe that is all I have to say on the point. I feel I have not made too strong a case for the organization. It is of the most extreme importance, however, that it be properly maintained, because if anything happens as a result of which these growers decide that they are not being properly recompensed, or that the time and trouble are too great, and eventually stop growing these pure sources of seeds, the whole economy of the country would be jeopardized. Incidentally, these people are not paid for the work they do.
I hope consideration will be given, by taking care at all times to see that the organization does not suffer from a lack of funds, so that it can carry on the excellent work it is doing. I have already said that only the secretary and the staff are paid. Provision is made for the expenses of officers selected from all parts of the country when they gather in convention. I believe that provision is allowed by the respective provincial governments.
Half of the officers of the organization are appointed by the different provincial departments of agriculture, and those departments take care of incidental expenses. It might be added that the work of the organization is one of the greatest cooperative movements to be found anywhere in the country. The plant breeders and plant pathologists in the scientific branches of the Department of Agriculture work, in turn, with the membership and officials of the association. These latter, in turn, work with the farmer members who actually grow the seed. I would ask that sympathetic consideration be given to the proper maintenance of the Canadian Seed Growers' Association.


Mr. JUTRAS:: First of all, I should like to commend the hon. member who has just taken his seat upon his interesting speech. It was most constructive and well poised. 1 found it a real pleasure to listen to what he had to say.
This afternoon we listened to an interesting debate on the various aspects of agriculture. To complete the picture I should like to say a few words and make a few suggestions to the Minister of Agriculture respecting another branch of that industry, namely the growing of sugar beets. I believe the minister can be of some assistance to us in bringing to the attention of hon. members and the people generally throughout Canada the fact that the process of growing sugar beets is more than just an industry.
At the present time I believe the people generally view the sugar beet industry as just another industry, such as a shoe factory or any other type of manufacturing concern. There is much more to it than that. It is not just a means of employing labour. I believe efforts should be made in the Department of Agriculture to make the production of sugar beets an integral part of the general agricultural programme of the country.
It is my sincere belief that there could be a closer relationship between the agricultural representatives in the government and the field men. May I make it perfectly clear that I am not criticizing agricultural representatives, either provincial or federal, realizing fully that they work under strenuous conditions. There are too few of them, and their districts are much too large. It is impossible for them to devote all their time to all branches of the industry.
Still, from the federal point of view, I believe a somewhat greater effort could be put forth to try, if nothing more, to publicize more generally the benefits of the sugar beet industry to farming as a whole. In those areas in the United States I have visited where sugar beet factories are operating, those factories have been made part of the general agricultural programme of the whole district. Those districts depend greatly upon the sugar beet factories, not only for sugar but for the general development of agriculture.
I believe the department could do much to publicize the various ways the beet tops and molasses can be used in the raising of cattle and in the dairying industry generally. Then, it can be argued that the growing of sugar beets is an effective means of cleaning the land and getting rid of weeds because, as we know, where sugar beets are grown every weed must be pulled by hand. Consequently, even if only fifteen or twenty acres are cultivated in that crop, that much land is clean at the end of the year. If that process is repeated every year the point is soon reached where the whole district surrounding the factory is entirely free of weeds. It is also a
Supply-Agriculture

most effective crop for those who .practise rotating their crops-and I believe we all do that. Certainly that is true in Manitoba.
I speak primarily, of course, for the sugar beet factory in Manitoba, which is relatively new. We had some difficulties, because we had to begin during the war. Labour conditions were hard to contend with and as an additional problem there were practically two total crop failures.
There is one suggestion I should like to make which I think would go a long way toward solving this problem. This industry should be brought under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. At the present time it is more or less divided between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Finance. I believe there are difficulties because of the international complications connected with the cane sugar industry, but I think it would be possible to have the beet sugar industry under the Department of Agriculture.
I wish to make it clear that I am casting no reflection upon the Minister of Finance. I know I am speaking for our association when I say that they have been impressed with the earnestness of the minister and they appreciate the consideration they have always received from him each time they came to Ottawa. This industry should be made part of our general agricultural programme. If we could bring the industry under one roof as it were; if we could bring it under the Department of Agriculture alone it would be a start toward achieving our objectives.
The sugar beet growers of this country have never been given a chance to put their case before the people of the country. I know I speak for the sugar beet growers' association and I believe also for sugar beet growers generally when I say that these people are most desirous of being given an opportunity to lay their case before a committee of this house. If that were done the country would become more conscious of this industry ; I was going to say this promising industry. It is a new industry as far as Manitoba is concerned, but it has bpen in existence for some time in other provinces and, as far as I can see, it is a successful industry.
If that were done it would go a long way toward removing many of the wrong concepts that people have about sugar made from beets. Some people think this sugar is different or is just an imitation of cane sugar. Some growers feel that they have been discriminated against. If they could be allowed to place their case squarely before a committee I am sure that the attention of the

country would be directed toward the industry. I realize that there are many committees sitting during this session, for long hours each days and many days in the week. However, I am making this suggestion now in the hope that as the session goes on some of the committees will complete their work and it might be possible to have the committee hear the producers' case as well as that of the various sugar companies. Again I urge the minister to try to bring this sugar beet industry under the jurisdiction of his department. I know such a move would be appreciated by the sugar beet growers of this country.
For a few minutes I should like to deal with the administration of the Rrairie. Faijp Assjgtance Act as it is applied to Manitoba. The administration of this act has resulted in many grievances in our province. It has been the source of misunderstanding. I doubt if there are many people who really understand the P.F.A.A. It is almost impossible to apply its provisions to Manitoba and the result is that all kinds of injustices are created. I know these are not intentional but, while the act may work to some advantage in Saskatchewan, in the wide-open spaces where the township is much smaller than in Manitoba, it has been impossible to apply it along the Red river valley where there have been total crop failures in the last two years.
I am not referring to what is ordinarily known as the Red river valley, I am referring only to the river lots and the first line of * quarter-sections on both sides of the river. First of all, the act does not provide for river lots and it is next to impossible to apply it where there are river lots instead of sections. The departmental officials have tried to block off the river lots into something like townships, but when that is done in a country that is rolling and has a definite slant toward the river, the effectiveness of the act is destroyed and it becomes ineffective. I have discussed this matter at great length with dominion and provincial officials in an effort to find a solution. I have tried to find some way to change the act so that it could be made applicable to my province but I have come to the conclusion that that is impossible. As far as I can see, the best thing to do is to cut Manitoba out entirely from the workings of the P.F.A.A.
I have gone to the trouble of compiling some figures from the annual reports of the P.F.A.A. starting with 1939 in an effort to get a comprehensive picture. I have tabulated the money received by the farmers, the money paid out by the farmers, the money paid out by the dominion and the money collected by the dominion for Manitoba,

Supply-A griculture
Saskatchewan and Alberta. With the permission of the committee I could probably table these because I do not wish to read them all. They give a complete picture of what has happened since the inception of the act.
In the case of Manitoba, in 1939 a total of $333,000 was collected and $875,000 was paid out. I am giving only round figures. In 1940 they collected $355,000 and paid out $615,000. So that for those two years we were not losing. But from 1941 to 1945 the picture is entirely different. In 1942 nobody drew anything out of the fund in the three provinces. In 1943 we contributed $779,000 and drew out $30,000; in 1944 we contributed $755,000 and we collected $159,000. In 1945 I do not know exactly what the figure will be, but it would look as if we would contribute in the neighbourhood of $500,000 and draw out about $23,000.
I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am not talking of P.F.R.A., but of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which was passed primarily, I understand, to assist the drought area in Saskatchewan and applies exclusively to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The farmers are contributing one per cent of their grain sales toward the fund. Out of that fund they draw the moneys they receive. If the fund is not big enough the difference can be made up, I understand, by the dominion borrowing from the consolidated revenue fund.
So far as the dominion is concerned, it paid out in 1939 $10,000,000 and collected $2,000,000 ; in 1940 it paid out $7,000,000 and collected $2,000,000; in 1941 it paid out $15,000,000 and collected $1,500,000; in 1942 it paid out nothing and collected $2,700,000; in 1943 it paid out 86.500,000 and collected $4,700,000; in 1944 it paid out $6,000,000 and collected $5,385,000.
So that as far as the picture for the three prairie provinces as a whole is concerned I would take it that the act has been beneficial to Saskatchewan and Alberta, but so far as Manitoba is concerned we have contributed to the fund, in 1941, $303,000; in 1942,1482,000; in 1943, $766,000; in 1944 $600,000 and it looks very much as if we would contribute in 1945 between $400,000 and $500,000. Therefore it will be readily understood why I contend that this is not a good measure so far as Manitoba is concerned. There is a good reason for that. As I said at the beginning conditions in Manitoba are quite different from those in Saskatchewan and the township unit is far too big in relation to the average farm in Manitoba.
The picture presented by these figures looks brighter for Manitoba than it actually is
because up until 1942 the P.F.A.A., under its provisions, was paying out on the basis of 8 to 12 bushels to the acre when wheat was below eighty cents. If wheat goes over eighty cents the act provides only for payment on 0 to 4 bushels, $2.00, and from 4 to 8 bushels, $1.50.
If that were done, under conditons to-day we would not draw as much as we drew in 1939 and 1940. I respectfully submit to the minister that Manitoba be exempted from the P.F.A.A. because we have given up all hope of ever getting any benefit from it.
I will go one step farther and make a suggestion to the minister, if I may. Keep on collecting the one per cent on grain sales, if not the dominion, then by agreement with the province, to establish some form of crop insurance. I do not think that is the right term because it would not exactly be crop insurance, but I will use that term for lack of a better. If you kept on collecting the one per cent and put it into a fund, it could be made into a real crop insurance fund.
I have here a "Report on Crops, Live Stock, etc. produced in Manitoba in 1945." It was issued by the department of agriculture and immigration of Manitoba. It does not claim to furnish definitely reliable information but it is approximately correct. It gives a very fair picture of the crop and live stock production of the province. It also gives the hail damage done in Manitoba. I have taken the years from 1939 to 1945 and fitted them into this pattern to see how it would work out. I am not going to quote all the figures, but let us take the acreage that was totally lost by hail damage and the acreage partly lost from that cause in those years. I arbitrarily take the figure of $2 an acre for total loss and $1 an acre for partial loss by hail. This would have cost the province, in round figures, $106,500 in 1939; in 1940, $86,000; in 1941, $65,000; in 1942, $128,500; in 1943, $211,000. I have not the figures for 1944 but for 1945 it would be $144,500, making a total of $737,785. A one per cent levy on the crop since 1938 would total $3,043,968.38. That is the total amount that was collected from the one per cent levied on grain. Add to that the actual amount that was paid out to the province, $1,692,736.20, and you find that over that period of years from 1939 to 1945 we could have paid out the same benefits as we have paid, and on top of that we could have paid out $2 and $1 an acre respectively for total and partial loss by hail damage. I do not like the term "insurance"-


James Garfield Gardiner: Assistance.


René Jutras: I thank the minister. We could under my suggestion have given the farmers who were hailed out some assistance.
Supply-A griculture

I do not know whether this would be feasible, but what I have in mind is that the federal government collect the money and turn it over to the minister of agriculture of Manitoba, or if some arrangement could be made between the two bodies, that the federal government should step out, let the province institute a one per cent levy on grain, lend them the facilities of the Canadian wheat board to collect it, have the. province put this money into a fund for the province, and then they could give assistance for damage by hail and floods, I believe it could handle those two. I do not think it would be wise to try to insure the farmers against drought, because in Manitoba, indeed in any province, when there is a drought it is such a general condition that it would be pretty difficult to handle it with any fund of this kind. To be able to do so, the provincial government would no doubt have to raise the levy on all grain, and I doubt if it would be feasible to raise it any higher. But, as I have pointed out, even with this one per cent levy I believe we could give a certain amount of assistance to the farmers against hail and floods to begin with, and then later, if the fund swells, we could provide further assistance to the farmers of the province.
Therefore this is the main suggestion I have to make to the minister. If my memory serves me right, though I was not able to put my hand on the actual speech in which I saw the statement, I believe the minister of agriculture of Manitoba, in the course of the budget debate of last session in that province, said he would like to institute some kind of- as he put it-crop insurance. I take it, therefore, that he would be sympathetic to the suggestion I have made.
I was surprised to find in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act a provision that the advance made by the Minister of Finance under this section shall be repayable out of the fund without interest. So that, even if we do accumulate much of a fund there, we do not stand much chance of getting a great deal out of it, because there is no doubt that this fund has been operating in the red ever since it started. I do not suppose it was ever the intention of the government that it would remain in the black. It was and is, as the title indicates, an assistance for unusual and extraordinary circumstances, and I repeat, as at least my personal opinion, that the people of Manitoba as a whole would welcome a change such as I have just mentioned. I strongly urge the minister to consider it seriously.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are two questions which have been raised that I think I should

answer before we get too far on with the discussion. The first was raised by the hon. member for North Battleford a few moments ago, to the effect that an amount of, I think $6,100 should be added to the vote to the seed growers. The fact is that when these estimates were first brought up I personally and the members of the department thought the $6,100 was in the vote. I think the mistake came about in this way, that last year an amount was put in which was reduced by $6,100, which brought the amount down to $18,900. This year it was intended that the $6,100 be added to the $25,000, and it was added to the $18,900. The amount is in the supplementaries; at least it has been submitted in the supplementaries. I do not think it was intentionally struck out by the treasury board. I doubt very much if it was understood, at the time it was placed before them. In any event it is being reconsidered and is before the board now in the form of a supplementary estimate which will probably be brought down later in the session.
The other question, which has just been raised by the hon. member for Provencher, is to the effect that some changes should be made in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. That act is up for amendment this year; at least I have suggested that it be overhauled and some extensive amendments be made. It is my present intention, if it meets with the approval of the house, to have the bill when it is submitted, if it is submitted-I still have to get it by council-referred to the agriculture committee in order to give opportunity to hon. members to make suggestions, but more particularly in order to get them to understand fully the principle underlying the bill and its operation up to date. I had not in mind personally going as far as has been suggested by the hon. member for Provencher in connection with the amendment as related to Manitoba, the reason being that we did take some responsibility for placing the legislation on the statute books in its present form. There has been very considerable criticism, perhaps justifiable, in Manitoba on the ground just referred to, to the effect that they are paying one per cent into the fund and they do not get nearly as much out as they pay in.
On the other question, as to whether there was ever anything to come out of the fund as a result of what was paid in, if members of the committee will take the trouble to read in Hansard the discussions at the time the legislation was placed on the statute books in 1939, they will find it was contended that the amount collected from farmers would never amount-that is, over a period of

Supply-Agriculture
years-to more than one-fourth to one-third of the total amount which would be paid out. In other words, it was maintained that it was impossible-and at that time we thought the same idea might apply to Manitoba-to apply a purely insurance principle to payments required in connection with drought in areas so large as those affected in Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The question of insurance for crops had been under discussion in the west for many years, and many attempts were made to work out plans which could be based on the insurance principle; in other words, under which you could create a fund based on the payment of fees which at all times would meet the demands that were made upon the fund. But any figuring which was ever done with regard to the matter suggested the impossibility of ever being able to collect sufficient from farmers by way of fees to build up a fund large enough to take care of the losses that farmers incur in a year of serious drought.
I think it will be realized that to insure a man against the loss of his crop would be impossible in a year like 1937, for example, when a province which has a long-time average crop of sixteen to seventeen bushels an acre had an average crop of a little over two bushels to the acre. One can see what an enormous amount of money would be required in a fund to take care of a situation of that kind. So that after considerable discussion it was determined that the only way this could be looked after was for someone who had no opportunity ever to draw from the fund to be prepared to pay into the fund.
In view of the importance of wheat particularly and of grains generally to the economic position of the dominion, it was thought advisable, in order to avoid paying out great sums in relief, as was done in the years just preceding that over considerable periods, to have the dominion treasury made responsible for paying in from $3 to $4 for every dollar that would be paid by the farmers themselves. We have had an experience with that measure and are satisfied that a province like Saskatchewan cannot create a fund sufficiently large to make it possible for the province to take care of any losses related to drought.
I think the same is true of Alberta, but I believe it has been proved by the figures just quoted to the committee that there is a possibility that Manitoba could run its own insurance scheme. So that what I did propose to do was to suggest an amendment to the act under which any province that wished to withdraw from both the payment of the one per cent and the benefits would be permitted to do so. If they think they can get
along without any insurance plan at all, let them make the decision. If they would rather set up a plan of their own, I am sure no one in this house would object. If they can finance an insurance plan in Manitoba without assistance from anyone else in Canada; if they prefer to do that rather than to be in exactly the same position as the people of Montreal, let them take that view, even if you admit what Manitoba says, that they have no chance of ever drawing out. There is no doubt in the world that Montreal has no chance of drawing out; but Montreal pays in, and on different occasions on which I have had discussions with farm organizations in Manitoba with respect to the matter I have been able to convince them in the meeting where I was to pass a resolution saying that it was all right. But I have never had an opportunity of speaking to all the farmers of Manitoba. The best thing, therefore, is to allow Manitoba to decide the matter for themselves. If I get it by council, and the house agrees to it, they will be able to settle the question for themselves.


James Arthur Ross: Has the Manitoba government asked for that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Many people in Manitoba have, and many meetings. I believe that if we make it possible for Manitoba itself to decide, probably the question will be settled and they will say whether they want it or not.


James Arthur Ross: I do not agree with the hon. member for Provencher when he asks that Manitoba be completely eliminated, although he has a vexing problem in the river lots. As the minister said, when the matter was first brought up there were resolutions from Portage la Prairie and along the Red river objecting, because they never had a failure and therefore they objected to a contribution of a cent a bushel. But I am satisfied that the farmers of Manitoba as a whole do not wish to be exempt unless they are sure of some other crop insurance scheme. The prairie provincial governments have had committees investigating different forms of insurance for some years and they want some system such as that. The minister has talked with some people; I do not know whether we should let him talk to everyone; but he has convinced those with whom he has talked of the need of cooperation. Anyone who has passed through the drought periods will be very happy to make a contribution as long as he lives for the sake of those unfortunate people who have had to put up with the drought in the prairie provinces.
Last year I received a return in connection with the setting up of the administration of
Supply-A gricul ture

the act over a period of years. I have not that return by me at the moment, but the minister will agree that the facts therein set out go to prove that there should be some amendments to the act, and I am pleased that he has made the announcement that he will suggest amendments this year so that we may have an opportunity to discuss the act and any proposed amendments in the committee on agriculture, which is only proper. While I sympathize greatly with the hon. member for Provencher, coming as I do from Manitoba, I do not agree with him on this point.


René Jutras: So that the record may be clear, I do not want it understood that I ask to have the P.F.A.A. entirely cut out, but I asked that Manitoba be entirely excluded from it. I agree that it is good for Saskatchewan and Alberta-


James Arthur Ross: And many parts of Manitoba.


René Jutras: There is a certain part of Manitoba that benefits. I will put it in that way.


Mr. McCUAIG:: I rise to speak on the agricultural economy of Canada as it affects the individuals producing the foodstuffs of Canada as a whole. The production of foodstuffs is the world's number one industry to-day and it has always been the country's first industry. It has never been treated fairly by any government at Ottawa but rather has been held in contempt. All Canada has suffered from this treatment and will continue to suffer until agriculture receives the recognition it deserves. I am going to do some straight talking about the treatment the primary producer has received under this private enterprise system from both Liberal and Tory governments.
Full realization by the government of basic fundamentals is long overdue, and I think it is timely that a common dirt farmer should rise to speak in this house. I think I can qualify as one of those who come within that category, for the first twenty years of my life were spent on a farm in Ontario and the last thirty-four years in southwestern Saskatchewan in a part of the drought area.
Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that there are things that you can do in southwestern Saskatchewan and things that you cannot do. If some planning had been done by the government of that day, if settlers had been informed of the soil and weather conditions, and if there had been allotted economic units instead of wholesale half-sections on any kind of land there would have been very little relief needed or destitution in the southwest.

While I am on this question of plans, I should like to say this. I am sorry the government of to-day has not seen fit to use the results of the recent soil survey. Had that been done, there would have been a large increase in the acreage of wheat sowed this spring. Maps could have been got out and posted in Manitoba and the northern part of Saskatchewan and Alberta showing the black soil areas where summer-fallowing is done rather to keep down weeds than to conserve moisture. Thousands of acres of additional land could have been seeded this spring in those areas.
The southwestern part of Saskatchewan where I live, and most of the Palliser triangle where the brown soil runs from four to ten inches deep, is strictly a fifty per cent summer-fallow area; and it is simply tragic to practise anything else. I was glad to hear the Minister of Agriculture make a statement in the house the other day in connection with this matter. In this area, however, on the basis of half the land summer-fallowed each year-that is ten crops in twenty years- summer-fallowed by the right method, at the right time, early in May, average crops can be obtained. It is just as necessary to know thy land as it is to know thyself; and adaptability to the district is necessary.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak about the position of the farmer in the economy of this country. Canada's producers of food stuffs have never had a fair share of the national economy of Canada, or anything like equitable treatment for the long hours they, with their wives and families, have put in on the farm. I have evidence to support this contention. I have in my hand a card, a duplicate of which is in the bureau of statistics, agricultural branch, in Ottawa. It is dated November 1, 1932, and gives the average price received for farm products on November 15, 1932, as follows:
cents
Wheat, per bushel	 24
Oats, per bushel	  6
Barley, per bushel	 10
Rye, per bushel	 11
Flaxseed, per bushel	 45
Potatoes, per 100 lbs	 50
Honey, per pound	 12
dollars
Horses, per bead	 25
Milk cows, per head	 20
Beef cattle, live weight ....
Calves, live weight	
Sheep, live weight	
Lambs, live weight	
Hogs, per pound, live weight
Butter made on the farm_____
Chickens, live weight	
Eggs, per dozen	
Wool, unwashed	
cents
3i
4
15
25

Supply-A griculture
It will be observed that eggs sold for 25 cents per dozen in November. Farmers will remember that in June of that year they were selling for six cents. This was after three short crop years in the west and particularly in the southwest. Our national revenue went down to $2,812,902,000 as compared with over $9,000,000,000 in 1944. At that time we had Tory governments in both Ottawa and Regina. The Winnipeg grain exchange was wide open. Free enterprise was going full blast. There were no ceiling prices, and no floor prices either. We had free intercourse with all the world and Bennett was going to blast his way into any market which was not open to us. There was only one country he would not deal with, and that was Russia; no truck or trade with Russia. Mr. Bennett would not even trade meat at 1} cents for oil.
That was the kind of thing we had in Canada in the midst of great potential wealth, the great natural heritage God gave his people in Canada. We had deprivation, hunger and want, with our children wandering over the land as bums and tramps, taking shelter in the lee of an elevator filled to the roof with wheat at from twenty to thirty cents; taking shelter in the lee of a warehouse filled with goods, boots, clothing and everything else; waiting for a freight train to come along after having been ordered out of town. Homes were broken up, and there were thousands in the soup kitchens. We had deportations and orders to leave Canada and go back to the old country. There was no place in Canada for immigrants. The other day our friends the Progressive Conservatives put up a vigorous verbal contest to retain Dominion day. I wonder if they were very proud of Dominion day in Regina in 1935.


Mr. FRASER:: Why shouldn't they be?


Duncan John McCuaig: Perhaps the hon. member will change his mind in a moment. They were bidding for power that year, and if they had anything better to show it seems natural to me that they would have shown it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Duncan John McCuaig: This may be rather amusing, but from now on I do not think it will be as funny for my hon. friends I am going to place on record what was done by the champions of private enterprise; what was done for the unemployed at that time. I happened to be in Regina on July 1, 1935, when 3,300 young men were on what they called a trek to Ottawa bearing a humble petition asking for work and wages. They got only as far as Regina, and what happened?


An hon. MEMBER:: They should have had something to eat.


Duncan John McCuaig: The hon. member is right; they should. A meeting was called, and this is not very funny; there is a good deal of tragedy in it. Some person or persons called a meeting for eight o'clock on July 1 at Broad street park on Tenth avenue. Bills were posted up all over town saying, "Come to the meeting and help the boys on their way to Ottawa." At eight o'clock there was a big crowd there, including old men, women and people of all classes. I do not think there were over 400 boys there that night. There was a big ball game or football match where a good many Of the people were attending at the fair grounds where they were staying.
The chairman of the meeting had just introduced the speaker and immediately following that there was a commotion. People were diving here and there, and I wondered what it was all about. However, I saw what the trouble was, because a tear gas bomb had been pitched right in among the crowd of civilians who were there to attend the meeting. I looked around and I could see men in battle-dress, including tin hats and what looked like soft-ball bats in their hands. These men were rushing from furniture vans and other conveyances pulled up on the outside of the crowd, and they charged the crowd, an absolutely unprovoked assault. A policeman was killed, and a lot of other people were hurt and probably crippled for life. The street-cars were stopped; store windows were smashed. They battled all the way up Eleventh avenue to the post office.
There was nothing very funny about that, I can tell you. Just ask yourselves this:	If
all the 3,300 boys had been at that meeting, what would have happened? If my imagination serves me correctly, it would have been one of the blackest days in Canadian history. It would have been a black day if those boys had handled themselves the same as the 300 or 400 who were there.
I should be remiss in my duty if I did not say that it would be nothing short of a tragedy if anything like that were to happen again in this Canada of ours, because next time they will not be shirt-sleeved boys with little packs on their backs. They will be boys who have learned to fight. I say it was not the right thing to do. Shortly after that we had a Liberal government in power, both in Ottawa and Regina.


An hon. MEMBER:: Progress.


Duncan John McCuaig: Yes, probably this will suit my hon. friends better who sit on my right.
I should like to submit some further evidence of the treatment we received, and in
Supply-A griculture

that connection I shall quote from a card from the dominion bureau of statistics, dated Ottawa, July 1, 1940, in which are set out the average prices received for farm products
on July 15 at Eastend:
Wheat, per bushel	 $0 49
Oats, per bushel	 17
Barley, per bushel	 17
Bye, per bushel	 22
Flax seed, per bushel	 1 00
Potatoes, per ewt	 1 50
Honey, per pound	 14
Horses ,per head	 37 00
Milk cows, per head	 25 00
Beef cattle, per lb. live weight	 2i


Mr. GRAYDON:: What year was that?


Duncan John McCuaig: 1940, the year after the war started. This is documentary evidence. Then the table continues:
Calves, live weight, per	pound	
05Sheep, live weight, per	pound	
02fLambs, live weight, per	pound	
05Hogs, live weight, per pound	
06Butter, made on the farm	
11'Chickens, live weight, per pound	
04Eggs, per dozen	
06


An hon. MEMBER:: Nonsense.


Duncan John McCuaig: You will notice that this is July. I was quoting November figures before, when the chickens were all in pinfeathers.
This was after the Liberals had been in office for four years. We had a similarity in prices and conditions. Boys were receiving So a month in camps; thousands were lined up at the soup kitchens. In September, 1939, there were 400,000 Canadians unemployed and one million men, women and children on direct relief. For reference I would refer hon. members to the publication "Canada At War", put out by the wartime information board.
Later, farmers, 400 strong, bearing a petition on which there were 185,000 names, asked for increases in the price of wheat to meet the rising cost of production brought about by increases in the prices of things they had to buy. This is not a matter which can be traced only to a Liberal or Tory government at Ottawa. It is the result of the system, the private enterprise system. And Canadians are hogs for punishment if we put up with any more of it.
I will ask any hon. members where we would be to-night if the war had not come along and snapped us out of the private enterprise slump. Further, when this artificial war industry is over, when it is all cleaned up, can any member of the government show me where there will be any improvement? Can he show me any difference in the national economy to-day from what it was then, any difference that would justify our expecting anything better now than we had then?


An hon. MEMBER:: More taxes.


Duncan John McCuaig: Yes, one statement was made which we must not forget: We have about $20 billion more on which to pay interest than we had in prewar days.
Let us take another step in the economic history of this country. After agriculture had taken the terrific beating it did take, through low and ruinous prices which would not meet the cost of production, when it faced unpaid interest, worn-out machinery which needed replacements, buildings needing repairs, back taxes, accumulated mortgage indebtedness-when we faced all these things, we got this kind of treatment.
For example, in October, 1944, while the Canadian wheat board price of wheat was $1.43, the United States price was $1.83, indicating a net loss to the Canadian farmer of forty cents a bushel. Then, again, in October, 1945, with the Canadian wheat board price at $1.55, the United States price was $1.94, or a net loss to the Canadian farmer of thirty-nine cents. We will call it forty cents because since that time the price was around $2 in the United States. Our total exports for 1943-44 and 1944A5 were, roughly, 343,000,000 bushels in each year. When compared with what the United States farmer received, the Canadian farmer lost forty cents a bushel on each one of those bushels, or a total of $137,200,000. If Saskatchewan provided 52-2 per cent of that wheat, the loss to the Saskatchewan farmer was $71,344,000. Canada as a whole was able to show great generosity to the people of Europe at the expense of the western farmer. To use Mr. Churchill's formula, never have so few who were so poor given so much to so many.
The Saskatchewan farmer also played Santa Claus to the people of Canada. Canada uses about 50,000,000 bushels of wheat a year to feed her own people. Wheat was sold to the Canadian miller for $1.25 a bushel, f.o.b. Fort William. Then the miller obtained a subsidy or drawback from the government of 47% cents a bushel. This meant that the price to the Canadian people was 77% cents a bushel. Even members of parliament were able to eat cheap bread by being granted charity of sixty cents per bushel by the Canadian wheat grower and 47% cents by the government; but central Canada got cheap bread, so we can see that the wheat growers lost 50 millions at sixty cents, or $30,000,000. And, again, Saskatchewan farmers paid 52-2 per cent of this, or $15,600,000.
Further, wheat used for feed in Canada sold through commercial channels for the same period at $1.25 a bushel-30,000,000 bushels

Supply-Agriculture
multiplied by 60, or $18,481,400. Again, Saskatchewan farmers paid 52-2 per cent of this, or $9,647,313. Thus it would appear that Saskatchewan made the equivalent of a cash
grant to:
(a)	People living abroad		$71,344,000
(b)	People at home, for bread
and feed	 25,247,313
Total	 $96,591,313
The people of Canada should know these facts because I do not think they are so unfair as to want to perpetuate this injustice borne by the people of one province. At least they should know that the people of Saskatchewan know about it.
In addition, agriculture suffered an imposition of three cents a gallon on the fuel used in tractors, and this at a time when the industry was bankrupt. To add insult to injury, Saskatchewan has had to pay an additional two cents as well as a 12% per cent increase in the price of farm machinery. Little or no attention was paid when four hundred farmers brought a petition bearing 185,000 names to the government. The price of wheat was not fixed at $1.25 until it had gone above that figure on the open market. Yet we find that the oil companies and the machinery companies which enjoyed good profits in those years were able to sit behind closed doors with the government and receive sympathetic consideration.
Agriculture knew nothing about these increases until they were announced on the floor of this house by the Minister of Finance. Who is governing Canada? The people's representatives in parliament have no say in the laws that govern the economic well-being of the people of Canada. A farce has been made of our economic rights and we live under an economic dictatorship if there ever was one. Let us compare the treatment given to the agricultural industry with the government's treatment of the oil and implement industries.
In 1937 the net profit of Imperial Oil was $26,450,157; in 1938 it was $25,959,530. Those were the years in which we had two of the most disastrous crop failures Saskatchewan ever had. Did the Minister of Finance plead before parliament as he pleaded the case for the oil companies and the machinery companies? No, he did not, but I will tell you what he did. He arranged with the banks for the farmer to sign a blank note for his 1938 seed, which later proved to be $1.42 a bushel. The same wheat which had been delivered by the farmer and which had been sold for as low as sixty cents a bushel was still in the elevators; it was government owned wheat.
The government would not deal directly with the rural municipalities. Private enterprise had to get its toll. First the farmer had to sign a blank note. This was endorsed by the rural municipality, then by the provincial government and then by the federal government. The banks were then prevailed upon to accept the note. They had the security of the man on the farm and everything else in Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of the wheat was in the pool elevators.


Duncan John McCuaig: I am glad the cooperatives had something to do with it. Just what happened? The trade got the money and delivered government-owned wheat to the farmer for $1.42. On May 16, 1938, before the seed went into the ground, the average price for wheat went down to eighty cents a bushel at Eastend. I have documentary evidence of that from the dominion bureau of statistics, agricultural branch.
Right here let me say that when the Minister of Finance was pleading the case of the machinery companies in this house the other day he made a most ridiculous comparison. He said that wheat had increased 87 per cent, whereas the cost of machinery had increased only three per cent. The Minister of Finance knows very well that prices of machinery do not go up and down like prices of wheat. Those prices are stabilized; it is monopoly control, a law unto itself. Farm machinery prices have always been high or higher, whereas in 1940 the price of wheat was as low as forty cents a bushel. The minister could have improved his argument 100 per cent if he had gone back to 1932 when wheat was nineteen cents a bushel.
I	have here a few figures which have been put on Hansard before, but which I should like to repeat because they cannot be repeated too often. In 1942 Massey-Harris made a net profit of $1,564,028, and in 1945, $1,800,000. The Cockshutt Plow company in 1937 made a net profit of $183,091, and in 1944 over twice that, $399,244.
Take six of our leading Canadian industries:	Hiram Walker and Sons, Canada
Packers, Consolidated Mining and Smelting, Aluminum Limited, Imperial Tobacco and Hudson's Bay company. Their average net profit for 1944 was $8,515,828, according to the Financial Post survey of corporate securities.
The lumbering industry was able to sell a large part of its wares outside Canada at the highest prices, to the detriment of the rest of our people.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Why was that a detriment?
Supply-Agriculture


Duncan John McCuaig: All of our banks did well. The manager of the Bank of Toronto, which was established in 1855, in reporting to the bank shareholders said:
For the first time in the history of the bank total assets crossed the 300 million dollar mark, and at $302,040,000 show an increase of $41,965,000 for the year. It is worthy of note that our assets are now more than double those of 1938.
He was reporting to the bank's shareholders, not to the public. Not too bad a war effort, was it?
The Royal Bank of Canada showed an increase in net earnings for 1945 of $281,154,321, the largest in the bank's history.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are those profits or assets?


Duncan John McCuaig: Net profits, not assets. The general, manager of the Bank of Montreal, in his annual statement for the year ended October 31, 1944, said that the financial results of the year reflected an increase of close to $214,000,000, total assets at $1,526,734,251 having crossed the billion and a half dollar mark for the first time in the 127 years of the bank's history.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: How much of that belongs to the public?


Duncan John McCuaig: Have you got much of it? I have not. If this is the kind of economy under which agriculture has to operate, then agriculture should be allowed to receive the highest market price if it has to take the lowest. The farmer of Canada is not fighting for $2 wheat one year and twenty-four cent wheat another year, or for $14 per hundredweight for meat one year and $2 per hundredweight for meat another year. He wants a stabilized price for agricultural products, worked out on an equal valuation basis with all other things in industrial Canada. He wants a floor price put under agricultural products which will ensure a fair standard of living, health services and education, and some of the comforts he is entitled to in this modern world.


James Garfield Gardiner: Good Liberal policy.


Mr. PROBE:: With a small "1".


Mrs. STRUM:: Too good to use.


Duncan John McCuaig: There can be no successful agricultural programme without the ^stabilization of agricultural prices, which will g!ve~soiSe^ncoufageme'nt to the young men and women to stay on the land. To-day the young people are leaving the land, and the old people on the land are getting tired. They cannot stick it any more, getting up at five o'clock in the morning and working until late at night. Production is still vital in this hungry world, and the young people must be given some encouragement to stay on the land.
(Mr. J. L. Gibson.]
The present agricultural policy and the income tax policy of the government carry with them everything that goes with the decay and death of a nation. Those words are as true as ever will be spoken on the floor of this house.
I sincerely trust that the government will give this most important part of our national economy its most serious consideration before the budget is brought down.


Mr. ROBINSON (Bruce):: Mr. Chairman, it gives me much pleasure to say a few words on the agriculture estimates, coming as I do from a rural county. As I look around the house I see more than one member here who was born in Bruce county which I have the honour of representing, and I know that anything I say which will be to the benefit of Bruce county in the future they will support even if their party affiliations will not allow them to say so publicly. We are disappointed that they have strayed a little in the political world, but they are young and will be able to find their way back to the fold.
I should like to say to the hon. member for Maple Creek, who has just taken his seat, that he and I have some things in common, but a lot of things we have not in common. In his speech he back-tracked over a long number of years. That is the way of a pessimist. I like to be optimistic. But maybe the party to which the hon. gentleman belongs likes to capitalize on that kind of propaganda. Being a Progressive Conservative, I do not want to do that. I want to look ahead and not look back too far.
Bruce being a rural county, I feel proud to represent it, but the county has also some very good industries which are known internationally as well as nationally. I will mention a 'few of them. Keystone brushes are manufactured in Bruce county, and are known the world over. Furniture is manufactured in Bruce county at the Malcolm Furniture factory, and I believe some hon. members have enjoyed sitting on the company's products in this chamber; their furniture goes all over the world. We have in Bruce county knitting mills and dry spinning companies which are known internationally. All in all, I believe I am justified in a feeling of pride in being able to represent these fine agricultural districts of Bruce and Kincardine counties.
At the same time I must point out that circumstances in my riding are such that we are not happy. Centralization is working to our disadvantage. I mean that the farm population is gradually disappearing from our farming areas. The township I come from is a good township, and as I said before, Bruce

Supply-Agriculture
county is a good county. But within a mile and a quarter of the location of our farm, whereas in times I can remember there were thirteen families living in that area, at the present time we have only five. No doubt there are various reasons for that condition, but the principal reason is the lack of foresight which has been only too evident on the part of not only the present government but all governments which have administered Canada for a great number of years. I am not suggesting that any government has wilfully brought this about; yet it has happened. There is an idea in some quarters that mechanization in the line of farm work has had something to do with the depletion of our farm population. But is this so? Because of this machinery we do not have to work so hard; living conditions have improved, and it would follow that people would be happier to stay on the farms. But that has not been the case: we have lost a great part of our farm population. It cannot be said that mechanization is the cause of people leaving the farms. It will be found that the economic situation has more to do with conditions obtaining in that mile and a quarter in Kincardine township, in Bruce county, than anything else. We see there buildings which have been blown down by the wind; we see vacant houses and outbuildings where the roofs are going and which in a short time will be in an uninhabitable conditions. We have farms in need of reconditioning and farm buildings in need of repair. We have farms which need electrification. We have farms with no running water. I am not trying to paint an unduly dismal picture, but I am describing what is an actual condition in Kincardine township, and which I fear is typical of the average Canadian townships.
Working conditions on our farms are not satisfactory. On this point I agree with what was said by the hon. member for Maple Creek. He referred to the long hours which farm people have to work; I want to make a similar reference. Many of our farm population to-day are working too long for physical health and, in addition they are employing their children to help out. One reads in the newspapers of the exploitation of child labour in industry, but too little attention is paid to the exploitation of child labour on the farms; yet I venture to say that it is only too common, not as a matter of choice but from sheer necessity. The farmer's wife has never yet been able to get remuneration for the long hours and the heavy work which she has put in, in helping her husband on the farm. We have, therefore, this situation at the present time: the boys coming back from overseas who, under proper conditions, would be potential farmers are not going to farm. I know boys from our own district who would make good farmers, but the life is not attractive to them. Young people at the present time, owing to the unsatisfactory conditions they have to endure while being brought up on the farms, get away as soon as they can and try to find some place where they will enjoy better living conditions.
I do not want to take up the few minutes I intend to occupy without offering some suggestions to improve the state of affairs to which I have referred. If I may be pardoned for injecting a personal note I should like to say that Bruce county is a Scotch county.


Mr. MacNICOL:: That is all to its credit.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: The hon. gentleman opposite has relatives in our county. I believe it has been in the habit of voting the Liberal ticket, but at the last election I was elected as a farmer Bracken candidate. Scotsmen are at times hard to convince, but on this occasion they saw the light, and I may add that I am not sorry for having been returned under these circumstances. The Progressive Conservative party has an agricultural programme which, in my opinion, when it is brought into effect after the next election, will gradually relieve the conditions which I have truthfully pointed out and which are in effect in our township at the present time; and these benefits will be shared not only by the farmers of Kincardine and Bruce counties but by all the people of Canada. I think hon. members will agree, because I am safe in saying that 99 per cent of them believe that the welfare of the farmer is the most important concern of dominion legislation. I do not need to repeat Mark Twain's saying, so think it over.
We hear a good deal about our great tourist industry and how many million dollars it is going to bring us. The best thing to do would be to put the men back on these farms to make a living for themselves and to get them away from conditions in the large cities which, while I will not describe them as unclean, are anything but joyful. Let them get back on the farms and make a little living for themselves, and that will be better for Canada than all the tourists coming in from neighbouring countries. So that I say to the government in power at the present time and to any government that we may have in the future-and I think I could accurately predict what government it would be-that we should keep in mind the fact that decentralization is of more importance to Canada at present than anything else that is on the agenda of the government to-day.
Supply-A griculture


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is that percentage more or less?


An hon. MEMBER:: More.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I will be brief, and for once I am not critical because my first effort has been successful. Hon. members will see who has come to sit beside me. If I speak a little longer I shall probably have the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case) over to my left.


Mr. CASE:: I did not say anything.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We have covered a lot of territory to-day and I want you to understand, Mr. Chairman, that anything I say to-night is fundamental, elemental and spoken in a kindly way. Let us be fair about this. We have heard a good deal to-day about sheep and we heard about the bargain basement. In a kindly way I want to speak too about sheep. When I was a boy going to school one of the chores I had to do was to look after sheep, and if any hon. members listening to me now have ever had to look after sheep they will know what a cantankerous animal a sheep can be. I remember one time when one of these sheep annoyed me and I hauled off and kicked as hard as I could, but instead of hitting the sheep I hit a cement pillar in the barn, and that nearly broke my foot. Ever since then I have made it my life's ambition to be kind to dumb animals. I hope no one will object to this remark.
As I have said, I am not here in a critical mood, but I wish to tell the Minister of Agriculture that his policy is all wrong. Outside of that, however, I think it is all right. The thing I am particularly interested in to-night is this-and I must say that I could not follow my hon. friend the member for Maple Creek because when I get up to $172 million that is as high as I can go. That does not mean anything to him. He can talk about $5 billion without any concern, but $5 billion

means quite a bit in the Fraser Valley. He said we are paying interest on $20 billion, but actually, it seems, it is only $15 billion. But $5 billion is neither here nor there to my hon. friend.
The reason I disagree with the Minister of Agriculture is the fact that he is not running agriculture. The wartime prices and trade board has too much to say, and the sooner agriculture is put back under the Department of Agriculture the happier we shall be in Fraser Valley. However, I am not going to be as dismal as some hon. members from Saskatchewan appear to be. My riding is one of the finest in Canada. There are many improvements that can be made, but most of the roofs are still on the houses and barns and on the whole we are very happy. We ought to be, because we produce almost half the berries that are grown in Canada, and they are the finest berries in Canada. I do not need to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that there is no necessity for us to camouflage our peaches in British Columbia in any way. We produce also seventy-five per cent of the hops produced in the dominion and as we do not know what to do with them we ship them out of the country. Altogether we are proud of that riding.
I thoroughly enjoyed the speech delivered by the hon. member for North Battleford. It was constructive and I was particularly interested in it in view of the fact that in my riding we have an immense production of bulbs. In fact, we pioneered the business in this country. We ship to eastern Canada bulbs not merely by the ton but by the carload. I heard one hon. member this afternoon, when we got away from the bargain basement and sheep, describe the tulips in front of the building here, and he accused the Minister of Agriculture, as I understood him, of being the gardener. Maybe that is the reason you have such teeny-weeny bulbs here. We have immense bulbs in my riding, and we ship them, as I say, by the carload. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to devote a little more money and attention to assist us in finding ways and means of combatting diseases, because even in British Columbia we have had disease in our bulbs. His experts should pay a little more attention to this matter.
I am also interested in the question of milk. You know, Mr. Chairman, these subsidies that are spoken of as subsidies to the farmers are actually subsidies to the consumer. They are not subsidies to the farmers and I believe my friends of the C.C.F. will agree with me on that. In other words, they are not agricultural subsidies but consumer sub-

Supply-Agriculture
sidies. I believe the leader of the opposition will agree with me-if he does it is a credit to him-that the subsidy on milk is not high enough. I will not say what the arbitrary figure should be, but the Minister of Agriculture should exert a little more pressure on the treasury board in order that the subsidies be set on farm produce prior to any increases being put, as in the case of machinery, on what we have to buy in order to produce anything on the farm. They started at the wrong end.
We are a little worried in British Columbia about the consistency of some of our hon. friends immediately opposite me. Regina is a small town somewhere in Saskatchewan;
I believe they had a convention once, and we have been spending days here discussing a bill of rights. I am sorry that has come from Saskatchewan too, but they have been suggesting a bill of rights, or a new constitution or charter or something. They seem to have a habit in Saskatchewan of doing that sort of thing. At any rate, plank No. 6 in the manifesto of their convention had reference to cooperative institutions. I am not going to read it all because I do not want to give them the benefit of such free advertising, but they speak of encouragement by public authority of both producer and consumer cooperative institutions.
Coming from British Columbia, I cannot understand that, although in that province the C.C.F. and their bad boy Harold Wmch want to socialize milk. Can you imagine that? And how do they propose to do this? I would like the hon. member for Regina City to answer that. The board would have power to expropriate all existing plants and equipment, including distribution facilities for crude milk, and operate them. We in the Fraser valley, which includes part of the riding of the hon. member for New Westminster, produce 90 per cent of the milk of the province of British Columbia, and we have the largest dairy cooperative in Canada distributing that milk. But they are going to take us over and socialize us.


John Oliver Probe: Isn't that socialized in that set-up? What are you talking about?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I was just hoping the hon. member would say that, because it will get me a thousand C.C.F. votes at the next election. We have this cooperative; they have their charter, and now the C.C.F. are going to do away with cooperatives by socializing the production of milk. There in British Columbia we have forty-eight members


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: And no Liberals.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We have a Liberal premier, and we had for a long time-


Mr. KNIGHT:: If the hon. member will permit a question, does he know that in the time the C.C.F. government has been in power in Saskatchewan cooperatives have increased at a greater rate than ever before, and with the blessing of the C.C.F. government?


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, you are dreaming; it isn't true.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to answer that question. I understand they set up a ministry to encourage cooperatives, and I bless them for that. It is too bad they were not in power before, when horses were selling for $27; they would have canned them. Here is your manifesto. However, I am not talking about Saskatchewan; my dairy farm in my riding is in British Columbia. The C.C.F. party in that province, at their convention on April 29, declared their policy to be the socialization of milk.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There is one blessing about it. They will never be in power in British Columbia.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Where are the Liberals in British Columbia now? I licked the last one up in Prince Rupert last fall.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: What about Mr. Hart; is he Conservative or Liberal?


George Alexander Cruickshank: If Mr. Hart ever desires to retire-well, I am modest, and I shall not say what I was going to say.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: He came from the Conservative party.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, no. My hon. friend the Minister of Veterans Affairs sat in a Liberal cabinet with him about twenty years ago, I think.
However, I have brought out my point, and now I shall go on with my story about milk. There are some forty-eight members in the province of British Columbia, only two of whom represent producing areas. You people follow that through, as I hope the producers will follow it through and as I know the producers in the Fraser valley are following it through. I am quoting the very C.C.F. people there, who say, "If they put that in, we are wiped off the map." As I say, of the forty-eight members only two represent producers and forty-six represent the consuming public. No wonder Harold Winch would put that in. How do you suppose they would set the price? They would set it regardless of the
Supply-Agriculture

welfare of the producers. We would be back in the days of six-cent eggs and twenty-eight cents for butterfat if the price were set by the forty-six members to the detriment of the two members. You cannot laugh that one off, though I do not know where you get this figure of six-cent eggs.
However, I believe in giving the C.C.F. a fair deal in this house, and I refer now to one of the largest and best weekly papers in Canada. I would say it is the best; only I have five in my riding. Here is what the C.C.F. said at the provincial convention, according to this newspaper: "Other delegates charged cooperatives do not consider the consumer." This is the C.C.F.; the cooperatives do not consider the consumer! You must have a different brand of cooperatives in Saskatchewan from what we have in British Columbia.
However, I should like to mention something in which I fully agree with faon. gentlemen opposite. In this debate today I think we have covered every subject except agriculture, though we have missed out on the banks. We used to have a member from Vancouver-Burrard who went over to the holy of holies, and who represented us as far as the banks were concerned. We have covered all these other subjects to-day, but I want to point out to the Minister of Agriculture that I entirely agree, as I believe every other hon. member will, that unless the government stabilize agricultural prices; unless they guarantee the farmer a fair price in relation to the prices of everything he has to buy, the veterans coming back from this war are not going to settle on our farms. That is true in my province, and I think it is true in every other province. Personally I belive the system of subsidies is all wrong. I think the solution of the problem of the farmer is to pay him a fair parity price in comparison with the cost of the things he has to buy in every branch of his production.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: .That is the C.C.F. programme you are quoting now.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I was in politics long before the C.C.F. were heard of, and perhaps they copied part of my programme. However, I am glad my hon. friends agree with me; some day they might even invite me to lead their party out of the wilderness. I want to say to the minister seriously that I was surprised to find there have been only forty-eight applications for farms in my own riding under the Veterans Land Act'. I fully expected there would be manY'lrfo'rb, but speaking from memory I believe only some seventeen have qualified and been granted farms. When you have a riding

which is almost entirely agricultural; when you have from that riding, I say without fear of contradiction, an enlistment of farmers' sons as great as that in any riding in Canada-I do not say "greater" but as great-it is surprising to me that prior to April 15 there should be only forty-eight applications for farms under the act. The remedy is for this government or whatever government is in power-and we are in power at present, so it is our responsibility-to guarantee these men not subsidies but prices which will afford a decent standard of living and which will permit them to carry out their obligations and manage the debt they will be called upon to undertake if they are to settle upon farms. We should not repeat what happened after the last war, when veterans bought $200 cows and had to pay for them with butter-fat at twenty-eight cents a pound. I think it is the duty of this government to see that our returning young men are given this guarantee. This government has gone to this extent, and I am proud to say so. It is the first government to put floor prices under farm products. That is a wonderful step in the right direction, but I think the government should now carry it further and guarantee the farmer prices for his products before it permits any increases of any kind on the things the farmer requires to buy.
I just wish to close by saying that I have nothing to be ashamed of or to apologize for in my riding, like hon. gentlemen opposite seem to have in connection with their ridings. We are proud of the condition of our riding, but we want to make it better. We have every class of citizen there, and we want every class of citizen except one. We shall be glad to give that class to Skeena, if they want them, or to the rest of Canada, but that is the only class we do not want.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: A true Liberal.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, we have never promised them the vote in order to get their financial or other support.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Why are not more soldiers anxious to get back to Fraser valley on the farms?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am sorry the hon. member for Mackenzie did not get the point before. I do not think a soldier can afford to pay what our land costs unless he has some better guarantee in relation to what he is going to receive for his products, and that is what I am putting to the government. I do not mean a guarantee for this month or six months from now; I mean a guarantee for five or six years from now. Another reason the soldiers are not anxious to get back on the land is that they cannot afford to buy the

Supply-A griculture
land for a normal dairy farm, or anything other than a small holding in the Fraser valley, with the present ceiling under the Veterans Land Act. If my hon. friend had led the life some of these young boys have led I believe he would understand this also. I do not think you will find many of these young men, as I am sure the hon. member for Skeena will agree, ready to go away up north, where the pioneers went in the years gone by. I am not knocking that country, but I do not think you will get young men to go up there until such time as transportation, electricity and all the other modern facilities are put through. That is one reason they are not going back to the land. I want to tell the hon. member for Mackenzie that some 75,000 veterans in other parts of Canada have either taken their discharge or want to take their discharge in our fair province. And most of them want to come to the Fraser valley.


An hon. MEMBER:: And they are unemployed, remember that.


William Scottie Bryce: I wish to make a few remarks at this time. I was pleased to hear the minister tell the committee how the packers made a $10 change in the price of a steer across Canada. I have been arguing that right along, namely that we have no price set on the live animal. He has been doing that right along. The minister never said a more truthful word than he did the other evening.
The question with which we are faced these days is this: Is the packer getting enough? I think he is getting more than enough. I have thought for a long time that he is getting more than enough.
Let us take a 1,000-pound steer-


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like about five pounds of it.


William Scottie Bryce: Oh, I have treated you to a good steak before, so keep quiet.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Right.


William Scottie Bryce: 
James Garfield Gardiner: No.


William Scottie Bryce: Oh, yes, they have failed to do that.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are on the market all the time.


William Scottie Bryce: Yes, but they are not on their job, because animals have been selling for eleven cents when they should be twelve cents. The minister has accused me of spending more time around the stockyards than around my farm. Surely he will give me credit for knowing something about the stockyards, if what he has said is true.
That is our big trouble to-day; we have a ceiling on beef. When it comes into the hands of the packer it is protected by the wartime prices and trade board. That is unfair. Let us take that nonsense about lambs last year, when your board agreed to buy up all the surplus lambs at a quarter-cent less than the market. What good did it do to the market?
Supply-Agriculture

It did not amount to anything to the farmer, because the packer could buy them from the farmer at whatever price he liked. When a man sends 200 lambs to the market he does not take them back 200 miles because he gets a cent less. He will let them go at the price, and also say a lot of hard things about the Minister of Agriculture.
I am sure the minister understands the situation. I do not know whether he has tried to correct it. At different times I have tried to explain it. I have said it has been the cabinet which has brought about a condition under which the minister cannot meet what the farmer wants. It would seem that the cabinet dominates the Department of Agriculture; if not, the wartime prices and trade board would not have the power it has to-day.
I had some questions to ask the minister about cattle going to the United States. He has assured me that that market has been taken care of and that we shall be able to get it back when we have more cattle to dispose of. The United States market is our best market to-day; we have no better. But I believe we are going to have more cattle than the United States quota will handle, and we shall have to look for further markets.
I am suggesting to the minister that we do some research into the matter of sending live cattle to Great Britain. It would pay the farmers if that were done. Remember, I am maintaining that the United States market is our best market, combined with that here at home. But we shall have extra cattle, and if we can sell them to Great Britain, so much the better. We could land in Great Britain cattle which, in Canadian funds, and less the bonus of five shillings per hundredweight which they are paying at the present time-I am not adding that five shillings- would bring us about 814 per 112 pounds.
Some hon. members might say that there has to be a profit there. There does not need to be any profit. If you can land them there at a price, the farmer is prepared to take them at that price because the manure he gets from the feeding of the animal will pay him in three months for his labour and feeding costs. He will get his expenses and his feeding costs, because he feeds those steers for the sake of the fertilizer he can get.
I repeat that we should have some research done, and that the department should do it. On previous occasions the minister has given me literature dealing with this matter. The more I read about it, the more I see in it. When I was in the old country this year I was convinced that there is a good market over there for good steers. Perhaps we can ship them out through Hudson bay and thus reduce freight costs, which would be a great advantage.

I was going to say something about sugar beets but the hon. member for Provencher has pretty well covered the subject. I agree with what he said but he did not touch upon the labour situation. I hope the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour, who, I notice, is in his seat, have given that matter serious consideration. The production of beets requires more labour than anything, else we do on the farm. Huge commitments have been made in order to ensure the success of the sugar beet industry from one end to the other of the Red river valley in Manitoba, and I hope the two ministers will cooperate so that we can get the labour that is necessary.
Last year and the year before I asked the Minister of Agriculture about the payment of the wool bonus to Manitoba, but my pleas fell on deaf earsbecause the provincial government has not agreed to pay its share. It is contended that if the provincial government will pay two cents, the dominion government will match it. I am going to appeal to the minister not to make a stepchild out of Manitoba. If he is paying two cents to Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia he should pay two cents to Manitoba and shame the provincial government into paying the other two cents. You cannot produce wool cheaper in one province than in another, and the non-payment of this bonus is a detriment to the production of sheep and wool in Manitoba. You have no idea how it is talked about, and if this bonus was paid I am sure it would create a favourable impression toward the Liberal government, if that could be an argument. I have asked this of the minister before and I hope he will give it his consideration. When the dominion government makes this concession to other provinces it is only right that it should make it to Manitoba.
When the minister speaks I should like him to tell me whether the subsidies that will be paid from April 30 are to be paid from money voted in connection with the Agricultural Prices Support Act?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


William Scottie Bryce: When is that act to come into operation?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been declared in effect now.


William Scottie Bryce: There is no money being paid out of it whatever?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


William Scottie Bryce: In dealing with the milk situation, I can speak only of the Winnipeg area. On the orders of the day there has been some discussion about milk producers asking that the winter subsidy be carried through the summer. I think the minister replied that you

Supply-Agriculture
would have to even up the price, but I should like to correct that. The milk producers do not want that price evened up, what they want is the winter price carried through and a new price negotiated for next winter. Do not let us have any misunderstanding about that. As someone said a little while ago, the cost of labour has gone up. It may be said that while I am against the packer getting a rise in price, I am asking for an increase for the milk producer. The fact is that the milk producer is working under entirely different conditions to-day. The men who milked cows before they went to war will not milk them now that they have come back. They know that a factory worker works for only eight hours a day and they just do not want the fifteen or fourteen-hour day on the farm.
People in Canada to-day realize that milk is the cheapest food in the world. You cannot get anything as cheap that contains the same amount of nourishment or that gives such a balanced diet. At one time I used to fight in Winnipeg for a milk foundation, but I do not think we are going to need it because the people have been educated to use milk. They are beginning to know what a good thing milk is; they know that in order to be strong in body and mind, the person who drinks lots of milk is well on the way.
Let me show how the demand for milk has increased. In March, 1945, there was shipped into the Winnipeg area a total of
9,960,000	pounds of milk. In March, 1946, those shipments were up to 11,500,000 pounds. In March a year ago there were 910 producers in the Winnipeg area; to-day we have 1,290, an increase of 380. Those additional 380 milk shippers should produce far more milk because they have better cows in the Red river valley to-day than they had ten years ago or even five years ago; the cattle are heavier producers.
The fact is that the big dairy producers, the men who were milking fifty, sixty or seventy cows, found that they could not get help and had to sell out. The cows were purchased by smaller shippers, men who were willing to work and who were willing to have their families work. Surely in a modem world like this we do not need to exploit a man's family in order to produce milk for the nation, but that is what is taking place. You cannot get a hired man to milk cows and the result is that the large dairy farmer is going out of business.
I remember the time in the Winnipeg milk area when there was a straggle to get a quota. Nobody worries about quotas now because you get paid for every pound of milk you send in. The trouble is to get somebody to buy your cows and your milk quota and get rid of them. Reference has been made to
the rise in the price of machinery, but that is only a minor thing compared with the help situation. I brought this matter to the attention of the minister, and I want to impress upon him that an adequate price must be paid for milk next winter or we shall have milk rationing in Canada. I hate to think that there will ever be such a thing as milk rationing in Canada; but unless the producer of milk is subsidized or his business is made profitable enough to warrant his staying in business, that is what will happen. I told hon. members that when I was in Britain I saw that children under twelve years of age were getting half a pint of milk a day. We do not want that in this country. If the production of milk is put on a profitable basis it provides a good living. There are plenty of people who like to milk cows but they do not want to milk them for nothing. You just cannot afford to pay factory wages and give factory hours. I heard someone on the other side say that he had offered $100 a month and board but could not find anyone to take it.
These are things we are up against in the Red river valley at this time. I commend these remarks to the minister and I hope he will answer them when he speaks.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak in this debate to-night, but I felt someone should answer the hon. gentleman to my right who on numerous occasions has made slighting and insulting references to one of the most distinguished parliamentarians that this country has ever produced, Miss Agnes Macphail. Every once in a while someone to my right who has not the courage to rise in his place and say it, growls some slighting remark about Miss Macphail. It reminds me of the story told of a meeting at which Miss Macphail was heckled by a very little man. Finally he said, "Miss Macphail, don't you wish you were a man?" She replied, "Sure, don't you?"
One of the most shocking attitudes that I find in this house from time to time is this, that when there are people who have the courage and integrity to expose something of which we should all be ashamed, instead of our trying to get to the root of the matter and attack the evil, we attack the person who exposes the evil.
Recently we have been hearing a lot about British traditions. We have several kinds of British traditions, but the finest kind of British tradition that we have is the tradition of establishing new precedents of justice, the tradition of being able to recognize injustice and to make the necessary changes. That is the only British tradition that I am proud to
Su-p-ply-Agriculture

admit, and I must say that all my ancestors were Britishers, but I take no credit for that because I had nothing to do with it.
There are people in this house who seem to think western Canada is the poor relation, and the only time we hear from them is when they want something. I should like to quote some figures given by Doctor F. H. Auld, deputy minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan, when speaking of the dominion-provincial conference. He was the deputy minister under the last administration, a man whom we retained because he was valuable. He had this to say about the contribution that western Canada makes to the economy of Canada as a whole:
Western Canada was well to the fore in the production of foodstuffs, he said, and cited the fact that one-third of the creamery butter and one-half of the hogs produced in the dominion came from the prairie provinces. Other examples cited by Dr. Auld were that the west produced 55 per cent of all cattle, 60 per cent of the sheep, 50 per cent of the sugar beets and 40 per cent of the honey produced in Canada.
For that we from the west do not need to apologize.
I am not going to extend my remarks, but I promise to make a speech every time that anybody laughs about the Regina riots. If anybody thinks civil war is funny they have never witnessed it. We would not have the effrontery to laugh if the name of a man who died overseas were mentioned in this house. We would bow our heads in tribute to one who had died in defence of his country. The men who died because of the Regina riots were just as much casualties, only they were casualties of poverty, unemployment and injustice, and the people who spoke and worked in defence of those unfortunate unemployed boys deserve better than to be ridiculed and scorned by any member of this house.


Mr. DROPE:: Mr. Chairman, coming from the agricultural county of Northumberland I am pleased to have an opportunity of saying a few words about agriculture, which is our basic industry in this country.
The farmers of Canada did a big job in feeding this nation through the war years, and they are continuing to do a big job in production. But if that is to be continued it appears to me that it will be necessary to make farm prices attractive in order to assure a supply. We have had peiling prices on most of our farm products, but the farmers feel that those ceiling prices were put on before prices of other products in this country had reached their peak.
I was interested in hearing the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon speak of the export of our cows and heifers to the United States and of the cow population in this country. But I question very much the accuracy of

the figures he gave of our cow population. I do not just see how he arrives at his figures. Of course, we have a bureau of statistics which sends out circulars covering a cross-section of the country, but I would not say that the bureau's cow population figures are the actual figures. I am inclined to believe, judging from our dairy production and the butter shortage and other things, that our cow population is less than the figures given by the minister. We know that we have had a shortage of butter. This can be attributed largely to government policy. The farmers who were producing butterfat and all of us are ready to admit that it was necessary to ship cheese to Britain in view of our commitments during the war, but the war has been over now for some time and the thousands of farmers in this country who are producing cream to be manufactured into butter should not be put at the disadvantage under which they have laboured for the last two years. We are the greatest butter eaters in the world in Canada. We have our home market and we should see to it that the people of this country get sufficient butter. I am satisfied that if the prices of our dairy products were put on a fair basis we' should- get all the butter we require.
We have heard considerable in this house about the housing shortage. Let me say, coming from one of the rural parts of this country, that we have in the rural parts many, many homes that are empty. Possibly the housing shortage in the cities has been caused in part by people leaving the farm and going into the urban centres. They are not now returning to the farm; the farmers who did stay on the land and have modern machinery have, in many cases, purchased the farm beside them and consequently the house on that farm is empty. It seems to me that if we are to get our people back on the farm to engage in agriculture it will be necessary to make agricultural prices attractive enough to bring them back.
One hon. member to-night mentioned the tourist business and said that it did not make very much difference. I believe the tourist business is something that we should encourage. The county of Northumberland . from which I come is bounded on the south by lake Ontario and on the north by Rice lake and the Trent river, and we have many tourists coming there each year. That is true of many other parts of Ontario and, no doubt, of Quebec. These tourists buy a great deal of farm produce, and it certainly means something to agriculture. We should do everything in our power to encourage tourists to visit our country.

Supply-Agriculture
13S9
It is regrettable that more veterans are . not going back on the farms. From the county of Northumberland there are very few; I do not believe they average one to each of the nine townships in the county. There must be some reason why these young men are not returning to agriculture. I strongly suggest that in any policy laid down for agriculture adequate prices be considered.
I am satisfied that if fair prices were assured many of our veterans would go in for farming.
We have heard something about the deplorable state of conditions in western Canada where they work from sixteen to seventeen hours a day. I have been operating a farm for a good many years, and I have never found that one could get the best from men or horses from operating that long. I believe better results could be obtained with much shorter hours; and, with the modern machinery we have, I do not believe anything will be gained by painting to our younger men such a picture as that it is necessary to work for sixteen or seventeen hours a day to make a living.
I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to have had an opportunity of contributing these few remarks to this debate.


Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: In rising to speak to-night to the committee on the subject of agriculture, I had intended to begin my comments by saying something about the Canadian seed growers' association.
I wish to compliment the hon. member for North Battleford on the address which he gave and in which he dealt so fully with that subject. I have compiled a number of figures regarding the work of the association, but I am not going to detain the committee this evening with them.
The hon. member for North Battleford dealt with seeds which are grown and used within Canada. I wish to say a word or two about seeds which are exported, and with which he did not deal so fully. The figures I will quote were supplied by the agricultural supplies board and relate to the crop year ended June 30, 1945. They dealt with alfalfa, red clover, alsike, sweet clover, brome grass, crested wheat grass, timothy, Canada blue grass and creeping red fescue. The. total value of these exports amounted to $5,571,289. Along with that were exports of flaxseed to the value of $203,000, flaxseed for commercial use to the value of $3,656,000, potato seed to the value of $5,464,679, and seed grains not otherwise listed, $1,548,000. As I said before, this does not include the value of seed grain sold and used in Canada. So that.I think the small appropriation to the Canadian seed growers' association of some 63260-88
twenty-five or thirty thousand dollars is an extremely fine investment for the Department of Agriculture to make, and if all the investments of the government brought returns in the same proportion we would be getting somewhere.
I also wish to make a few remarks regarding the agricultural picture as I see it, representing as I do a constituency not entirely rural, but a constituency, as are many others in Canada, dependent upon the farmer for food. May I also emphasize that they are dependent on the farmer for prosperity. Too often in the past we have heard it said, "Give labour high wages and they will buy the farmers' produce." But if you give the farmer a decent price for his product he will buy the articles produced by labour'. In the past you have the thing all backwards.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They depend on one another.


Harry Oliver White: Let me refer particularly to the agricultural policy in its relation to the wartime prices and trade board and, in particular, to Mr. Donald Gordon. Agriculture subsidies are an admission on the part of this government that prices were inadequate as of October 20, 1941, when price ceilings were fixed. A simple announcement at that time to the consumer public that if the world wanted to eat they would have to pay a fair price for the food they required, would have setled the matter right ijhen and done away with all agricultural subsidies. I think the government, as is its practice in many other matters, looked around to see what would be politically expedient and then framed its subsidy policy. The present government knows very well and its advertisements and proaganda have shown that it was attempting to channel off purchasing power in consumers' hands.
At the outbreak of war, and ever since, the government has taken the attitude of not taking the public into its confidence. It would sooner wait and see what political advantage could be gained. The very time it was instituting subsidies of all kinds to maintain these so-called price ceilings was a time when people were better able to buy food than ever before because practically everyone employable was working in industry.	.
Let me at this time direct attention to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture in this house of April 15, and particularly at page 898 of Hansard, wherein he told how well off the farmers apparently were, and he stated that the mortgage indebtedness of farmers to some thirty mortgage companies was reduced by $102 million. I have not gone to the trouble

Supply-A gricul ture

of verifying the minister's statement, but many farmers in my constituency will take me to task for not having done so.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to keep the record right by saying that I said the very opposite to what has been said now.


Harry Oliver White: It is in Hansard. Read it over again.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not in Hansard in those words.


Harry Oliver White: And from the Canadian farm loan board report for the year ended March 31, 1939, I find these figures:
Loans to farmers, secured by first mortgages:
Principal	
$30,054,207	94Interest due and unpaid ...	612,484	89Interest accrued	
479,338	18Other charges	
16,545	59

It will be noticed that Canadian farmers in about the same period referred to by the Minister of Agriculture were able to reduce their indebtedness by only some $6 million. I therefore have grave doubts whether the farmer's condition is as rosy as the minister would like us to believe.
I spoke of Donald Gordon and agricultural subsidies. We hear a great deal of his alleged ability. We shall be better able to judge his ability twenty-five years hence. He should be compelled to reduce the debt of Canada by the amount of all the farm subsidies paid out unnecessarily to maintain a price ceiling that

was not maintained. The amount of these subsidies runs into many millions. In 1944 alone it was $104,552,761 on items given in a statement by the dominion bureau of statistics.
I also stated that the price ceiling was not maintained and I make that statement for two reasons. First of all, the quality of practically all farm products has been maintained and, in some lines, improved, while the quality of many things the farmers buy has depreciated considerably. I will mention only a few items: lumber, coal, supplementary farm feeds and clothing. Not only that, but according to the dominion bureau of statistics when dealing with the cost of living index taxes are not considered, and I believe that about 30 per cent of the income of the Canadian people goes in taxes, so that this becomes a considerable item.
Let me quote a few comparisons taken from advertisements of food in the London Free Press of the week of October 16, 1941, and from the same type of advertisements in the same paper from the beginning of this year, and in most cases for the same retail food store advertisements as in 1941. These are some of the prices quoted in the London Free Press of October 16, 1941: prime beef brisket, pot roast, nineteen cents; since January 1, 1946 it has been twenty-three cents; shoulder roast, prime rib roast, twenty-five cents in 1941 and to-day, thirty-nine cents; porterhouse steak, thirty-three cents in 1941 and now forty-three cents; sausages, twenty-seven cents in 1941 and to-day, thirty-five cents.
In these quotations, I would point out that while the ceiling has been pierced as far as these finished products are concerned, the price of farm products the farmer sold has gone up but little in comparison. Hams were selling at that time at twenty-seven cents; to-day they are forty-four cents; veal at that time was twenty-four cents and since January 1, 1946, thirty-five cents in retail stores. With these prices going up in that way, without any increase as far as the farmer is concerned, the farmer is placed in a serious position. I thought I would take this opportunity of bringing these facts to the attention of the minister.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, may we call it eleven o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is the committee desirous of carrying on the general discussion to-morrow, or can we pass item 1 and continue that discussion under the other items?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There are a few questions of a general nature which I should like to ask.

The Late Harry Leader


James Garfield Gardiner: Many of the speeches which have been made to-day could properly have been made under the appropriate items, as we went along, particularly a speech such as that on seed, because there is an item in connection with seed. It would be better to have such speeches made under the appropriate items because the committee could get more information in regard to the items. I suggest that as soon as possible we would like to get the item through on administration and we could take up the discussion on the four divisions of science, production, marketing and specials. If we can do that at an early opportunity we shall get along more rapidly and the committee will get more information. Could not item 1 be passed to-night? We have not followed the practice of holding members down on any of the subsequent items to the letter of the rules, but it would permit us to get along more expeditiously if the suggestion I make were adopted.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 10, 1946.