1947-12-18

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give the house a statement on trade and financial arrangements between the governments of the United Kingdom and Canada, for which hon. members have been waiting.
As the house is aware, it was recently agreed with the United Kingdom government that a mission should come to Ottawa to discuss the trade and financial arrangements between the two countries, with special1 reference to the United Kingdom's purchasing program of Canadian supplies in 1948.
The mission, headed by Sir Percival Leisching, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Food, arrived in Ottawa on the 25th November. There has since been held with them a series of most valuable and comprehensive discussions covering the whole field of our trade with the United Kingdom, and I am happy to announce that as a result of the exchanges which have taken place agreement has now been reached with the United Kingdom government on all matters under review.
Both countries at the present time face a common difficulty, namely, a shortage of United States dollars. From the Canadian standpoint, this and other factors limit the extent to which the balance of the credit, provided for under the Financial Agreement Act of 1946, can be drawn on in order to make supplies available to the United Kingdom. Canada has made a very great effort-not exceeded by that of any other state-to assist in the restoration and reconstruction of countries damaged and destroyed by war. But she cannot continue indefinitely to export on credit, and import for cash. From the United Kingdom standpoint, her own shortage of hard currency equally limits the extent to which she can afford at this time to make payment in dollars for goods supplied from Canada.
The discussions with the United Kingdom mission centred around (1) the necessity for Canada of maintaining a balanced agricultural program and (2) the basic dollar difficulty in both countries. However, though there may have been a shortage of dollars on both sides, there has been also on both sides a surplus of good will and mutual understanding. Also, if there has been a common difficulty, there has been a common objective, the maintenance at this time and the extension in the future of a stable and steady market in the United Kingdom for Canadian farm produce. This means a restored and vigorous economy in the United Kingdom and a steady rise in her industrial production and exports. It means also a prosperous Canadian agriculture, the value of which has become increasingly realized in the United Kingdom during the war and post-war years.
Canada wishes to continue to send to the United Kingdom all those supplies of foodstuffs and raw materials which are playing such a vital part in sustaining the United Kingdom's reconstruction program. The United Kingdom's need for such supplies, in order to maintain the progress now visible in her recovery, is so strong and compelling that any interruption at this time would have very serious consequences.
In the arrangement for the provision of supplies, however, Canada has not been asked and will not be asked to go further than her financial situation permits. Likewise the United Kingdom will itself decide how to dispose of its present limited financial resources in the way most effective for its recovery.
It is in this spirit of mutual interest, mutual understanding and mutual assistance that the discussions have been conducted. It is in the same spirit that agreement has been reached.
The agreed arrangement provides for the continuance of the wheat agreement with the United Kingdom and for the continuance and renewal of the contracts for livestock products at prices adjusted accordingly. Thus the balance of Canadian agricultural production will be preserved, and there will be no interruption in these supplies to the British market.
The arrangement also provides for continued supplies to the United Kingdom of certain raw materials needed for reconstruction purposes, in particular timber and non-
Trade Agreements

ferrous metals, though the quantities have been adjusted in relation both to United Kingdom needs and the demands for these products from other countries.
In estimating the probable trading deficit on this basis, account has been taken of the increased exports from the United Kingdom and the sterling area which, following these discussions, are expected to be made available for the Canadian market during the coming year. The arrangement provides that in the three months period up to the 31st March next, the expected deficit of 145 million dollars should be financed by drawings on the Canadian credit up to 45 million dollars and by the payment by the United Kingdom of 100 million dollars. Our government will review the position at the end of the three months period.
A statement substantially similar to this is being made today in London by the United Kingdom Prime Minister.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, before we proceed with other business, one or two questions arising out of the statement he has just made. He stated in one place that there had been agreement in all matters under review. Might I ask him to tell the house whether there has been agreement on the amounts to be provided and on the prices to be paid under the various contracts we already have with Britain?
And I have one other question. The announcement just made relates to the matter to be discussed this afternoon in the resolution dealing with the extension for three months of the Agricultural Products Act. Up to the present we have not had notice of any changed position by the government. Now the Prime Minister makes a statement announcing some changes, the implications of which we cannot readily grasp. My suggestion to the government is this. In view of the changed position of the government with respect to certain of these matters, and in view of the debate that is now on or which will begin in just a few minutes, I suggest the propriety of delaying this debate for two or three hours until the members of the house can examine the statement the Prime Minister has made, and that we proceed with the debate in which we were engaged yesterday or some other one. That is only fair to the house in view of this late announcement respecting the matter which we are now debating. If the Prime Minister could indicate whether there has been any agreement on prices in

these contracts and the amounts to be supplied, could we have that information at this time?
One other sentence in the Prime Minister's statement is confusing. He said the wheat agreement was to be continued very much as it is, as I gathered, but with respect to livestock matters he said prices were to be accordingly adjusted. To me that sentence meant nothing. Perhaps it could be explained or enlarged upon either by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has made a rather lengthy statement. I am not able to recall all that he has said. At the beginning of his remarks he asked a question about amounts and prices. The prices of all but wheat are to be adjusted. As to continuing the discussion at the moment, if hon. gentlemen feel they would be embarrassed, of course the government would be anxious to meet their wishes. However, if there are many taking part in the debate on the resolution with regard to the Agricultural Products Act, I would feel that it might be preferable that the debate proceed forthwith in order that we may be sure of concluding it in time.


John Bracken: May I make a comment, just here?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


John Bracken: My suggestion on that is this. I recognize that the government desires to get this particular legislation passed before we adjourn.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It must.


John Bracken: On behalf of this party, I undertake to see that it comes to a vote before adjournment time to-morrow night, if that will help the Prime Minister over the difficulty he sees.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Mr. Speaker, I was going to suggest that if we could get further information from the Minister of Agriculture in the debate which is to follow, it might give a great deal of information to the house which we could not get merely out of an examination of the statement made by the Prime Minister, which statement leaves a good many things to the imagination. I do not know whether the Minister of Agriculture is prepared to go ahead; but speaking personally, I should like more details before I am prepared to discuss this matter.


John Bracken: That suggestion would be acceptable to us.

Trade Agreements


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of Agriculture is generally equal to any emergency. He tells me that while he had hoped to delay his remarks until he might have a chance of replying to what others may say in the debate, he is ready to proceed. If he is ready to do so, it would be preferable that we should go on with this debate.


John Bracken: May I ask the Prime Minister if we may have copies of the statement he has just read?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall send to my office for copies. I believe some have been made, and I shall be glad to have copies given to my hon, friend at once.


Mr. GARDINER:: May I say at this point that I would not want any misunderstanding later on with regard to the situation. I do not think it should be insisted that I make my speech as soon as we enter upon discussion of this question. I have only one opportunity to speak. It is not my motion. I should have the right to speak on it when I think the time has come for me to speak, at which time I expect I shall have many things to answer.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Answer for.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no objection to either procedure-to saying anything that can be said now, or on the orders of the day, in order to indicate what the present position is, or to answering questions put to me directly while some other person is speaking in the debate-but I do not want to exhaust my right to speak at the beginning of the debate.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Mr. Speaker, if I may make the suggestion, I should think it would be satisfactory if the minister would make a statement now on motions or on the orders of the day. He would not by doing so exhaust his right of reply in the debate which will proceed later.


Gordon Graydon: He will need all the time he can get.


Mr. ROWE:: That will give him a chance both to open it and to close it.
[Later]:
On the orders of the day:


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: In view of the intense interest of most members of parliament, on behalf of their constituents, in the British agreements recently announced, I wander if the Minister of Agriculture would be good enough to tell the house some of the terms of those agreements before the debate begins today?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us conclude the oral questions before proceeding to the orders of the day.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I should like to
ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. When will the new price for eggs for Great Britain be announced?


James Garfield Gardiner: Probably this is as good a
time as any to answer both questions, the one asked first by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and repeated now in different form by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank).
The suggestion was made a few minutes ago that something should be said with regard to quantity and price which would permit of discussion of this question when we come to the resolution. I would say that the paragraph in the announcement just made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) dealing with quantity reads in this way:
Canada wishes to continue to send to the United Kingdom all those supplies of foodstuffs and raw materials which are playing such a vital part in sustaining the United Kingdom's reconstruction program.
That states Canada's position in regard to the quantity. Then it continues.:
The United Kingdom's need for such supplies, in order to maintain the progress now visible in her recovery, is so strong and compelling that any interruption at this time would have very serious consequences.
The interpretation, I believe, that the house will be justified in placing upon those words is that, so far as foodstuffs are concerned, Canada is anxious to deliver to Great Britain her surplus of foodstuffs in question. The figures with regard to wheat are now known, of course.
With respect to the surplus of other foodstuffs in question, I believe I should repeat something that was said at the last session, namely that up until now we have been using contracts, not only for the purpose of supplying to Great Britain what she expects to get from this country but for the purpose of inducing farmers to increase production in certains directions. It has been decided to depart from that policy and to estimate the amount of foodstuffs which we believe can be supplied during the year ahead and to write that figure into the contract. Therefore any figure which is put into the contract will not be a reduced figure asked for by Great Britain or a reduced figure insisted upon by Canada; it will result from the determination as nearly as possible of the exact amount of food which we can supply under the contract. That will
5849-28 '
Trade Agreements

be the quantity which will then be placed in the contract and will be intended to cover our surplus.
The other question was with regard to price. The paragraph dealing with that reads as follows:
The agreed atrangement provides for the continuance of the wheat agreement with the United Kingdom-
I think all members will agree that in so far as price in relation to wheat is concerned, that is set out in the contract. We know the terms that apply to it. Then the report continues:

and for the continuance and renewal of the contracts for livestock products at prices adjusted accordingly. Thus the balance of Canadian agricultural production will be preserved, and there will be no interruption in these supplies to the British market.
There is one thing I should like to point out with regard to the matter of price. Agreement in principle was reached within the last few hours, or at the latest one might say yesterday. It will be understood that it would be impossible for officials, some of whom are in London and some of whom are on this side, to come to' an agreement within the few hours that have intervened as to the exact price. It would be difficult for me to say at.this moment exactly what the price will be, and it might be difficult to say that even before tomorrow night. But the principle which is to underlie the setting of the price has been agreed upon and it is stated in the sentence which I have just read.
Feed grain prices have a relationship to the wheat price and the increase to the present feed grain prices have had an effect upon the cost of producing other commodities. These are facts which will have to be taken into consideration in setting a new price for food products upon which the agreement is to be made. Those food products are bacon, beef, cheese and eggs. The contracts will carry throughout the year and there are certain understandings with regard to matters in the future.


William Earl Rowe: Can they be altered within three months?


James Garfield Gardiner: * The three months' provision does not apply to the contracts for food products. Those contracts extend throughout the year. I think probably I have given as complete an answer as I can give at the moment except that I might say why it would

be difficult to be more specific at the moment than I have been in connection with this matter, even if I had more information. I believe it is essential that as soon as possible after the exact price which is to apply in the contract is known, those prices should come into effect. If one were to announce that there are to be higher prices for a certain commodity on January 1 there might be great difficulty in getting sufficient supplies on our own markets in the intervening period in order to take care of our own requirements. I think it will be necessary to have the discussions completed with Great Britain with regard to the exact price, and then when the prices are announced action should be taken immediately on our own markets and elsewhere. For that reason I suggest again that it may be impossible to give an exact figure before tomorrow night, but I think most hon. members who are interested in this question will have clearly in their own minds a figure which is fairly close to the one which will be in the contract.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Pending decision on the price of poultry products will the government give consideration to permitting the export of eggs to the United States in order to save the poultry industry of British Columbia?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the answer to the hon. member's question will be given when the statement to which I referred a few moments ago is given, and I think it will be given at a sufficiently early date to not cause any considerable concern to the poultry producers of Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It may be next year.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: It may be within three hours.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I rise to a question of privilege with respect to a report in the Toronto Telegram of last night. It reads as follows:
A motion was offered by Ross Thatcher, C.C.F. member for Moose Jaw to defer second reading of Bill 3 so that the government may give an assurance that where goods are prevented from entering Canada by embargoes provided in the bill, price ceilings will be imposed on domestic goods of a similar class or kind, but it was ruled out of order by Speaker Fauteux. C.C.F.

Inquiries oj the Ministry
members started to appeal the ruling but T. L. Church, M.P., stopped the move by starting a speech.
That is not a fact. After your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I waited and the C.C.F. never rose to ask for a division. I was to be the sixth speaker, and I waited all that day to begin; and you, Mr. Speaker, asked me to proceed. I only went on for the whip because no one else was ready. I only want to keep the record straight.



SUPREME COURT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. E. JAENICKE (Kindersley) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the Supreme Court Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. JAENICKE:: Mr. Speaker, on the 13th January, 1947, the judicial committee of the privy council decided that the dominion parliament may, in the exercise of the wide amplitude of power conferred by section 101 of the British North America Act, vest the Supreme Court of Canada with final and exclusive civil and appellate jurisdiction within and for Canada and may accordingly deny any appeal to His Majesty in Council either from the supreme court or from any provincial court and regardless of whether the matter in question is within the exclusive legislative authority of the dominion or the provincial legislatures. The purpose of the present bill is to give effect to this decision of the privy council. It is exactly the same as the bill I introduced in this house last session.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RAILWAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Railway Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Section 122(1) (c) of the Railway Act gives to railway boards of directors authority to establish retirement or pension plans. This bill would add to the appropriate paragraph the following words:
Provided that in the administration of any railway retirement or pension plan, leave of
5849-28i
absence, suspension, dismissal followed by reinstatement, a temporary lay-off on account of reduction of staff, or absence due to an industrial dispute, strike or lock-out, shall not disqualify any railway employee from any retirement or pension rights or benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled.
The purpose of this amendment, which is exactly the same as Bill No. 24 of last session, is to make it perfectly clear that the pension rights of railway employees, provided such other conditions as are laid down in railway pensions plans are met, cannot be lost or abrogated because of a break in service for any of the reasons indicated in the proviso I have just read.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REPORTED SALE BY AUSTRALIA TO UNITED KINGDOM AT S2.72

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: Before the orders of the day are called I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, or the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with a report which came over the air this morning, which indicated that an agreement had been reached for the sale of 80,000,000 bushels of wheat by Australia to the United Kingdom at S2.72 per bushel. My question is, has any department of the government any knowledge of any such sale or any such agreement?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am sorry to intervene, but I should have called "Questions" first.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, Mr. Speaker; this procedure is quite right. It was understood that in order to meet the wishes of hon. members the government would have questions answered today. It is quite right that the orders of the day should be called and questions asked of the ministry. Following that we can take up as the first order for this afternoon the answering of the questions which appear on the order paper, and then follow on with the debate.


John Bracken: I thought the Speaker had called the orders of the day, which was my only opportunity to raise this question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is quite right.
Inquiries oj the Ministry

Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs):	I will
endeavour to ascertain if there is any official information bearing upon the matter to which the leader of the opposition has referred, and give an answer either tonight or tomorrow.



INQUIRY AS TO SHIPMENT OF MUNITIONS BY CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, of which I sent him notice earlier today. Will the minister make a statement today or tomorrow concerning the shipment of munitions to China, particularly under what arrangement this is being done and whether or not it involves the expenditure of United States dollars on the part of Canada; also if these shipments are in strict conformity with our obligation to promote peace in Asia and throughout the world?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I received notice of this question after the adjournment of council this morning. I immediately communicated with the department and asked them to expedite as much as possible the preparation of a memorandum on the subject.



PARTICIPATION PAl'MENTS FOR DELIVERIES OF

[Stage Direction]
1945, 1946 AND 1947
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce say what additional amounts per bushel will be paid to producers by the Canadian wheat board for the wheat deliveries of 1945, 1946 and 1947, and when these payments will be made.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I had anticipated that this question would be asked earlier in the session-


James Arthur Ross: We have great patience over here.


James Angus MacKinnon: -and I am ready. While making a statement on the position of the 1944 wheat crop participation payments I think it would be appropriate to place on record the position of all Canadian wheat

board payments as at November 30 of this year. This statement covers the final wheat payments on the 1940 to 1944 crops inclusive, and in addition the various payments made from the oats and barley equalization funds, the Ontario wheat equalization fund, the 1946 barley ten-cent adjustment payment and the 1945 ten-cent wheat adjustment payment. I do not wish to read the detailed figures, and with the permission of the house I will place the statement on Hansard, summarizing it briefly by saying that the total distributable surplus involved in these various payments is $209,427,886.38, of which $190,222,622.66 had been paid out as of November 30.
So far as the 1940, 1941 and 1942 crop payments are concerned'-and I am going a little beyond the question of the hon. member for Souris-these are virtually completed. With regard to the 1943 wheat crop there is an amount of slightly over $3,000,000 yet to be paid out. The Canadian wheat board has been in communication with the producers who still have not sent in their certificates, with a view to obtaining the certificates so this payment may be completed. The reason, therefore, that there is still about nine per cent of the payment to be made is that the certificates have not been sent in; and just as soon as they are sent in cheques will be sent out to the holders of these certificates. In the case of lost certificates, of course, arrangements are made to send out a bond form so these payments also can be completed.
In the case of the 1944 crop, out of a total distributable surplus of just over $66,000,000, more than $52,000,000 or almost eighty per cent has been paid out as at November 30. All the certificates in respect to the 1944 crop that have reached the Canadian wheat board in Winnipeg have been dealt with, and the payment in connection with this crop will be confined to those certificates received from day to day. In other words the Canadian wheat board is in a position to pay these certificates as promptly as they are turned in by the producers to the board.
If I may have consent I should like to place this statement on Hansard, since it is a matter of very great interest.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


James Horace King: Has the hon. gentleman leave to table this statement?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
The statement follows:

Inquiries oj the Ministry



THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD

[Stage Direction]
Statement showing final payments to producers as at November 30, 1947
Surplus	Total	PerCheques	not yet	distributable	centWheat Final Payments	issued	Value	distributed	surplus	paid1940 crop 	334,287	$ 25,901,707 03	$ 179,299 29	$ 26,081,006 32	99-3131941 and 1942 crops...	344,251	34,777,107 81	221,139 00	34,998,246 81	99-3681943 crop 	240,111	33,394,977 54	3,330,189 58	36,725,167 12	90-9321944 crop 	209,541	52,258,996 15	13,760,005 54	66,019,001 69	79-158Other Payments	1942 oats and barley	final payment	160,408	1,570,750 97	-	1,570,750 97	100-1943 oats final payment	268,799	8,868,608 90	-	8,868,608 90	100-1944 barley final pay-	ment 	152,614	6,105,571 72	-	6,105,571 72	100-1944 Ontario wheat	equalization payment	27,227	188,434 20	-	188,434 20	100-1945 Ontario wheat	equalization payment	30,649	262,596 18	-	262,596 18	100-1946 barley 10c. ad-	justment payment ..	110,249	5,300,100 30	-	5,300,100 30	100-1,878,136	$168,628,850 80	$ 17,490,633 41	$186,119,484 21	1945 crop-10c. adjust-	ment payment-paid	by drafts 	227,556	21,593,771 86	1,714,630 31	23,308,402 17	92-6442,105,692	$190,222,622 66	$ 19,205,263 72	$209,427,886 38	
Note:
(1)	The first cheques were mailed, relative to 1940 crop, on May 20, 1944.
(2)	Since May 20, 1944, the board has issued 1,878,136 cheques at a valuation of $168,628 850 80 covering wheat and other payments.
(3)	At present the 1944 payment is in progress; 209,541 cheques have been issued representing /9 per cent of the distributable surplus.
14' The 1945 crop 10c. adjustment payment was made by drafts issued by handling companies to March 31. 1947. after which date the board assumed payment and issued 17 765 oi the 227,556 drafts shown above.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker I should like to ask a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). Before the Christmas recess is the government going to introduce any legislation which will enable the wheat board to make payment on the 1945, 1946 and 1947 crops?


James Arthur Ross: They do not have to.


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, it was
my hope that notice at least of legislation could have been given before the termination of this portion of the session. However, on account of conversations which have been going on, it was considered inadvisable up to now to introduce that legislation. I can say, however, that it will be introduced as
soon as possible after the resumption of the session. I believe it is quite in order for me to say that it will provide for a substantial increase in the advance payments.


James Arthur Ross: Is it not provided
under the act that it can be done by order in council before that?



BEET SUGAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, notice of which I have not given him. First, has the attention of the minister been drawn to certain questions pertaining to the beet sugar industry which I asked on December 15, 1947, as recorded at pages 299 and 300 of Hansard? Second, will the minister
Inquiries oj the Ministry

give the 'house the answers to these questions tomorrow?


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: I am sure the minister has read Hansard and has given the matter consideration. I have nothing to report further on it.



WAR ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, arising out of a press dispatch in the Halifax Herald of recent date captioned "Pictou shipyard on auction block"? Has the minister's department any statement to make as to the disposition of this valuable property, and has the Nova Scotia government intimated to the federal government any desire to exercise their priority in taking over this yard and- making use of the plant and equipment at Pictou?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: The Pictou shipyard is surplus to requirement at the present time. It was for a time leased to an adjoining shipyard. That lease was terminated a year ago or more, and for the last year the yard has simply been on a caretaker basis. It is now being offered for sale by public tender. I have seen no communication from the Nova Scotia government. It may 'be possible that that government has communicated with War Assets Corporation. If so, the usual first priority -to a province will be observed.



&quot;NEW LIBERTY&quot; MAGAZINE


[Stage Direction]
On t-he orders of the day:
Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice, of which I have given notice. In yesterday's press there was a report -that a provincial royal commission in Alberta had banned distribution of New Liberty magazine in that province. By what authority -or what right can a royal commission ban or impede in any way the free distribution of magazines or papers in this country?


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: I am not aware of any dominion legislation under which action -of the kind described can be taken, and I think I would

be aware of such legislation if it existed. I am not familiar with the statutes of the province of Alberta, and I do not know whether there is any provincial- legislation under which this action was taken.
Perhaps I might add that this type of action sometimes gives ground for litigation. There has been litigation as to the constitutionality of provincial legislation of a somewhat similar nature. But whether the cases would apply to the action taken here I do not know, as I have no knowledge of this action, with the exception of that given me about an hour ago by the hon member.


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that Social Credit members of this house have frequently reiterated their great love of liberty?
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he has been advised whether or not New Liberty magazine is a disruptive red periodical parading under a false front and misleading name? Does the Minister of Justice know that the royal commission mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver North is composed of Mr. Justice Howson, a former leader of the Liberal party in Alberta, who was appointed to the supreme court of Alberta by the Liberal government?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The answer to both questions is in the negative.



IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES BY MONTHS, 1946-1947

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Wellington Mayhew: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Finance was making his statement respecting Bill No. 3 the leader of the opposition asked if the minister would give a statement showing imports from the United States month by month during the last year. The minister replied-
I will see that these figures are made available to the house before we conclude the committee stage.
I now wish to make those figures available and, as they are lengthy I suggest they be placed on Hansard without being read.


James Horace King: Has the parliamentary assistant the consent of the house to put the statement on Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.



IS, 1947

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries oj the Ministry
John Bracken: Has the hon. member any extra copies?
The statement follows:


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I have a copy, yes.
Monthly Imports from United States (excluding possessions)
(000's omitted)
	1946	1947
J anuary 	
$ 97,404	$ 136,447February ....	
S6.046	138,429;March 	
100,132	165,116April 	
114,760	182,139May 	
113,420	184,139'June	
106,597	174,669July 	
112,486	168.884August	
123.123	155,350September ....	
115,766	163,026October 	
140,448	190,438Ten months	ending	October ....	
$1,110,182	$1,658,637November . . ..	
149,474	December	
145,641	Calendar year	
$1,405,297	
^Figures for January, February, March and May differ slightly from those originally published in the D.B.S. reports, due to the subsequent adjustment of certain imports for these months which had been incorrectly attributed to the United States.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Have cuts of ten to twenty cents in the hourly rate of pay to women employees at the naval establishment at Esquimalt been authorized recently? If so, what possible justification is there for such action at this time when living costs are rising?


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: I have no information about any such cuts. I shall make inquiries and inform the hon. member tomorrow.



WAR VETERANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask two questions, the first of which is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie).
At page 123 of Hansard for December 10, the minister is reported as follows:
There will be an opportunity during this session; I cannot exactly say when.
This was reference to an opportunity to discuss pensions for veterans. Will the minister say when we will have that opportunity prior to tomorrow night?
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): On a portion of the question referred to by the hon. member for Fraser Valley the Prime Minister will make a statement to the house tomorrow. With respect to the rest of the question affecting veterans affairs, there will be ample opportunity for discussion when the session resumes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question is not answered to my satisfaction.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister which is based upon telegrams that have reached the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), myself and no doubt other hon. members, from the greater Winnipeg area. In view of the concern of civil servants over the delay in dealing with their anticipated salary increases can the Prime Minister indicate when an announcement in this connection will be made, and can he say also whether something will be done for the superannuated civil servants?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The answer is tomorrow.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. TIMMINS:: 1.	With what countries had Canada made trade agreements at the Geneva conference?
2.	Under what federal statute does the cabinet have authority to consummate such agreements with other nations without ratifications by parliament?
3.	How many legal opinions were given in respect to such procedure and what are the dates of such opinions?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Because of the form in which this question is asked I should like to
Questions

deal with it orally. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member put the question on the order paper before the agreements to which it refers had been tabled. I might say that the countries with which tariff concession agreements have been completed are the United States of AJmerica, Belgium-Luxembourg and the Netherlands, comprising the new customs union of Benelux, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, France, Lebanon-Syria, Norway, the United Kingdom, the Union of South Africa, Ceylon, India and Pakistan.
In reply to the second question I might say that negotiations were carried on and completed under the provisions of the Customs Tariff, 1907, as amended by chapter 28 of the statutes of 1935, where it is provided:
The governor in council may by order in council make such reductions of duties on goods imported into Canada from any other country or countries as may be deemed reasonable by way of compensation for concessions granted by any such country or countries.
The hon. member knows, through having seen it on the order paper for some time, that parliament is being asked to ratify the agreements thus arrived at. The third part of the question deals with the legal opinions given in respect to the procedure. The procedure followed was not the one contemplated by the question and therefore that part seems to be inappropriate.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-LAND OWNED IN KINGSTON
Mr. TIMMINS:: 1.	How much land is owned by the Department of Justice, in Kingston, Ontario?
2.	What does it consist of and what is it used for?
3.	For what purpose is the department holding the land at this time?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	(a) No land is owned by the department within the limits of the city of Kingston; (b) Kingston penitentiary is located in the village of Portsmouth and the township of Kingston.
2.	(a) The land at the penitentiary consists of 363-81 acres, 312 of which are available for farming operations; (b) all the land, including the buildings, is used for the administration of the penitentiary, which includes production of foodstuffs, milk and fodder and the proper employment of the convicts incarcerated there as provided for by the Penitentiary Act.
3.	(a) Answered by 2(b); (b) the city of Kingston has leased a small plot of land on the penitentiary reserve 40 x 40, for the pur-

pose of erecting a pumping station in connection with a housing project development undertaken by Housing Enterprises Limited.
There is also one-fiftieth of an acre leased to the city for a small sewage ejector station.


EMIGRATION, 1946 AND 1947
Mr. TIMMINS:: How many Canadian citizens have migrated from Canada in 1946, and how many up to date in 1947?


Mr. GLEN:: As the immigration service does not examine persons leaving Canada we have not available the information asked for.


CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP-REVOCATIONS, 1946 AND
Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: How many Canadian citizens applied to have *their Canadian citizenship revoked in 1946, and up to date in 1947?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Nil.


IMMIGRANTS-MEDICAL EXAMINATION
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	What medical examinations are required and/or given to all or any immigrants into Canada?
2.	Are chest X-ray examinations being given to (a) all or any immigrants from Great Britain; (b) all or any immigrants from other European countries?
3.	Are blood tests being made of (a) all or any immigrants from Great Britain; (b) all or any immigrants from other European countries?
4.	What is the cost of these examinations to each class of immigrant and in each case as above?
5.	How, where, and by whom are these examinations being made?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	Immigrants admitted to Canada are required to be in good mental and physical health. As it is not practicable to assign Canadian medical officers to all countries from which immigrants proceed) to Canada the procedure for medical examination varies; see answer No. 5 below. In addition to the regular medical examination immigrants coming from all countries having a higher tuberculosis death rate than Canada are required to have an X-ray examination of the chest. The countries exempted at present on this basis are Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America. In. addition immigrants proceeding to Canada from occupied territory are given blood tests.
2.	(a) and (b). All immigrants from Great Britain and other European countries are required to undergo X-ray examination of the chest.

Questions
3.	(a) Immigrants from Great Britain are only blood tested when the clinical examination indicates the need for same, (b) Immigrants from European countries other than occupied1 territory are only blood tested when the clinical examination indicates the need for same. All immigrants from occupied territory are blood tested.
4.	Where medical examinations (other than X-ray) are conducted by Canadian government medical examiners the examination is free. Where examination is by am approved roster doctor the immigrant pays for the examination. The cost in the British isles is 10/6 for each person 16 years of age or over plus 5s. for each child under 16. The cost in other countries is approximately the same. X-ray examinations are made at the cost of the immigrant except in the case of displaced persons in occupied territory. The actual cost cannot be stated as in some instances it is obtained free from national health centres and the charges vary in the different countries.
5.	In London, England, Paris, France, Brussels, Belgium, The Hague, Holland, in Germany and Austria, medical examinations are conducted by Canadian medical officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Canadian medical officers will be located in Liverpool, Glasgow and Belfast, as soon as suitable accommodation can be obtained in
these cities. Immigrants in the British isles can obtain medical examination from an approved British roster doctor located in their own district. There are 587 roster doctors in the British isles. Roster doctors have been appointed in countries where there are Canadian missions. Immigrants proceeding from other countries are examined at the Canadian port of entry. All immigrants from overseas pass a medical examination at the Canadian ocean port of entry irrespective of previous medical examination.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-FREIGHT RATES TO PORTLAND, ME.
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Have freight rates been lowered by the Canadian National Railways over its line to Portland, Maine?
2.	If so (a) when ; (b) on what class of goods and what were 'the former rates; (c) what are the new rates on each class of goods?
3.	Why were they lowered?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows;
1.	Yes-by both the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway on certain commodities for export.
2.	(a) November 17, 1947, as to seven commodities, and December 2, 1947, as to two commodities.
(b) and (c) as follows:
Commodity	From	Rate in Cents per 100 lbs. to Nov. 16/47 (x)	Rate in Cents per 100 lbs. since Nov. 17/47
Acetone and acetic acid	Shawinigan Falls, Que.		
Minimum 60,000 lbs.	43	31Minimum 30,000 lbs.	50	36iMatte (nickel copper content)	Copper Cliff, Ont. Minimum 36,000 lbs.	78	56iMinimum 80,000 lbs.	55	40Paper and paper commodities, including newsprint	Grand'Mere, Que. Paper and paper comms.	35	25Newsprint	35	25Thorold, Ont. Paper and paper comms.	40	29iNewsprint	39	28Rubber tires and parts	Toronto, Ont.	53	40Wood pulp	Grand'Mere, Que.	34	25Thorold. Ont.	37	28 iLumber	Pembroke, Ont.	36	28iStratford, Ont.	40	31iCommodity	From	Dec. 1/47 (x)	Dec. 2/47Liquors	Corbyville, Ont.	73	51Walkerville, Ont.	81	57Sewing machines	St. Johns, Que.	90	63
(x) Freight charges based on these rates subject to 10 per cent emergency increase under ex parte 166. (I.C.C.)
Note:	Reductions in rates on above commodities also involve other origins of which the above
are representatitve.

Questions
3.	To re-establish rates on recognized basis to Portland, Maine, consequent upon the resumption of steamship services through that port.


PERSONS REGISTERED FOR EMPLOYMENT-UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: How many persons are registered far employment by provinces, and of those how many are in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits?


Mr. COTE (Verdun):: 
FOREIGN EXCHANGE-U.S. FUNDS
Mr. McMASTER:: 1.	What was the amount of American dollars in the hands of the foreign exchange control hoard in the exchange fund account as of the latest date for which information is available?
2.	What was the amount on the 1st day of January, 1947, or the nearest date thereto at which information is available?
3.	What amount was paid out and the loss sustained for the following reasons: (a) to pay for purchases of goods from the United States; (h) to advance money for Canadians travelling in the United States; (c) or the sending of money to the United States for all other reasons, specifying those for which information is available?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Holdings of United States dollars and gold in the Minister of Finance special exchange fund account as at the end of November, 1947, were $467-1 million. In addition, the government held $13-1 million, making a total of $480-2 million.
2.	Holdings of United States dollars and gold in the Minister of Finance special exchange fund account as at the end of December, 1946, were $1,222-3 million. In addition, the government held $22-6 million, making a total of $1,244-9 million.
3.	Estimates of Canadian expenditures on goods and services in the United States during the period January 1, 1947, to the middle of
November, 1947, follow:
(Millions
Current expenditures:	of dollars)
Imports of merchandise (adjusted)....	$1,746
Tourist and travel expenditures	 146
Interest and dividends	 241
Freight and shipping	 203
All other current expenditures	 205
Total current expenditures in the
United States	 $2,541


TRIBAL DESTROYERS
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Were reports submitted to the Department of National Defence in 1947 on the tribal destroyers?
2.	If so, by whom?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes-monthly reports of proceedings covering all phases of ships' activities including report on health and well-being of ships' companies.
2.	From the commanding officers through the administrative authorities.


* RESCUE OF CANON TURNER-RIVERS, MAN., ARMY AND AIR FORCE STAFF
Mr. MATTHEWS (Brandon):: Has the government taken any steps to recognize the courage and skill shown by members of the Canadian Army and of the Royal Canadian Air Force stationed at the joint air training school at Rivers, Manitoba, who, under circumstances of extreme peril effected the gallant rescue of Canon Turner, a missionary in the arctic regions who met with a very serious accident?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, as this question was put on the order paper before Canon Turner's regretted death, perhaps I should answer it orally.
The matter of appropriate awards to the men of the Canadian Army and the Royal

Questions
Canadian Air Force who took part in the rescue is being actively pursued. In the meantime I would like to express the thanks of the department to those men of the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force who risked their own lives to save another and by their organized skill and fine courage in keeping with the best traditions of the Canadian armed forces, succeeded in their part of a difficult mission.


EXPORTS TO U.S. OF BROOD SOWS AND DAIRY COWS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many brood sows have been exported to the United States in each of the months, January, 1947, to date?
2.	How many dairy cows have been exported during the same period?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1. Tlie trade	statistics do not	include aclassification for	brood sows	; however, exports	of all swine to	the United	States	have beenas follows:	Pure Bred	N.O.P.	TotalJanuary 	156	0	156February 	42	6	48March 	151	0	151April 	475	0	475May 	281	0	281June 	100	0	100July 	215	1	216August. 	270	15	285September ...	255	7	262October 	246	4	250November ...	441	8	4492. Month	NumberJanuary, 1947 .	.. 2,640February 	.. 2,431March 	.. 2,475April 	.. 4,307May 	.. 4,353June 	.. 5,037July 	.. 4,031August 	.. 3,853September ....	.. 5,204October 	.. 4,306


CANADIAN CONSUL IN CHICAGO-EDMOND TURCOTTE
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	On what date was Mr. Edmond Turcotte appointed as consul in Chicago?
2.	Did the ambassador of the United States of America or any other official for the government of the United States confer with or make any representations to the minister, under-secretary or any other official of the Department of External Affairs, verbally or in writing, concerning the appointment or prospective appointment of Mr. Turcotte?
3.	If so, when were such representations made, by whom, and what was the nature thereof?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
*1. The order in council appointing Mr. Turcotte Consul General of Canada at Chicago was passed on October 24, 1947.
2 and 3. The United States ambassador in his official capacity did not confer with, or make any representations to the minister or any official of the Department of External Affairs concerning the appointment or prospective appointment of Mr. Turcotte. However, Mr. Atherton did make a personal and unofficial visit to the department on October 28 for the purpose of inquiring about the appointment of Mr. Turcotte. On October 30 the department announced the appointment of Mr. Turcotte as consul general. In making the appointment the department observed the normal routine procedure in such cases of seeking the approval of the United States state department through the channel of the Canadian embassy in Washington. Such approval was given by the state department without delay.


WINNIPEG GRAIN EXCHANGE
Mr. McKAY:: 1.	What is the function of the Winnipeg grain exchange with regard to the marketing of wheat?
2.	Are announcements of prices received for exports made from the Winnipeg grain exchange?
3.	What charges are made to the Canadian wheat board for this service?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, as amended in 1917, the Winnipeg grain exchange has no specific function in regard to the marketing of wheat. The wheat futures market and the cash wheat market are inoperative. Buying prices for western wheat are established in accordance with the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Selling prices for export wheat to the United Kingdom are in accordance with the United Kingdom wheat contract; selling prices for domestic wheat are determined by the dominion government and selling prices for export wheat to countries other than the United Kingdom are determined daily by the Canadian wheat board.
The board handles its wheat through agents such as elevator companies, shippers and exporters, mills, etc., and many of these agents are members of the Winnipeg grain exchange. These agents handle board wheat under contract or agreement.
Questions

2.	The price for wheat or wheat flour exported to countries other than the United Kingdom is announced daily by the Canadian wheat board in Winnipeg, Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. The Winnipeg grain exchange is not responsible for price announcements in respect to wheat.
3.	Answered by No. 2. No charges involved.


DECREASE OF WAR DISABILITY PENSIONS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	In how many cases and by provinces during each month beginning January 1, 1947, to date have war disability pensions been decreased?
2.	Of such, how many were pensions awarded for service in (a) first world war; (b) second world war?


Mr. TUCKER:: World Wars I and II
Disability pensions Decreased on Medical Examination 1947
Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Total
Prince Edward	Island ....	9	6	4Nova Scotia	
28	53	34New Brunswick	
22	18	18Quebec	
51	32	48Ontario	
114	128	119Manitoba	
31	31	16Saskatchewan	
41	73	60Alberta	
39	47	43British Columbia	
40	30	74Total	
375	418	41610	9	10	9	4	18	6	8583	51	66	84	50	96	52	59741	31	29	36	14	44	29	282128	94	113	104	50	118	100	838273	318	299	368	205	532	396	2,75243	46	36	69	60	100	72	504131	111	89	90	52	97	79	823113	113	95	115	48	144	97	S54186	153	142	125	82	270	174	1,2761,008	926	879	1,000	565	1,419	1,005	8,011
(a) World War I, 111; (b) World War II, 7,900; Total, 8,011.
Note:
World War I
New awards-same period, 137; reinstated awards-same period, 67; increased awards- same period, 1,294; no change on review-same period, 2,455; total disability awards in payment at 31-10-47, 69,964.
World war II
New awards-same period, 22,678; reinstated awards-same period, 124; increased awards- same period, 3,845; no change on review- same period, 20,233; total disability awards in payment at 31-10-47, 82,841.


CUSTOMS TARIFF-CHRISTMAS GIFTS
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Will our customs officers along the United States border be instructed to allow the exchange of presents during the holiday season?
2.	If so, up to what value?


Mr. WINTERS:: 1.	Customs-excise officers have been instructed that until January 15, 1948, import restrictions under order in council No. 4678 of November 12, 1947, shall not apply to goods listed in appendix VII or appendix VIII of the regulations sent as Christmas gifts by persons abroad to friends in Canada, or brought into

Canada as Christmas gifts personally by nonresidents, the total value for customs purposes of any such gifts not to exceed twenty-five dollars in any individual case. While the foregoing provides relief from the application of the prohibitory and quota restrictions, the ordinary provisions of the tariff will apply.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


REGISTERED THATCHER WHEAT-CEILING PRICE
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	Was there a ceiling price on registered thatcher wheat on August 1, 1947?
2.	If so, what was the ceiling price, No. 1 basis Fort William, on that date?
3.	Was this ceiling removed?
4.	If so, when and for what reason?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Not applicable.


VAL D'OR, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	Does the Post Office Department hold a lease for the occupancy of the Val d'Or post office?
2.	If so, when will the lease be terminated and what is the amount of such lease?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1 and 2. Accommodation for postal purposes at Val d'Or, P.Q., is rented by this department at $2,700 per annum. As alternative accom-

Questions
modation is not available, the department is remaining in occupation on a monthly basis under rent control regulations, and is endeavouring to negotiate a new lease with the owner until such time as the new public building under consideration is erected.


LOAN TO RUSSIA-COMPLETION OF PAYMENT
Mr. GAGNON:: 
Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes.


RESERVE, N.S. AIRPORT-TRANSATLANTIC TRAVEL
Mr. MacLEAN:: 1.	Have orders 'been given to transatlantic and other planes to and from Newfoundland to by-pass the airport at Reserve, Cape Breton?
2.	If so, by whom and for what reason?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


VAL D'OR POST OFFICE
Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	Does the Post Office Department hold any land in the town of Val d'Or for a post office site?
2.	If so, where it it situated; what price was paid and from whom was it purchased?


Alphonse Fournier: 1 and 2. Order in council P.C. 4640, dated November 14, 1947, authorized the acquisition of a property at the southwest corner of Second avenue and Sixth street, for a post office site, for the sum of $12,000, from the Val-dDr Development Registered, when funds are provided by parliament for the purpose.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE- ESTATES BRANCH
Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: 1.	What is the total number of estates administered and in course of administration by the estates branch of the Department of National Defence?
2.	What is the total value of these estates?
3.	What is the total amount of dominion succession duty paid or to be paid on these estates?
4.	What is the total amount of succession duty paid or to be paid to each of the nine provinces on these estates?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Service estates administered and closed, 43,428; Service estates in course of administration, 388.
2.	Service estates administered and closed, $18,349,409.72; Service estates in course of administration-total known value, $114,165.15.
3.	As the beneficiary or next-of-kin entitled must provide the department with a dominion or provincial succession duty release if the amount of the service estate exceeds the tax free total as provided in the dominion and provincial statutes, before the assets comprised in the service estate are distributed, the amount of succession duty is not known in the department.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


EXPORTS OF BUTTER
Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	Is Canada exporting any butter to the United Kingdom and other countries?
2.	If so, what quantity was exported to each country in 1947 and at what price per pound to each country?


Mr. McCUBBIN:: 1.	To the United Kingdom, no; to other
countries, yes.
2. For the ten months period January- October, 1947.
	Pounds	Average Cents
British West Indies	2,417,600	Per lb. 50-0Newfoundland	279,700	53-8St. Pierre and Miquelon	100,600	44-2United States 	1.000	57-8United Kingdom	38,900	40-0
Amount represents undergrade butter which was included in imports of the winter of 1947 and later returned to the United Kingdom.
Note: the fluctuation in average price per pound is due to the proportion of table butter and cooking butter exported. Trade returns do not distinguish 'between the two types of butter.


ROUYN-NORANDA MAIL SERVICE
Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	Have any steps been taken to establish a mail carrier delivery in the twin cities of Rouyn-Noranda?
2.	If so, what action has been taken?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: The twin cities of Rouyn and Noranda if treated as one postal area, or in other words served by one post office, would have a sufficient number of calls to warrant a letter carrier delivery service, and in the event of that service being established the patrons would enjoy the drop letter rate of postage throughout the whole community served by the one office.
Questions

Neither the Rouyn public building nor the building housing the Noranda post office is large enough to accommodate the necessary letter carrier staff.
The question of providing for a new build-in" to take care of the needs of the combined area is under consideration, but progress is hampered due to the difficulty of working out arrangements which will fully meet the needs of both communities.


EXPORTS OF EGGS
Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	Is Canada exporting eggs to the United Kingdom and other countries?
2.	If so, what quantity was exported to each country during 1947 and at what price to each country ?
Mr. MeCUBBIN:
1.	Yes.
2.	Exports for first ten months of 1947 are:
Country of	Dozens of	ValueDestination	Shell Eggs	DollarsUnited Kingdom	. 44,693,881	19,071,653Bermuda	. 76.360	40,749Trindad 	. 207,495	101,828Jamaica 	. ..	Leeward islands .	. 540	261Netherlands W.I.	. 1.350	900Newfoundland ...	. 799,741	365.808St. Pierre 	. 9,450	3,8S0Switzerland 	Alaska 	. 171,650	73,574U.S.A	. 8,584	4,16646,008,441	19,681,992Country of	Pounds of	ValueDestination	Dried Eggs	DollarsUnited Kingdom	. 11,130,962	10,021,633Bermuda 	Trinidad 	. 4,815	4,856Jamaica 	. 1,054	1,276Leeward islands .	. 90	138Netherlands W.I. .	Newfoundland ...	. 12,232	14,548St. Pierre 	Switzerland 	. 53,184	95.912Alaska 	. 280	472U.S.A	. 25,578	45,19011,228,195	10,184,025


TAXES ON CIGARETTES
Mr. STEPHENSON:: What percentage of the thirty-five cents charged for a package of cigarettes today is (a) federal tax; (b) provincial tax; (c) sales tax; (d) luxury tax; (e) any other tax?


Mr. WINTERS:: (a) 22-887 per cent, (b) Varies in different provinces, none in Ontario, (c) 6-171 per cent, (d) nil, (e) 34-285 per cent (excise duty).


ACCREDITED HERDS PROGRAM-DURHAM COUNTY, ONTARIO
Mr. STEPHENSON:: 1.	Has testing of cattle been started in Durham county, Ontario, under the accredited herds program?
2.	If so (a) how much of this testing has been done; (b) when will the test be completed; (c) how many veterinarians are engaged in this work at the present time?
Mr. MeCUBBIN:
1.	No.
2.	(a) Answered by No. 1; (b) When men are available; (c) None.


WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES
Charles Elwood Stephenson: Will the war savings certificates that mature in the near future be redeemable at any bank in Canada?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Arrangements have been made with the chartered banks to provide facilities in- the near future for the payment at maturity on a collection basis of war savings certificates.


BARLEY AND OATS-PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. STEPHENSON:: 1.	How many bushels of (a) barley; (b) oats, were harvested in the prairie provinces in 1947?
2.	How many bushels of each grain had been marketed as of October 15, 1947 (a) through pools; (b) private elevator companies?
3.	How many bushels of each said grains were in elevator storage to farmers' credit as of said date?
4.	How many of each of the above mentioned grains were still in storage on the farms?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Estimated production, prairie provinces, 1947; (a) barley, 144,600,000 bushels; (b) oats, 200,300,000 bushels.
2.	Grain delivered from western farms from August 1, 1947, to October 16, 1947: (a) through pools: barley, 13.18 millions; oats, 10.33; (b) through private elevator companies: barley, 18.72 millions; oats, 15.59 millions.
3.	No information.
4.	No information.


IMMIGRATION-POLISH VETERANS
Mr. STEPHENSON:: 1.	How many Polish veterans have entered Canada to date?
2.	How many are employed (a) on farms; (b) other industries^

Questions
3.	Under the latest government regulations, how long must these veterans serve on the farm?
4.	Have any steps .been taken by the government to set a maximum wage as well as a minimum wage that farmers will be required to pay these Polish veterans engaged in agriculture?


Mr. COTE (Verdun):: 1.	4,527.
2.	4,384 veterans are now employed on farms, 47 veterans have been placed in other industries for medical reasons, 50 veterans are in hospital, 34 veterans have left farm employment without permission-present whereabouts unknown, 8 veterans have died, 4 veterans have voluntarily left Canada for England or Poland.
3.	Two years from date of first placement.
4.	$45 per month minimum. No maximum wage has been set.


LIQUOR CONTROL
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	What were the gross sales by the various provincial liquor control boards for each of the last two years for which statistics are available?
2.	What is the estimated per capita cost of liquor consumed in each province for each of the last two years for which statistics are available?


James Angus MacKinnon: 1 and 2.
Gross sales of provincial liquor control boards or their agents in the provincial fiscal years ended in 1945 and 1946
Gross Sales	Sales per Capita
1946	1945	1946	19458	$	$	$Nova Scotia 	23,316,246	19,133,013	38.10	30.81New Brunswick 	
Quebec-	16,628,760	10,920,973	34.64	23.34Spirits and wines 	
Beer 	
Ontario
From Liquor board stores 	50,233,863 38,024,809 64,116,310	43,610,465 32,135,402 38,346,454	24.31	21.27Beer from breweries and brewers' retail stores . Ontario wine from wineries and sales offices ...	66,879,190 4,780,568	61,034,601 3,504,792	33.11	25.70Manitoba 	20,267,473	15,298,548	27.88	20.79Saskatchewan 	20,602,365	13,623,679	24.73	16.12Alberta 	27,351,965	20,564,057	34.06	24.90British Columbia 	
Notes:-	38,743,456	29,358,380	38.63	30.94(1)	In Prince Edward Island the sale of alcoholic beverages is prohibited except for medicinal purposes. Such sales amounted to 8713,073 and to 81,188,855, or to $7.75 and $12.65 per capita, in the fiscal years 1945 and 1946, respectively.(2)	Per capita figures of liquor sales are not comparable figures of liquor consumption by residents of the various provinces. Sales to tourists are considerable and are heavier in some provinces than in others. There is considerable variation in the methods of sale as between provinces and the methods of accounting are not uniform. In some provinces, the figures represent sales to final consumers only, in others they include sales to intermediaries as well.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. TIMMINS:: 1.	How many immigrants have been admitted to Canada to date in 1947, and from what countries?
2.	How many of these are displaced persons and from what countries of origin have the displaced persons come?


James Allison Glen: Immigration, showing country of last permanent residence, for the ten months
ended October 31, 1947: Africa (British), 74; Africa (not British), 37; Australia, 256; Austria, 22; Belgium, 795; Bermuda, 48; Bulgaria, 8; Central America, 21; China, 140; Czechoslovakia, 146; Denmark, 102; Eire, 303; England, 19,879; Estonia, 169; Finland, 25; France, 395; Germany, 198; Greece, 511; Holland, 2,620; Hungary, 267; India, 697; Ireland, Northern, 697; Italy, 63; Japan, 24; Yugoslavia, 93;
Questions

Latvia, 246; Lesser British Isles, 43; Lithuania, 930; Mexico, 51; Newfoundland, 2,469; New Zealand, 161; Norway, 153; Palestine, 44; Poland, 3,114; Portugal, 6; Roumania, 31; Russia, 363; St. Pierre and Miquelon, 8; Scotland, 4,874; South America, 138; Spain, 5; Sweden, 53; Switzerland, 131; Syria, 20; Ukraine, 19; United States, 8,314; Wales, 444; West Indies (British), 308; West Indies (not British), 41; others, 56; total, 48,978.
2. Displaced persons, showing country of last permanent residence, for the ten months ended October 31, 1947:
Austria, 4; Belgium, 11; Czechoslovakia, 36; Estonia, 156; Finland, 1; France, 3; Germany, 137; Greece, 1; Hungary, 27; Yugoslavia, 79; Latvia, 246; Lithuania, 926; Poland, 2,863; Roumania, 22; Russia, 363; Ukraine, 19; total, 4,894.


IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	What was the dollar value of imports from United States to Canada during the (a) first eight months of 1947; (b) first eight months of 1946; (c) first eight months of 1939'; (d) first eight months of 1938, of (1) raw furs; (2) iewelry; (3) liquor?


James Angus MacKinnon: (1)
Raw furs
(a)	First	eight	months	1947	
$7,950,488(b)	First	eight	months	1946	
5,190,300(c)	First	eight	months	1939	
2,580,184(d)	First	eight	months	1938	
2,078,732
(2)
Jewelry
(a)	First	eight	months	1947	
$1,432,870(b)	First	eight	months	1946	
1,565,930(c)	First	eight	months	1939	
417,945(d)	First	eight	months	1938	
308,962
(3)
Distilled
liquor
(a)	First	eight	months	1947	
$1,384,225(b)	First	eight	months	1946	
665,334(c)	First	eight	months	1939	
49,132(d)	First	eight	months	1938	
44,083


ARMED FORCES-DECORATIONS
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Are there any financial rewards accompanying decorations in any of the armed services?
2.	If so, are any of these financial rewards diverted to charitable institutions?
3.	What charitable institutions, if any, have benefited thereby?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1. Yes, as listed hereunder:
The Victoria Cross when awarded to personnel below commissioned rank carries an annuity

of $50 per annum, with an additional annuity of $25 per annum for each bar awarded. Payment of such annuities is discontinued upon the death of the annuitant.
A gratuity of $100 is paid to personnel awarded the following decorations or medals, or bars thereto :-
MC Military Cross (warrant officers only)
DFC Distinguished Flying Cross (warrant officers only)
CGM Conspicuous Gallantry Medal
DSM Distinguished Service Medal
DCM Distinguished Conduct Medal
MM Military Medal
DFM Distinguished Flying Medal
Such gratuities are paid on promotion to commissioned rank, on discharge, or on ceasing to be on active service where no disability pension is involved.
If a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or other rank on discharge (or in the case of P.F. personnel on ceasing to be on active service) is granted a disability pension, such pension is increased by 12J cents per day in lieu of the gratuity.
Any payments in respect of such annuities or gratuities due to deceased personnel form part of their military estate and are paid in accordance with the soldier's will, or in case there is no will, in accordance with the law of the country of residence governing the distribution of an estate.
The annuities and gratuities listed apply only to awards of such decorations or medals granted for service in the Canadian forces and gazetted since 10th September, 1939.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


RADIO BROADCASTING-PAYMENTS FOR PROGRAMS IN U.S. FUNDS
Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: What amount of United States dollars has Canadian broadcasting paid to United States broadcasting for United States programs broadcast in Canada during 1946 and 1947?


Robert Henry Winters: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does not pay for United States programs broadcast in Canada.


VETERANS LAND ACT-GORDON MURCHISON
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Is Gordon Murchison, former director of V.L.A. at present in the employ of the government?
2.	If so, in what capacity and at what salary?
3.	Is he in any way connected with the administration of V.L.A.?
4.	Who is the present director of V.L.A.; when was he so appointed, and what is his salary?

Questions


Walter Adam Tucker: Return at December 16, 1947:
1.	Yes.
2.	Superintendent, farm settlement; salary $8,000 per annum.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	T. J. Rutherford; appointed October 17, 1947; salary $8,000 per annum.


HICHWATER, QUE., CUSTOMS OFFICE
Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	What are the names of the customs officers who were stationed at High-water, Quebec, in October, 1947 ?
2.	How many of them were French-speaking and what are their names?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. L. E. Longeway, L. P. Brouillette, M. E. Bailey, H. M. Clark, J. R. O'Brien, Miss F. Lessard, G. E. Jones, A. A. Aiken.
2. All are reported as being bilingual.


LOUIS RASMINSKY
Mr. CAOUETTE:: What was the total amount (salary, allowances, expenses, etc.), paid by the Canadian government to Mr. Rasminsky, financial adviser, during 1946-47?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1. Nil. Mr. Rasminsky is an officer of the Bank of Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What is the total amount paid into the unemployment insurance fund for each of the years since the Unemployment Insurance Act became effective?
2.	What proportion of this was contributed by the government during each of these years?
3.	What are the total amounts paid out by way of unemployment insurance benefits for each of these years?
4.	What is the total amount presently in the unemployment insurance fund?


Mr. COTE (Verdun):: 1. Total amount paid into the unemployment insurance fund by employers, employees, government and including penalties and interest on investments:
Fiscal Year "
(April 1 to March 31)
1941- 1942	$ 43,991,999 60
1942-	1943	
70,762,796	001943-	1944	
78,038,577	551944-	1945	
82,673.002	181945-	1946	
81,199,440	821946-	1947	
98,752,294	48
Apr. 1, 1947 to Oct. 31, 1947 ... 55,642,898 62
2. Proportion of (1) contributed by government:
Fiscal Year (April 1 to March 31)
1941- 1942	$ 7,287,121 81
1942-	1943	
11,487,057	901943-	1944	
12,344,421	741944-	1945	
12,746,179	301945-	1946	
12,513,778	661946-	1947	
15,203,457	58Apr. 1, 1947 to Oct. 31, 1947 ...	8,389,401 763.	Total amounts paid out by way of unemployment insurance benefits:
Fiscal Year (April 1 to March 31)
1941- 1942	$	27,752 921942-	1943	
716.012	751943-	1944	
1,721,666	291944-	1945	
4,966,483	511945-	1946	
31,993,240	341946-	1947	
43,114,329	18Apr. 1, 1947 to Oct. 31, 1947 ...	15,513,477 924.	Amount in the unemployment insurance fund at October 31, 1947, $413,008,046.34.


INTERNATIONAL HIGH FREQUENCY BROADCASTING CONFERENCE
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Was Canada represented at the international high frequency broadcasting conference held at Atlantic City about August, 1947?
2.	If so, what was the personnel of the Canadian delegation?
3.	Has any report been issued in respect to-this conference, and, if not, when can such a report be expected?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	Yes.
2.	T. A. Stone, Canadian Minister in Washington (Head of Delegation); G. C. W. Browne, Controller of Radio, Department of Transport; J. W. Bain, Senior Radio Engineer, Department of Transport; W. E. Connelly, Superintendent of Radio, Department of Transport; C. J. Acton, Supervising Radio Inspector, Department of Transport; L. E. Coffey, Radio Engineer, Department of Transport; W/C S. R. Burbank, Royal Canadian Air Force; J. J. M. Cote, Department of External Affairs; G. G. Riddell, Department of External Affairs; E. W. T. Gill, Privy Council Office; Donald Manson, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
3.	No report has been issued on this conference since its agenda was limited to a study of engineering principles in preparation for
Questions

a later high frequency broadcasting conference to be convened in Mexico City October 28, 1948, to draw up regulations in the field of high frequency broadcasting.


EXPORT OF CHEESE
Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: 1.	How many pounds of cheese were exported by Canada during 1946 and 1947, respectively?
2.	(a) To what countries; (b) what quantity to each; (c) at what price in each case?
Mr. MacKINNON;
1 and 2 (a), (b) and (c).
Calendar year 1946 lbs. Value
United Kingdom .... 104,243,500 $21,251,457
Gold Coast 	31,100	11,096Nigeria 	29,300	10,581Sierra Leone ....	6,700	2,422Bermuda 	201,800	52,656British Guiana ..	216,500	64,610British Honduras	48,000	14,471Barbados 	51,800	15,682Jamaica 	262,600	75,501Trinidad 	269,800	78,626Br. West Indies,	other	151,400	52,076Newfoundland ...	731,100	224,928Palestine 	46,900	13,067Colombia 	300	116St. Pierre 	27,300	10,708Greece 	48,100	16,778San Domingo ...	600	212United States ...	128,600	52,751Totals 	106,495,400 $21,947,738	January	1	toOctober	31,	1947lbs.	Value	United Kingdom	39,788,400 $10,025,537	Gold Coast 	500	179Nigeria 	-	-Sierra Leone ....	1,200	455Bermuda 	250,900	79,609British Guiana ..	114,500	40,438British Honduras	25,400	10,274Barbados 	52,800	15,283Jamaica 	174,300	54,042Trinidad 	63,100	17,235Br. West Indies,	other	100,500	37,493Newfoundland ..	464,600	151,801Palestine 	-	-Colombia 	-	-St. Pierre 	11,600	4,751Greece 	-	-San Domingo ...	-	-United States ....	158,300	56,944Totals 	41,206,100 $10,494,041


COAL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	To what countries did Canada export coal in 1946 and what was the tonnage exported to each country?
2.	From what countries was coal imported into Canada and what was the tonnage imported from each country?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Hong Kong, 37,510 tons; Newfoundland, 297,209 tons; New Zealand, 3,891 tons; China, 53,840 tons; St. Pierre and Miquelon, 10,120 tons; United States, 459,621 tons; Alaska, 298 tons.
2.	United Kingdom, 101,580 tons; United States, 28,005,019 tons.
'[DOT]'WEDDING OF PRINCESS ELIZABETH


David Réal Caouette: What is the total amount of the expenses incurred by the Canadian government on the occasion of the wedding of Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING; I am not in; a position to give my hon. friend an answer to this question at the present time but the amount will appear in due course in the public accounts.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	How many bushels of rye were imported into Canada by months during 1947, and from what countries?
2.	How many bushels of rye were exported from Canada during 1947, and to what countries?
3.	What amount of United States currency or funds were issued by Canadian foreign exchange control board for the purchase of rye from the United States during 1947?


Colin William George Gibson: Return tabled.


BOATS OR YACHTS ON LEASE OR LOAN FOR WAR PURPOSES-RECONDITIONING AND REFITTING
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Has any department of the government, since June, 1945, paid for the reconditioning and refitting of any private boats or yachts loaned or leased to the government by private individuals or firms during the war?
2.	If so, whait are the names of such boats?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the owners?
4.	What was the cost of refitting and reconditioning each boat?
5.	What was the total amount of rental paid for each of these boats that have been or are being refitted and reconditioned?

Orders jor Returns
6.	To whom were such rentals paid?
7.	Are there any other boats or yachts that are to be refitted and reconditioned by the government ?
8.	If so, what are their names and the names of the owners?
9.	Are there any boats in the process of being reconditioned?
10.	If so, what is the estimated cost of reconditioning these boats?
11.	What are the names of the owners of such boats ?


Colin William George Gibson: Return tabled.


PURCHASE OR LEASE OF TORONTO BUILDINGS FOR GOVERNMENT PURPOSES
Mr. TIMMINS:: 1.	How many buildings were purchased in Toronto for any department of the government in 1946 and 1947?
2.	For what departments and for what amounts?
3.	How many leases were negotiated in Toronto for any department of the government in 1946 and 1947?
4.	For what departments, in what buildings and at what yearly rentals?
5.	How many tenants will be required to vacate?


Colin William George Gibson: Return tabled.


TRADE WITH CHINA-CROWN COMPANIES
Mr. TIMMINS:: 1.	What is the amount of the exports from Canada to China, to date, in 1947?
2.	What is the amount of imports from China to Canada during the same period?
3.	What crown companies are doing business with China at this date under contracts, trade agreements or otherwise, and what has been the amount of business done in exports and imports to date in this year?


Colin William George Gibson: Return tabled.


PUBLIC SERVICE-NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, SALARIES, ETC.
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	What were the total number of employees of the government of Canada, including employees of boards, commissions and government corporations, appointed by the federal authority as at November 30, 1947?
2.	What was the total amount of salaries, wages and allow-ances paid to such employees in the month of November, 1947?


CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP-&quot;YOUTH LIAISON OFFICER&quot;
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Is there a position in the citizenship branch of the Department of the Secretary of State known as "Youth Liaison Officer?"
2.	If so, is the position filled?
3.	By whom and when was he appointed?
4.	What are his qualifications and duties?
5.	What activities has he engaged in thus far?
6.	Does he plan to have any connection with existing youth organizations? If so, which ones?
7.	Have these organizations been informed of his appointment?
8.	What sort of matters should be brought to his attention by such organizations?


Colin William George Gibson: Return tabled.


CABINET MINISTERS AND PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANTS-DIRECTORSHIPS
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Are any cabinet ministers directors of any companies, corporations, etc.?
2.	If so, what ministers; of w-hat companies or corporations and at what date were any directorships presently held by cabinet ministers assumed ?
3.	Have any cabinet ministers resigned any directorships since being sworn of the privy council? If so, which ministers, on what dates and from what companies or corporations?
4.	Are any parliamentary assistants to cabinet ministers, directors of any companies, corporations, etc? If so, which ones and of what companies or corporations?



'PEN SION S-PSY'CHOPATHIC DISABILITY-REFUSAL ON GROUND OF PRE-ENLISTMENT ORIGIN

John George Diefenbaker: In how many eases has the pension commission denied pension to ex-service men of world war II whose disabilities have been diagnosed as psychopathic, on the ground that the condition was of pre-enlistment origin and not aggravated by active service?



VETERANS LAND ACT-PRAIRIE PROVINCES

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1. How many applications under the Veterans Land Act have been made in each of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, in each of the years, 1940 to 1947 to date?
2.	Of such applications how many have been, by provinces (a) granted; (b) refused on the ground that tbe land chosen by the veteran is not suitable for his establishment, in each of such years?



RHEUMATOID AND ARTHRITIC DISEASES

Mrs. STRUM:: 1.	Has the conference of specialists in rheumatoid and arthritic diseases promised by the minister last June 20 been called?
2.	If so, what were the recommendations of this body?
3.	What action does the government propose to take on these recommendations?
4.	Does the government intend to undertake a survey to ascertain the number of victims suffering from the above diseases?
5.	What action has the government taken to provide the following for the benefit of those people suffering from the above diseases: (a) treatment; (b) financial assistance for their subsistence; (c) training or rehabilitation?
Orders for Returns



TECHNICAL TRAINING OP RUSSIANS IN CANADIAN PLANTS

Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	Have any Russians been given 'technical training in Canadian plants from 1940 to date?
2.	Are any Russians being given such training at the present time? If so, where?



PROVISION FOR FREE IMPORTATION OF $100 WORTH OF GOODS AFTER STAY IN U.S. OF 48 HOURS

Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Under what authority was a resident of Canada permitted to bring from the United States of America $100 worth of goods duty free after a stay of 48 hours?
2.	How often could a resident of Canada take advantage of this regulation?
3.	Is this regulation still in effect?
4.	If not, under what authority has it been discontinued?
5.	If so, what is its effect under the present program of the Minister of Finance?



P.C. 4678-APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATORS, CONTROLLERS OR OTHER OFFICIALS

Mr. AYLESWORTH:: How many administrators, controllers, or other officials have been appointed for the performance of duties arising out of order in council P.C. 4678, showing (a) new appointments; (b) transfers from other branches of government service, and indicating the date of appointment in each case?



MILITARY MISSIONS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES

Mr. PEARICES:: 1.	How many military missions and/or military attaches (naval, army or air force) has Canada appointed to foreign countries?
2.	Where are these missions or military attaches located?
3.	What are the names of the officers in command of the missions, or who hold appointments as military attaches?
4.	What pay and allowances do they receive?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Return tabled.



ST. MALO PLANTS

Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	What was the cost of the St. Malo plants to the dominion government?
2.	For what sum did the dominion government sell such plants and to whom?



EXPORTS OF BACON AND FLOUR TO THE UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	Is Canada exporting any bacon and any second grade flour to the United Kingdom?
2.	If so, at what price per sack of flour and per pound of first quality bacon?
3T. LAWRENCE RIVER NORTH SHORE TELEGRAPH LINE


Mr. DORION:: 1. In what year was the telegraph line erected on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river?
[Mrs. Strum.)
2.	By whom was such line erected?
3.	In September, 1947, what was the length of the said line; its starting point and its terminal?
4.	What was the construction cost of the line?
5.	Who was the owner of the said line until September, 1947?
6.	For the last ten years (a) what was the expenditure for maintenance of such line; (b) what was the cost of operation; (c) what was the revenue therefrom?
7.	On September 30. 1947, how many telegraph offices were in operation on this line?
8.	What rates were in force on September 30, 1947?
9.	On September 30, 1947, how many telephones were in use accessorily to the main telegraph line?
10.	Who owns the said line at the present time, _ and if owned by a company, who is the principal shareholder thereof?
11.	Has an agreement been entered into by the government and the new owner? If so, when was such agreement signed; on what basis and at what price?
12.	On September 30, 1947, how many permanent and temporary employees were there on the said telegraph line?
13.	'Before September 30, 1947, were there any free services on such line? If so, in whose favour?



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. McCUAIG:: 1.	Who are the field men employed by the P.F.A.A. in Saskatchewan during 1947, giving the salaries and expenses of each?
2.	Of such field men, how many and which of them are returned veterans?



HOUSING

Mr. TIMMINS:: 1.	How many housing units have been constructed in Canada to date in 1947 by the following agencies (a) Wartime Housing Limited; (b) Integrated Housing; (c) Housing Enterprises Limited; (d) Veterans' Land Act; (c) all other sources?
2.	How many housing units have been started in Canada to date in 1947?
3.	How many rental housing units has Central Mortgage and Housing Limited made commitments for in 1948, and in what municipalities?



IMPORT RESTRICTIONS, EXCISE TAXES AND QUOTAS

Mr. PROBE:: 1.	On what classes of goods is there a 25 per cent federal excise tax in effect, and within these classes what exceptions or rebates are applicable?
2.	What classes of goods are under complete import ban (a) from U.S.A. alone; (b) from Great Britain alone; (c) from other countries alone; (d) from all countries?
3.	For what classes of goods from the countries specified in question 2 is there a fixed import quota?
4.	(a) For what classes of goods imported from countries specified in question 2 may import licences be obtained; (b) who issues these licences and who authorizes their issuance?

Orders for Returns
5.	On what classes of export goods is there (a) complete embargo; (b) partial embargo and to what extent; (c) export permits required; (d) no embargo nor export permits required?



STATUTORY REVISIONS IN PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Mr. PROBE:: 1.	Since 1918 what statutory revisions have been made by the federal government in (a) pay and allowances of military officers of at least field rank or their equivalent; (b) retirement pensions for the above; (c) pay and allowances of privates or equivalent and retirement pensions;
2.	Pay and allowances and retirement pensions for (a) commissioner; (b) constable of the R.C.M.P.;
3.	Pay and allowances of ministers of the crown and members of parliament;
4.	Pay and allowances of supreme court judges and retirement pensions;
5.	Pay and allowances of trade commissioners and senior diplomats and retirement pensions;
6.	Pay and allowances for civil service commissioners and retirement pensions;
7.	Pay and allowances of deputy ministers and retirement pensions;
8.	Pay and allowances of class 1 clerks and retirement pensions;
9.	Federal old age pension contributions;
10.	Recipients of war veterans' allowances;
11.	Disability pension payments for 100 per cent active service pensioners and/or 'their dependents?



VETERANS LAND ACT-SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. McCUAIG:: 1.	Under the Veterans' Band Act, in the province of Saskatchewan, by federal constituencies, for 1947, what has been (a) 'the number of loans made to veterans for the purchase of farms; (b) the total amount of such loans for the purchase of farms; (c) the number of loans to veterans for the purchase of small holdings; (d) the total amount of such loans for the purchase of small holdings?
2.	Under the Veterans Band Act, what has been the total expenditure in the province of Saskatchewan for the year 1947, in travelling expenses, salaries, rent, etc.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, it would save a great deal of work in our department if this question could be made an order for a return and the information given by regions instead of constituencies. Subject to that change the question can pass as an order for a return.



GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS-FUEL OIL

Mr. ADAMSON:: 1.	How much fuel oil for heating government buildings in Ottawa and Hull has the government purchased in each of the years 1945, 1946 and 1947?
2.	Were tenders called for in all cases?
3.	Were the lowest tenders always accepted?
4.	In what cases, if any, were tenders not called or the lowest tender not accepted?
5.	From whom was the oil purchased and what price per gallon was paid in each case during the said period?



AMMONIUM NITRATE PLANT AT WELLAND, ONT.

Mr. HATFIEBD:: 1.	Has the ammonium nitrate plant at Welland, Ontario, been sold? If so, to whom?
2.	What amount of money was secured for this plant?
3.	Has the price of ammonium nitrate increased 50 per cent since last season? If so, for what reason?



ADVERTISING FIRMS OR AGENCIES EMPLOYED BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What advertising firms or agencies were employed by any and all departments of the government during years ending March 31, 1945, 1946 and 1947, and since March, 1947, to date?
2.	What amounts were paid each firm, and to what department of the government was same charged?



LEGAL SERVICES-W. C. THOMPSON

Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What amount, if any, was paid by the government to W. C. Thompson, barrister, Toronto, for legal work in the year ending March 31, 1947?
2.	What amount, if any, was paid, or is payable, since March 31, 1947?



VETERANS AFFAIRS-DENTISTS-ESSEX, KENT AND LAMBTON COUNTIES

Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What amount was paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs to doctors and dentists in the counties of Essex, Kent and Bambton, in the years ending March 31. 1945, 1946, and 1947, and from March 31, 1947, to date?
2.	What amount was paid to each doctor or dentist for each period?



LAND SOLD BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IN YORK NORTH

Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What land if any was sold by the transport department or any other department or agency of the government in the county of York (North) during the years 1946 and 1947?
2.	Were tenders called?
3.	If not, how was price for land set?
4.	If land was sold, what was original cost of land and at what price did government sell land?
5.	What are the names of individuals or firms who bought said land from the government and the description of said land-lot, concession, township, also acres contained in each parcel?



APPLICATIONS FOR FRENCH BROADCASTING LICENCES IN WESTERN PROVINCES

Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	How many applications for French language broadcasting licences have been received from persons or organizations in the four western provinces during the last three years?
2.	How many of these applications have been granted?
Agricultural Products Act

3.	How many have been rejected?
4.	How many applications are still under consideration; who are the applicants, and when is it expected that decision on these applications will be made public?



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, December 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Usley:
That, whereas section eleven of the Agricultural Products Act, being chapter ten of the statutes of 1947, provides that subject as thereinafter provided, that act shall expire on the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven, if parliament meets during November or December one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven, but if parliament does not so meet it shall expire on the sixtieth day after parliament first meets during the year one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight or on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight, whichever date is the earlier: Provided that, if at any time while that act is in force, addresses are presented to the Governor General by the Senate and House of Commons respectively, praying that that act should be continued in force for a further period, not in any case exceeding one year, from the time at which it would otherwise expire and the governor in council so orders, that act shall continue in force for that further period.
And whereas it is considered desirable to continue the said act in force until the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight;
The following address he presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency Field Marshal The (Right Honourable Viscount Alexander of Tunis, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Companion of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, upon whom has been conferred the Decoration of the Military Cross, one of His Majesty's Aides-de-Camp General, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of the Dominion of Canada.
May it Please Your Excellency:
We, His Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, respectfully approach Your Excellency praying that the Agricultural Products Act be continued in force until the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight.
Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution asks for an extension of the Agricultural Products Act until March 31, 1948. At the beginning let me say that I am agreeable to giving the minister this power; in fact, I do not know what good three months is going to do him because it

has just been intimated that the arrangements with Britain, are being extended and this power will certainly be needed to enable the minister to carry on.
Perhaps my greatest criticism of this measure is that the minister has not used the power which the act gave him. He could have gone much farther and given much more protection to the farmer in the buying of the different products which this measure covers. For years the farmer has been trying to catch up with people in other walks of life who have some established basis for the prices they receive for their labour and the things they have to sell. The farmer feels that the laws of supply and demand just do not work any more so far as the things he has to buy are concerned. He knows that the first charge against the things he has to. buy is the cost of producing them, and he is asking that the same law apply to the things he has to sell.
I spoke on milk production the other night. I am quite willing to admit that there is room for considerable improvement so far as feeding and breeding is concerned, but it should be remembered that if a cow gives more milk she has to be provided with more and: better feed, which has to be charged against the extra milk produced.
Farm labour is demanding decent wages and better conditions; and, since labour constitutes thirty per cent of the cost of producing milk, this will offset to a considerable extent any saving by better feeding and breeding. I think too little attention is being paid to lowering the cost of milk distribution. We are being led to believe that the dairy industry revolves around the business of buying and selling milk and dairy products, but that the producer and the consumer are of minor concern. I believe both consumer and producer would benefit by one of them going into the business of distributing milk at cost on a co-operative basis. Milk should pass from the producer to the consumer at the lowest possible price. It is in that direction that we should look when we think of lowering the price of milk to the consumer.
I want to ask the minister a question about eggs. The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) brought that up a few minutes ago. The price has been forty-three cents a dozen for grade A, and for grade B it has been twenty-nine cents. Can the minister explain to the house why there is such a variation? We know that in country points in Manitoba where we have been shipping our eggs, when we get more B's than A's we say, ''We will sell the A's and take the B's home", and then there is an immediate improvement.

Agricultural Products Act
That is something the minister should look into because the farmer is being victimized to the extent of that variation of twelve cents. We the producers know that we do not produce B eggs but A. There may be some that are off-shaped, but those are kept at home. The price can be forty-three cents in the country, as was stated in the newspaper, and that means forty-one cents to the producer, if he takes them to the egg grading station.
I have here a cutting from the Ottawa Journal of a couple of nights ago. I quote:
Domestic egg prices are due for a sharp drop early in the new year, following a cut by about eight cents a dozen in the level paid producers by the government's special products board, the Journal today was informed.
Board prices for eggs on overseas contracts always have served as a floor level on the domestic market.
When the minister is answering the questions that have been put to him I want to know why, when we ship about twenty or twenty-five per cent of any agricultural product in the country, that should set the price for domestic supplies. Continuing, the Journal says:
To cushion the price cut for producers, the board may subsidize feed used by poultry farmers.
In recent weeks domestic prices of eggs have slipped from a late November peak which took grade A as high as 68 cents per dozen.
I think that is the retail price.
This premium grade today was bringing 57 cents, and pullet eggs were worth 48 cents per dozen.
While the board's producer prices will be cut by eight cents, the reduction to consumers will be on a smaller scale, but still appreciable.
I should like the minister to explain that because, if the farmer loses eight cents a dozen, why does the consumer not get the same reduction? I think the poultryman has had a raw deal. I am sure many people will support me in that statement because the price of his feed is going up and no one can get in and out in this business over-night. You have to plan ahead, and I do not need to tell the minister that taking the subsidy off coarse grains and allowing the grains to go on the open speculative market has added to the confusion of the poultryman.
In the production of eggs we use a lot of tankage. Before the packing house strike we could buy tankage for $2.95 in Winnipeg. Today we are paying $6.65. There is no reason for that, because tankage is only a by-product from the slaughter house. There is no justification whatever for it. Why should there be that discrepancy between $2.95 and $6.65? As
a matter of fact, I can give the minister data to show that at some places they are asking $7.05 for the same quantity of tankage.
The price the poultryman gets for eggs today, if he has a high producing flock, will allow him to break even, but if the flock goes to sixty-five and seventy per cent he will be ifl the red and will dispose of that flock, and I do not know if that is a very profitable thing to do either. I have here a statement showing that one poultryman became a little disgusted with the returns he was getting from his eggs-I can vouch that his flock consisted of year old hens-and he sent those hens back to the packing company, sixty-five of them. They averaged five and a quarter pounds each and the packing company paid him twelve cents a pound.


Mr. OOLDWELL:: What did they grade?


William Scottie Bryce: Those birds graded A.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Which birds? On the other side?


William Scottie Bryce: Oh, no; they would never grade A.


An hon. MEMBER:: They would be discarded.	.


William Scottie Bryce: I want to assure hon. members that this is a very serious matter because it is going to disrupt our agriculture economy as never before. People will not keep on producing if they are to get a raw deal like that. Now just follow that chicken through-


Mr. MacINNIS:: It wouldn't be the first chicken they followed.


William Scottie Bryce: No, some of these fellows have followed chickens before, but we shall leave that for the time being. When these fowl reached Winnipeg, or the next town where there was a poultry plant, they were worth twenty cents a pound. Today boiling fowl are selling at thirty-four and thirty-six cents a pound.
That is unfair. You can never have successful farming or have men remain in the sphere of agriculture if you treat them like that, I do not need to labour the point. The farmer gets twelve cents; the jobber, twenty cents; and the man who retails them gets thirty-four and thirty-six cents. I wonder if it can be that the packing company keeps filling its coolers until the time comes for a killing. There is someone making money and it is not the farmer. I can assure the minister- he is smiling-that his meat board has the power to check this sort of thing if he will make them get after these people.
I do not want to cover the whole agricultural economy. I simply wish to bring out one or two things that have been brought to
Agricultural Products Act

my attention as the representative of a farming community. I was in the northern part of my constituency before I came here, and I cannot speak to the house in the language in which those farmers talked to me about the things that have happened to their economy.
A great many pigs are produced up in the inter-lake country, and feed for them must be purchased. Of course the grain prices have disturbed the situation. I have a sheet here from a man who sent in five hogs. One of them graded as an A-l hog and the other four were too heavy. They were fifteen to twenty pounds too heavy. The packing company wrote a very nice letter saying that these were lovely hogs he sent in, lout they were a little too heavy. One of them was five pounds too heavy. But they said, "We have given you grade A-l for it," and that hog netted $36.25 for the farmer. The other four hogs were about twenty to twenty-five pounds too heavy and they averaged $2625 each. On five hogs that was a penalty of $50. I wonder whether the consumer got the benefit of that. I am sure that that procedure is not right. Nobody should make regulations that work against the farmer in that way. We know that if the farmer has a hog that is too heavy he should be penaliz-ed; but he should never be penalized to the extent of $10 a hog, because that is good pork. It may not be fit for Britain-


An hon. MEMBER:: They would be glad to get it.


William Scottie Bryce: Yes, they would be glad to get it. The minister has been to Britain and has seen conditions. I have been there too and I have seen them. The people would be delighted to get the fat from the pig, let alone getting the bacon.
As I said when I started to talk about hogs, production is going down in my part of the country. From what I read in the papers, it is going down in other places as well. The reason is that the price of grain is putting everybody out of the hog-raising business. I have here a clipping from the Calgary Albertan, which has a paragraph headed "Dumping Hogs". It reads as follows:
Without exception, every hog producer spoken to is marketing his hogs as fast as possible. At an auction sale 12 miles east of here, weaner pigs, which two months ago would have been snapped up at six dollars or seven dollars each, sold for S5 cents each. A few days later, at another auction sale north of town, W'eaners and young feeder pigs of good quality did not get a bid. A farmer 20 miles southeast of here had 40 young pigs, and no feed to give them. He had expected to sell them to some of the larger feeders. Unable to dispose of them, he was forced to kill them all. Another farmer in town last week end, was approaching people on the street and in the stores, offering to give

them one, or more, or as many pigs as they would take, in order to get them off his own hands. One man made the prophecy that if something was not done within the next two weeks, by spring not one pig would be marketed from this entire area.
I believe that is what is happening all over. Quite close to where I myself farm, I know that pigs eight weeks old are being offered for fifty cents apiece. I have in my hand a letter from a man who finishes up by saying:
I kept fourteen sows myself. We raised one hundred pigs this year but by the first of January, 1948, we will not have one left.
I do not think I need to say any more to the minister. He realizes the seriousness of the situation, which has all been caused by this throwing of oats and barley on the speculative market where you do not know what you are going to pay; you do not know whether it will go up or down; it is at the mercy of the grain exchange. I thought the minister would know by this time that doing anything like that was not good for the agricultural economy of this country. The government never did that during the war because they could not afford to have any slip-up. It is just as essential now that we have a planned economy; in fact, it is more essential now than ever before.
Conditions are nearly as bad with the regard to the production of cattle. I have in my time kept quite a few cattle and worked with them. I have drawn the attention of the minister to the fact that the meat board gives that protection only when the animal is hung up. Of course I know what the minister's answer is. It is that if I want to have the meat board to take over my cattle, they will grade them. There is no one today in organized agriculture or in seventy-five per cent of agriculture who wants to hand over his cattle to the abattoir. Matters are altogether too definitely in the hands of the packer.
AVe read in the papers that the embargo may come off. I hope it does. I have asked for that for a long time. I asked for the temporary removal of it, and it may come. If it does come, I hope the meat board are there to accept the responsibility they should take. They should take the responsibility, with regard to the cattle that come there, of seeing that everybody gets a square deal. They should buy the animals on the hoof and ship them to the United States. If that is not done, only the big ranchers and the fellows who can ship carloads to the United States will be able to participate in that extra price. The small man, who has only half a dozen steers to come on the market, can not go to the United States because he is required to have a carload of cattle. If the embargo is

Agricultural Products Act
taken off, arrangements must be made for the meat board to go on the market to buy these cattle on the hoof and give that protection to the farmer.
The production of cattle has received a setback. People are talking about going out of the cattle-raising business. It is sometimes asked just how long we can stay in. I cannot speak about the big rancher. He raises cattle on a different 'basis from that on which my neighbours and I operate.
The question is often asked as to what the price of cattle should be in order to allow the farmer a labour return and a capital return, comparable with those of others who buy our products and whose products we buy. In order to answer this question we must first have knowledge of our costs. In consultation with men who should know a little better than I do-I give them credit for knowing more about it because they have been in the business longer than I have-I have worked out some figures.
Can one man working a forty or forty-four hour week for the six winter months look after a herd of thirty-five cattle? Of these, sixteen or seventeen would be cows, and thirteen or fourteen, young stock, also three or four heifers coming along to replace the cows, and a bull.
In order to bring them up to about 800 pounds each a person would have to feed each animal about a ton of grain, worth approximately $50 at today's prices. Each of the young stock would need at least a ton of good quality hay, worth about $15. This is a total of $65 for each of the fourteen young stock. Then the stock cattle would need at least thirty tons of hay at $15, which would amount to S450, as well as twenty or thirty loads of straw, worth about $2 a load. There would be pasture for the herd at $1 per month per head, including fencing, salt, taxes, providing a water supply, and so on, which would amount to $200.
Then we come to the overhead. The cattle would be worth about $3,000 and the barn another $3,000. This is an investment of $6,000. I do not think we would be asking too much if we expected to receive four per cent on that, which would be $240. People who do not have their money invested in cattle can get three per cent on government bonds, and they are guaranteed against the loss of either principal or interest. When the farmer needs capital he has to borrow from the banks at five per cent.
Depreciation, insurance, repairs on the barn and so on at five per cent would amount to $150. Maintaining a water supply, including 5849-29
well cost, gasoline, troughs and other things one needs would amount to $50. Then there is the bull cost, which would average about $3.50 per cow. Also there are veterinary costs, death and disease losses, tlhe cost of keeping a team to look after the cattle and so on, which is estimated at about $100.
This totals $2,200. In view of the fact that the farmer is a skilled workman-and I do not think anyone will deny that-he has to know more than the average man-and must be his own foreman and manager, it would seem that he should receive at least $40 a week for five months, which would be $800, bringing the total up to $3,000. Such a herd might be expected to have fourteen head of marketable cattle annually, weighing about 800 pounds each, or a total of 11,200 pounds of live cattle. With total costs of $3,000 the total cost per hundredweight on the farm would be $26.78. Freight and marketing costs would have to be added to this figure to arrive at the price where you are going to sell them. I think about the highest we are getting is $16.75, so that from these figures it will be seen that the farmer is not receiving wages, is not being allowed for his time and is not getting a return on his investment.
I do not want to take up any more time, but I think the minister will have to increase the prices for these products if we are to supply Britain with the food she needs. I think we should do so. We have a good bacon market there, and it would be too bad to lose it. Ours was the finest bacon going to Britain. It certainly lost its identity over there, but I had an opportunity of seeing the different grades of bacon they were receiving, and ours was away ahead of all the rest. We can send good beef also, we can help them in many ways, but we shall have to build up the confidence of our producers. We have destroyed the confidence of the farmer by getting out and getting in. We must have steady prices. If it was necessary to have a steady price for wheat for five years it is just as essential to have steady prices for cattle, sheep and hogs. You cannot interfere with the cost of the things that go into the production of these things, either, because if you do you change the whole situation.
I hope the minister will give us some good news before we go home. I hope he will increase these prices and give some promise of stability in connection with agricultural products.


James Garfield Gardiner: You have already had news of the prices that are (to be paid.
Agricultural Products Act


William Scottie Bryce: I have not heard any
announcement as to price, unless you mean we are to get the same prices we received in the past.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; I have said the prices are to be increased. It has been said at least four times, and I am sure everyone out in the country knows about it.


Charles Edward Johnston: But will the quantities be reduced?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


William Scottie Bryce: I do not want to break the rules, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to understand what the minister is saying. He says he has made the statement four times. I wish he would make it the fifth time, to see if I can catch it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have said the prices are to be increased to take care of the increased cost of feed grain.


William Earl Rowe: How soon, and how much?


William Scottie Bryce: I am glad to hear that. I hope the increases will be sufficient, because if they are not you will never rest in your bed.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words before this motion is carried. I had hoped the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) would make a lengthy and complete statement on this question before this debate took place. From what he has said just now I am inclined to believe that, had he done so, the debate might have been shortened. He has just indicated that prices of meat products will be increased so that they will bear a fair relationship to the cost of the feeds that go into the raising of the livestock.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what was said 'n the statement made by the Prime Minister.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am very glad the Minister of Agriculture has made this statement, because I have been reading the statement by the Prime Minister and, to be perfectly honest, I cannot find much in it. I have that statement in my hand at the moment. The other day I thought the Prime Minister made an outstanding statement, when he cautioned us in this house in regard to the speeches made by hon. members during the debate. In effect he said that if hon. members realized the serious condition in which the world finds itself today they might be a little more cautious in what they said and did. I attached a great deal of importance to that statement. Today the Prime Minister made

another statement, however, which in my opinion contradicts what he said previously.
The Minister of Agriculture has made reference to the statement made by the Prime Minister today. I should like also to refer to it for a moment. In the statement he made just a short time ago the Prime Minister pointed out, I think correctly, that we cannot continue indefinitely to export on credit and at the same time pay cash for the things we import.


Mr. POULIOT:: That is what I said a long time ago.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is strange that the government has not changed its policy so that when we export goods and services we shall import goods and services in exchange. I am glad the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) brought up that matter, because I am going to refer to it in just a moment. After having said that, the Prime Minister went on to say:
Both countries at the present time face a common difficulty, namely, a shortage of United States dollars. From the Canadian standpoint, this and other factors limit the extent to which the balance of the credit, provided for under the Financial Agreement Act of 1946, can be drawn on in order to make supplies available to the United Kingdom.
Apparently we are not going to make available to the United Kingdom all those things we could make available if w*e extended the production of this country. Apparently we are going to limit that assistance to the amount of credit balance upon which Great Britain is permitted to draw.


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is what the Prime Minister was speaking about.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read what it says.


Charles Edward Johnston: I shall read it again:
Both countries at the present time face a common difficulty, namely, a shortage of United States dollars.
And then he goes on to say:
From the Canadian standpoint, this and other factors limit the extent to which the balance of the credit, provided for under the Financial Agreement Act of 1946, can be drawn on in order to make supplies available to the United Kingdom.
I imagine that "supplies" includes-


James Garfield Gardiner: Read the first paragraph at the top of page 3, if the hon. member is talking about farm products.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will come to that. The Prime Minister is there saying that supplies will be made available, and agricultural supplies will be included.

Agricultural Products Act
Before turning to other points, I should like to refer to one other part of the announcement. It will be noticed the Prime Minister emphasized that we are going to do everything we can to assist the United Kingdom, but that it depends entirely upon the credit balance upon which she is allowed) to draw. Then at page 2 he makes this statement:
However, though there may have been a shortage of dollars on both sides, there has been also on both sides a surplus of good will and mutual understanding.
That is very good; but the British people cannot live on good will and understanding- nor can anybody else. That is the trouble with the government's policy. They have expected the farmers of this country to carry on with good will and understanding, but with little cash in return for the goods they have produced, and the efforts they have put into the production of those goods.
As I go through the Prime Minister's speech, I find it is just a lot of pious platitudes which do not amount to very much at all, and I do not think I will spend more time on it.
I should like for a moment to speak more particularly about the matter under discussion, namely the Agricultural Products Act, which concerns generally agricultural production. I do not think there is anyone in the house, not even on the government side, who would dare contend for one moment that there is not great and widespread discontent throughout all the agricultural areas of Canada, among both the grain growers and the meat producers. It is a queer thing that we cannot now find sufficient incentive in this country to go ahead with an all-out production program. Wherever we turn in our agricultural program we find every effort is being made to curtail production. No doubt the reason for the curtailment of production is that the government, and particularly the Minister of Agriculture, is fearful lest the farmers raise too much of any one product so that they would1 not have a market for it.
I agree with him to the extent that we should not encourage farmers to raise more of one particular product to the detriment of another. But in this time of great scarcity when all the countries of Europe are clamouring so loudly for more food-to say nothing of their other necessities-we in Canada should be putting forth every effort possible to encourage our farmers to raise everything they can.
Instead of that, it was not so long ago that the federation of agriculture met the government here in Ottawa; and it was certainly stated in the press that the president of that 5849-29i
organization was advocating to the farmers that they should not increase the areas in wheat production. Because of the unsatisfactory wheat prices I believe the farmers will most definitely curtail their production, rather than enlarge it.
I should think every effort should be made to encourage the farmer to raise all the wheat and coarse grains possible. I believe there is just as great a need now for increased production of these commodities as there was in wartime.
We have heard hon. members from all sections of the house describe the destructive means used in reducing hog production; we have heard of the slaughter of young pigs and of brood sows being sent to the slaughterhouses. That is deliberate sabotage.


Jean-François Pouliot: True.


Charles Edward Johnston: This is particularly true when people in this country are living on a sub-standard level. Certainly one of our best markets is the market we have right here in Canada. I was amazed the other day when I heard one of the ministers say we could not consume all we produce in this country. In my view, the only logical market-perhaps I should say ultimate market-is with the Cana^ dian people themselves. No matter what we produce in Canada, or in what quantities, unless we wish to give it away we must ultimately consume it.
Someone will say, "If we have a surplus of
500.000.	000 bushels of wheat, after our own requirements are taken out, do you expect the people to glut themselves with that amount of wheat?" Of course not; no sensible person would say that. Then one would be asked, "What would you do with that surplus of
500.000.	000 bushels?" We would export them, and in return we would obtain imports of those goods which we cannot produce efficiently in this country. When those imports are received we must make it possible to effect distribution among our people so that they may consume them. Therefore indirectly we have the consumption of 500,000,000 bushels of wheat. Consequently it is absurd to say that we shall not consume everything we produce.
We have overlooked our greatest market, the one right here, and the consuming possibilities of the people of Canada. The higher we raise our standard of living, the greater will be our production and the greater the prosperity of our people; incidentally, the greater will be the prosperity of other countries wishing to have our surplus products. Apparently, however, the government does not yet realize that fact.
Agricultural Products Act

It seems criminal that in Canada we should tolerate a program of restricted production. It may be of interest to know that only a few evenings ago I was a guest at a Masonic dinner in Ottawa, and that during the evening some pictures which had been taken by Mayor Lewis of this city were shown. Those pictures had reference to his trip overseas of two or three months ago. There is nothing confidential or secret about them, because they were shown at an open dinner. While overseas, he took those pictures showing the deplorable conditions in European countries as a result of the war. Those conditions were certainly bad. The same picture has been drawn for us verbally in the house by the Prime Minister and on other occasions by others, and what has been said verified what was shown in the pictures.
I was amazed to note that, while these European countries were struggling to make a recovery, their recovery was very slow indeed. The destruction was great and their want was great. But when it came to Russia, particularly in Moscow, the recovery was exceptional; it was almost phenomenal. As the picture showe'd, they are taking great pains in Russia and are exercising special caution with regard to the health and training of their young people, and I emphasize the training angle. I cannot recall the exact percentage of our young men who were rejected as being physically unfit during the last war, but it was considerable. That condition had been brought about principally through malnutrition. We should be giving more consideration now to the health and welfare of our people because we do not know how soon we shall be calling upon our young people to fight another war for so-called freedom and democracy. We are permitting our people to exist at this time on a substandard level caused by high prices and curtailed production. We are heading into a period of scarcity. An article appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of December 16, 1947, reading as follows:
It is a tribute to Canada's wartime administration that, despite astronomical expenditures, there was comparatively little profiteering and that few "war millionaires" emerged from the last war.
That article may be right and there may have been only a few millionaires created. If my memory serves me aright, I think I saw a statement not long ago to the effect that only seven millionaires had emerged from the last war. A total of seven millionaires is not bad when we were told there was to be no profiteering. I think I am safe in saying that there were no millionaires created in the agricultural field. We should be developing a program
IMr. Johnston.]
which would be giving our farmers a fair return for the goods produced and for the effort put into producing their goods, so that there will be a closer relationship between the things which the farmer must sell and those which he must buy.
As far as the Agricultural Products Act is concerned, we have no objection to the continuance of its powers for the period desired by the government; that is, to March 31, 1948. I think it should be noted that apparently the only necessity of having this debate at this time is because of the government's, I was going to say fear, but perhaps that is not the proper term to use. Some people are saying that the only reason this session was called was to permit the government to have a caucus of its members. I am not saying that; that is just what has been indicated to me, but I cannot see any better reason for it. There was no necessity of calling parliament to renew this act because it would have gone over automatically until March 31 had the government not been so anxious in other directions to have parliament called.
I can see nothing in the act that we would object to; in fact we will agree to having it extended for the required time. Personally I cannot see that there is great importance to be attached to the act. It is true that it does give the government power, if it wishes to use it, to sell or export agricultural products, and no one -has objection to that. The act also sets up commodity boards through which this purchase and sale may be made under the instructions and control of the minister.
This particular act is closely associated with the Agricultural Prices Support Act, to which I will refer later on. That act is referred to specifically in section 4 (2) of this act. Then, under section 5, people raising agricultural products can be required 'to deliver them for sale or for export. That is one good part of the act because it makes it possible for these prices to be based on the proper contract price and bear a reasonable relationship thereto. I think thait section would give the government sufficient power to create a fair relationship between the cost of coarse grains and the prices which farmers receive for meat products. In my view, that will have to be fairly substantial. I do not think a ten per cent rise in the price will create a fair relationship between the selling price of coarse grains and the present price of meat products.


Mr. FAIR:: The ante will have to be
raised.


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member for
Battle River suggests that we shall have to raise the ante quite a little bit. When the

Agricultural Products Act
minister makes his statement I hope he will tell us that the ante is being raised.
I wanted to refer to the Agricultural Prices Support Act. I think that is a rather good act and I am referring to it because it must be taken in conjunction with this act. The only complaint I have to make thus far is that the government has definitely neglected to use the power given in this act. If we extend the provisions of the Agricultural Products Act to March 31 I do not think it will make any great difference in the price structure of agricultural goods because the government will follow the same policy in the future as it has done in the past. That power has been there ever since the act was put into effect and yet nothing has been done about it.
Section 9, subsection 1 of the Agricultural Prices Support Act gives the government the power to set prices, but I think it is correct to say that when a price is set it would not act as a ceiling price; it would be definitely a floor price. However, they could at least raise up t'he floor price so that it would insure agriculture a fair return for the coarse grains and meat products the farmers have to sell. Paragraph (c) of subsection 1 of section 9 provides for the payment of subsidies to producers. It reads:
(c) to pay to the producers of an agricultural product directly or through such agent as the board may determine the difference between a price prescribed by the board with the approval of the governor in council for such product and the average price, as determined by the board, at which such product is sold in the market during a specified period if such average price is below such prescribed price.
There is no difficulty there in the government extending the principle of subsidy payments. I was interested in hearing the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) advocate a moment ago an increase in the price of agricultural products. He pointed out the different items which entered into the cost of production, but he did not think that, even though other factors were considered, there should be a rise in the price to the consumer. I think I am interpreting his remarks correctly. Of course that could be handled under the provisions of this paragraph by the payment of a subsidy. That is why I think this section should be carried out.
Then, under subsection 2 of section 9, the government is given the power to set parity prices. The subsection reads:
In prescribing prices under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection one of this section, the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
If that power were used and that principle followed, then I do not think agriculture would have any complaint. But most certainly that power has never been used and that principle has never been followed because agriculture has never received its fair share of the national revenue. I think it was from 1915 to 1919 that the industry of agriculture received its fair share of the national income.
When I speak of a parity price, perhaps it would be well that I should define the term lest the government would not understand what it is. I would say that the farmers are receiving a parity price when the price which they receive for their production bears the same relation to the value of the national production as the farm population bears to the national population. If that principle were followed I am sure that agriculture would do more than its share in increasing production. But if that principle is not acted upon, most assuredly agriculture will do the same as industry would do, and I would not blame them for it; that is, they will not produce the goods if they cannot receive a fair return for their labours.
A word about the handling of coarse grains. It is true that we have a wheat board which handles all Canadian wheat, and the government said that it wished to ensure a fairly stable price during the five-year period when the contracts with Britain were in force. I am not going to praise the contracts with Britain. I think they were wrong in some respects. I think the application of the whole principle was wrong. But I do think the handling of wheat through the wheat board was a good thing. The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) indicated, in his remarks in the house on Thursday, December 11, our attitude with regard to coarse grains. It is my view that coarse grains should be handled through the wheat board. I am unalterably opposed to the continuation of the Winnipeg grain exchange. I cannot see any good that they have rendered in the past, except perhaps to line their own pockets to the detriment of agriculture. My belief is that agriculture would be satisfied with a long-term arrangement whereby the farmers would get decent and fair returns for their products. I do not think they would be satisfied with anything less, nor do I think they should be satisfied with anything less.
We have a meat board, and I think there should be very close co-operation between the meat board and the wheat board, if the wheat board is to handle coarse grains. The minis-
Agricultural Products Act

ter himself indicated a while ago that there should be a fair relationship between the price of meat products and the price of feed grains. It goes without saying that that is a sound principle. I trust that he will carry out that principle and I shall be watching him closely to see if that is done. But it cannot be done unless there is close co-operationi between the meat board and the wheat board, which we hope will handle coarse grains.
I am going to suggest to the house something which I think is new in regard to trade agreements, particularly as they apply to agricultural products. In making agreements on an international basis for the interchange of goods and services in order to put our export trade on a more firm foundation, one which would be fair and equitable, not only to Canada as an exporting country, but to those countries which are compelled or desire to import our products, we believe that a national products marketing act should be passed whereby long-term agreements with other countries could be negotiated in such a manner as to ensure a fair and stable price structure in Canada. First, a parity price should be established in Canada for agricultural products, and I have already indicated what I mean by a parity price. Then the export price-and this is the important part- which is agreed to in the international agreement should be tied to the price level of the country with which the agreement is made in order to ensure a proper trade relationship between the contracting parties. There would then not be the danger of fluctuations from time to time which would upset the contract. Suppose the price level in the importing countries should rise by ten per cent; then the price set in the agreement should also rise by ten per cent. In that way a constant relationship would automatically be maintained between the volume of imports and the volume of exports. That would make effective the suggestion which was made by one of our members a while ago, that now, particularly when Great Britain is in such dire need of such goods and services as we have to offer, the flow of those goods and services should not be impeded by the extent to which those other countries lack access to United States dollars. It seems a terrible tragedy that when the country is in such a critical condition as that in which we find ourselves today, almost as critical as in 1939, we should hesitate in any way to hasten the reconstruction of Great Britain and other European countries and not supply them with the food and necessities which they need. The times are so urgent that I think the government

should revise its policy of restricted production in agriculture and encourage maximum production in all lines, having in mind, of course, a reasonable production program. Agriculture should be paid according to the services it renders, and the farmers should receive fair returns for the things they have to sell in comparison with the prices they have to pay for the things they have to buy.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I have just listened with considerable interest to t'he hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), and I am sure that few could take exception to much that he said. I think we all share the general objective of a prosperous agriculture in Canada, and I believe it is generally conceded that the greatest market we have for our agricultural products is our own home market. For many years the party to which I have the honour to belong have felt that the development of industry in Canada, with increased employment and increased purchasing power in the hands of the people, would mean, in the end, increased prosperity for agriculture. I am glad that I can agree with the hon. member for Bow River in that and also with many other statements that he made in regard to the present situation in the markets of the world. But I am not altogether in agreement with him in what he said as to conditions overseas. He said that His Worship Mayor Lewis of Ottawa painted a very favourable picture of Russia. Not long ago I was within sound of the rattle of the iron curtain and the reports that I heard-


Charles Edward Johnston: I only mentioned Russia to show where we were lagging.


William Earl Rowe: I understand that he meant
to show how the few in Russia who were fed were fed scientifically. I regret to say I have heard that more people have starved to death in Russia in the last few years than our total population. However, that is Russia's business, and I am sure the hon. member for Bow River only wished to point out that there have been some scientific methods, even in Russia.
I feel, sir, that the motion before t'he house calls for some comment. It is a rather strange one. It is another novel illustration of the futility of this session itself. When you stop to think, you realize that this motion is in exactly the same terms as the motion with respect to emergency powers. The motion is that, whereas section 11 of the Agricultural Products Act, being chapter 10 of the statutes of 1947, provides that, subject as thereinafter

Agricultural Products Act
provided, that act shall expire on December 31, if parliament meets during November or December; if parliament does not so meet it shall expire on the sixtieth day after parliament first meets in 1948, or on March 31.
There you have another example of the government asking the house to solve a problem which the convening of parliament has itself created. We have started almost everything and finished nothing except the birthday celebration yesterday of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). That is the only thing that has been successful. With unanimity the house honoured the right hon. gentleman, and it was quite delightful. Let me say in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, that I am a farmer and you are a lawyer; there are other things that I can do, just as there are things elsewhere that you can attend to, and the only benefit I see either for myself or my constituency has been in the fact that I was honoured in being here and spending that pleasant hour with the genial Prime Minister on his seventy-third birthday. I hope he will live long enough to see a government in power which will re-establish free enterprise in this country.
There are many sides to this issue. For many years we on this side of the 'house, and many members on the other side as well, have emphasized the need of a balanced agricultural economy, and we Rave heard for many years about world markets, how to get them and retain them and what they would mean to the general prosperity of Canada. I think it is only reasonable to say that we all now full}' understand, as many of us indeed have pointed out, that if food were necessary to win the war it will go a long way toward winning the peace.
As you know, Mr Speaker, the world today is hungry and cold, even in the old land, and we have, I believe, an obligation in Canada to produce to the maximum in order to help to feed the hungry children of Europe and especially of the United Kingdom A strong Canadian agriculture is therefore a vital necessity for world prosperity if we are to avert the catastrophe that lies ahead and stave off the possibility of another war or the development of those socialistic trends that have brought Europe to the brink of ruin. If we are to do that, Canadian agriculture is challenged as no other industry in the country, indeed no other industry in the world, is challenged today.
I say, therefore, that it goes much farther than a question of profits which the farmer will receive for his products. So long as we have this system of payment for services, the so-called profit system, then, as the member for
Bow River said, the incentive to production is the spark and the creative impulse that will give us the necessary production to meet the challenge.
I know that the government now in power as well as the party it represents have for many years emphasized in this house time and again that it was their objective to find markets throughout the world. I recall how, in the years gone by, they said they would search Europe for new markets.


An hon. MEMBER:: That was Bennett.


William Earl Rowe: I see you are getting on with your correspondence. You did not hear what I said. I can recall that hon. gentlemen opposite said that they would broaden markets for our Canadian products. That was what we heard from the present Prime Minister and the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) as well as from many of the other senior members of that party. They emphasized that while this party stood for the protection of industry, for the development of industry and increasing employment here in Canada and building up home markets, Canadian agriculture must depend on markets far off for their surplus products.
As the hon. member for Bow River has said we are now approaching the time when our people will be able to consume what we can produce. We can consume a great proportion of our total production. Apart from wheat, I believe that if the people of Canada were allowed to obtain all the food they wanted, and if they maintain normal purchasing power, their consumption would be close to our total production of food.
We know now what happened some years ago. We are discovering the uncertainty of foreign markets, even in the United Kingdom. In my opinion, we have an obligation, apart from the question of maintaining markets in the world for our foodstuffs, to assist the motherland in the difficulties she is in at the present time. But some months ago, among the many problems that faced the farmer as well as the Minister of Agriculture, some of which the minister met and some of which he helped to create before he met them, we found that the farmer, instead of producing more hogs, was selling his breeding stock. As the hon. member for Bow River has just said, and there is not a representative of rural riding who does not realize it-small pigs are being destroyed.
Let me tell the Minister of Agriculture that in western Ontario it was reported the other day that a farmer drove into a town with a small half-ton truck in which he had seventeen pigs for sale. He left them and went to dinner,
Agricultural Products Act

and when he came back there were forty-seven pigs in the truck, which is some indication of the popularity of the program.


James Garfield Gardiner: There were more little pigs the last time I heard that story.


William Earl Rowe: It must be true if you heard it too. The Prime Minister has presented us with an attractive document in which we are assured that everything will be all right for the farmer. There is no more uncertainty. He can keep his brood sows three months longer anyway. The Prime Minister has assured the farmer that there is a surplus of good will and mutual understanding in the old land. He says that dollars are short in the United Kingdom and admits they are about as short here, and they are getting shorter every day, by the way. Then emphasis is placed on the necessity for Canada to maintain a balanced agricultural economy.
That is a delightful program. I have been listening to spokesmen of the government, and I have gathered the impression that they themselves really believe that every time they set up a target they hit a bull's-eye. It is a matter of pious hopes and purposes that anybody could suggest. The hon. member for Bow River made reference to this document. The minister says to read at the top of page 3.
I shall do so. It states:
Canada wishes to continue to send to the United Kingdom all those supplies of foodstuffs and raw materials which are playing such a vital part in sustaining the United Kingdom's reconstruction program. The United Kingdom's need for such supplies, in order to maintain the progress now visible in her recovery, is so strong and compelling that any interruption at this time would have very serious consequences.
That is a fine paragraph. It is well written and it was equally well read. The Minister of Agriculture explained it. There is nothing in this document, Mr. Speaker, and there is less in the explanation of the Minister of Agriculture. All it says is that the agreement we now have will be carried on for three months.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. no; for a year.


William Earl Rowe: That it will be carried on for a year, yes. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture had better get together. The Prime Minister said you are going to review it in three months.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not those agreements.


William Earl Rowe: What agreements are you talking about?


James Garfield Gardiner: He is talking about credit arrangements.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the minister that I could make his speech but I 
do not want him to make mine. I cannot understand how the Minister of Agriculture, or even the more imaginative Prime Minister, can hope the farmers will get much comfort out of this, or that any hon. member of this house will do so either. The minister has been asked repeatedly this afternoon how soon we shall be told, and how much. He has been asked what quantities we are going to sell and how much we are going to receive for them. In his statement this afternoon, the Minister of Agriculture has admitted that he is not yet sure of the quantity and he is not sure of the price. He does not know yet. But he says, in view of their record of keeping the balance maintained in relation to feed grains cost, everyone in Canada pretty well knows what it will be. Well, I have been farming for a long time and I have taken a great many risks; but I certainly would not want to take the risk of speculating on what this government might do next with reference to prices.
With regard to this statement which is made after three months' negotiation with the British authorities, I suggest that there is nothing in it that an intelligent minister of the British government and an intelligent minister of this government could not find out and on which they could not make a report like this in three minutes, because there are no quantities mentioned. The wheat agreement is continued. There were no quantities mentioned in the others. However, there is one encouragement in it, and that is that the Minister of Agriculture is more cautious in suggesting quantities with regard to all the other articles except wheat. In fact, I believe that none of the quantities which were mentioned a year or two ago have been fulfilled. The only contract, other than the wheat contract, that we have lived up to with Britain is the one on dehydrated milk. I am not sure whether that one has been carried out in full or not, but I understand it has been almost so.
I do not intend to review what has been so well said by the former speaker as to the loss the Canadian poultry man has endured, the discouragement to the Canadian hog man and to livestock producers in general. But it does appear to me that this half-hearted and half-baked plan which has been instituted by this government has done more to discourage the agricultural production we might have had than any other single factor. I know that later on today the Minister of Agriculture will say, "Compare our production with that back in the years 1920 and 1930. Compare our prices with those of 1930. Compare our prices with the prices received in the days of the

Agricultural Products Act
Bennett government. Compare national production. Compare our industrial production. Compare our national revenue." Yes, Mr. Speaker, compare the taxes that we are paying. There are many other comparisons that we can make. The farmer today is paying for a costly, novel experiment that this government is carrying on; and I say again that it is a half-hearted and half-baked socialistic planning pjogram for agriculture. If they would get together with their other socialistic friends in the C.C.F. party in this house, they might have it fully-tbaked and more whole-hearted. The only way one can distinguish them in the country now is as Liberal socialists and C.C.F. socialists. The C.C.F. socialists say they would return to wartime control. As I observe their absence, they must be holding a caucus. I wish some of them would tell me if they would return to a wartime economy with fixed prices and price ceilings, as they have stated, would they fix wages as well? I should like to ask some of them if they would put a rigid ceiling on wages today.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: You were told that before.


William Earl Rowe: Will you tell me again?


Mr. BENTLEY:: The answer is, no.


William Earl Rowe: No. You would allow the farmers' wages to go up but you would put a price ceiling on other products, would you?


Thomas John Bentley: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: That would be fine. That is half-baked. It is about the same as the others. They would put a price ceiling on what the farmer has to sell, but they would not put any price ceiling on the wages he has to pay or the goods he buys. So they at least would get perhaps half of the support and the chances are they may not even get that. But, Mr. Speaker, I think the government have been busy in keeping prices down. I have never known such a diligence to keep prices down in the history of this country. I have certainly never known it in my experience in this house, which has covered a considerable number of years; and if I have my health I hope it will continue. I do not know, but perhaps I may have enough friends such as the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) or the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) or somebody else who will soon be placing roses around my desk, as I should like to place them around theirs, for long service in this house.


Jean-François Pouliot: It all depends on you.


William Earl Rowe: I have never known any minister to be so diligent for such a long time in trying to keep agricultural prices down. Never in the history of this country has the farmer carried such a load as he is carrying in this expensive experiment to which he is the chief contributor. When one stops to think of it, he realizes that we are, with pride, telling about the renewal of the wheat agreements at the same price, but that the farmer has been receiving for that wheat one-half of the world price. Hundreds of millions of dollars could have been in circulation in this country had we been receiving world prices. Talk about stability or security for the future! It is like taking out. an insurance policy where, the insurance agent asks you not only to pay the premium, but to pay the whole policy in advance. The farmer has carried the load all through. In all fairness, if the minister of agriculture has these socialistic brain waves, and wants to try them out, and use the farmer more or less as a guinea pig, and make agriculture the loss leader in this new-fangled economy, it seems to me that all should pay for it. I do not think the farmers of Canada should endure the burden of the millions of dollars required to try out this experiment. If we are to continue to follow this doctrine; if we believe that we should give the United Kingdom wheat at half the world price and that the farmers should be asked to take $150,000,000 or perhaps $200,000,000 less than world prices would give them, let us go the whole way. Let the national economy of this country take over the burden of our debt of gratitude to the old country, so that it will be distributed over all the taxpayers. Is that not fair? Probably if the farmers were better organized they would be better heard.
I say, in all sincerity, that the farmers of this country, like everyone else, are frightened at such novel state planning. They are frightened by the government's failure to give them any incentive to remain in the hog business. Many poultrymen are 'being frightened out of business in this country. No one knows what he will get in future. Even the Minister of Agriculture says he does not know. He is going to give them something, but he does not know how much. He is going to fix it for a year; he is going to relate the increase to the costs of grain, which are rising steadily. I dio not know whether it will be fixed for a full year or whether it will be a New Year's present to the farmers, or a Christmas present, or perhaps an Easter present. Perhaps by Easter the prices of feed grain will be still higher. We understand that these agreements were to provide stability for many years;
Agricultural Products Act

instead, in the few months they have been in effect they have created more uncertainty than anything in the history of Canadian agriculture.
If our home markets mean a great deal, as they do, what will happen to them from all the insecurity that has been created by some of the recent moves of this government? I am not going to review them, but we all know the effects of some legislation that has been passed, and we know the effects of the additional excise tax, which has been imposed without legislation. In many cases this excise tax on home production will put local producers out of business. There are young returned men in this country who have invested every dollar of their gratuities and who are on the verge of losing everything. Why? I know the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) would reply, "Well, you know the reason. We need more United States dollars, and we must hang on to the few we still have". We have allowed nearly all our United States exchange to slip away. Perhaps the minister would admit, though so far no member of the cabinet has been bold or honest enough to admit it, that some bureaucratic economists have advised1 that the dollar should be raised every time we get into a position like this. Perhaps some of these days they may put it up to SI.10. On that point I will only say that whoever is to blame has created a situation which is not only prejudicing agriculture but is creating uncertainty and ruining industry in this country as well. Prophecies are dangerous things, perhaps, and especially here; but I venture to predict that, before three months have passed, the dollar will be back at ninety cents. If it were not for Bret-ton Woods it would go even farther, because its honest value is not $1, as no one knows better than the government of the day.
As I mentioned at the outset, Mr. Speaker, it has been the policy of the party to your right, since before you and I were born, to search the world for markets for our agricultural products. If I have heard it said in this house once I have heard it a hundred times, that the only way we could hope to sell our great agricultural surpluses was by being ready to buy. That is why we who sit to your left were condemned for a quarter of a century for being strongly in favour of developing industry in Canada, of maintaining protective tariffs, high protection, if you like. But we certainly never established prohibition, as it has been established by those who sit to your right. Why are they doing that? Because of the shortage of United States dollars. I suggest that even this has been clumsily

muddled. If this government were forced to keep United States dollars here in Canada, the few that are left to us, why did they not say to all the importers, "We will allow you to buy only eighty per cent of the things you have been allowed to buy in the past from outside." Then they would not have put Jones out of business and left Smith in business; they would not have given an advantage to one returned soldier and put another at a disadvantage. They would not have put people out of business entirely, as their folly now is doing. I throw that out only as a suggestion. The government may not consider it constructive, but at least it is not as destructive as the policies now in vogue.
I should like the government to answer a question. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will answer it; he can always give an answer, whether or not it is right. When he speaks I hope he will tell us how we can expect to maintain those markets in Britain if the old doctrine is still true that we must buy if we hope to sell. How can we hope to sell to Britain when we tell her we are going to buy less? We are putting restraints and prohibitions on our trade with the United States because we are buying more from her than we are selling. By the way, since 1900 we have bought about forty or fifty billion dollars worth more from the United States than we have sold her. I am not going to repeat the figures for this year, but our unfavourable trade balance with the United States is reaching colossal proportions, so much so that now we are saying we will not import some articles at all. Hon. gentlemen opposite cannot condemn us now for the brick-for-brick policy, as they did in 1925. They have put up a whole wall to stop some imports entirely.
Perhaps that does not matter so much to agriculture, though we were told we would have a market in the United States for our cattle, our hogs and so on, and we have not had that market. The government seem to be in a state of confusion. The only people who seem more confused than the government are the farmers themselves, as to what their future may be. I do urge in all sincerity, however, that the Minister of Agriculture give consideration to lifting the embargo on cattle going into the United States. That is one thing he can do to help the farmers. No doubt that would emphasize how much they have been losing during the last two or three years, as compared with what the United States farmers have received. However, we still believe, and I am sure the government will not disagree, that the greatest and most

Agricultural Products Act
permanent foreign market for our agricultural products is the British market. That being so, I want to ask the government, when they prohibited the importation of so many things from the United States, and at a time when we are selling Great Britain many millions of dollars worth more than we are buying from her, in the hope of making up some of that unfavourable balance with the United States, by what reasoning or common sense or logic the prohibition has been extended to British goods? At a time when we are giving Britain wheat at half the world price we are also saying to her, "During your period of austerity, while you are making a desperate attempt to export, we will help you by saying you cannot export to us, just as we have said to the United States."
Some of the ministers may suggest, though I hope they know better, that they did so because of the Geneva agreements. I believe it is section 13 which deals with the non-discriminatory feature, and section 12 which deals with the trade balances. As the minister knows, sections 14 sets out where the non-diseriminatory features do not have to apply to a country where we are selling more than we are buying, and where conditions such as this exist. So I ask why the United Kingdom was prohibited. Was all this fixed in Washington. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) said, as I remember it, that our neighbours to the south also regard this as very important. He went on to say:
The restrictive program is of course designed to cut our imports from that country and is anything but welcome to many of their exporters. The long-term constructive program depends greatly on the co-operation with the United States.
Again I hear the rumbling in the mulberry bushes of those old statements made by the Prime Minister years ago, "We must not provoke the United States of America." So we must impose the same thing against the United Kingdom, even though the reverse trade position may be true. I can see no other answer to what is now being done.
I say again it could have been imposed as a general percentage level, rather than the way it has been. First of all, there were prohibitions on goods such as diamonds and precious stones. Then they awoke to the fact that they believed they should n-ot maintain those prohibitions. The result is that they admit diamonds and precious stones, 'but they put a prohibition against waxed papers, to make up for it. They let in bird cages, but they prohibit the brass handles which hold the bird cages in place in the kitchen. From now on, whenever one keeps a bird he will 5849-301
have to keep it on the floor; or perhaps after the next election there will be some unemployed person available to hold it.
I mention only a few of these things just to show how ridiculous they are. For instance, regarding combs and brushes, we say to Great Britain, "If you wish to export combs and brushes, which usually go together, we will let you send in brushes for our bald-headed voters, but we will not let you send in combs for our wives."
This shows just how unreasonable these items are. Nobody knows that better than those who occupy the cabinet benches, because they must be hearing of these situations from day to day. Importers are swamping the hotels and trains. Indeed, now that we are here in Ottawa-and for no particular purpose that I can see, with the exception of those I have mentioned'-many of the members tell me they cannot get reservations back to their homes. And we could not get reservations from Toronto because businessmen had taken them up, coming here to Ottawa to express their grievances to the government. The situation is well-nigh chaotic,, in business circles.
The government seem just to have taken a bunch of tariff items, and with no rhyme or reason prohibited items. There is not much in the statement which has been given to us. The long-term policy has been pretty well shattered. The long-term stability we have anticipated has been one of uncertainty, with one uncertainty following another.
I urge the government to set the farmer free again. Let him run his own business. Very few businessmen in this country in their vocations take the risks farmers are forced to take in their vocation. They must accept the risk of weather, markets, the health of livestock, plagues-all things of that kind. The farmer has always had to take a great many risks and has been prepared to take them.
He understands that Great Britain is short of foodstuffs; he knows that Europe is hungry and cold. He knows, too, that the dollar situation is bad; in fact I believe many of them know it better than the government does. But now he is being strait-jacketed under some new socialistic political program. He is told now, "Oh, it is all right; just take half what the world will pay you for your wheat; take thirty per cent less for your livestock than the farmer across the boundary line can get. It will be all right some day. Just place your confidence in the government which has been harping about world markets for half a century. Place your confidence with us; elect us and we will find United States
Agricultural Products Act

markets for your fatted cattle from western Canada. Place your confidence with us, who told you that you would have a good price for your hogs in 1947. And even if you have killed your little pigs in 1947, trust us for 1948. Trust us once again. We may go to the country in 1948."
I believe the farmers hope they will go to the country. This is the new planned economy which has stamped itself with signs of austerity on every livestock barn in Ontario. And not- only has the government prejudiced the farmer's chances to maintain production, but it has failed to meet the challenge which I mentioned at the outset, the challenge to feed a hungry world, a challenge which the Canadian farmer is best fitted to meet, a challenge which Canadian agriculture, with its rich 'fertile land, is able to meet, as well as any other exporting country.
True, we shall hear a good deal about our great production. True, perhaps we shall hear about the amount of grain that has been grown this year. But this policy of telling the farmers in one year to grow more wheat and telling them the next year to grow less, telling them one year to keep their brood sows and telling them next year to dispose of them, is not good enough. And the farmer does not know what price he can expect for his produce.
Does the agreement mean anything? Is the minister serious in bringing it down now? I say it did not need to come down, and it is only before us now because parliament was called. The only thing we shall have done is to settle one emergency measure if wre settle this one; and we had better settle this one. Surely we are going to settle these two issues, if we cannot settle anything else.
But we cannot tell our farmers over the week end how much more they will get for their products. We cannot tell them whether they will get eighteen cents or fifteen cents or twenty cents for tiheir hogs; and we cannot tell how long that price will last. Perhaps we shall review it on March 1; and by that time, if the farmer continues to dispose of his hogs and brood stock at the rate he is disposing of them now there will be such a shortage of foodstuffs in Canada that, automatically, prices will be up, through the law of supply and demend. Then, to keep prices down the government may put another ceiling price on so as to ration the scarcity it has created.
I hope the government will consider correcting the error of these new projects, and that it will cease to mimic those greater socialists who sit to our left, and who would like to see established a political program

which would allocate each to his own particular job, divide the misery among us all and distribute the scarcity they would create by that type of program. The only thing the people of Canada will learn from this type of agricultural policy is that even the old Liberal party, that has had so much experience in government in Canada, has failed in its socialistic state planning. I do not think the country will believe that the more socialist C.C.F. party could ever make other than a greater mess of it by adopting more of such doctrine. Of the two evils I would rather have the half-baked socialism of the Liberals than the whole-hearted strait-jacket socialism of the C.C.F. party. I hope, before it is too late, if you are going to hand industry over to another minister, the Minister of Agriculture, who has failed in the planned economy of the greatest industry of all, agriculture, will hand agriculture back to the farmer and let the farmer run his own business.
Mr. JEAN-FRANOOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many members of parliament agree with the truth spoken this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who said about Canada:
But she cannot continue indefinitely to export on credit, and import for cash.
Are there any hon. members on this side of the house who will disagree with that truth? Are there any hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party who will disagree with that? Are there any hon. members of the C.C.F. group who will disagree with that? Are there any hon. members of the Social Credit group who will disagree with that?


John Horne Blackmore: Disagree with what?


Jean-François Pouliot: With the statement that Canada cannot continue indefinitely to export on credit, and import for cash.


John Horne Blackmore: That is correct, whatever it means.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is there any hon. member in the house-and I see all parties are represented-who will disagree with that truth? How is it that when it is said today by the Prime Minister no one disagrees, but when it was said seven yeans ago by Jean-Francois Pouldot and a -few others everybody voted against it? They were all for outright gifts to other countries, although they called it trade.


Mr. JAQUES:: A gift is not a loan.

Agricultural Products Act


Jean-François Pouliot: When a loan is never repaid, it becomes a gift. The maim question today seems to be the United States dollar. The golden calf which was torn down by Moses was an idol, but it was not as powerful as the United States dollar which has enslaved the whole world. Today we cannot speak of hogs without hearing about the dollar. We cannot speak of exports without hearing about the dollar. The dollar is the golden calf of modern times and it seems to enslave the whole world.
It was very hard for a few hon. members to oppose the financial policies proposed at that time, but we protested on behalf of farmers and labour. Apparently it has taken seven years to educate the House of Commons as to this one truth in connection with our national business. I do not know when hon. members will complete their education. Their eyes were closed and their intelligence was clouded by prejudice during the war. They did not realize that a time of retribution would come when accounts would have to be settled.
When I saw that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Gregg) was being opposed during the byelection I said that it was absurd to oppose that cabinet minister, because the Progressive Conservatives, the C.C.F. group and the Social Credit party had voted for the government on the very issue that was involved. How could they then put up a candidate against the government candidate during a by-election? They appear to be opposed to certain things, but when the time comes to show action they are not there. They are simply lions that have become meek as lambs.
Members of parliament were told that if they opposed the loan-gift policy there would be no family allowances. That was pure blackmail. How is it that it would have been impossible to provide millions for the benefit of our fellow citizens when we could give away billions to other countries? What we considered would be the benefits of trade has proved to be only a myth. If you give a man $10 and he goes to your store and spends it, where is your profit? There is no profit.
In the first place, the money was given in the form of gifts and then afterwards, in the form of loans. These have not proved beneficial to our trade. Our trade has been made a dead-end street because we are trading only with the one country which will take goods from us only as long as advances are made. Just as soon as the question of real payment comes up, there is an entirely different situation.
Missions were sent from London to Russia, Sweden and other countries to negotiate bilateral agreements. I am for bilateral agreements that are mutually satisfactory to the contracting countries. Let us have trade agreements with Great Britain, with the United States and with other nations of the world. That is the way in which trade has been promoted for so many years. How is it that we must listen to so much talk about multilateral agreements that go nowhere simply because the nations sponsoring them try to make their own bilateral agreements. It is quite easy to understand that, and I repeat that we cannot continue indefinitely to export on credit, and import for cash.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will realize that I speak, not as an opponent, but as a friend. I simply deplore some of the policies that have been carried out and that cannot be explained satisfactorily to the house. Whoever heard of discussing something that had been done by the Department of Agriculture when we were not told what had happened?
The department was perfectly free not to have any questions asked until next year simply by not calling the house in session this year. But since the house was called into session this year, the members of parliament should have been told what has been done by the Department of Agriculture in the past since the Agricultural Products Act was passed. Last year, I used severe language when the minister had that bill before the house. I protested against the powers to be conferred by that bill. I did not do that just to be hard on him, but now that the act is again before the house, I think there should be placed before us copies of all the regulations made by the governor in council for the sale or export of agricultural products in virtue of section 3 of the act, and the same with regard to section 5. We should also be told what commodity boards have been appointed in virtue of section 4 (1); what boards have been appointed in virtue of section 4 (2); what specific directions have been given by the minister in virtue of section 4 (3); what advisory committees have been appointed in virtue of section 6; what officers, clerks and employees have been appointed in virtue of section 7; what expenditures have been made in virtue of section 8; how many prosecutions have been taken and how many penalties have been imposed, and what penalties, in virtue of section 9. All that information is required if we are to know anything about the operation of this act.
Agricultural Products Act

I have another thing to say. I have to give to the house a message from one of the wardens of my constituency. He asked me to convey to the Minister of Agriculture this message, that unless producers of agricultural products are helped at once, agricultural production will decrease by one-half.


Mr. MacNICOL:: That would be very
serious.


Jean-François Pouliot: 
Thomas John Bentley: Would the hon. member read into the record some of the recommendations of the wheat pools that the farmers withhold delivery of coarse grains?


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend knows that better than I do.


Thomas John Bentley: I do.


Jean-François Pouliot: And he knows that what I have said is true.


Thomas John Bentley: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: The farmers delivered
their grain to the pool, my hon. friend will admit, and that grain was not available to our farmers in the east. Was it speculators who held the grain back? My hon. friend is too clever a man not to know that the grain was there and that it did not move east.


Thomas John Bentley: I know the whole story.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then he must tell us the story. How did it come about that the grain was immobilized at the terminals? It got so far as the terminals, and when price conditions were indefinite the farmers were told not to sell. They were expecting more. We need an embargo on coarse grains to feed the stock of the east.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, the grain trade is a great business, and I hope I shall get some illuminating information from my hon. friends from the prairie provinces. I am in earnest about it. I want to be informed because I want to be able to carry a message to the farmers of the east, particularly of my county, about the great business of the grain exchange, and we are speaking now mostly of coarse grains. I may make mistakes because I do not live in the west, but I am interested in the problem, and if I do make mistakes I want to be corrected.
In the first place, I am told that a distinction should be made between the wheat board and the pools, because they are altogether different. The wheat board is a government organization, and the co-operative pools do not represent all the farmers. They represent a certain proportion, twenty or twenty-five per cent, and the others are independent. They harvest their grain and may sell it to the pools, or not, or if it is wheat, to the wheat board.
This year the crop was not so good. There was a different proportion for oats and for

Agricultural Products Act
barley. It was, I am told, between ten and fifteen per cent less than the usual harvest. I have seen some of these figures in a very interesting publication that goes out from the Department of Trade and Commerce periodically, once every week, I believe, or twice a month. In that publication some grain was indicated as being in transit, meaning by that, that although the harvest was not as big as usual, there was enough grain to supply domestic needs. But the grain was held at the terminal points in the elevators and a large quantity of wheat had been sold and was held there. Who held it there? That is the question. It was impossible for the farmers of the east to get any coarse grains from the head of the lakes and even the cooperatives federees, which is a large organization, coul<i not get a car until the controls were lifted, which changed the situation.
What I want to know is, how it is that the elevators were full of grain, there were in the yards cars that were full of grain, and still it was impossible to move it east? Of course there are certain reasons and, as I mentioned, one reason was the uncertainty of those who were holding the wheat. Was it still held by the producers themseves who had kept the ownership of that grain in the elevators or by the speculators in feed, who were holding the grain and preventing distribution to the farmers who were engaged in mixed farming?
I am not in a position to tell, but I should like to be informed about the matter so that it shall not occur again. It is an absurd situation that the commodity is there and cannot be moved and therefore cannot serve the purpose of feeding the stock and poultry of the farmers who have to slaughter their best stock, thus causing great prejudice to the nation.
But, sir, what has struck me is that the pool has representatives on the Winnipeg grain exchange. For instance, the Saskatchewan pool has seven directors who are ex-officio members of the Winnipeg grain exchange and there are also directors of the pool from Alberta and Manitoba. I said, before the recess, that the pool had advised the farmers not to market their wheat. Was I right or was I wrong? I cannot tell exactly whether it was said by the pools themselves, but I know there has been propaganda by companies, mentioning numbers of producers. For instance, I have a letter dated December 2, addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) by the Searle Grain Company, and mentioning 2,634 signatures of farmers who did not want to market their wheat. I have sent that to my hon. friend
across the way and I hope he will be kind enough to comment upon it.
The desire of western farmers to get as much as they can for their wheat is something very natural. It is the turn of mind of everyone who is engaged in trade. Everyone tries to get the most. It is legitimate. On the other hand, the price should not be in excess of what should be legitimately paid for the commodity.
I believe that one of the reasons why the grain did not move was the uncertainty of the holder, whether he was producer or miller or speculator. They did not know whether the price would be higher. It was not fair to leave them in that uncertainty. If it had been decided that there should be an embargo on grain until the new harvest came, then the grain would have gone out at once to those who were ready to buy it and who needed it very badly.
What I cannot understand is that so many prices have been established for the various kinds of wheat. In the book of orders and regulations that came out, there were pages containing the various prices for various kinds of wheat. I am against controls; but when they are established they must serve the best possible purpose they can, and we should have had a graduation of prices of oats and barley. Since there was no such graduation, and since the price of coarse grains was uniform, it was only natural for the producers and for those holding the wheat to keep for themselves grain of the better quality and send to us in the east grain of inferior quality. It was still human nature that was working and it is impossible to blame the farmers, the holders or the millers for doing that.
There is the question of an embargo on wheat. What is established is that we have enough wheat to satisfy the needs of the farmers who are engaged in mixed farming throughout the country; but we have not enough for export, and it would be a crime against agriculture to export our grain to other countries when the needs of our farmers are not satisfied. I come back again to what I said before, namely, that if there is mutual understanding between the government of this country and the government of any other country in the world, there should be mutual understanding between the producing farmers and the consuming farmers in this country. I will not put the blame on the farmers of the west. That would probably be unfair. But my hon. friends from the prairie provinces themselves will admit that at times they are in the hands of the speculators, and there is the intermediary, the go-between, who gets higher profits than does the farmer and who
Agricultural Products Act

is an obstacle to progress in this country. The Winnipeg grain exchange has been closed for several years. It is open now. According to my information from farmers and farming organizations, it is now easier to get grain from the terminals in the east than it was sometime ago. As soon as the controls were lifted the price rose, and it is now about fifteen per cent more than it was then, if I am not mistaken. Therefore what benefited the farmers was not the controls. It was the abolition of controls. I will go farther and say I do not see why we should have controls; because when we have only enough of a commodity to satisfy domestic needs, and no more than that, we should keep that commodity here and the price should be reasonable.
We in the east do not want the western farmers to become mendicants and we do not want to exploit them. But when they have produce that serves the purpose of other farmers who also contribute to the wealth and progress of this country, there is no reason why there should not be perfect understanding between them, and there is no reason why there should not be trade between them. For a time some years ago we had Mr. Bennett's policy of a marketing board. Each province was considered a different unit in this country. That was the most absurd suggestion that anyone could have made. We are together; we have the same burdens to carry on our shoulders; and there is no reason why there should be any difference between a man who lives in British Columbia and one who lives in the central provinces or in the maritimes. We must have at heart the welfare of this country. We must help each other; and it seems to be possible.
I discuss that question with great earnestness and with an open mind. I am not ready to blame anybody; but I have been a witness to a bad situation; and it is my duty to protest against it and to ask my hon. friends from the other provinces, not only to give us all possible information, but to help us clear the sky and see to it that the producer, the farmer, gets the most of what is paid by the consumer. Let us take, as an example, salt pork, which is a common commodity. The price of salt pork is now forty-five cents a pound. What does the farmer get? The farmer gets nineteen and a half cents to twenty cents a pound for dressed pork. Where does the difference of twenty-five cents go? It does not go to the farmer, but the consumer has to pay it. The difference goes to the go-between who gets more money than he should, at the expense of both the farmer and the consumer. That is only one example.

My time is nearly up or I could quote many examples like that. What I want is that the farmer should get a satisfactory return for his work. It is easy for that to be done, provided that the intermediaries do not get all the profit. My hon. friends from'the prairies will be surprised to what an extent they will get the support of those from the east, provided that they play fair with them, and provided that they give them an opportunity to give a fine example to the world by helping each other. We speak about trade between other countries of the world. What we must have, in the first place, is trade within Canada, between good Canadians who have something to sell to each other and who can make money without exploiting each other. It is a simple thing. Jt is one form of the golden rule. It is one form of Christian charity.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Why does my hon. friend not sell the idea to his party, if it is so simple?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell my hon. friend that as soon as he sells it to his own party. I will tell him that my party already has that policy in force.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Sell it to your own party.


Jean-François Pouliot: I may ask my hon. friend if he agrees with it. Does he agree with the idea?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I say to my hon. friend to sell it to hiis own party.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I asked my hon. friend a question. He interrupted me without asking my permission. I want to know if what I say is right or not.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: If the hon. member will sit down for a minute, I should like to tell him this. My hon. friend, as far as his party is concerned, is never right as far as I can see.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not speak on behalf of the party; I speak on behalf of myself, and I have no ideas for sale. I convey ideas, and I hope that my hon. friend will have his mind opened in the near future so that he can understand the truth of what I have just been stating.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: While our minds-


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not want to be interrupted any more, Mr. Speaker. Will you just tell my hon. friend to sit down?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Our minds may not-


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, will you please tell my hon. friend definitely to sit down?

Agricultural Products Act
I have nearly finished my speech; I have just one more word to say, and it is this. I speak seriously and I speak about national problems. And when I speak down home I will say to the farmers of my community that the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Homuth) was making jokes about that matter when I was discussing it with other members who are more intelligent than he is.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Might I say this, Mr. Speaker: My hon. friend asked me a question. Our minds may not be open to these things, but at least they are not vacant.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate may I say that there are one or two matters I wish to discuss, even though I realize that the time is short and that it is the desire of the house to adjourn tomorrow evening, if at all possible. I feel, however, as do most all hon. members who have come to this extraordinary session, that there are in our minds many questions which we want answered before we return to our constituents. This afternoon two important statements were made, one by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the other by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). These had to do with some of the important questions we had in our minds. One of these questions had to do with veterans. I think each and every member of the house has been appealed to on behalf of the veterans of this country, and on behalf of the war widows, for an increase in keeping with the high cost of living.
Then most hon. members who come from farming constituencies, especially those where there are large poultry industries, want a statement in regard to the high cost of feed and what will be done if the price of eggs under the British contract does not increase. We were particularly interested in the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that a satisfactory agreement had been reached with the British authorities. But while we are glad an agreement has been reached and we hope the prices agreed upon will be in keeping with the prices of feed today, nevertheless I wish to point out to the government that they cannot be held entirely blameless for the position in which the poultry-men of our province now find themselves. These men, many of whom started in business some few years ago, were strongly encouraged and requested to expand their plants and their flocks because Great Britain wanted eggs and poultry. Many of them might have bought
victory bonds or placed any surplus funds in banks but for the injunction coming from government sources that their flocks be increased so that we could give as much as possible to Britain in the way of poultry and eggs. Therefore it is my contention that the government must pay some serious attention now to the present situation, particularly since the price of feed has been allowed to reach such high levels. Not only is that the case; all other costs in connection with poultry have gone up in the same way. The price of cases, the cost of labour, the cost of candling and the price of fish meal, one of the ingredients going into the mash, all haye increased greatly. This fact, together with present prices for eggs and poultry, means that in many cases our farmers are facing disaster.
Apparently no one can say with certainty what the British price will be, but I contend that it should be at least seven cents a dozen higher. In support of that statement, may I just draw attention to the fact that the cost of wheat to the poultry farmers of British Columbia has increased, in the period of one year, from $33 a ton to $54 a ton. Those who have studied the matter give it as their opinion that for every $3 a ton increased cost for grain there should be an increase of one cent per dozen in the price of eggs. If you compare the price of wheat on November 4, 1946, with the price on November 4, 1947, you will find that there has been an increase of $21 a ton. This means that to enable the poultrymen of British Columbia to carry on they should have a minimum increase of something Like seven cents over present contract prices.
While the British agreement is splendid, and I believe we are all pleased with the statement made this afternoon, I am one of those who believe our agricultural policy today should not be one of curtailing production but should be one of increasing production; and the only way to increase production is by encouraging the farmers to do so. Other markets than Britain may be found; and when we hear statements about the destitution of millions of people on the continent of Europe I think everyone will agree that production should be the key word of our agricultural economy rather than curtailment. The poultry industry of British Columbia has grown into what we term big business. Last year it was a $15,000,000 industry. We hatched over 8,000,000 day-old chicks, of which we exported something like 1,500,000 to the other provinces. We need an export market to take care of something like thirty per cent of all we produced in 1946. When there seem to be so
Agricultural Products Act

many difficulties in the way of reaching agreement with the British I wonder, though I realize it is none of my business, why the government of Britain should pay their farmers 4s. lOd. per dozen, which works out roughly at $1.20, when they can buy eggs from Canada at about fifty-seven cents plus freight. I am not going into that because, as I say, it is their business.
I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture one point on which, if possible, I should like him to make a statement before the house adjourns. Before I came east J attended a meeting of roughly
1,000	farmers who had assembled to protest the present feed situation confronting them. Among the questions asked me as their member was this: What good is 'the Winnipeg grain exchange? They asked me, "Why is it that immediately price ceilings on feed grains were lifted the Winnipeg grain exchange was allowed to open?" I am frank to say I could not answer the question as to why or as to what value if any it was to the Canadian economy to allow the Winnipeg grain exchange to operate. Perhaps I have too much optimism, but I am hopeful that I may get an answer to take back to those farmers, so that I can tell them just why the Winnipeg grain exchange is allowed to operate and what value, if any, it is to our economy. They said to me, "This is straight gambling". In the past, of course, grain was manipulated on the Winnipeg grain exchange.


William Scottie Bryce: It is not gambling; it is speculation.


Thomas Reid: You can call it speculation if you wish; it is just the matter of a different word, but it means the same thing. Call it speculation or whatever you wish; it is straight gambling. I do not profess to know much about it, but as a layman I would say that, whatever term you use, it is straight gambling; and that is one of the questions I should like to have answered before I return to the coast.


James Garfield Gardiner: I wonder if the hon.
gentleman would permit me to answer part of his question now, because of some remarks that have been made during the debate up to the present.


Thomas Reid: Certainly.


James Garfield Gardiner: The grain exchange has
never been closed, so that it was not a matter of opening the exchange at all. The grain exchange has been open all the time. Operations in -wheat were suspended on the grain exchange in 1943, I think, for the first time

during the war; but operations in all other grains have continued on the exchange, and all the operations have taken place there. For a time there were floor and ceiling prices on oats and barley, and the grain exchange operated between the floor and the ceiling. They handled all grain. Sometimes it was at the ceiling; at other times it was down near the floor. They had a margin of five cents, or whatever it was, between the floor and ceiling prices within which they could operate; and they did operate. So that the grain exchange has not -been closed.
I just wanted to make that statement. As proof, I would refer to rye, which has been running up and down during the whole period.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: You might add that the dominion government does not. have the power to close the exchange.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


Thomas Reid: Then I am going to ask the minister this further question. Would he consider placing all coarse grains under the wheat board? That has been suggested to me by the farmers of my constituency, and it is another of the questions to which I should like to take back an answer.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then may I answer
that question, just in a few words? The question as to whether the grain exchange can be closed is one which will have to be settled by this house. There is at present no legislation which permits the government to close it, and I am not too sure that we can deal with it ourselves.
As regards the other question, as to what I think about coarse grains being placed under the wheat board, that, too, is something which must be decided by the house. We have no authority at present under the wheat board act to place coarse grains under the wheat board. That question was discussed last session, and I took it	from	the	discussionwhich then took	place	that	the	majorityof members were	opposed to	it.	However,
it may be discussed again during this session; and whatever decision the house reaches will be followed by the minister responsible for the administration of the Wheat Board Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member asked
your opinion.


Mr. HARKNESS:: Have the farmers of
your constituency	asked	that	coarse grains
be placed under the wheat board because they produce them, or because they hope to get them cheaper?


Thomas Reid: I am very glad the hon.
member asked that question, because it brings

Agricultural Products Act
up what appears to be a conflict of opinion existing between some of those on the prairies who produce the wheat and those in other provinces who buy it. I do not know if the hon. member agrees with me when I say that while, to a certain extent, although not altogether, your economy is tied up with export prices, rather it is tied up with those of us in this country who have to buy your grain. And while we on the Pacific coast are very glad to see the farmers in the prairie provinces getting all they should for their grain-and we have never begrudged them their price at all-on the other hand, we do not want the farmers in the prairie provinces to do that and then object because we come here and ask for increased prices for our eggs and poultry. We are buyers of grain, and we buy a great deal of it from the prairie provinces, particularly Alberta. I would ask the hon. member to give some thought for the welfare of the man who depends for his livelihood upon purchasing grain for the production of eggs, poultry and hogs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is the answer that
your farmers hope to buy more cheaply?


Thomas Reid: We want to buy grain as
cheaply as we can, or sell our products to meet the high prices you are charging. I think that is a fair answer to make.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Your answer is clear
enough. You want to buy it cheaper.


Thomas Reid: I think you put it very well.
Perhaps I am wrong, but it would seem you want to soak us all you can, and give nothing in return. I may be wrong, but when the hon. member challenges me, then I have a perfect right to interpret his question as I see it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I asked only a simple question.


Thomas Reid: I shall be glad to answer any question you wish to ask.


James Horace King: I would ask hon. members not to interrupt the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) who has the floor, without asking his permission. I would remind hon. members that on this motion hon. members are allowed to speak only once.
'Mr. REID: You, Mr. Speaker, must perforce keep the rules; but these interjected questions do not worry me one bit. While we were pleased to hear that a settlement had been reached regarding beef, bacon, cheese and eggs may I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he give some thought to placing a floor under the price of poultry.
Nothing was mentioned about poultry, but it is the opinion of people in British Columbia that this should be done under the act already in force.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Are those double-breasted turkeys?


Thomas Reid: I am glad also that question was asked.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It gets you out of the other one, does it not?


Thomas Reid: I do not want to get out of any question; and if we had the time and the rules would permit, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to take on anyone-one at a time, of course-and answer all these questions; because, after being in public life for more than 25 years, the questions do not bother me very much. But, speaking of turkeys-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I was thinking about those big turkeys.


Thomas Reid: Those British Columbia turkeys with big breasts. There are two or three cars rolling all the way from British Columbia, and I advise you to taste them. After you do, you will always want British Columbia turkeys-just as the Ontario people want British Columbia apples, after tasting them. However, that brings something else into the discussion. One could have a real argument on that point.
I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to give thought to putting a floor under poultry. Realizing the time at our disposal is short and that many other members may wish to take part in the debate, I shall not take all the forty minutes at my disposal. I thought, however, it was my duty to bring to the attention of the minister the serious state of affairs confronting the poultrymen of British Columbia.
I should like now, for a moment or two, to refer to another industry, which has not been mentioned thus far in the discussions on the British trade agreements. I refer to the canned salmon situation. Speaking roughly, the average pack of canned salmon in British Columbia ranges from 1,300,000 cases to 2,000,000 cases a year. The industry is geared to put out a pack of a minimum of 1,000,000 cases. Prior to the war, we were supplying Great Britain with about 400,000 cases a year and provided the Canadian people with about
600,000	cases. Generally a million cases were divided between British and Canadian peoples in the amounts I have mentioned. Then the war came along and Great Britain said to our government, "We would like to have all
Agricultural Products Act

the canned fish you can produce." Our industry therefore geared up a little higher and supplied the British people during the war years with all the canned salmon we in British Columbia produced. The Canadian people willingly and gladly forewent that beautiful, lovely tasting sockeye salmon, and other varieties as well, so that the British people would be able to carry on and be fed.
Naturally we lost some markets thereby. Then, toward the end of the war, indeed as late as last year, the British ministry of food, which had a contract under which it agreed to take forty per cent of the canned salmon pack of British Columbia, asked the industry if it would be good enough to relinquish the agreement entered into. The industry agreed and said, "Yes, we will allow you to change the contract from forty per cent to twenty per cent of our pack".
Of that twenty per cent which we agreed to supply them, agreeing at the same time to find a market elsewhere for the remainder, thus far they have taken up only six per cent. They must have funds somewhere, because they would never have agreed to take twenty per cent of the entire canned salmon pack of British Columbia unless they knew they had th funds to pay for it, either through a loan from us or through their own efforts under their own financial economy.
We are now faced, however, with a loss of that market under the Geneva trade treaties, treaties which, by the way, few members have had time to study fully. All we can do at the moment is to take a salient point or article of the treaty here and there and give it some study. In fact the agreement is so voluminous no one needs apologize for not knowing the full import of its ramifications.
When the trade treaty was being negotiated those who were there representing the fishing industry overlooked one little point in connection with the exportation of fresh and frozen fish. The general meaning of fresh fish is fish that is caught and shipped direct to' the market in its fresh form, to be used in that form. Frozen fish is similar, only it is frozen to keep it longer and from deteriorating. It was never realized at the time that fresh fish would be exported to the United States to be processed into canned salmon.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order, I was wondering what fish have to do with the Agricultural Products Act. Are they to be used as fertilizer?


Thomas Reid: I did not quite understand the reason for the hon. member's first question, but when, in debate, an hon. member asks such a question now-well, it speaks for itself.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I have your ruling, Mr. Speaker?


James Horace King: Since the debate started on the motion now before the house, the Speaker has been most generous to members on all sides. I would ask the hon. member to do everything possible to keep the debate relevant to the motion.


Thomas Reid: I am glad to see that you have the Christmas spirit, Mr. Speaker, but I do . not like to see it exhibited so freely by some members of the opposition.
If fish caught in British Columbia waters are to be bought up by the United States industry, the entire canning industry of that province will be in jeopardy and might very well be put completely out of business. I am glad the new Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Gregg) is with us tonight. I know he has this matter in hand and I draw his attention particularly to this point.
After all, something is owed to us by the British government and the British people. It is a little disquieting to learn that they are negotiating with a country, which only recently acquired fisheries, for something like
750,000	cases of salmon. I think it should be pointed out to them just what the Canadian people and the Canadian fishing industry did during the years of war. They should be asked to consider that. If they do that, then they will be following out the words used by the Prime Minister this afternoon when he said that the spirit of good will prevailed in the negotiations.
If they approach the matter from that point of view I am sure that they will give an order to this country for at least 200,000 cases of salmon. If not, I am afraid that the industry in British Columbia will suffer a collapse. I make no apology for drawing the attention of the house to this matter. It is a serious one, and I felt that it was my duty, representing as I do, not only an agricultural riding, but a riding where there are fishermen dependent upon the canning industry for their living, to bring this matter to the attention of the government and to urge that they make further representations to the British along the lines I have just suggested.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the house very long in discussing this matter; but, coming as I do from an agricultural constituency and an agricultural province, I thought I should say a few words. I know the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon will be of great interest, not only to all members of this house, but to the people of Canada from one end to the

Agricultural Products Act
other. However, I do not think the Prime Minister gave us the information which we would have liked to have. He told us that the contract had been made and that agreements have been settled with Great Britain, but we do not know the nature of that contract. I do not feel that I can discuss at any length a contract the terms of which are not known to this house or to the people of Canada.
At the outset, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) if it is a fact that definite contracts have been signed between Great Britain and Canada without prices being mentioned. As we all know, when a contract is made even between two individuals the price of the article being bought or sold is the very essence of the contract. Can the minister tell us whether prices have been stipulated in these contracts?


James Garfield Gardiner: The prices which it is considered should be in the contract have been discussed with the representatives of the British who are here and those prices have been submitted to London for their consideration. We expect word very shortly with regard to them. The principle upon which those prices are to be arrived at has been settled. The principle is that there are to be increases over and above the prices which are now in the agreements to take care of what is considered to have been an increase in cost brought about by increases in grain prices not already taken care of.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is about as indefinite as what we had before; there is nothing defin-nite about that.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are several members over there who could figure it very quickly.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think they would be guessing. As a matter of fact you have to do a lot of guessing when you ask questions of the government.
As I said, it is not my intention to take up much of the time of the house. I listened to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) speak this afternoon. He emphasized a principle which he considered to be very important; that is, if we sell goods to Great Britain on credit, why should it be necessary for us to pay cash for the goods we buy from them?
It occurs to me that there are many things produced in England which we could use. For many years England has been the best customer of Canada and today she is producing goods which could be exchanged for
goods produced here. I do not think it is altogether necessary for us to pay cash to Great Britain for goods purchased there. I think the people of Great Britain would be most anxious to exchange goods with us. I should like to quote from a Canadian Press dispatch from London, dated December 16, and headed, "Meet Canadian Terms, News-Chronicle's Plea", and reading as follows:
"We hope very much that Britain will do her utmost to meet the Canadians," the paper said, adding that Canada has planned her "whole agricultural program to meet the needs of the British market."
It goes on to say:
In return, Canada should speedily discuss with Washington the raising of the embargo upon British imports which she imposed because she had to stop her purchases of United States goods and did not feel free to discriminate in favour of Britain.
Here is the last paragraph, which is the most important:
It is both tragic and absurd that there should be reports of clothing and textiles piling up unsold in British warehouses when it is known that Canada needs goods of this kind.
My point is this, that if there are goods piling up in Great Britain which Canada needs it is not fair to the Canadian people or to the people of Great Britain that we should impose an embargo upon British goods, especially when Great Britain is willing to exchange those goods for our farm products.
But my chief object tonight is to bring to the attention of the house the situation of agriculture in the maritime provinces. Agriculture is one of the great basic industries of the province of New Brunswick, and we have had a very difficult time in past years. During the war, while it was more difficult for us to produce in New Brunswick than in other parts of Canada, we did produce large quantities of agricultural products and our farmers in the province enjoyed a certain amount of prosperity. But within the last few weeks a situation has arisen in that province which is worse, I think, than in any other part of Canada, with the exception of our sister maritime provinces. In my own county of Kings, New Brunswick, dairying is carried on to a large extent; in fact, the town of Sussex, my home town, is known as the dairy centre of the maritime provinces. The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that today many of our dairy herds of great value are being broken up and sold in that part of the country, and in addition, as has been pointed out by many other hon. members, hundreds of young pigs are being killed. I received a
Agricultural Products Act

letter just today from one of my constituents, in which he says:
For instance, I raised six choice young pigs from a fall litter, but as the price of the feed would come to more than the pigs would be worth after they had reached maturity I was forced to knock them on the head.
I am also killing off my hens as eggs will not pay the feed bill.
He mentions many other matters. The situation of that farmer is duplicated practically all over my constituency and in the province of New Brunswick.
To show hon. members just how much greater a burden our farmers in New Brunswick have to bear, I wish to quote from the Live Stock Market Review, of the Department of Agriculture, of December 11, 1947, in which a table is given showing millfeed prices in various parts of Canada. In Ontario and Quebec, with the exception of Riviere du Loup, which is in the constituency of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and for which at one time he got a railway station after strenuous efforts, the price of bran is $46.25; in Fredericton, New Brunswick, the price is $49.25, and in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, $50425.
Shorts is another feed used by many of our dairymen. It is selling at $47.50 in Ontario and Quebec, $50.50 in Fredericton, and $51.50 in Antigonish.
Middlings is selling at $51.50 in Ontario and Quebec, $54.50 in Fredericton, and $55.50 in Antigonish.
Barley meal is selling at $66.80 in Ontario and Quebec, $69.80 in Fredericton, and $70.80 in Antigonish.
Oat chop is selling at $67.50 in Ontario and Quebec, $70.50 in Fredericton and $71.50 in Antigonish.
Hon. members speak of the great difficulties which their farmers are having in other parts of Canada, but the millfeed prices which I have just put on Hansard show the added costs to which the farmers of the maritime provinces are put.
One of the great crops in New Brunswick is the potato crop. We have had a very good crop this year. I know the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield) will tell the house more about that. But an added difficulty in raising potatoes in New Brunswick is the great increase in the price of fertilizer in that province. I have here a Canadian Press dispatch from Ottawa, which, under the heading "Higher fertilizer price for maritime farmers next spring, says Ottawa" states:
A 20 per cent jump in fertilizer prices in the maritime provinces next spring was predicted today by the dominion Department of Agricul-

ture in a report placed before the opening meeting of the dominion-provincial agricultural conference.
The article goes on to state that the maritime provinces have the longest and most expensive freight haul from the sources of supply of fertilizer and that it is possible that price increases in the spring of 1948 will approximate eight per cent in Ontario, twelve per cent in Quebec, and twenty per cent in the maritime provinces. Other members think their farmers are having a difficult time, but I would ask them if the plight of their farmers would not be much worse if they had to pay the increased costs that our farmers in the maritime provinces have to pay.
I am sorry to see that no provision is made in the agreements for the sale of apples. Under the British empire trade agreements, the apple industry in Nova Scotia flourished to an extent that it never did before, and ships were specially constructed, I believe, to convey our apple crop from the maritimes and Canada to Great Britain. During the war it was fairly easy for us in the maritimes to dispose of our apple crop through making apple cider, apple juice and by processing apples. But that should not be made a permanent policy, and I plead for something to be done on behalf of the apple crop in the maritime provinces. I say the maritime provinces because in New Brunswick we are going in extensively for the production of apples. Very fine orchards have been established along the Saint John river as well as in many other sections of the province, but unless something is done for this industry, which is very important to the maritimes, we shall have a serious time.
Another factor which operates very strongly against us is the freight rates. There is the Maritime Freight Rates Act, it is true. I shall not take time to debate that tonight, although I know that some members have said that we are not entitled to its benefits. But it was given to us many years ago and there is sound justification for continuing it. The railways are now proposing to increase their freight rates by thirty per cent. Hon. members will realize just what an increase of that size would mean to our farming and other industries in the maritime provinces.
There is another complaint which we had, and since the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) was allowed to discuss canned salmon, I think I can bring this matter up here. It has to do with our shipping industry. Considering the great difficulties which we have had in our provinces in the raising of our produce, potatoes and apples, and in the sale of them, we had expected that

Agricultural Products Act
they would be shipped, when they were shipped, from Canadian ports. But a few weeks ago shipments from western Canada, instead of going through either the port of Saint John or the port of Halifax, as our people had reason to believe they would, were diverted. Provision was made for these shipments to go through the port of Portland, Maine. Moreover, great quantities of potatoes which are being shipped from New Brunswick, and which have always been shipped from the port of Saint John, are to go through the port of Portland. Arrangements have been made to ship them through that port. That is a matter which the government should and must take into very careful consideration if they are to do justice to that part of Canada.
I am not going to discuss this matter further. We in the maritime provinces wish to do our share in providing food, not only for ourselves and for the rest of Canada, but also for Great Britain, but I suggest that this government should take into consideration the great handicaps under which we are trying to operate at the present time. We pay more for our farm machinery than any other part of Canada. We pay more in freight; we pay more for the fertilizer we use to produce our crops, more for our trucks, more for the feed we feed our dairy cattle and our hogs, and we are continually losing markets which we had in the past. The farmers of the maritimes are looking to this government to do something to enable them to operate on an equal footing with the farmers of other parts of the dominion.
We are going home tomorrow, most of us at any rate, and I should like to have a definite statement from the Minister of Agriculture. I feel that I and other members are entitled to know something definite which we can take back to our farmers, so that we can tell them what is being done, and that they may have at least some hope to enable them to carry on their very hard and difficult task.


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to offer the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) some gratuitious advice which I thought he would find valuable, and I still intend to do so before I get through, but I find it necessary, first, to reply to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Because of the graciousness of his questions I think he is entitled to an answer. I only regret that time will not permit me to give him as complete an answer as I think he is entitled to.
First, I am going to make a recommendation to the hon. member for Temiscouata and other members on that side of the house from eastern Canada. It is that they might take a leaf from the book of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), who is extremely interested in irrigation and goes in his own time and
examines all irrigation schemes in Canada, looking into their possibilities, in order to make himself familiar with the subject. The result is that there is no better authority among the laymen in this house or in the country than the hon. member for Davenport.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is a great man.


Thomas John Bentley: Yes. If some of my hon. friends on the other side would make the same kind of examination of conditions affecting the grain farmers of the west and their methods of marketing grain, much of the misunderstanding which it is evident the hon. member has would disappear, because many of the remarks he made could only have been made because of misinformation, since I know the hon. member is too honourable and honest to make these remarks without sincerely believing them to be true.
Briefly, I wish to point out to the hon. member that there are possibly three different kinds of concerns which own country elevators in the prairie provinces. There are over
5,000	of these elevators altogether. Some belong to the farmers themselves. In Alberta there is the Alberta wheat pool; in Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan wheat pool, and in Manitoba, the Manitoba pool elevators. These are distinctly farmer-owned organizations. Then there is another kind called the united grain growers, which was at one time a farmer-owned organization, but some of whose shares have gradually, in the course of time, drifted into the hands of non-farmers, so that now it is partly farmer-owned and partly nonfarmer-owned. But it is a joint stock company.
The pools are co-operative in make-up. The united grain growers is a joint stock company, and there is the other kind, which are perfectly legitimate. They are owned either by private individuals or by private joint stock companies; they operate elevators for the purpose of taking in farmers' grain at a certain definite handling charge and commission for selling, and all operate the same way.
None of the pools at the present time pool grain as it was pooled before 1930. All operate in the same way. The farmer brings the grain in and it is purchased by the elevator agent. If it is wheat, at the present time, since September, 1943, the elevator company to which he goes takes it and makes the payment authorized by the wheat board for the particular type of wheat, issues a cash ticket, which is an advance payment, and a participation certificate which enables the farmer to share in any future payments the wheat board may make. The wheat board then controls the wheat and directs the elevator company, be it farmer-owned or partly farmer-owned
Agricultural Products Act

or completely privately owned, where to place the wheat so that the wheat board will have it in saleable position at all times.
I should like to go farther than that but time is not available. The minister gave a very good statement tonight, and an important one, when he said that the Winnipeg grain exchange has never been closed. The Winnipeg grain exchange is not an elevator company or a grain company. It is a market that has been established. It is obvious that no farmer can take a carload of grain and peddle it all over the world where grain can be sold, so that on the grain exchange the elevator company, or any individual who has a document that entitles him to a certain quantity of grain may, insofar as the grain exchange operates, go into their pit and offer that for sale. Buyers from all over the world, in the heyday of the business, would go to the pit and buy the grain, and that grain could then be sold at the prices agreed upon. That is the Winnipeg grain exchange, on which all elevator companies have seats which enable them to sell documents entitling them to ownership of grain. That is the purpose of the grain exchange. Whether this parliament or any law in the land has authority to close it, I do not know, but I do know that it could not exist if no grain were sold in that pit and commissions paid thereon.
I would ask the hon. member if he cares to do so, to listen carefully to the recommendations I am going to make to the minister as I go along. Before proceeding to that, however, I wish to join with the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) and the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) in their speeches this afternoon. With what they said I heartily agree. I will not repeat what they said because it is on the record in Hansard and it would be only taking up time to continue in that vein. They expressed opinions which many of us hold out there.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) dealt with some of the problems in grain handling and was questioned from this side of the house. Had I been asking the questions, my questions would have been different. I agree with the attitude he took that those people, both west of the prairie provinces and east of the prairies who are large buyers of our coarse grains, or of any of our grains, for feeding purposes should get those grains at prices they are able to pay and according to the kind of livestock feeding business they are in, and it is for that reason I wish to make certain recommendations to the minister tonight. I think they are recom-

mendations that can be supported by a very large body of opinion in western Canada; much larger, if I may say so, that those represented on the petition presented by the Searle Grain Company. Again I want to point out to the hon. member and any others who are interested that this petition, this letter to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), accompanied by a letter from the Searle Grain Company and a letter from a farmer who is anonymous because there is no signature, does not deal with the matter of coarse grains which is under discussion here tonight. It is dealing entirely with the operations of the wheat board.
The Searle Grain Company have taken an attitude-and quite properly so if they feel like it; they have a perfect right to their ideas on the matter-entirely in opposition to what this group believe in, namely, the orderly marketing of wheat and what the government is doing at the present time under the British wheat contract. They are persistent and consistent in demanding that everything be done which would make it possible for open trading on the grain exchange which, as the minister has told us tonight, ceased to operate as far as wheat is concerned on September 23, 1943, I believe it was.
I believe there are one or two occasions in history when wheat trading on the Winnipeg exchange was suspended. I believe one was during the first world war in 1917 and 1918 and again in 1920; until the end of the crop year 1920; I think it was, when the old Canada wheat board was in operation. That is the position there, and I will return this letter to the hon. member, but it deals with wheat and with that opposition to the wheat marketing at the present time, and has nothing to do with the matter under discussion here tonight.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) this afternoon did express one or two ideas with which I think we could agree.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend will permit me to do so, I want to thank him for what he has just said and for the information he has just given.


Thomas John Bentley: The hon. member is welcome. I would give more if I had the time. I have plenty more here.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe made a statement, I think, that almost any fair-minded person in the house would have to agree with, namely, that if Canada is to make gifts or partial gifts to other countries, then all the taxpayers in Canada should share, in one form or another in the making

Agricultural Products Act
of that gift. While we agreed, and still agree, with the principle of long-term trading and bilateral trading if necessary-in fact, we see nothing wrong with the wheat contract with Britain!-we did hope and did express the hope when- we did agree with that in the initial stages, that this government would hold the price line with regard to the things the farmer has to buy. That was one of the things we emphasize and have emphasized continuously since that wheat board act. But that does not destroy our faith and belief in the act as a principle of marketing, even though we do not agree with the practical operation of it at the present time, in its entirety. So I agree with the hon. member for Dufferin^Simcoe in that and I agree with him in another statement-and I think every member of this house and everyone in this country would agree with this too-namely, that if we propose to sell wheat or eggs or fish or anything else that we have more of than we ourselves can consume, to another country, we must be prepared to take from that country an equal amount of goods which we need in this country and which we cannot produce ourselves or cannot produce as economically as they can. With regard to his remarks about the Minister of Agriculture-I do not know just what he called him; it was some kind of socialist, but not quite the same kind as I am, but both kinds he did not like-I do not agree with him there at all, and he would not expect me to.
The hon. member for Temiscouata also brought out another matter in connection with coarse grains. He wanted to know who was responsible for holding this grain up so that it did not get to the farmers whom he and others like him represent, in the agricultural communities or constituencies in the other parts of Canada. I do not know that I can lay the blame on any particular person. I think the blame is attributable to the kind of method we have used. I believe the Minister of Agriculture and the government made a very serious error when they did not do one of two things, namely, either announce the increase in the price of coarse grains at the start of the new grain season, which is on August 1 of every year, or else at that time have placed it completely under the operations of the wheat board, so that whatever changes took place in the price at a later date would be reflected back in>
wheat board payments to deliveries of coarse grain. One of those two methods should have been followed. Neither of them was.
The result was that the elevator companies accepted the coarse grain, paid for it at the price as it was according to the grain exchange
price, either between the floor or the ceiling price as explained by the Minister of Agriculture, and then sold that grain. No elevator company holds the grain. If my hon. friend will read the Sir Josiah Stamp report, it said that those who finance the elevator companies will not allow them to hold grain on borrowed money, that is, money borrowed from the banks. Most of them do borrow from banks. I do not know any that do not, unless possibly Searle; but I do not know of any others. Therefore, by their agreement with their banks, when they borrow they immediately sell that grain, deducting therefrom their spreads, freight and other costs and get it into a position where it is deliverable against a contract. When it gets to that place, somebody else has it.
So far as a pool official ever recommending that the farmers hold that grain and speculate in it, I very much doubt that statement and I think the hon. member has been misinformed there, because, while something that may appear like that may have happened, that would not be it. Remember that I mentioned that the wheat board took it. Remember that the wheat board, once the wheat is delivered, have the right to order that wheat to whatever position they require it for sales. Remember that navigation closes on the great lakes. Therefore the wheat must be moved to tide water as rapidly as possible, particularly if it is coming east, before navigation closes. Obviously the wheat board wants that grain to go down the lakes then. Therefore it must be loaded into cars, brought to the terminals, loaded in the ships and unloaded, and stored down here where it can go out by ocean-going freight during the winter season, because the rail haul is very long from Port Arthur down to our Atlantic ocean ports. Some goes to the western ports, it is true.
It is true that the wheat board did ask the elevator companies to use every available car that they could, commensurate with the space in their elevators, to move the wheat forward as fast as possible. It is quite possible-I do not know this; the Minister of Trade and Commerce could answer this better than I- that the wheat board did ask the terminal elevators to load boats with wheat as rapidly as possible before navigation closed. But I do know that this year was a normal one so far as movement of coarse grains are concerned from the farms down to the terminals. Usually, wheat being the big cash group, the farmers will move more wheat or a larger amount of wheat in the fall than they will coarse grain. There are some farmers who
Agricultural Products Act

raise more coarse grain as their cash crop than wheat and they obviously sell theirs. The result is that the normal movement of coarse grain during the fall months will run between forty or sixty per cent of the coarse grain supply for market in any one year. This year I understand it ran about sixty per cent, which would be right at the top level of normal. Therefore the farmer did not hold it. I have explained that the elevator companies would bring it down and place it in the contract position. Who buys it then and what they do with it, of course is their business and nobody can say whether they do rightly or wrongly. As long as it is private business, they have a perfect right to hold it and they have a perfect right to do what they like with it. Whether they held it or not, I could not say.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the hon.
member permit a question?


Thomas John Bentley: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do you know that until about a week ago the wheat board forbade the all-rail movement of coarse grain from western Canada to the east? Until just about one week ago that was forbidden, which was, of course, the reason there was no competition.


Thomas John Bentley: To a large extent the hon. member is correct. I am not going to argue about that. The wheat board had probably sound ideas for doing that. I hardly think it is quite as bad as that. However, that is not the whole story. There are other people who enter into it. I am not going to criticize them. It is the policy I am criticizing. I am simply trying to point out the things that happened. What the hon. member for Calgary West says may be perfectly true but there were other responsible individuals. I am not going to hold them guilty; I will say "responsible".
I have here a little paper printed at Cowans-ville, in the province of Quebec. It is called "The Church, Farm and Town", and the editor is Reverend John Peacock. He states that the farmers of that district held meetings, which were quite well attended, protesting against the increase in the price of feed grains. He gives two stories; the second one, which I am going to quote, may point to those who, to some extent, were responsible for holding up grain. He says:
The second story is of a lake boat filled with grain-
That is coarse grains.

left at a dockside (Toronto, I think it was) for from ten days to two weeks with no attempt

being made to unload and ship it to the market, until the day of the removal of the subsidy, and the subsequent price rise.
That is the story printed in this paper, and I suppose some things like that happened. They could not have happened if what I am now going to recommend to the minister and the government had been done; that is the same thing the hon. member for New Westminster just asked the minister. I know the minister will not agree to the suggestion now, but I wish he would say here the things I have heard him say at meetings in the country. I always attend any meeting in the country at which the minister is present, if I can possibly do so; when he spoke in the Elks Hall in our city on October 10 of this year I cancelled what to me were important engagements in order to listen to him, because he is always interesting and informative; and, besides, it is just as well to keep as close track of him as possible when he is in Saskatchewan. At that meeting the minister was discussing the wheat marketing policy and various points of view. During the course of that discussion, he said the private grain trade, the private elevator companies and others did not agree with the present method of marketing wheat. He went on to say, quite rightly, I think, that they had a perfect right to that opinion, but he stated that the organized farmers did agree that this was the right principle, and he added, "I agree, and I take my advice from the organized farmers." That indicated clearly that the minister is an intelligent man. It also indicated that he is learning that the organized farmers know what they want and why they want it. It also indicated that the government believes it worth while to listen to people who get together to present their own points of view and suggest different methods.
I have no quarrel with the minister up to that point, but I want to point out to him, if he meant what he said on that occasion, that he would prefer to take his advice from the organized farmers, that at three successive annual meetings of the Saskatchewan wheat pool resolutions were passed asking that oats and barley as well as flaxseed be included in the operations of the wheat board. So, if the minister prefers the opinion and advice of the organized farmers he should not disregard their advice concerning the marketing of coarse grain, any more than he should disregard it in connection with the marketing of wheat. Of course the minister may say the government has not power to do this. On more than one occasion in this house I have been twitted because of my lack of legal knowledge. I humbly confess I have very

Agricultural Products Act
little legal knowledge. When my little operations are against the law I carry them on where there is no law to watch me, so that I do not need a lawyer to help me; and I never have operations big enough, and never have any intention to break the law, so that I do not have to hire a lawyer to find a loophole for me. But I do understand English when it is put in the ordinary way, and I want to point out that subsection 2 of section 7 of the act amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which we considered last session, states:
Except as directed by the governor in council, the board shall not buy grain, other than wheat.
If a law is passed saying that, except by a certain order of the governor in council, which I believe is the cabinet, you must not do something, it must automatically follow that if the order is passed you can do that thing; otherwise there is no meaning to the phrase. I would ask any lawyer here if I am wrong in my interpretation. If, under certain conditions, a certain body in authority may allow you to do a certain thing, is it not implied that the power to do it is there, once the authority is given by that body? So for the life of me I do not see how the minister can say the government does not have authority. When he speaks I hope he will clear up this point, though he is not a lawyer, either. He used to be a schoolteacher, however, and should be able to put it into words even I can understand, without the need for any legal phraseology.
Not only did the minister say at a public meeting in my hearing that he preferred to take the advice of organized farmers. I want him to tell me if I am to believe press reports of a meeting which I did not attend but which was addressed by the minister and also by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), who is the leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan. Both these gentlemen are reported to have said at that Liberal caucus or public meeting in Saskatchewan that they believed coarse grains should be included in the operations of the wheat board and that they would press for their inclusion at the next session of parliament, meaning this very session. When the minister speaks tonight I hope he will do that very thing and make the initial move to have this done, as well as explain why the government has not the legal power in spite of the paragraph I read.
Someone may ask why I am requesting that coarse grains be included in the operations of the wheat board.


Walter Adam Tucker: If the hon. gentleman will permit a question, is he aware of the resolution passed by the wheat pool delegates at their last meeting asking that the provincial government pass enabling or ancillary legislation because of doubt whether the federal parliament had the right to make the handling of grains exclusively a matter for the wheat board? Is he aware of that resolution?


Thomas John Bentley: Yes, I am aware of it.


Walter Adam Tucker: I suppose the hon. member would agree, then, that if 4he pool delegates felt there was some doubt about the power of this parliament, there may actually be some question about it?


Thomas John Bentley: Well, there is always
a doubt about anything. Sometimes, after a person is laid out in the casket somebody doubts whether he has really passed away, and they have to have another look at the body.


Walter Adam Tucker: Surely the hon. member
is not suggesting that the wheat pool is as foolish as that.


Thomas John Bentley: I wish the hon. member would not try to put words into my mouth. I am trying to be fair. If somebody wants a battle I am prepared for it, but I am trying to give my point of view. I agree that the pool expressed that doubt. They have not the advantage of the advice of the law officers of the crown. They have one firm of solicitors; but, as a lawyer, the hon. member for Rosthern knows he may express a perfectly honest opinion on a legal point today and have that opinion disputed before a judge tomorrow by another equally able lawyer. The wheat pool simply took this position: if there is any shadow of doubt let us cover that doubt as far as Saskatchewan is concerned by having it removed, as far as it is possible to do so, by action of the Saskatchewan legislature.


Walter Adam Tucker: Then let me ask the hon.
member another question. Has he asked the government which he supports in Saskatchewan to pass that ancillary legislation?


Thomas John Bentley: Yes.


Walter Adam Tucker: You have?


Thomas John Bentley: Yes.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have yet to hear of it.


Thomas John Bentley: Well, I have not been offered an acclamation in a provincial constituency in Saskatchewan-
Agricultural Products Act


Walter Adam Tucker: They offered me the acclamation because they knew they could not beat me if they tried.


Thomas John Bentley: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to rile the hon. gentleman-


Walter Adam Tucker: I am not riled at all. I was amused by the offer of something they could not take from me.


Thomas John Bentley: Well, if they could not take it from him, and the hon. member is so sure of that, why does he not accept the acclamation and ask these questions there?


An hon. MEMBER:: The same reason Tommy Douglas did not.


Walter Adam Tucker: Why did the present
premier not go when elected leader?
An hen. MEMBER: He went.


Walter Adam Tucker: He went out just before the writs for the general election were issued.


Thomas John Bentley: He went anyway. That is more than the hon. member for Rosthern has done.


Walter Adam Tucker: I will go before the writs are issued, too.


Thomas John Bentley: If we can get away from Saskatchewan politics for a moment and deal with the matter under discussion, I wish to make a recommendation.


Walter Adam Tucker: Why did you not answer my question?


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask an intelligent one.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is an intelligent one. Why do you not ask the government of Saskatchewan to do something?


Thomas John Bentley: I am not speaking in the Saskatchewan legislature; I am speaking in the House of Commons. I cannot ask the Saskatchewan government to do something, because I am not in the legislature to do so. I have to do so when I meet members of that government and I have done that. If the house wants more assurance than that, let me say I cannot go into their legislature and ask questions. I have no seat there. I think the hon, member had better use a little more judgment than, that.


Walter Adam Tucker: I asked the hon. member-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member said-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: I must advise the hon. member that the hon.

member who has the floor should not be interrupted unless he consents to answer questions.


Thomas John Bentley: I shall go on with what I was going to recommend. I pointed out a while ago-and I tried to be careful to lay no blame on anybody, either the elevator companies, or the grain exchange or those who process or handle the feed here-that the farmers in eastern Canada, and I know the farmers on the prairies and in all parts of Canada where they sell their grain are, with few exceptions, disappointed in the policy.
I believe it could be made agreeable to all concerned by an act of this House of Commons, if necessary, and by enabling legislation from the provinces, if that is necessary, which would meet the very suggestion mentioned by the hon. member for Temiscouata, namely, the need for co-ordination of interest, among the various farmers of Canada. And because of that, I believe it would be proper for the government here to include coarse grains in the operations of the wheat board now, or as quickly as possible.
I believe it would be proper to make a survey, because the livestock industry is in a serious condition in, this country. It would be proper to make a survey of the livestock population and the amount of feed available, to see if that amount of feed, will carry the necessary livestock through the necessary period of time, either as breeding or as marketable stock, until it comes to that position.
I believe they should then, through the wheat board, if it has control of coarse grains, make those feeding supplies available where and as required, either at prices the feeders can pay and at prices the grower can afford to sell them, or, if that cannot be done, by subsidy, to either or both, so as to make that possible.
I believe that it is an expedient. I know it is an expedient; it is not a long-term policy. I would not want to see it carried out forever in this country, but it could be carried out until such time as production catches up so as to make it possible for the livestock producer and the coarse grain producer to act with some degree of assurance. With that survey, and with the wheat board handling coarse grain, I believe then that the things suggested by the hon. member for Temiscouata can be done, because I know there is widespread discontent all across Canada.
Then,, for the government to be fair with all concerned, because the price increase was not announced until October 22-I believe that was the date-some provision would have

Agricultural Products Act
to be made. There were quite a number of farmers who did deliver coarse grains at lower prices. There were some, of course, who for various reasons did not. They might have been quite proper reasons, but some were not ready to deliver. Some had delivered all the wheat they grew. Whatever the reasons were, they were perfectly legitimate reasons. All those people who did not deliver will benefit. But the people who delivered1 approximately sixty per cent of the coarse grain will take a lower price than the others. Somebody made that money. I will not say who it was, because I do not know. No doubt a variety of people made it. But I say the proper thing for the government to do is to look into the matter and find out who made it. Then the people who did make it should have it taxed back, and it should go into the hands of the wheat board, and into that pool, for redistribution to all those growers who delivered at the lower price. I suggest that would make it fair, and would treat everyone fairly. The person who made that extra profit would make his legitimate charges, which he would receive in any event; but he would not make that excess profit, which I am sure someone must have made from that grain. I offer that suggestion.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is it not true that it is easy to know who had the sixty per cent of the grain delivered before October 21 which was net sold?
.Mr. BENTLEY: I understand that about sixty per cent of the coarse grains had been delivered. Therefore the elevator companies had sold or resold all of that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that about forty per cent of which had been delivered was sold and that sixty per cent was not.


Thomas John Bentley: About forty per cent of the amount delivered, the minister says, was sold? However, that would not be hard to find out. An effort would have to be made to find out who made that extra money. If the elevator companies made it, the pool or others, then they should be asked to reimburse the growers, and I do not believe there would be any complaint about it. But there are others who made extra profit besides the elevator companies and they should make restitution too.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I point out the government has already suggested to those who have the sixty per cent of the grain that if they will make a report to the government and suggest consideration of the matter, consideration will be given to it. It has not been said what will be done about it, but it has
been said that as soon as they have reached that point where they can report on the sixty per cent in its relationship to the forty per cent, consideration will be given to any representations made.


Thomas John Bentley: I am glad to hear that.
I hope they get all those groups. I hope they get it from people who handled the grain since the farmer let go of it, including the elevator companies, the mixing houses, the dealers and so on, right dowm to the last individual who sells grain to the eastern farmer.
And if there is not enough to come back from them, then I think what difference there is between what the farmers who sold early and those who sold late received, a government subsidy should be introduced to bring all growers to the same price level.
I have offered these suggestions in the best of good faith. I have tried to be co-operative. And if the hon. member for Rosthern had not got angry, and tried-


Walter Adam Tucker: I did not get angry. Might I ask the hon. member a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Walter Adam Tucker: Is the last suggestion not exactly what the Liberal party in Saskatchewan suggested at the last executive meeting?


Thomas John Bentley: I was not at the last Liberal caucus in Saskatchewan. I cannot answer that.


Walter Adam Tucker: Don't you read the newspapers?


Thomas John Bentley: I will not take the time to answer that. I have seen a variety of reports, and I have mentioned some of them. I do not know if newspaper reports are always correct.


Walter Adam Tucker: Did you not hear the
Minister of Agriculture say it?


Thomas John Bentley: I only stated what I heard. I listened to the Minister of Agriculture and repeated what I heard him say. Other things I have mentioned were press reports and I do not know for certain if they are right. But I certainly cannot say anything about what happened at a Liberal meeting. I do not attend them; I do not attend Liberal caucuses.
I do not wish to take up further the time of the house. I hope the minister will give consideration to what I have said.


Mr. T. B. BARRETT (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, one purpose of my rising at this time is to fulfil a promise which I made shortly before I came here to a very angry gathering of farmers. Like the hon. member for New
Agricultural Products Act

Westminster (Mr. Reid), I attended a gathering that had been called by the federation of agriculture. It is needless for me to go into the details of that meeting because the story is well known. We heard the story of the liquidation of breeding stock, the slaughtering of young pigs, the killing of laying pullets and the drying up of dairy cattle. The farmers at that meeting were indignant at the policies which had been pursued by this government and, in my opinion, those policies were the direct result of the Agricultural Products Act which we are supposed to be debating.
I wish to say that, while considerable indignation was expressed at that meeting there was no suggestion that the government had done wrong in lifting the price ceilings on coarse grains. The farmers in my part of the country are quite willing to see the farmers in western Canada get all they can for their coarse grain. They felt that the western farmers were entitled to it, but what they were particularly displeased about was the timing and the fact that prices were still held down on the products of the eastern farmer who consumes those coarse grains.
When this act was going through the house last spring this party opposed it. I gave as my reason for opposing it that I considered it to be pure socialism. I took the stand that the more of these socialistic policies we adopted, the harder it would be to get away from them. I took the stand also that I considered it most unjust and most unfair to give the government power to control and regulate and generally mess around with farm prices when no control was exercised over farm costs. I was sure then, and I am more than ever convinced now, that a policy of that kind would lead only to disaster.
Of course this act is only part of the government's much touted and supposedly beautiful plan of orderly control. I never did like the idea of orderly decontrol because I think it is a vicious principle. It was a catch phrase to lull the people into thinking that everything was being carried along in a smooth and well conceived way, whereas in reality it has been a policy of fumbling, floundering and inexpediency. In my opinion it is unjust, unsound and unworkable.
It was all very well for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to say the other day that the farmers were chronic kickers, that they were getting more now than they had ever got before. It is perfectly true that the farmers are getting higher prices than they got in 1939, but it must be remembered that in 1939 farm prices were lower than they had been before the first war and that costs were at least

seventy-five per cent higher than they were at that time. That ratio has persisted or has even increased since that time. That is something which many people do not take into consideration when they talk about farmers being chronic kickers. They may be, but it may also be that they have something to kick about.
Last spring the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) intimated that he realized that the farmers were not getting a fair deal. It was all very well for him to say that, while they were not getting a fair break, still they did not need the money that other people needed. They wore old clothes and old boots, they did1 not dress up and so it did not matter so much.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that. If the hon. member is just adding that on, that is all right.


Theobald Butler Barrett: I would not say that those are the exact words, but that was the implication.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am a farmer and I dress just as well as the hon. member.


Theobald Butler Barrett: If hon. members will look up page 1496 of Hansard of March 18, 1947, I think they will find that I come quite near to quoting the minister correctly. That may be all quite true; but what the average farmer of this country, and especially the young farmer, is becoming more and more rebellious about is the fact that he is compelled to work so many hours that he does not have a chance to put on his good clothes, that he has not a chance to enjoy the leisure and amenities enjoyed by the average working man in town who quite often works only a forty-hour week. In my opinion the working man in town does not give the same service to society as the average farmer does.
Last spring the government asked parliament to give them the powers contained in this bill so that they could stabilize agricultural conditions. I do not for one moment question the good intention or the honesty of purpose of the government and its advisers in doing what they thought was the proper thing to do, but, while they are very able and wise men, they are not endowed with the powers of divinity and they should not attempt to assume those powers to perform miracles.
The stabilization of agriculture is a myth and must necessarily be so, because no one could possibly foresee that conditions in Europe could be as terrible as they are. I submit that that is the very point. Even in normal times the world is never static, and

Agricultural Products Act
no one can foretell what will happen, even within the next few hours. So that to try to create 'better conditions by price fixing and control and fumbling around is futile. I do not need to go into any more details, because the ground has been well covered from all angles by much abler speakers than I. I close by intimating, if it has not already been guessed, that I do not like this legislation and am definitely opposed to it.


Mr. J. W. BURTON (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I shall find it difficult to restrain myself to the extent my hon. friend the member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley) did in discussing the question before us, which is of such vital concern to us farmers who have been so closely connected with farm work and farm organizations as my colleague and I have been. Although we are all anxious to conclude the work before us in time to get home and be with our families for Christmas, I cannot let this opportunity pass without adding my voice of protest against some of the things that have gone on; and, as I said before, I might find it difficult to restrain myself to the extent my colleague did.
Yet what can we do about the matter? The resolution before us, first of all, asks for an extension of this measure for a period of three months only, which, in my opinion, is insufficient to be of any great use, and I shall deal with that a little later. Second, what have the government, and especially the Department of Agriculture, done with the powers granted to them in the past? More important still, what do they indend to do with these powers in the future? The Biblical phrase is quite applicable to this situation: "Give an account of thy stewardship: for thou mayest be no longer steward."
I wish to deal for a moment with the three months' extension asked for. All hon. members know that, had parliament not been summoned at this time, the act would have remained in operation until March 31 next. No one knows better than the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that the farmers of this country need a period of that many years, rather than months, in which to plan their operations properly. But parliament was called together, not in the early part of November as it should have been, but on a date that left us no time to do any of the things that should be attended to, and we are placed in the position of having to put our stamp of approval on this half-baked proposal.
What has been done during these past two weeks? Nothing except to extend the emergency powers act, which was in the same
category as this resolution inasmuch as it would have continued in effect until March 31 next had parliament not been summoned at this time. All the other questions have been laid on the shelf until parliament meets early or late in the new year. In my humble opinion, there was no valid excuse for not summoning parliament earlier. If that had been done we could have given proper attention to all these matters.
I do not want to be unfair when I say that nothing has been done during the past two weeks, because the government have done something. They have flown a number of kites in an attempt to find out in which direction the political winds are blowing. I might go so far as to say that they have sent aloft an observation balloon in the hope of finding out what the temperature of the farmers is since the government adopted its present policies. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers' temperature is pretty high; in other words, it is hot. I can perhaps best give their reaction to the government's policy by quoting what the Hon. I. C. Nollett, of the Saskatchewan government, said. These were his words:
I have never seen the farmers so hopping mad as they were when the price ceilings and subsidies were removed from oats and barley.
I should also Like to read a letter from one of my constituents, one of dozens and dozens of letters, and the same view has been expressed by hundreds of farmers who have approached me, all protesting against this action of the government.


Mr. WARREN:: They must be a lot of grumblers.


Joseph William Burton: If the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) would hold his peace for a moment he might learn something. This letter is dated November 9, and addressed to myself.


Ralph Melville Warren: Western grumblers.


Joseph William Burton: It reads:
Dear Sir:
I understand that a session of parliament will soon open and you probably will have a chance to make known at Ottawa the feelings and problems of your electors. I have therefore taken this opportunity to let you know how many of the farmers in your constituency feel about the lifting of price control on oats and barley. First of all, I must mention that even people who have no livestock feel that the throwing of barley and oats on the grain exchange was a very inappropriate move.
As far as livestock producers are concerned, it is still worse as, with the price of barley and oats at the present level, it is impossible to raise pigs, dairy cattle and poultry on a profitable basis. I am mainly concerned with swine
4S0
Agricultural Products Act

production and will therefore confine my next remarks on that line, being more familiar with it.
This year and for the last ten years, I have marketed on the average over 200 pigs a year. At times our profit was not very large but never have we had as bad a blow as we had this last time. As it is now, I have thirty brood sows on hand, many of A. (R. breeding, but by the 1st of January, if nothing is done to encourage bacon production, I shall take the only course left open; ship them to the packing plants. And I will not be the only one as already many sows are seen in the stock yards in . . .
Under present arrangements we are buying feed on which there is no ceiling but selling our pork under one. I have had many years practical experience raising pigs and have graduated with the bachelor of agriculture, specialized in animal husbandry from the University of Saskatchewan but I must admit that I still cannot buy barley at $1.10, pay hauling charge, hire labour at $80 a month and feed that barley to pigs on a profitable basis.
If this policy is continued much longer into the breeding season there will not be a pound of pork to be bought in western Canada next summer. I would therefore appreciate it if you would put up a fight on this subject at the coming session as your constitutency is hard hit by this policy, having much livestock.
This is only one of hundreds of people who have protested to me about this situation. In that connection, sir, I wish to draw to your attention the fact that, even as this man mentions, those who are not concerned with the production or feeding of livestock are vitally interested and are anxious about the situation, because they see something that has been built up over past years, something that has been encouraged by this very government, being broken down. They see something that has been built up being destroyed, and they know that this added cost going into the production of livestock, dairy and poultry products will affect them sooner or later, because it will enter into increased costs of these products, making it impossible for many people to buy them. And so we have once more the vicious spiral of prices. That is what these men see, even those who are not producing livestock, and it is something that I would impress upon some members who have spoken before, both in and out of the house, accusing western farmers of not having delivered their feed grains.
The question asked by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has been very well answered by my colleague and deskmate, but there are others who ask similar questions, and I want them to know that the farmers continued to deliver their feed grain in the normal manner of other years, in spite of the fact that in many sections of

the province from which I come there was an almost total failure in the line of feed grains.
There are large areas in that province and in my own neighbourhood where in past years we have always produced heavily in coarse grains, and it was almost a failure. From my own farm where I used to deliver 100 bushels of feed grain in years gone by I oould deliver only one bushel this year. I had only one bushel of feed grain for every 100 bushels I used to deliver years ago, and even those few bushels were delivered in the normal course of time, notwithstanding wdiat some hon. members have tried to make out.
Something was said about the re-opening of the Winnipeg grain exchange. The minister put some of these people right in their thinking. In fact I do not know where they were last session or some of the sessions preceding that one, because the minister has explained the situation on a number of occasions just as ably as he has explained it tonight. But the minister and my colleague and deskmate, the hon. member for Swift Current, could have gone a little farther with respect to the Winnipeg grain exchange. What my desk-mate said is quite true. But in going farther, I wish to point out that in the Winnipeg grain exchange, where he said that he or I or anyone else who had a piece of paper that showed ownership of grain could go and sell, he did not mean it just in that way. We have somebody else to do the selling for us and we pay that person a commission for it. What I should have liked the minister to explain further is that the beneficial part of the grain exchange has so far disappeared; that to all intents and purposes it has outlived its usefulness, because some people have gone and abused the privileges of the exchange to such an extent that it is a regular gambler's dive.
Every once in a while it comes to my attention that branches of the Canadian Legion, charitable organizations, service clubs and so on are notified that games of chance, including bingo, are contrary to the criminal code of Canada. I could never understand why those in charge of our legislation and our government should be so solicitous about protecting us from bingo. I have never been in the position, nor do I believe anyone else has been, where I was forced to sit down and play a game of bingo, but I can tell you this much, sir, that I or any other person having coarse grains to market at the present time must patronize the biggest gambling dive in the country. It is about time we got our thinking straight.

Agricultural Products Act


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That is not true.


Joseph William Burton: I am forced to patronize
a concern I do not want to patronize.


William Earl Rowe: The one you have now is
the biggest gambler.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The wheat board gambled with S600 million of the people's money and lost, and you C.C.F.'ers were glad.


Joseph William Burton: I am very glad to let the hon. member make his speech because sometimes there may be a word of wisdom in what he says.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: A lot more wisdom than
I have heard tonight.


Joseph William Burton: I would say this to the
hon. member, that he and some other members as well should take the advice given by my colleage and deskmate tonight, and acquaint themselves with conditions in other parts of the country before setting up as authorities.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not handle grain through the pools?


Joseph William Burton: The farmers, not only of my constituency but throughout the west, were riled, and during the latter part of the fall the people in my constituency had the idea that they would now be in a position where they would have the matter explained to them, because there appeared posters on the billboards, advertisements in the local paper, advertising under the auspices of the Humboldt Liberal federal executive, of a public meeting to be addressed by the Right Hon. James G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture. That advertising went on for a couple of weeks. Then the night of the meeting came. The hall was in darkness. The people had come in from a considerable distance; and, as far as I could find out, no attempt had been made to notify the people that the meeting had been cancelled. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, some of the farmers who drove in thirty miles to hear the Minister of Agriculture telephoned to the secretary of the C.C.F. to ask why the Minister of Agriculture was not speaking.


An hon. MEMBER:: What co-operation!


Joseph William Burton: That was a disappointment. Quite frankly I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that, had the minister appeared, I would have gone to the meeting, just like my colleague and deskmate apparently did in Swift Current. But while that was bad enough, something happened a few weeks later that was a good deal worse.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It is not so bad as to have had to listen.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Joseph William Burton: Again posters appeared on the billboards; again in the local paper advertisements appeared stating that the hon. member for Rosthern would address a meeting in the town of Humboldt, and all farmers were urged to come in and hear him discuss the coarse grain situation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You would have a big crowd that night, would you not?


Joseph William Burton: The advertisements kept on going, and all at once I said to some of my friends, "What is going on?" because I had just heard on the radio that the hon. member for Rosthern and another gentleman were on their way to Ottawa. Well, my friends did not know. Even that afternoon someone put a general ring over the rural telephone lines- and we have over 500 rural subscribers connected with our central-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And they all listen in.


Joseph William Burton: -urging the farmers to come in and hear the hon. member for Rosthern discuss the coarse grain situation, when they certainly knew that the hon. member for Rosthern was so far up in the air that he would not be able to discuss anything with anybody in Humboldt. If the rules of the house would permit me to do so I would say that was downright dishonest politics-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph William Burton: -because they urged people to come in and hear the hon. member for Rosthern when they knew the hon. member for Rosthern would not be present.


Walter Adam Tucker: I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member suggests that this was dishonest politics. I think I owe it to him to explain how this happened.


Joseph William Burton: I know how it happened.


Walter Adam Tucker: On the question of this being dishonest politics, on a question of privilege, I have the right to explain to the hon. member just what happened.


Joseph William Burton: I want to say this much to the hon. member for Rosthern-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The hon. member for Rosthern rose to a question of privilege. I do not think he can explain the situation, but I think he should be allowed to try.


Joseph William Burton: I wish to assure the hon. member for Rosthern that I was going to give the whole story as far as I knew it. If he then is not satisfied, he still has the right to speak.
Agricultural Products Act


@Acting Speaker: Order. When the hon. member for Rosthern rises to a question of privilege, as he has a right to do, he has a right to state his question of privilege.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: But he cannot make a speech.


Walter Adam Tucker: The question of privilege is this. The hon. member for Humboldt said it was dishonest politics with regard1 to having a meeting in Humboldt. As he himself knows, it was decided on very short notice that I should go to Ottawa and present the viewpoint of the farmers with regard to this feed grain situation.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What did you do about the matter.


Walter Adam Tucker: Just a minute, please. Obviously, as the hon. member has admitted, he knew I was on my way to Ottawa to do that thing.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: How far did you get with it?


William Henry Golding: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: What right, Mr. Speaker,
has the hon. member to say that was dishonest on my part?


Percy Ellis Wright: He did not say that.


Walter Adam Tucker: He said it was dishonest politics.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No, it was not dishonest. It was absolutely futile, though.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am very much interested to see the support that my hon. friend i<= getting from the Progressive Conservatives.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: He is not getting any support from us.


Walter Adam Tucker: What I say is this, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member who said this was dishonest politics should be asked to withdraw that remark, because he himself knows the circumstances.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No. no; there is nothing to be withdrawn.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am much pleased to see that the hon. member is getting so much support from his hon. friends the Progressive Conservatives. I say that the hon. member should be asked to withdraw that remark.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No, no. You have already married that party.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You are married to the C.C.F. party.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would ask the hon. member not to interrupt in the way he has continued to do. It is entirely out of order and entirely uncalled for.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Speaker-


Joseph William Burton: So far as that is concerned!-


Walter Adam Tucker: I would ask that the hon. member be asked to withdraw that remark.


Joseph William Burton: I do not think the hon. member for Rosthern wants me to withdraw it, because he does not give me a chance to do so.


Walter Adam Tucker: It may have been dishonest to go down and work for the farmers.


Joseph William Burton: If in the course of my remarks I might have left the inference that I believed that the hon. member for Rosthern was responsible for the advertising and that, therefore, I was accusing him, I wish to assure him that was farthest from my mind, because I certainly know enough about this little political game to know he would not have been doing the advertising. But I do know this much. It was common knowledge that he and his associate were in Ottawa at the time that the general ring was being put over the rural line at Humboldt; and I still contend that whoever was responsible was playing dishonest politics when he encouraged people to come in and hear the hon. member for Rosthern discuss the feed grain situation, when he knew the hon. member for Rosthern could not be there.
To get this whole thing straight now, Mr. Speaker-and I am serious about it, because I do not like to have my people disappointed and fooled around with like that-I wish to extend an invitation here tonight to the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Rosthern, and-if he would consent to come and if the hon. member for Rosthern would not object too much-to the leader of the opposition-


An hon. MEMBER:: How about the hon, member for Humboldt? He ought to be there.


Joseph William Burton: -to come to Humboldt at any given time during this Christmas recess; and if they give me time enough, I will organize a meeting and let them explain the feed grain situation to the people in that constituency. All that I will ask, Mr. Speaker, besides having the honour and privilege of introducing the gentlemen, is that I have fifteen minutes at the end of the time.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Send me an invitation. I will take another five minutes after you.


Joseph William Burton: There is one thing I wanted to say. In spite of all the assertions made by the hon. member for Rosthern that I was

Agricultural Products Act
getting considerable assistance from our Tory friends, I wish to say that in so far as trying to put the hon. member and members on the government side right in their thinking as to what the farmers of this country think, I do not care where the help comes from; we are going to tell them that the farmers of this country want a different kind of deal than the one they have been getting. I enjoy the interjections that have been made, although sometimes it was difficult to know whether I or the hon. member for Rosthern or the hon. member for Waterloo was making the speech.


Walter Adam Tucker: You think you need help from the Conservatives, do you?


Ralph Melville Warren: Why did you not go to
Prince Edward Island?


An hon. MEMBER:: Where have you been?


Joseph William Burton: Like my colleague the hon. member for Swift Current, I have a number of suggestions, or I might call them questions, with which I should like the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to deal when he takes part in this debate. Some of them may have been touched upon already; nevertheless they are of such vital concern to our farmers that I shall proceed with them as I have them listed here.
1.	Is the government going to have the meat board see to it that packing plants and others will not have an opportunity to cash in on the forced liquidation of our livestock?
2.	Will those farmers who sold their grain prior to the lifting of the ceilings be reimbursed for their losses?
3.	Will the government reconsider action by way of subsidies or other assistance in the feeding of livestock, hogs, etc.?
4.	Does the government intend to continue discouraging the livestock industry in the prairie provinces, thereby nullifying all the good work done in this respect during the past few years?
As I said, I would appreciate being able to take back to the people I have the honour to represent a clear-cut statement by the minister as to what may be expected, not only by the farmers of my constituency, but by the farmers of eastern, central and western Canada, in reference to the livestock program.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I convey to you and to all hon. members of this house my sincere yuletide greetings. May I also add that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke yesterday, and, I believe, on other occasions, he referred to the forces of evil that have been unleashed in some parts of the world. I would be among the first to acknowledge that we are facing one of the most critical periods the civilized world has 5849-31}
ever known, but in my humble opinion much of the trouble is caused by the fact that so many people in our so-called Christian nations have forgotten or refused to follow the lessons taught by the Prince of Peace. If only we would endeavour to establish within ourselves and, then, within the circle and community in which we move and live the spirit of the brotherhood of man under the common fatherhood of God, and place at the feet of the Babe of Bethlehem as our Christmas offering, I am sure our future Christmases would be happy and our New Years bright.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at myself in rising to take part in this debate this evening. I made up my mind to do so only a very short time ago, and then because of a name which has been often mentioned and which, I assume, is regarded as one of the forces of evil just referred to by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton). I refer to the Winnipeg grain exchange, about which I intend to have something to say before I conclude.
Before doing so, I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to this evening's Ottawa Journal, which carries a dispatch from Melbourne under the heading, "Britain paying S2.72 for wheat from Australia". The dispatch goes on to say that India is buying wheat from Australia at S2.96, and both these prices are f.o.b. Australia, while the United States is selling wheat at S3. I would call to the minister's attention also the last quotation I was able to get, which shows a comparison between the quality of Canadian No. 1 wheat and Australian No. 1 wheat in Liverool. The quotation is for April, 1938, and covers the sale of wheat in six-bushel lots. The price for Canadian No. 1 was 51 shillings; for Australian No. 1, 34 shillings, or a difference of 17 shillings in a six-bushel lot. This means a differential of 56 cents a bushel as between the two wheats at that time, while today our wheat of higher quality is being sold to Britain at SI .55 as against S2.72 being obtained by Australia. I mention that, saying nothing more about it, only in order to express the hope that when the minister takes part in this debate he will give some explanation as to the difference in position between ourselves and our neighbouring commonwealth.
A moment ago I stated that I intended to say something about the marketing of wheat and, without camouflaging it, something about
the Winnipeg grain exchange. I remember that last year I had something to say on a matter affecting the railways, and I told the house-I believe it is a sound practice-that what I said would have to be accepted with
4S4
Agricultural Products Act

whatever you cared to take away from it because on occasion I had acted for both our railway companies. In this connection, however, I immediately absolve myself of any connection. I do not act for the Winnipeg grain exchange; I have never done so. I do not act, and for at least fifteen years have not acted, for any elevator company or anyone connected with the grain business. So that in what I say I do not believe I can be successfully accused of any self-interest.
Everyone who has referred to this institution in Winnipeg, including three hon. members tonight, has used the word "gambling." They are greatly horrified. We are told that bingo was prohibited in schoolhouses; yet this den of iniquity, as I think it was called, or this gambling dive, was allowed to operate. So let us have a word or two about gambling. If I want to gamble in anything there are always plenty of places where I can do so and plenty of persons who will copper my bets, unless my bets are so out of line that they should not be covered. If I want to gamble I can go to Toronto the good, as I believe it is called, where they have a stock exchange. Will anyone suggest to me for a moment that a person who buys nickel and dime stocks is buying them for investment? The suggestion is silly. We buy cheap stock on various exchanges in the hope that there will be a rise in the price of those stocks. Investment has long since ceased to be a factor except in established stocks, bonds, preferred shares and things of that kind. So in Chicago-I am not considering the matter of exchange control- we had open all during the war, and all during the first war, a grain exchange. In later years we had the exchange at Kansas City, and until recently the Liverpool exchange. So if someone merely wishes to gamble in grain, the Winnipeg grain exchange is of no particular importance, because we can do all the so-called gambling we like in Chicago. What is the set-up with respect to the marketing of grain, and what is the set-up of the Winnipeg grain exchange? I greatly fear-and I speak respectfully of those people who have been using extravagant language in their attacks upon this institution-that, frankly, they do not know what they are talking about. I do not say that in any spirit of vengefulness or in any desire to be unkind. I say it because I mean just what I say.
What is the situation with respect to the marketing of wheat and coarse grains, or let us say, grains grown in the west, because they are practically the only ones dealt with on that exchange? We have many grain growers. We have many elevator companies, and we

have a pool in each of the provinces. We have also a co-operative company called the united grain growers, which certainly operates in Alberta and in Saskatchewan, although I do not think they are in Manitoba. I am not sure about that-I imagine they must be, because the Hon. Mr. Crerar is one of the persons who began that company. It is a co-operative show.
What happens? These elevator companies are not the Winnipeg grain exchange. They are elevator companies dealing in the purchase and. sale of grain. The Winnipeg grain exchange is an entirely separate body, where persons may buy and sell without going into the country, and without even owning a single elevator.
What happens? Let us assume I am a farmer and in the fall of the year I have 1,000 bushelis of wheat. I intend to speak about the glut in the elevators, because that is the word used, although, as I believe I shall demonstrate before I shall have finished, there is no justification for it. But let us say I have 1,000 bushels of wheat. I draw it to the elevator nearest my farm and can do two things with it. I can sell it and get cash tickets for it, or I can leave it there and get storage tickets for it. If I sell it, it belongs to whoever bought it. If I get storage tickets, it is mine.
It is perfectly true it will be mixed, because it is a small lot. It will be mixed with other grain, shipped east and graded. However, I rvill be paid the grade on the day I bring it there, given to me by the man who grades it and buys it.
We will say that is in October. I, the farmer, think the price is too low. What do I do? I buy a December or May option; I do not know whether December is open or not. However, I buy a futures option, because I think that grain is too cheap at the price at whidh I sold it. Is that gambling? Well, if it is gambling, then the farmers of this country are doing as much as or more gambling than any other people.


Percy Ellis Wright: Has the hon. member any idea of what percentage of farmers use that facility, or what percentage of trading on the Winnipeg grain exchange is carried on by genuine farmers? I would say it was less than one per cent.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Any farmer thinks he can make a profit.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Perhaps I might be allowed to answer, if I may.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: We are pretty fortunate to have an authority with this information.



IS, 1947

[Stage Direction]
Agricultural Products Act
Arthur Leroy Smith: Which authority is that?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You are the authority we are listening to.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I do not speak to you as an authority. I speak to you as a teacher of the lower grades, hoping that you will ultimately absorb the principles of what I am talking about.
May I say this, that I know many farmers of my personal acquaintance who do exactly that. And may I say this, too, that it is wide open for anyone to do it.
I have been in the house for four sessions, and this grain exchange has been kicked around, abused, and rough language used in respect of it every year I have been here. As I say, I have no interest in it, but they have nobody to speak for them; and I intend, if I can, to put both sides of the picture before the bouse. If anybody wishes to ask any direct questions when I have finished, I shall give equally direct answers. There will not be any evasion so far as I am concerned. It will be remembered that I have a tremendous farming community in my constituency and I know I am not doing myself, personally, much good. But I think time will prove it will do me good.
The farmer takes this 1,000 bushels and sells it at a dollar, to use round figures. He buys in his option, and when the time comes- and he may 'have held his grain and paid storage on it, and insurance-he then can deliver the grain against that option. He must do that, or he must settle on the date. Supposing the price has gone down. He must settle, and the usual way he does it is to switch-that is the word they use-his purchase to the next settlement date, which will probably be the July date. Does anybody see anything very wrong with that? Certainly I do not.


Walter Adam Tucker: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes.


Walter Adam Tucker: If this man has bought wheat in August and put up a certain amount of margin, and then someone with sufficient money comes along and puts up a sufficiently large margin, can he not sell enough wheat short to drive that price down and perhaps close out the person who has bought wheat in the manner suggested by the hon. member?


Arthur Leroy Smith: The only answer I can make to that is that that particular question has been asked of every grain commission set up in Canada, two of which were conducted by Mr. Justice Turgeon, one of the ablest men you and I know, and at the present time our ambassador to Eire. He found on every occasion that a short interest-and that is what you are talking about-was beneficial to the producers of grain in the Dominion of Canada. That was the finding of Mr. Justice Turgeon on two distinct occasions.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not remember that finding. Is it not true that a short interest like that drives the price down? Does the hon. member not admit that if a man has enough money to put up a sufficiently large margin he can sell grain that does not exist at all, and drive the price down.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Why don't you sell that policy to your party?


Walter Adam Tucker: That is the policy of our party in Saskatchewan.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Oh, no.


Walter Adam Tucker: Is this the policy of the Progressive Conservative party then, that the hon. member is putting forward? That is not the way they talk in Saskatchewan.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Leave it to Smith; he will answer that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I gather that . you are through with your questions and your abuse and your nonsense, I hope.


Walter Adam Tucker: There is no nonsense about it. You said you would give a direct answer. And when you say my question is nonsense, that is not correct.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I repeat that your question was the worst kind of nonsense. Let us have no argument about it. You know perfectly well, if you know anything about this business at all, that wheat has been cornered only once in this world, and that was by a Canadian who came from Guelph, and who was then resident in Chicago.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And who died broke.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You can go through all those investigations, and the hardest thing a commission can do is to set out to find a professional short seller. The Turgeon commission did not find one in the whole city of Winnipeg. That is one of the things which ought to be put straight.
May I apologize to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) for being a little short myself. It does not do either of us any good to lose our tempers. I am afraid I lost mine, and he is too nice a fellow to quarrel with anyway.
We come down now to the exchange itself, and its membership. Who are the members?
Agricultural Products Act

Every pool in western Canada-the Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba pools; they are the members. They used the facilities of the grain exchange up until the very day when the wheat board took over the compulsory marketing of grain. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will agree with me in that.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are some of the members.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The three
pools were all members. Let me go a step farther. The three pools all had members on the executive which controlled the exchange, and I imagine they still have. I know they had prior to the time the wheat board took over the general marketing. That is the sort of structure that this terrible thing is.
May I immediately admit, on the other hand, that there were people who had no wheat who came in and played the wheat market. I did so myself. I took my only trip to England in 1928. I had SI,000 and I promised my wife that we would go. I went to a grain broker there and I said, "Is wheat a sell or a buy?" That is how much I knew about the matter. He said, "Look out the window; this is Friday; if it rains by Monday, it is a sell; if it does not, it is a buy." I looked at the sky-that was in May and I was sailing in June-and I thought that it would never rain. So I put up my $1,000 as margin. Over the week end the biggest rain we had ever had started and it was still raining on Monday morning. I telephoned to have them sell me out and I lost my $1,000 and I owed them $1.65. That was my one transaction in trying to play the wheat market and the Winnipeg grain exchange. I am not complaining because I got what I asked for. I had a run for my money, but the rain had the biggest run.
The Winnipeg grain exchange is controlled by this executive. Let us take 1,000 bushels and see what happens. The farmer sells the 1,000 bushels to the elevator company. What does the elevator company do with them? We will say the elevator pays the farmer cash for his wheat. It then goes from the possession of the farmer and is the property of the elevator company. As everyone who knows anything about the business knows, every country elevator reports daily ithe bushelage which it has bought that day, and then it sells the grain at the opening of the market the following day. The idea that the elevator companies are gambling on the markets is pure nonsense. A couple of them tried it and went broke, and some of their managers are still in the penitentiary.

There is no truth in the accusation that the elevator companies are gambling with the farmers' wheat. They do not do that. They make their money from handling charges and by having grain in position to take care of markets. It may be that there is a two-cent premium at Vancouver or something like that, which happens quite often, and they would have the grain in what they call position to be able to get it quickly to such a market.
We all received copies of the resolution passed by the Alberta farmers' union which threatened that, unless the grain exchange was closed, they would put on a farmers' strike in Alberta in the next grain season. That has been in all 'the papers and I assume it is public property. I do not think any of us here believe that legislation of that kind will come through coercion or threat by any organization, be it in my own province or be it anywhere else. If that be so, we are not much of a parliament.
We talk about closing the exchange. The Minister of Agriculture can tell us that the exchange has never been closed. Of course it has never been closed. How are you going to close it? In effect, the dominion government can close it by compulsorily taking all the grain. They would then have nothing left to trade with. They might still be open, but for all practical purposes they would be closed. As I say, you cannot be in the clothes-pin business unless you have some clothes-pins to buy and sell. It is the same with grain; you must have something to trade.
What could we do by way of legislation? Let us assume that we passed an act closing the Winnipeg grain exchange. I think there would be plenty of trouble with the Manitoba government because they would say immediately that we were going beyond our jurisdiction. That is something which you just cannot do. What else could we do? I am glad the minister who was recently Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) is in the chamber. In my humble opinion, the only way it could be done would be to add something to the criminal code similar to what we have to deal with gambling houses and that sort of thing. By statute we could make trading in grain a criminal offence, because we have the power to do that. But certainly that would be stretching things a terribly long way. It would be doing indirectly what we have no right to do directly.
In my time-let that cover at least fifty years-the Winnipeg grain exchange has been closed twice. On both occasions it was closed on a rising market, and the farmers of western Canada paid the price of those two closings

Agricultural Products Act
because they had government boards and did not get the price to which grain rose in the world market. Those are the only two occasions on which this den of iniquity has been closed or put out of business by its commodity being taken away from it.
Let us get right down to the question, because I do not want anyone to have any doubt as to where I stand. Of course I am speaking personally, as I have been throughout this evening. I might be asked: Are you in favour of the operation of the grain exchange? I am going to answer the question by saying, first, that I do not know the men who operate it. However, I think I shall satisfy everybody when I say that I am in favour of the farmer having an opportunity to get the world price for his grain, whether it be through the Winnipeg grain exchange or through some other agency established to handle grain.


Walter Adam Tucker: As the hon. member knows, rye has been on the grain exchange and traded in for some time. It has fluctuated widely. Does the hon. member think it would be a good thing to have wheat fluctuate like that because, after all, that would be very important to the income of the farmer and important to the consumer of bread?


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member for Rosthern knows the reason rye did an apache dance, if I can call it that, was that there was nothing else to play with. Wheat would never do the same thing because there is plenty of wheat. Certainly the gamblers were in the rye market because they had been shut out from many others. I hear a lot of raucous laughter over here. Does someone else want to take a crack at it?


Percy Ellis Wright: The hon. gentleman has stated that the farmer may sell his grain in the form of auctions. I think that is a legitimate field. I think it is also legitimate for the miller to be able to buy an option so that he will know what his flour will cost him when he is ready to deliver it. Those are two legitimate transactions on the exchange. But does the hon. member think the other people who come in and buy and sell grain ten or twenty or thirty times over on the exchange are engaged in legitimate transactions?


Arthur Leroy Smith: No, I do not think so. The question is a very fair one. But what the hon. member is suggesting would be utterly impossible, I say with great respect, to carry out in any grain trading at all, because when a man comes on the exchange he cannot carry 1,000 bushels on his back, and under the system my hon. friend advocates
he would need to have the actual grain or to prove he had had it. I think that would be quite unworkable. When my hon. friend asks, do I believe in a man taking a chance? I would say that if he wants to gamble I do not see anything wrong with it.


Percy Ellis Wright: The hon. member sees no harm in that?


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I go a step farther and show the hon. member just what the position is. Let us say that you deal with somebody on the grain exchange and you have no grain. You have advertised the fact that you have no grain. The company that takes your bid and makes your purchase for you thinks you owe it a good deal of money, but I have had several lawsuits of this kind and I know how they came out. All the purchaser has to do is to go into court and say that it was a gambling transaction, that he had no grain to deliver and never expected any, and that lets him out. The James Richardson Company is a case in point which went to the court of appeal in Manitoba. The courts will not enforce such a contract because they say it is a gaming contract. I know there are people who gamble on the exchange in Winnipeg, Chicago, Toronto, Montreal, New York, London, Berlin, Rotterdam and every other place I know of. I saw a ten-cent pinochle game in the lobby just now.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is not gambling with the necessities of life.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I think I have answered the hon. member in my humble way as best I know how, but if there are any more in the class who want to be bright this evening I am still here and am available for such questions as they may ask. With that I am going to close.
I know there are evils in the Winnipeg grain exchange. I think the hon. member was close to touching on one of them just a moment ago. But let us be fair about these matters. Why should we take away from an individual the right to use his judgment as to what his grain is -worth? Remember this, that these people are not in the exporting business. All our grain exporting from this country, certainly up to not many years ago, was handled by New York houses. The Dreyfus company was, I think, the biggest one, if my memory serves me correctly. The elevator company with which you do business is not gambling with your wheat and is not gambling on the Winnipeg grain exchange. It gets its living from a service which it gives in the way of handling charges, insurance, storage and that
48S
Agricultural Products Act

sort of thing. So just because somebody is able to build a big house in Assiniboine park, Winnipeg-and some of these fellows did build big houses there, and they are all trying to sell them now-that is no argument for closing the exchange. I know it is said: Look at these fellows who came up here from Minneapolis and are living in these big houses. But some of them are tearing them down now to avoid paying taxes.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: They should take them over for C.C.F. headquarters.


Walter Adam Tucker: Before the hon. member closes, will he answer one more question? If there is an apparent over-supply of wheat in the world or an under-demand as happened in 1932, does he not think the people who are trying to make money on the exchange when there is an over-supply or an under-demand, help to drive the price of wheat down lower than it otherwise would go?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Surely the hon. member must know that when they sell that grain they have to buy it back.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, but if they sell it high and drive it down several cents they can buy it back at a lower price.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is theoretical. If the price goes up three cents, they have made a loss.


Walter Adam Tucker: It did not happen in 1932.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I do not know whether it did or not. I am prepared to accept the hon. member's word. But that is one of those things that will happen. Nothing has ever been airtight in any business yet.


Walter Adam Tucker: Does the hon. member not think-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Give me just a minute of my time to finish my speech. That is not a very reasonable request, I know, but I would like time to conclude, even though it be a matter of grace from my hon. friend the member for Rosthern.
I have taken this position for two reasons. One is that I represent a large farming area and I do not want any doubt in their minds where I stand. I know that what I am saying will be quite unpopular there. But I so believe in what I am saying, in the freedom of the individual to dispose of his property as he sees fit, that by the time some people over there have made up their minds who will be the next leader when the general election comes, my constituents will have gained in intelligence and will have had an excellent
lesson like my hon. friends to my immediate left, and by that time they will all agree with me.
On motion of Mr. Herridge the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is intended tomorrow to continue with this debate and afterwards take up resolution No. 6 on today's order paper, to introduce a measure to assist in meeting the increased cost of production of gold produced from gold mines during the three years commencing on December 1, 1947. If that resolution is adopted the minister might, with the unanimous consent of the house, introduce a bill and have it read the first time so that it could be distributed and the members have an opportunity of studying it during the recess. After that, if there were time, we would proceed with the resolution under government notices of motion dealing with the tariff items in schedule V to the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
Mr. ADAMSON:: Is it the intention to sit tomorrow evening?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is the intention to sit until the usual hour of adjournment unless we should exhaust the business on the order paper before that, which, while desirable, may not. be probable.


Percy Ellis Wright: Will the minister give consideration to not sitting tomorrow evening? Many members want to catch trains tomorrow night and adjourning at six would give them an opportunity to do so.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I should not like to undertake to say that the house would adjourn at six o'clock, because it would be the desire of most hon. members that this resolution be disposed of. It has to be disposed of, and I think hon. members would also wish to have before them the terms of the bill which it is the intention of the government to introduce dealing with assistance to the gold mines. If these could be disposed of before six o'clock I am sure it would be the desire of all to meet the wishes of such hon. members as wish to leave early.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Would the minister consider sitting through the dinner recess from six o'clock to eight o'clock?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We shall endeavour tomorrow to meet the convenience of hon. members in that regard and not interfere with the plans they have made for the trains leaving Ottawa in the evening.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 19, 1947