1948-03-19

Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. My question arises out of a news item appearing in the Winnipeg Citizen of March 17, reporting on the debate which took place in this house on the wheat bill. In the item the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) is quoted as saying:
If the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (C.C.F., Miller) had stopped speaking on Friday last, we would have had this bill through the house now, he commented.
The hon. member for Portage la Prairie, to my best knowledge and belief-and I should know, being chairman of the Manitoba C.C.F.-is not a member of the C.C.F.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Hear, hear; I will vouch for that.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: There may be an attempt at infiltration there, but it has not been successful.


James Arthur Ross: Not a particle; don't alarm yourself.



MR. SMITH-SALE OF INTEREST OF IMPERIAL OIL IN INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM

Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: On a question of privilege, I wish to call the attention of the house to an announcement in today's papers; I am sure it will please every hon. member. Imperial Oil have sold their interest in International Petroleum which operates in South America for $80,000,000. The money is to be spent in Alberta for oil development. We can now look forward to the day when Canada will be independent of all foreign sources for its oil supplies. I think the Minister of Finance will also be pleased about these United States dollars.


Mr. MacKINNON:: And the Minister of Fisheries.



IMPORT RESTRICTIONS


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I desire to lay on the table copy of a letter from myself to the Minister of Finance recommending that certain goods and equipment be placed on the list of restricted items for import.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Earlier this afternoon the Minister of Trade and Commerce tabled a letter that he said he had written to the Minister of Finance in respect to extra import bans which he thought should be put on. Will that letter be published in Hansard, or can the minister give a list of the goods now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will be published in the newspapers. It has not been customary to put communications of that kind on Hansard. I suppose it could be done if the house wishes it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think members of the house should have it instead of having to go to the newspapers for it.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Referring to the question raised by the hon. member for Peterborough West, may I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he ask the consent of the house to have the paper which he tabled appear on Hansard? It is an important paper. Such documents are usually read in the house before being tabled. I think the house would be glad to give consent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As my hon. friend knows, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in an extraordinary position in trying to carry out the dollar saving policy with no legislation. He has been in that position for several months. This letter is simply one to the Minister of Finance recommending a certain course of action. All I can say is that a press release will issue this afternoon giving the full
Income Tax

particulars. I see no purpose in burdening Hansard with a letter of that kind.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I ask the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply and Trade and Commerce if he will not table the letter to which reference has already been made?


An hon. MEMBER:: It is too late.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Just a minute. I believe the house should know-*


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member has already put his question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to put it in a different way. I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he is asking that this be done under the foreign exchange control board, or just how is it to be done?


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Under nails.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We are still short of nails.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The letter is tabled. The Minister of Finance will invoke the foreign exchange control board as being the only avenue open to him as long as opposition members hold up passage of his legislation.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: If the minister will not put the letter on Hansard as requested, will he not give us some reason other than the entirely inaccurate one he gave a moment ago?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The customary method, Mr. Speaker, of informing members of the House of Commons about the contents of a document is to lay that document on the table of the House of Commons. That I have done.



INCOME TAX


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, some days ago I promised to make a statement with reference to farmers' income tax returns, and I am now ready to implement that promise. Further consideration has been given to the matter concerning the net worth statement set out in the 1947 T.l prairie farmers and farmers' income tax returns.
I cannot emphasize too strongly that it is in the farmer's own interest as a citizen and taxpayer to provide accurate and complete information of his activities so that he can be dealt with in the same way as every other taxpayer in the country.

The department has placed in the hands of the farmer guide books which should prove of great value in maintaining proper information as to the operation of his farming business, and therefore should be of great help to him in completing his tax return. It will be beneficial to the farmer if he will carefully read the book and the form and attempt to complete it in its entirety.
It has been. the experience of the department that many farmers reporting income do not maintain book-keeping records of their affairs. Our assessors have found in innumerable instances that, to determine the taxable income of the average farmer, it has been necessary to prepare, with the farmer's assistance, of course, a statement of the farmer's net worth and therefrom to calculate or estimate the taxable income.
To assist the farmer and to facilitate the assessing, the 1947 form was evolved, and included with it on page 5 is a statement of net worth. It was proposed that the farmer would complete this statement at the time he completed the return and that the department's assessors would then be in a position to proceed to the determination of the taxable income expeditiously and, in a great many oases, without further reference to the farmer.
It is now represented that this statement of net worth is too complex and that the average farmer will find it impossible to complete it without assistance. It would be impossible, except at a great cost, to build up the staff of the department to enable officials to call on every farmer in Canada for the purpose of assisting in the preparation of income tax returns.
The department therefore has decided that
(a)	those farmers who report their income for 1947 on a cash basis need not complete the farmer's net worth statement section of the return. There may be individual cases where, after the filing of the return, the department will require from a farmer, as from any other taxpayer, in order to make a proper assessment of his income, a statement of assets and liabilities of his business, or other additional information which, in such cases, will be requested in the usual manner.
(b)	Those farmers who report 1947 incomes on an accrual basis must attach to the return a statement of assets and liabilities, as heretofore, or complete the appropriate parts of the net worth statement attached to the return.
Objections have been raised with reference to net worth statement for fishermen. The adjustment of this matter is being given consideration.

House oj Commons


Mr. ISNOR:: Can the Minister of National Revenue make a further statement about the fishermen? He said the matter was being given consideration.


James Joseph McCann: I will do so at a later date.


Mr. HARKNESS:: May I ask a question of the minister? What will be the situation of farmers who have already on a cash basis turned in their income tax returns with this net worth statement filled out? Will they be required to continue to do that in future years?	*


James Joseph McCann: That is a matter which will have to be given further consideration and determined from year to year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Why?


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: In view of the minister's statement in respect to farm income tax, what arrangements have been made to give publicity to the department's decision as to net worth statement on farm income tax forms? This is March 19.


James Joseph McCann: That is a departmental affair which has already been arranged, and full publicity will be given the matter.


Mr. TUSTIN:: I understood the Minister of National Revenue in his statement to refer to "prairie farmers and farmers". Was he then referring to the eastern farmers as well as the farmers of the west?


James Joseph McCann: It covers all the farmers of Canada. The reference to prairie farmers and other farmers had relation to the two types of guide and account books.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The farmers who work and those who do not.


George James Tustin: Then I also understood the minister to say assessors were sent out from his department who, with the assistance of the farmers, made up these statements so the farmers could be assessed for income tax. How many years do they go back in arriving at those statements?


James Joseph McCann: That depends entirely on the individual case.



EASTER RECESS-MEMBERS TRAVELLING EXPENSES -INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
On the order, "Government notices of motion":
That when this house adjourns on Wednesday, March 24th instant, it stand adjourned until Tuesday the 30th instant.
["Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he has asked his question, which will appear in Hansard, and the minister has said he will take note of it and answ'er on a later occasion."]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier in the week that I would have something further to say about this resolution today. As hon. members know, the government is hoping that we shall get through on Wednesday afternoon. In some respects the house has not made quite the progress this week that we had hoped it might make; in other respects we have done perhaps even better than we had expected. I think I should allow the motion to stand until Tuesday. By that time it will be possible to know definitely whether we can afford to adjourn on Wednea-day afternoon. I may say that if it appears reasonably certain that we can complete by Wednesday afternoon such essential business as I shall now indicate, the motion will be amended so as to read that when the house adjourns on Wednesday, March 24, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, April 5.
The Minister of Finance has authorized me to say that provision will be made in the supplementary estimates for members' travelling expenses to and from their homes, as has been provided for other short recesses during the past few years. Those who find it more convenient to travel by air will be entitled to do so. [DOT]
I wish now to indicate what remains to be covered between now and the close of Wednesday afternoon if we are to adjourn at that time. If we are not through by Wednesday at six o'clock we shall have to sit, I think, on Wednesday night and possibly also on Thursday. There are amendments to the wheat act. That will be the first item taken up this afternoon. Then there is the Agricultural Products Act which has to go through different stages; then amendments to the emergency tax legislation, covering amendments to the Excise Tax Act and the Customs Act, including the imposition of new taxes and the removal of the old ones.
These have all been mentioned before. I am not certain that I said anything definite about supply. The Minister of Finance did make some reference thereto. Therq are some supplementary estimates to be brought down for the present fiscal year with the resulting supply bill, and then there will be an interim supply bill.
In regard to the supplementary estimates, I would say that so far 'as discussion on these is concerned the government will expect naturally that there will be some debate, but there will not likely be an item in the supplemen-taries that will not be paralleled by what appears in the general estimates, under which discussion on parallel items could take place later on. I think that covers all I have to say at the moment.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. BRACKEN:: May I ask whether the Minister of Finance has decided to deal with interim supply before the Easter holidays?


Mr. ABBOTT:: Yes. I have given further consideration to the matter which was raised by my hon. friend the other day and after discussing it with the officials I have come to the conclusion that since we are to adjourn presumably until April 5 it would be embarrassing if we did not have the usual vote of interim supply for the commencement of the new fiscal year on April 1. Therefore it will be my intention, on Tuesday perhaps, to bring in the usual interim supply bill. I shall perhaps discuss with the leaders, first, the question of how much should be asked for, and so on, and endeavour to arrange to have it put through expeditiously, if that meets with the wishes of the house.


John Bracken: If I may do so, I wish to assure the Minister of Finance that on the matter of interim supply there will be no delay whatever. We recognize that money has to be available and I am sure that after the Prime Minister's statement today with respect to one feature of the Easter holidays, there will be a disposition on the part of some to hurry up the business in the next three or four days.
May I take this opportunity to make one suggestion. The measures which it is essential to pass in the next three or four days are measures which, I believe, everyone in this house wishes to see disposed of. Might I suggest to the government that one item that might be left until the last is the discussion of the excise tax. The government may not be disposed to see it that way, but certain of the other items, I gather, have to be disposed of. With respect to that one item, I suggest that it be left until the last. I make that suggestion with respect.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If I may answer my hon. friend, on the Excise Tax Act we have had quite a long discussion in the committee stage and I feel, Mr. Speaker, that it is a measure which I must press forward before we adjourn.



[Stage Direction]
PROVISION FOR [DOT]NEGLECTED OR DEPENDENT CHILDREN, INCREASED PERMISSIBLE INCOMES, ETC.
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That it is expedient to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act to extend the provisions thereof to a neglected child or children of a deceased veteran and to a veteran with a depen-

dent child or children in special circumstances; to allow for increased permissible incomes and to provide supplementary allowances. Provision is also made to increase the annual salary for members of the war veterans' allowance board.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been, made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Hastings South (Mr. Stokes), who has been called home this afternoon on important public business, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. I have been unable to give him notice, so perhaps he will take this as notice of the question. Information has come to the hon. member that this week a wrecking crew began to demolish the Mohawk airport near Deseronto in his constituency. In view of the fact that this was built as a permanent camp, and further in view of the present international situation, will the minister investigate the matter to see if it is possible to reverse the government's policy in this regard?


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: I shall be glad to look into it.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. McKAY (Weyburn):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, a copy of which I have forwarded to his office. When can the house expect an announcement of the pay and allowances increase for the uniformed and plain-clothes members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: The matter to which the hon. member refers has not yet gone before council for its decision. I expect to place it before council early next week. After that an announcement will be made, but following the practice as to announcements with regard to increases in the civil service, I expect it will be given to the press in the form of a press release rather than taking up the time of the house with it.

Inquiries oj the Ministry


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will it be possible for him to bring in at an early day first reading of the bill to amend the criminal code? I notice that the Ontario legislature may be adjourning in a day or so, and there are several legal bills before it. In the Quebec legislature a bill has been introduced by their attorney general to appoint six additional superior court judges for that province, as well as other legal bills. Will the minister not have time between now and the Easter recess to introduce and have read for the first time the bill to amend the criminal code?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not my expectation that it will be possible to introduce the criminal code amendments until some time in April.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): I wished to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but as he is not in his seat I might ask his parliamentary assistant to take note of it and bring it to his attention. When does the government intend to appoint and set up the national commission in relation to the united nations educational, scientific and cultural organization under the legislation that was passed two years ago?
Mr. W. E. HARRIS (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I shall be glad to draw that question to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


SHIPMENTS THROUGH CHURCHILL-NEGOTIATIONS WITH BRITISH TIMBER BOARD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):: I wish to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question of which he has received a copy. Are negotiations proceeding between the British timber board and the Canadian government with a view to making arrangements to facilitate the purchase by Britain of lumber now being prepared for shipment through the port of Churchill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know of no such negotiations. I have not been advised that anyone desires to sell lumber to the British timber controller from that area. In any event the British timber controller makes his own arrangements for purchasing timber from Canada, the government acting only to facilitate his purchases.


NATIONAL REVENUE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PATRICK H. ASHBY (Edmonton East): I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is he aware that he is being advised by communists and is actually using the methods advocated in the communist manifesto in order to establish a totalitarian state in Canada?
James Horace King: Order.


Mr. ASHBY:: I should like the minister to answer the question.


James Joseph McCann: I have not been aware of any such advice, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. gentleman can produce anything which will convince me that I am getting that type of advice, I shall be glad to have it.


STRAIT OF CANSO
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I did not send him notice of it because the answer would not require much research. Has the minister received an invitation to visit Cape Breton Island during the Easter recess for the purpose of discussing the Canso project? If so, is it his intention to accept that invitation?


Mr. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: I have received no such invitation, Mr. Speaker, although I saw something about it in the press. When I receive the invitation I shall be glad to give it consideration.


Clarence Gillis: I am giving the minister one now, and I should be glad to go with him.
Inquiries of the Ministry



3ALARY INCREASES TO EMPLOYEES-QUESTION AS TO RETROACTIVITY
On the orders of the day:
rMr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre): I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will there be an announcement soon regarding pay increases retroactive to last October for employees of the House of Commons?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think there will be an announcement fairly soon with respect to the position of salaries of employees of the House of Commons. I am not prepared to say to what, if any, date it will be retroactive. But there is nothing in the regulations which prevents it from being made retroactive to any date that may be appropriate.


CHARLOTTETOWN HARBOUR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): In view of the press information that dominion engineers, borings branch, Department of Transport, have been in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, determining a suitable location for the construction of a marine slip-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order paper.


Mr. McLURE:: My question is this.


James Horace King: I would ask the hon. member to put his question, and not to give information to the house.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: My question is this. When will the Minister of Transport be able to give the house a definite decision regarding the type of slip to be constructed and when will construction of it begin?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I could not hear the hon. member's question. I will read it in Hansard and give him an answer later.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I will read my question again. I desire to ask the minister-


James Horace King: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he has asked his question, which will appear in Hansard, and the minister has said he will take note of it and answ'er on a later occasion.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe for the second reading of Bill No. 135, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock yesterday it was not expected that this matter would be further dealt with that day. After we left the chamber-and I wish to compliment the government and the house on the plans that were made-provision was made to permit the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) to make his remarks. I believe the leader of the house at that time is to be commended for making it possible for the hon. member, who could not be here today, to make his speech. I understand further that some provision was made to permit me to continue today the remarks I had commenced before six o'clock yesterday, and I want to thank the hon. members responsible for the provision they then made. I do not expect that my remarks today will take more than fifteen minutes, and as far as I am aware this will be the last contribution from this side of the house at this stage of this measure.
When we rose at six o'clock yesterday I was in the midst of discussing the four main features of this bill: first, the pension plan; second, a further payment to the farmers of their own money; third, the proposed power for the board to handle wheat products as well as wheat; and fourth, the compulsory requirement that farmers must sell their oats and barley to the wheat board and no one else.
I had pointed out that we supported the principle of pensions for the employees, but that we were opposed to making the farmers pay half the cost. I had stated that we favoured the government paying the farmers a large part of the farmers' money, which has been withheld from them. I suggest now that when added to the initial payment of $1.35 the total, if possible, should be equal to the present parity price of wheat, which today is about $1.80. Even though the amount on hand is large there may not be enough to bring the payments up to that amount, but if there is not enough the payment should be as large as possible, approaching as nearly as possible the figure I have mentioned.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
I had indicated that the expansion of the measure to provide that the board shall handle wheat products as well as wheat was not a very great expansion, and that it had some measure of merit but also that there was some opposition. I suggest that when we get into committee the minister elaborate that point further.
I had indicated also that we are opposed to compelling the owners of oats and barley to sell those products only to the wheat board, thus denying them the right to sell anywhere else if they wish to do so.
In expanding upon these points separately I stated with respect to the pensions proposal that we favoured it in principle; that we saw no reason to object to the employees paying half the cost of their pensions, but that as long as the board is being used for the purposes of the government we were opposed to the farmers being forced to pay half the cost of those pensions. I stated that the imposition upon the farmers of the burden of half the cost of this pension scheme raised a basic question, namely whether this was a farmers' board or a government board. If it is a farmers' board the farmers might reasonably be expected' to bear half the cost of the pensions. If on the other hand it is a government board the government itself should bear that expense, and' it should not be a charge upon the farmers.
The important question before us, therefore, is: whose servant is the wheat board? Is it the servant of the farmers who are compelled to use it, or is it the servant of the government which appoints it and on occasion dictates to it? When the original act was passed in 1935 it was very clear that the wheat board was to sell the farmers' wheat to the best advantage to the farmer in the way of the total price received, the stability of the prices paid the farmer, and the orderly marketing of the product. It was then clearly a board not only designed to function but allowed to function primarily in the interests of the farmers; but it is very clear now that under the present policies of this government the wheat board1 is a government board. It was not only appointed by the government; it is dictated to by the government and is being used by the government for its purposes, not primarily in the interests of the farmers but primarily for the purposes of the government. In carrying out these purposes the government has not hesi.tated- to sell the farmers' product on occasion at less than it might have been sold for. As far as oats and barley are concerned, I predict that the board will be selling them at less than they could be sold for if
the board is given a monopoly in the handling of these products. Under these conditions we say the government, not the farmers, should pay that portion of the cost of the pension scheme which is not paid by the employees themselves.
The second feature of this bill gives the board power to pay back to the farmers at least a part of their own money. It carries out in part, after much delay, what we have urged from the beginning in this matter. From the beginning we favoured a larger initial payment than $1.35 per bushel. But that was not done. From the beginning we favoured paying participation certificates at the end of each year. That was not done. We are opposed to the government holding back large sums of the farmers' money. But the government has held them back. The government is now said to have in its possession some S230 million of the farmers' money.
The government, after long delay, now plans to give back part of this money that it is holding back. It does not tell us exactly how much. It says it will be an increase in the initial payment. The name does not matter much; the payment is what counts. We are in agreement with the proposed increased payment, whatever its amount. I suggest that with the proposed international wheat agreement in prospect, the figure commonly reported of twenty cents a bushel is not enough. It is not nearly a parity price. We favour the payment of as large an amount as is possible at this time.
As I said a minute ago, the farmers should have an amount that approximates the present parity of $1.80. I am aware that because of our British contract-because of having sold two-thirds of the crop at low prices, probably there is not enough money there to reach that figure at this time. In those circumstances I suggest that a payment out large enough to reach as nearly as possible that figure should be made.
The third feature of the measure is that which proposes to give the board power to handle wheat products as well as wheat. Since the act as it now stands gives the board complete power over wheat, it is no great departure to give it the same powers over wheat products. However there have been some protests against this feature. We see both advantages and disadvantages in it. The board got along without it up until now. As I said a minute ago, we ask the government when in committee to give us more information to justify its position with respect to this aspect of the bill.
Canadian Wheat Board Act

The fourth feature of the bill-and this is the one which has provided the most contention in the house-is that which would force farmers who grow oats and1 barley for sale to sell their products only to the wheat board, and to accept for it prices fixed by that board on the dictation of the government. We favour the wheat board being given power to handle oats and barley to the extent that farmers wish them to do so. But we are opposed to forcing farmers to sell to what has now become a government monopoly, if the farmers do not wish to sell to that institution.
We are opposed to this section of the bill because it compels farmers to sell to the wheat board, and denies them the right .to sell anywhere else. We are opposed to this feature of the bill because we feel it means lower prices to farmers who produce oats and barley for sale.
As I have said, the purpose of the original act in 1935 was to market the farmers' wheat to the best advantage as regards total price stability of payments and orderly marketing. But the government is now using it as a national agency to serve another purpose. It is using it as a price control mechanism more than as an agricultural marketing board. And for that purpose it has sold in the past, and no doubt will sell in the future farmers' products at less than those farmers could get for their products if sold by themselves.
Instead of a price supporting agency, as it was originally intended to be, the government is using the wheat board as a price depressing agency in its plans to regulate price controls or price levels in this country. This is a complete perversion of the original conception of the wheat board act, and on that ground we are therefore opposed to this feature of the measure.
A second and related objection to this compulsory aspect of marketing oats and barley is that farmers are forced to sell to a government board at government fixed prices; they are forced to sell to a board administered by government appointees for the purposes of the government, a board which may not sell the farmers' products for the best prices obtainable. This means a substitution-and I shall use a word which I do not use in any offensive sense at all-this means a substitution of political prices in the place of market prices. And when I refer to political prices I mean prices fixed by a board appointed by the government.
If that practice is carried to its logical conclusion it means the suppression by the government of the normal economic laws of buying and selling. In my judgment, such a policy if continued long enough can have only one end, namely disaster to the wheat board

and damage to the prestige of the co-operatives of this country. The policy of political prices for oats and barley will be just another nail in the coffin of the wheat board. It is this kind of policy that leads to the beginning of the end of that board as a marketing organization for farmers.
It has been suggested in this house that the government does not intend or expect to place oats and barley under the sole jurisdiction of the wheat board. It has been suggested that this is but a political move to influence the Saskatchewan provincial election, a political lifeline to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) in his fight against the Premier of Saskatchewan. It has been suggested that this measure is a bit of political strategy brought forward to serve the purposes of a provincial election, rather than to serve the needs of agriculture.
I am not making that charge, Mr. Speaker, but I do wish to say that to the extent that such a suggestion is true this bill is a crude and cruel hoax on an important producing group in this country, those who produce oats and barley for sale. If the government is serious in pressing forward this feature of the bill, then I wish to say that we are against it because we are convinced that it will not serve the best interests of those it affects. If the government is not serious in this matter, then there is all the more reason to vote against it, because farmers should not be deceived by the government's pretending that it may do something, and then not doing it.
To summarize briefly what I have tried to say in these few minutes: We strongly favour the payment out to the farmers of their own money. We see some merit in other features of the bill, but we are opposed to that section of it which forces farmers to sell their oats and barley to a board which may, on the government's dictation, sell their products at less than they can be sold for elsewhere.


James Horace King: When the minister speaks he will close the debate.
Right- Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion since I entered the House of Commons in 1935 that I have ever spoken on the subject of wheat. Perhaps I should follow the example of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and give my credentials for doing so.
It seems to be accepted in the. house that any member representing a seat between Whitemouth, Manitoba, and the Rocky mountains, is automatically an expert on wheat marketing. I come from Port Arthur, so perhaps I have to justify my position.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
May I say that I came to western Canada in 1913 as engineer in charge of construction of terminal elevators for the board of grain commissioners. From 1913 to 1935 I spent my time in the company of wheat men. During the intervening years I discussed very little except the marketing of wheat and grain. I have been retained by every farm organization in western Canada that has an investment in terminal elevators, including the early co-operatives and the western wheat pools. I have been retained by considerably more than fifty p.er cent of the private terminal elevator interests of Canada. I have had clients who traded on every major wheat market in the world. Therefore I suggest that if I am not qualified to speak about wheat, I have been collecting fees from clients for a great many years under false pretenses.
I should like for a moment to touch on the subject of pensions for the employees of the wheat board. I cannot believe that there is serious opposition to this measure, or any substance to the suggestion that the salaries of the employees should be paid by the board, and pensions out of the consolidated funds of Canada. We all know that pensions are equivalent to salaries. The proposed pension plan will be about equivalent to a seven per cent increase in the salaries of the employees of the wheat board. The number of employees to be covered by the pension plan is 457. The total number of employees is 686. but of those 229 cannot be included in the scheme because some are under age, some have been employed for periods of less than one year, and some have reached the retirement age. The cost to the board, based on paying one-half of the 14 per cent required for the plan, will amount to 878.400 per year.
It has been suggested that the farmers of Canada will object to having this money paid from the funds of the wheat board. May I say that every farmers' co-operative has a pension plan and the pensions are paid for, as are the salaries of the employees, from the funds of the farmers who own the co-operatives. Practically every grain firm on the Winnipeg grain exchange has a pension plan for its employees. I presume that the revenue of those firms is derived from the wheat farmers just as the revenues of the wheat board are derived from handling the wheat of the farmers.
It was suggested during the debate that the wheat board is overstaffed and overpaid. I find no evidence of that in examining the position of the wheat board. I believe it is a compact organization with a hard-working staff. I know that the salaries, at least of the senior employees, are less than many of
those employees received from the private firms that employed them previously. I suggest that the viewpoint of the farmer is being misrepresented by statements that he would object to the payment of these pensions. I have found that the farmer is as fair an employer as is any other employer in this country, and I speak with some experience. The farmer expects to pay a fair price for efficient service, and in this case I believe he will be glad to see the employees of the wheat board protected by a pension plan.
Then we come to the matter of the increase in the initial payment. There has been a good deal of criticism about the method of marketing wheat and the price received by the farmer. Various controversial statements about marketing have been made. It seems to me that this criticism overlooks entirely the situation of trading in wheat in the world today. Practically all wheat, in fact I think I can say all wheat, is sold from government to government. In other words, state marketing is practically universal at the present time.
Several speakers have mentioned a world price for wheat. I suggest that there is no such thing. There are no international exchanges doing business today as there were in pre-war days. In pre-war days there was a definite world price for wheat. If one market was out of line, another market would sell wheat into it until prices were equalized. Where are the markets today? The Winnipeg grain exchange, one of the great pre-war markets, is closed to wheat trading. The Bolsa in Buenos Aires is closed to wheat trading. The Baltic in London is closed to wheat trading. The Liverpool corn exchange is closed. The markets of Europe are all closed, as are the markets of Australia. Where in the world can a world price for wheat be found when there is no world trading in wheat?
I was interested in looking up the prices being charged in state marketing on a given date. Argentina was selling wheat to various countries at prices ranging up to $5 per bushel. Australia was selling wheat under a one year contract to the United Kingdom at $2.72 per bushel and to India at $2.98 per bushel. Chicago May futures closed on that date at $2.45|. Canada's class 2 price on that day stood at $2.75. Those prices represent the major world trading today, and where in that collection can you find a world price?
It will be said that the United States markets are still open. They are the only markets in the world that I know of that are trading in wheat today. But I would point

Canadian Wheat Board Act
out that there is a difference between trading in international wheat and trading in domestic wheat. Canadian wheat cannot be shipped into United States markets because present customs tariffs provide for an entry of only 800,000 bushels of wheat per annum from Canada into the United States. Sales abroad are not made from United States markets. The only wheat that the United States is shipping is wheat bought by a government agency and shipped by that government agency. The Chicago price is a domestic price. We all know that speculation on that market grew to such an extent that it became a national scandal. The President of the United States denounced it, and the Secretary of Agriculture denounced it. The names of traders on the exchange were published. They numbered more than 3,000 large and small traders who were buying and selling wheat that they never had owned and never expected to own.
However, the Chicago market price is arrived at freely by buyer and seller and Canada has used it as a guide for its No. 2 wheat price. The No. 2 price is the United States price corrected for the higher protein value of Canadian wheat. The price arrived at in that way can hardly be called a world price, and I hope hon. members will not continue to refer to it as a world price. It is nothing more than the Chicago price corrected for protein content.


Mr. BENTLEY:: Those who listen to Major Strange still call it the world price.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Some of your colleagues have done the same thing. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) used the expression "political prices" in place of market prices, and he also mentioned sales in the interests of the farmer. What are the interests of the farmer? The interests of the farmer are to have a sure market, a stable market and a price that is fair. It is easy to find spot markets that will offer higher prices. Starving people, if they have money at all, are not in position to question the price that may be charged for the food they must have. That is why Argentina is able to sell its wheat up to $5 per bushel.
However, Canada has a special responsibility in a time like this. We are far and away the largest wheat exporting country in the world. We have a particular responsibility to our largest customer, the United Kingdom. Over the years the United Kingdom has been the country upon which Canada has depended to buy a large part of our exportable surplus of wheat. When war broke out Canada assumed the responsibility of seeing that the United Kingdom was supplied with wheat

from this country. For a time it was sent as a gift, and later it was sent as mutual aid. The government felt that it was the continuing responsibility of Canada to see that Britain was supplied with wheat during the reconstruction period and at a price which Britain could consider reasonable. Therefore a four-year contract was made. That contract was submitted to the House of Commons, and I would remind hon. gentlemen that every member of the House of Commons voted in favour of ratifying that contract. It is well to keep that in mind when that contract is being discussed in this house. It is every hon. member's contract as well as the government's contract.


James Arthur Ross: Would the minister mind saying on what occasion it was ratified in the house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was ratified only last year.


James Arthur Ross: In what form?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Also ratified at the time it was signed.


James Arthur Ross: Only it was not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I remember the vote, and I remember that the then member for Park-dale was the only member of the House of Commons who voted against it. I remember that he resigned from his party a few days afterwards and went back to Toronto. That is my recollection.


James Arthur Ross: On a point of order, that agreement to my knowledge has never been submitted to this house and ratified as such.


Mr. FLEMING:: And another thing, the agreement was not signed until after the hon. member for Parkdale had resigned his seat in the house. Let the minister stick to the facts.


James Horace King: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe that that contract has worked out decidedly in the best interests of the farmers of western Canada. Today Canada has a place firmly established in the British loaf of bread. Today we are supplying 60 per cent of the wheat that goes into the British loaf. I remember that after a rather unpleasant difference with the United Kingdom in 1930 the position of Canada in the British loaf dropped as low as 20 per cent. I believe that Britain feels that Canada has treated her fairly in setting the current price for wheat. The price for the 1948-49 crop has been agreed on at $2 a bushel, and it is interesting to note that the three great

Canadian Wheat Board Act
exporting countries of the world, meeting in Washington a few weeks ago. decided that the importing countries thought $2 was a fair maximum price for wheat to continue over the next five-year period.
It has been suggested in this house that the farmer is the only producer in Canada who has not been getting the last cent out of his product that could be obtained. That suggestion is entirely unrealistic. Let me discuss prices of one or two other basic products. Let us take newsprint as an example, the second largest export commodity in Canada. Newsprint is very like wheat in that it is produced from the natural products of Canada and it is largely sold in the world markets. I asked our export department to give me their opinion of the world price of newsprint over the last three or four years, and I was told that it ranged somewhere between $200 and $300 a ton. I know that I have had a good many callers from overseas and from the United States to ask for an allocation, saying that they were willing to pay up to $300 a ton for newsprint.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister permit a question? How does he arrive at a world price for newsprint?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The price at which newsprint was being sold from other than Canadian sources, and the price that Canada could have obtained for newsprint, also the so-called grey market price in the United States.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The reason that prompted me to ask the question is this. I do not understand how you can say that there is a world market for newsprint when you say there is no world market for wheat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a world market for wheat but no world price for wheat. I am giving the opinion of my officers as to what newsprint could have been sold for had the Canadian -producers agreed to go out for the last cent they could get out of the newsprint.
What is the history up to the beginning of this year? No producer in Canada had ever charged more than $90 a ton for his newsprint. So far as I know there has never been a ton of newsprint shipped to the grey market or shipped to an unofficial market. The newsprint industry has believed it is wise to ship newsprint to their traditional customers and to price that newsprint at prices which the customer could afford to pay. The record indicates rather remarkable restraint. I think that the businessmen who operate cur newsprint industry are able, wise and far-seeing. I have heard my hon. friends of the C.C.F.
party refer to these same men as greedy monopolists. However, that has been the policy of these men. They have believed that it was better to protect a sure market and a continuing market for their newsprint, better to keep their customers solvent, and to keep relations good rather than to go after the last immediate dollar that they could get for that product. That is one analogy with the farmers' position. I would point out also that the newsprint manufacturers have always quoted a lower price to Canadian customers than they have quoted to their foreign customers.
Let us take another analogy. Let us take lumber. When the controls of lumber were lifted there were three prices for lumber. I am taking west coast lumber as an example. The Canadian price was $29 a thousand; the price to the United .Kingdom was $60 a thousand and the price to the United States and to other spot markets was $87 a thousand. There again the lumber producer was protecting his domestic market because of ceiling prices, but hon. members will notice that he was also protecting his United Kingdom market by quoting prices that were only about two-thirds of world prices for lumber. Therefore let it not be said again that the farmer has been placed in a special position through the policy of selling his product to a continuing customer at a reasonable price, and a price that that customer would not consider a hold-up.
Reference was made to extending the control of wheat to wheat products. This is necessary to insure that all wheat used in domestic consumption returns to the five-year pool the full current price. Any system which permitted the miller to pay less than full current prices would mean that the amounts available to go to increase initial payment from the five-year pool would be short to that extent. I hardly think it is necessary to dwell on that point.
We come now to the section bringing the marketing of oats and barley under the control of the wheat board. I made a lengthy statement setting out the government's views of this section when I introduced the resolution preceding the bill. The government fully appreciates the difficulty of the course that is opening up in this direction, but it does feel that at the moment there is an overwhelming demand from the farmers of this country that the marketing of oats and barley be placed under the board. The government may be wrong in this, but I see no indication of it.
The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) suggested that the Alberta wheat pool did not favour this course, and I am placing
Canadian Wheat Board Act

this telegram from Ben Plumer, president of the pool, on Hansard because the telegram requests that I do so. It reads as follows:
Apparently as a result of certain discussions which took place at the annual meeting of Canadian Federation of Agriculture held in Brockvdlle the latter part of January respecting the marketing of coarse grains the Winnipeg Free Press has persistently inferred in a series of editorial comments in their column as well as in certain news dispatches originating with their Ottawa correspondent that the Alberta wheat pool in some way has dissociated itself from other farm organizations in their demands on the federal government that the marketing of coarse grain be taken over by a government body. We also understand from press dispatches of earlier this week that the member for West Calgary, Mr. A. L. Smith, in his speech to the House of Commons in opposition to all coarse grains being marketed by the Canadian wheat board for a government body, indicated that our association was not favourable to coarse grains being handled in this manner. It is not quite true in the discussions at Brockville that our representatives expressed doubt as to the advisability of pressing the federal government to have the marketing of coarse grains handled by the Canadian wheat board in view of their present heavy responsibilities in respect to the marketing of wheat, flax and oil seeds and suggested a separate coarse grains board as an alternative. In accordance with our position as already outlined to you by our manager, Mr. R. D. Purdy, in a personal interview with you when in Ottawa some days ago, this will confirm that the Alberta wheat pool has consistently supported over the past several years, in conjunction rvith other farm organizations, the principle that all coarse grains should be marketed through a government board. We would ask that you arrange for this message to be read into Hansard as a means of definitely clearing up any doubt that our association has at all times consistently supported the principle that the marketing of all coarse grains should be placed under a federal government board and any statements or suggestions to the contrary are not in accordance with the facts.
Ben S. Plumer, Chairman,
Alberta Wheat Pool.
I have a somewhat similar wire from Roy C. Marler, president of the Alberta federation of agriculture, which I am not going to take the time to read.
I think that covers the remarks I have to make. It has been stated to me that I would have as much of this day to discuss wheat as seemed necessary for the purpose, but that if the bill failed to pass today it would have to hold over until after the Easter recess. That would mean more than two weeks' delay in getting out the cheques the farmers need to pay for their seeding expense. Therefore I hope that we can press

this measure through and send it on its way before eleven o'clock this evening.


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: I was paired, Mr. Speaker. Had I voted, I would have voted1 for the motion.


Mr. MARQUIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion). Had I voted, I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead' (Mr. Hackett), Mr. Speaker. Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MALONEY:: I was paired. Had I voted, I would! have voted for the motion.


Mr. CARDIFF:: I was paired.
(Translation):


Mr. HEON:: Mr. Speaker, I am paired for the whole session with the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Lapalme). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GAGNON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
( Text):


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the debate on the resolution, Mr. Speaker, in response to a motion from the C.C.F. party that the bill be divided and the coarse grains section sent to a committee-


Mr. COLDWELL:: It did not come from the C.C.F.


Mr. WRIGHT:: On a question of privilege-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am simply making a statement as I said I would at this time. I said that after the second reading of the bill, before the Speaker had left the chair, I would move to take the power in committee to divide the bill in order to report one section and to send another section to a committee.
The purpose of that offer was to expedite the passage of the bill. I might point out that some eight days have elapsed since then, and every section of the bill has been thoroughly debated. The objective of saving time has not been achieved, and I see no purpose at the moment in putting this motion. However, having said I would do so I am willing to move it, but it is obvious, I think, that the motion will be voted down.


James Arthur Ross: The minister distinctly made the statement that he would adopt this procedure to divide the bill and refer section 5 to the agriculture committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I move, Mr. Speaker, that it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to divide Bill No. 135 into two bills, in order that one may deal separately with oats and barley.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: Mr. Howe moves, seconded by Mr. Gardiner-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Horace King: -seconded by Mr. Mcllraith, that it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to divide Bill No. 135 into two bills, in order that one may deal separately with oats and barley.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -is it the intention of the government-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -to take the honourable course of resigning-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Archibald
Argue
Baker
Beaudoin
Belzile
Bentley
Bertrand (Terrebonne)
Bowerman
Bradette
Brown
Brunelle
Burton
Campbell
Castleden
Chevrier
Claxton
Cleaver
Cloutier
Coldwell
Cote (St. Johns-Iber-ville-Napierville) Cote (Verdun) Cruickshank Deehene Denis
Dion (Lake St. John-Roberval)
Dionne (Beauce) Douglas Eudes Farquhar Fontaine Fournier (Hull) Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemonit) Gardiner Gariepy
Gauthier (Portneuf)
Gillis
Golding
Gourd (Chapleau)
Grant
Gregg
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Hatfield
Irvine
Isnor
J aenieke
Jean
Knight
Knowles
Lafontaine
Langlois Lapointe Laurendeau Leger Little McCann McCuaig McCubbin McCulloch (Pietou) McCullough (Assini-boia)
McDonald i,Parry Sound)
Maclnnis
McKay
MacLean
MacNaught
Marier
Martin
Matthews (Brandon) Matthews (Kootenay East)
May hew
Michaud
Mitchell
Moore
Nicholson
Nixon
Probe
Reid
Richard (Gloucester) Richard (Ottawa East)
Rinfret
Robinson (Simcoe East)
Ross (Hamilton East) Sinnott
Smith (York North) Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Stuart (Charlotte) Strum, Mrs.
Thatcher
Townley-Smith
Tremblay
Tucker
Warren
Weir
Wright
Zaplitny-94.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, in view of the fact that the house has just defeated1 a government motion-


Donald Methuen Fleming: -or are they going to attempt to cling to power with the help of the C.C.F. coalition?


Eugène Marquis: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion). Had I voted, I would have given a serious vote.


John William Maloney: Mr. Speaker, had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
Mr. HOWE moved that the house resolve itself into committee of the whole on the said bill.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Pension fund.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I want to get in early on this because I have a matter which I think is urgent and I am going to ask the minister to give it consideration as soon as he can. I have obtained information in various places with respect to the surplus of coarse grains or feed grains at present in Canada.


Mr. KNOWLES:: On a point of order, we are now in committee on clause 1 of the bill which has to do with pension matters.
Mr., ROSS (Souris): It was not called.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I beg your pardon, it was. My point of order is this: If my hon. friend's remarks are to be with respect to the pension fund, I submit that they are in order; if they are general, I doubt it.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Calgary West had just started to make his statement and I do not know what he intended to say. If he is dealing with the pension fund, he would be in order; if he is not dealing with the pension fund, then, of course, he would not be in order at this time.


Mr. JAENICKE:: I think the minister made a very fair statement a few moments ago in connection with the farmer's attitude with respect to this pension fund. I do not believe the farmers will object to anything reasonable.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Arthur Leroy Smith: I had the floor.


William Ross Macdonald: If the hon. member was dealing with the pension fund he would be in order.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I did not hear Your Honour. I was not dealing with the pension fund and I am quite content to wait. However I had in mind an urgent matter which would come under this bill and I thought I should raise it now. I gladly give up the floor to the hon. member.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I was dealing with the pension fund and I had said that I thought the minister made a very fair statement of the farmer's position. As I said during the debate on the second reading, I think in order to safeguard his position the farmer should have something to say about the matter. There is an advisory committee of the wheat board, and I was wondering whether or not the minister would consider an amendment to this section which would make the pension plan subject to the recommendation of that advisory committee. I do not wish to move any amendment at this stage, because I hope perhaps the minister will do so, but my suggestion is that after the word "may" in the first line there be added the words "on the recommendation of the advisory committee." Would the minister consider inserting that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am of the opinion that the advisory committee has already approved the plan which has been submitted to the government for consideration. I have no objection to the amendment but I am inclined to think it is unnecessary.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I am glad to know that, but I think the farmer would be more satisfied if the advisory committee had to be consulted about this pension scheme.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is unusual to have an amendment of that kind. Would it be satisfactory to my hon. friend if he had my assurance that the government will consult the advisory committee before adopting any plan?


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Yes, I believe so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Payment to producers.
James Arthur Ross: On several occasions the minister in charge of this bill and the Minister of Agriculture have stated that there is no such thing as a world price for wheat today. The Minister of Trade and Commerce pointed that out this afternoon. Some time
ago, during another debate, I put on the record a clause from the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement. This clause will be found on page 658 of Hansard and reads:
In determining the actual price in the last two years regard will be had to the extent to which the agreed price for the first two years falls below the world price for that period. Our farmers are therefore protected from crippling losses should there be a world slump in wheat prices. This is the commercial advantage which Canada secures.
A year ago the then minister of trade and commerce gave all credit to the Minister of Agriculture for having negotiated this agreement and being partly responsible for its drafting. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture would take advantage of this opportunity to tell us what is meant by the words "world price" in the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement. I am wondering why those words were inserted in that agreement for the protection of the farmer when there is no such thing as a world price today?


Mr. GARDINER:: I dealt with that matter before the Christmas recess and gave an explanation. The term "world price" as used there is, as we explained a few moments ago, based on the United States price, the Chicago price. In the real sense of the term it is the domestic United States price, but it was the only price that was established on any market in the world. What the minister said a few moments ago is perfectly true; there is no world price in the generally accepted meaning of the term.


James Arthur Ross: Is it fair to assume that in negotiating the price for wheat in 1948 and 1949 the United States price will be the one used in the negotiations so far as the Canadian officials are concerned?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is fair to assume that consideration will be given to the relationship of the United States price with the price obtained from Britain.


Mr. FAIR:: There seems to have been considerable dissension about the phrase "world price". I would be quite satisfied to use the words "class 2 wheat price" instead of world price. That term would be better understood by the farmers of the prairie provinces. If they can get the price being obtained for class 2 wheat I do not think there will be any further dissension.
In closing the debate a few moments ago, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that Canada has a special responsibility. I think we all agree with the minister in that respect, but we do not agree that that responsibility should be borne only by the wheat growers of
Canadian Wheat Board Act

the prairie provinces. That has been our objection since the British wheat agreement was made. I repeat that we have no objection to the low price being paid by the people of Britain for this wheat, but we do insist that that is a responsibility of all the people of Canada, not one for the farmers alone.
Dealing further with the $2 maximum price for the next five-year period, I am not prepared to agree that that is just because we have not before us the terms of the agreement. I hope to have something more to say about this. When the minister made the announcement he said that that maximum price would hold good, regardless of the cost of production. While the price of wheat is controlled, while there is a maximum price on wheat, other things should not be allowed to go uncontrolled. It may be just one more bad deal being foisted on the farmers of this country. When we get to the coarse grains I hope to have a little more to say, but I wanted to say this much in connection with the wheat question.


Mr. ARGUE:: Since this section makes provision for the governor in council to increase the initial price of wheat; since the farmers are very much concerned as to what that initial price will be, and since the government has not yet stated what the increase w'ill be, is the minister prepared to state at this time what initial increase in price will be made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is aware that it is not possible to make any increase in price until this particular bill is enacted into law. As soon as it is possible to increase the price, I shall lose no time in announcing what the increased price will be.


James Arthur Ross: I suppose the minister would not even suggest what the price may be. I am sure it will not develop into any great argument at this time. It would be helpful if we had an idea what the contribution will be before the bill is enacted into law. I cannot see any harm in the minister making the announcement now. So far as we are concerned we are not going to hold the measure up. It will go through today, and probably this afternoon. It will be helpful to the people who will be receiving the payments if they have an idea what they are to receive.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill has still to be considered in another place. I should not like to announce the payment until I am sure the payment can be made. I hope to be able to announce the payment before parliament adjourns for the Easter recess.


Mr. FULTON:: I want to take this opportunity to ask for further information in reply

to a question which I put on the order paper and which was passed as an order for return to which I received a reply on March 17. The question concerned the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture. I submit that virtually no effort is being made to answer the question. It concerns partly the price paid to the farmer for his wheat shipped to Britain under the British contract, and therefore I am in order in discussing it at this time. The information I was asking for was the difference in the prices which were received by Canadian farmers as a result of their shipment of wheat to Britain, and the prices which would have been received had the same quantity of wheat been sold at class 2 prices quoted by the wheat board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Before my hon. friend goes any farther, may I ask him this? Has he any evidence that any considerable part of the total crop of Canada could be sold at class 2 prices?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point raised by the minister would, of course, involve a considerable debate. The information I asked for was a matter of fact. What is the difference between the price which was received under the contract and the price which would have been received had the same amount of wheat been sold at class 2 prices.
The other question is a debatable one, whether the class 2 price or the world price would have prevailed. That, I say, is a debatable point; nevertheless the argument is altogether without sense unless we know what the difference would have been.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the argument is without sense-period.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Maybe the minister does think that, but there are many people who do not, and what they want is an intelligent basis of fact upon which to base their argument. What I am asking for is this: is it not possible to let the committee know the total amount paid for the wheat so far sold under the British contract at the contract price, and that, of course, includes the flour which, in some measure, represents wheat? Second, what would have been received if the same quantities had been sold at class 2 prices? The information I am given here is simply the contract price. I can read the contract. I do not know how much has been sold, how much of it is flour, and the price at which it is sold. It is certainly possible for the Department of Trade and Commerce to give me the total figures asked for.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Has my hon. friend read his answer through? He is given the total sales

Canadian Wheat Board Act
each year, the prices at which they were sold and the average price of class 2 wheat for the corresponding period. Can he not add up and subtract? Is that too much trouble? Do we have to do that for him? The information he asks for is there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is easy enough to be sharp about these things, but the information I have asked for is not there. I will read the question. Perhaps the minister should read the question before he reads the answer. If he reads the question he will find that my question has not been answered. Question 2 was:
What are the total payments (a) made by the British government?
Surely that is clear enough. I continue:
(b) Received by Canadian farmers, for the respective amounts supplied.
The answer to question 2 was as follows:
(a) For the crop year 1945-46, the United Kingdom government paid Canada for the wheat and flour supplied on the basis of $1.55 per bushel for One Northern wheat in store Fort William-Port Arthur, Vancouver and Churchill, plus certain allowances for carrying and shipping costs.
I do not know what these allowances are. It is arguable that I could multiply the price by the number of bushels and get the total; but I do not know what the allowances for shipping and carrying costs are, nor do I know what the bushel equivalent of a pound of flour is. The prices here are given as so much per pound of flour.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then the hon. member's
extensive education has been neglected if he cannot find out that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister told us this afternoon what a great expert he is in all these matters. We know he is a great expert. Some of us do not hold ourselves up to be quite as expert as the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Any good dictionary will tell you what you are after.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has a number of officials paid by the people of Canada. I am simply asking that these officials furnish the information in reply to the questions I have asked. I am not asking the minister who is so much more expert than I am to do this. He has told me how dull I am-


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a 72 per cent extraction.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have asked for the total payment made by the British government and received by Canadian farmers for the respective amounts supplied.


Mr. TUCKER:: On a point of order, I suggest that the hon. member is seeking to debate a question on this particular section which lie has had answered. That question is out of order on this section.
Mr, FULTON: On a point of order, I submit that I am in order because this section deals with payments made to farmers.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is money paid1 to farmers, money held on hand.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer is, as I have said, that the information is not given in reply to the question I asked, and I am simply raising the matter now and asking that the answer be given in committee before this bill is passed, so that those of us who are not experts, as the minister is, may have the basic information on which to base an argument. The same general question will arise in other sections of the bill, and I would ask that that question be answered. What I want is an answer to parts 2 and 4 of my question.


Mr. MILLER:: I do not intend to ask many questions, but there is one point I should like the minister to clear up. I think he can do it quickly and easily on this section relating to the question of price. As I understand it, the minister will have the amount of the increase fixed after the bill is through parliament; is that right?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Am I right also in presuming that the price will cover the whole five years, that it will be the initial payment for the whole five years? Will the minister still have power to change it to a higher figure if the government wish to pay another amount?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; the government can increase the initial payment; it cannot lower it. It is the initial payment to cover the whole period.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Every time it is changed it will be retroactive, or it will cover the whole five-year pool period.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am really on the right section this time, although that is not what I intended to speak about a moment ago. I want to ask the minister a simple question so that I can get clear in my mind the real operation of this act. Remember, we had a debate as to whether the 1945-46 crop should be included in the bill, and at that time many farmers wanted it excluded. Am I right in thinking that, as a result of that money
2416
Canadian Wheat Board Act

having been kept at that time, they have done better than they would have done if they had been paid their money? It is all one pool, is it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If this bill carries, when the cheques are issued for this participation the farmer will be better off in his 1945 crop than he would have been if he had taken the participation for that year only.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That was what I thought. The next thing is this. Let us assume that a man grew a crop say last year when the price was good-I mean, as compared with other years-and he has done that only one year. Where does he stand? He gets his initial payment. How much does he share in-only one year? Obviously, he cannot participate in others unless he sells wheat to the pool. I gather that to be the situation. I am concerned as to what position he is in.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He gets the number of bushels he delivers at the five-year price, whatever that may turn out to be.


Arthur Leroy Smith: In other words, the amount you will announce, which will be added to the present payment. To whom does that go? Does it go to all persons in the pool?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It goes to the man who delivers wheat. Every grower in the pool gets it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Let us say a man had only the 1945-46 crop. In 1948 further payments will be made. Will he share in the building up of the pool to its 1947 position?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: He carries on?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. This is a five-year pool. If my hon. friend is familiar with the working of a one-year pool, he knows that every man who puts in wheat gets the pool price per bushel; and extending that for five years the position is the same, except that the period is five years instead of one.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It is the same as the Irish sweepstake, but you make only one drawing. I have a letter from a veteran, who has grown his first crop. It is the only one he has grown, and he was concerned as to what his position was, because a certain amount of the money to which he is entitled was held back for this pool business. Let us assume that something happens to him and he is not in business next year. What is his position?


Clarence Decatur Howe: His estate will collect.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I did not suggest that he was dead. I said, suppose he is not in the business of growing grain. The minister says his estate will collect. What will the estate get?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He will get his participation in the pool, and if he dies his estate will get it. If he has turned in wheat to the pool the amount he will get will be the number of bushels he has turned in, multiplied by the price. Deliveries may cover a part of each year or may cover only one year. He will get the number of bushels he turned in, multiplied by the total average price for the pool.


Arthur Leroy Smith: In short, what happens is this. In 1947 he put in a certain number of bushels and so he shares when the final payment is made. He shares in the grain put in from 1945-46 up to the end of the pool, whatever that may be. Does he share on the same basis as the man who put in his bushels in 1945-46 when the grain was much cheaper?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just the same.


Arthur Leroy Smith: All right. Then the man in the position I am speaking of gets the short end of it, does he not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: How many such fly-by-night farmers are there that you know of?


Arthur Leroy Smith: According to some speeches I have heard, all farmers are fly-by-night, although they do not fly quite as fast as the minister did a few moments ago. I am grateful to the minister, as I always am, for clearing things up for me, but the position is this. The man who sells in a good year, or two years, in this five-year pool takes the short end of it against the fellow who continued from the beginning.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He might not.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Well, if the grain goes down-


Walter Adam Tucker: It might go up.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes, it might go up; but the fellow in 1945-46 gets it too if it goes up. So that the hon. member's remark does not add a great deal to the subject.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Trading in wheat or wheat products.
Mr. BRADSHAW:: Under the new act, I understand, there is a change in the placing of wheat products under the control of the

Canadian Wheat Board Act
board. I wish to read a telegram I received from the Great Star milling company in the county of Perth:
Understand bill 136 is under consideration and section 27 giving the wheat board control over wheat and wheat products. If board control wheat products this will mean the milling industry will be subject to complete control of board. This is giving a board powers that only the government itself should assume and then only in times of emergency. Strongly urge utmost opposition to including wheat products or grain products in this bill.
On the basis of this telegram I should like to ask a question. Are all wheat products or milling products strictly under the control of the board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If this section passes, all products of grain crossing a provincial boundary will be subject to the control of the board. The reason for that is that it touches on the point raised by the hon. member for Calgary West. This is a five-year pool. The price next year, we know, will be high and there may be a temptation for certain farmers to by-pass the pool and deliver to mills, instead of waiting to get the participation in the pool, taking immediate cash, in an amount which may be higher than the final result of the pool. That miller will probably have an advantage over millers who buy wheat from the wheat board, and the pool would not be getting all the revenue that is coming to it. The wheat board tell me that this provision is necessary at the present stage of the pool, and therefore I am asking the House of Commons to pass it.


Albert James Bradshaw: That applies only outside the province.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Crossing provincial boundaries, yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have a wire from the manager of the Quaker Oats Company of Peterborough regarding the same matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have dozens from millers. It is a round-robin wire.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They object to the board taking absolute control of their industry, because that is what is happening. It is socializing the whole milling industry, putting it under state control. They also object, of course, as the hon. member has said, to restrictions in interprovincial shipments. I should like to read this wire:
Have wired both Howe and Gardiner objecting to bill 135 which may be taken up again today. This bill in effect would place milling industry under complete control of wheat board and government and believe that it would completely prohibit interprovincial shipments by millers except by permission of the board and
5849-154$
give board powers greatly disproportionate to the purpose it is trying to effect. Milling industry already working under severe handicaps and believe it would be discriminatory and not in the national policy to put industry under complete government control as is outlined in bill 135,
During the last few years the milling industry has been under a great handicap.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What is the handicap?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In their shipments, and everything else.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How were their earnings?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Will the minister tell us what the term "wheat products" includes? Does it include shredded wheat and other breakfast foods made from wheat, or just flour and the ordinary mill foods?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Any products that the governor in council may name. I hardly think they will get down to shredded wheat. I may say that if any flour mill will continue the practice they have followed for several years and buy their wheat at the wheat board price, these regulations will not affect them in any way. My hon. -friend says that the millers have been discriminated against and are under a severe handicap.
I just suggest that the government has been putting wheat in their mills at a standard price, selling their products in foreign markets and giving them a good margin. I think the hardship they have suffered will be reflected in their earnings over that period.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In addition to that, can the minister tell us what is permitted under the regulations? Section 27 states that, "except as permitted under the regulations, no person other than the board shall ship these products," and so on. What is permitted under the regulations? The reason I ask this question is that I can see considerable difficulty arising in the matter of farmers attempting to buy mill feeds such as bran, shorts and so on, particularly those who are close to the border of one province and who may ordinarily secure their supply in the next province. Can the minister tell us just what is permitted under those regulations and how the thing is to be worked out with regard to farmers and other people purchasing mill feeds?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The regulations are not as yet drawn, and it is difficult to say what will be in them. I can assure my hon. friend that if the mills buy their wheat at wheat board prices, which they have been doing for years, and buy from the wheat board, which they should properly do, they will have nothing to fear from this section.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why bother, then?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to ask the minister one simple question. I am much impressed, as I hear him talk, as to the position of the milling and other industries. He says that the government will do this and the government will do that, and that as long as these people will do what they are told, they will be well off. Perhaps they will. Would I foe wrong in calling this a highly socialistic measure?


Clarence Decatur Howe: State marketing is socialism, yes, if you like. But it is hard to be different in a world that at the moment is following state marketing for reasons which I think are largely beyond their control. There are currency problems, credit problems and a number of factors, which are driving countries to state marketing at the present time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think there are such factors, just as the minister says. But a good deal depends, in the last analysis, on what we want to do right here in our own hearts. I understand that the minister has agreed that this is a highly socialistic measure.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A moment ago the minister said no regulations had been drawn. In this section 27, paragraph (b) and the following ones "wheat or wheat products" are the words used. It is always "wheat or wheat products". The regulations are in existence under which wheat has been handled. I would ask the minister whether those same regulations are the ones which it is proposed to enforce here or whether a completely new set of regulations will be drawn up as far as flour, mill feeds and so on are concerned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I imagine that the new regulations will define what wheat products will be covered by the regulations.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Surely some plans have been made as to what those regulations will be. The minister cannot be entirely without any knowledge of what the regulations will be, and how they will differ from the regulations now in force as far as wheat itself is concerned. If there is to be any difference, I do not think we should give the government a blank cheque to make any regulations they like in order to handle these things afterwards. We should have some knowledge here as to what those regulations are, what the government will be able to do under them, how they will affect the ordinary people and the ordinary millers. From what the minister has stated so far, we have no idea how the thing will affect
{Mr. Howe.]
the people most concerned, and I think those are matters on which we should get information before we pass the section.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Carried.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the section carry?


James Arthur Ross: No. After all, we are not living under a dictatorship yet, surely.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Arthur Ross: Or are we? Surely the minister can make some statement as to what will be included here and give us some idea as to what will be provided.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of the section is to make sure that every farmer delivers his wheat into the pool. If he will do that-


James Arthur Ross: That is provided for now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is provided for; but this is to make sure that there is no sidetracking, that no cut-price arrangements are made. If the farmer will deliver to the pool, and if the miller will buy wheat through legitimate channels, there will be no control whatsoever over the by-products. But if there is evidence that any mill is buying wheat outside the pool, or not through normal channels, then the regulations will be applied. The extent to which the regulations will cover wheat products will be the extent that the board may determine from time to time as necessary to achieve the purpose of the amendment.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Will the minister undertake that such will be the wording of the regulation? It is only for the purpose of controlling illegitimate marketing?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Calvert Charlton Miller: That will be the wording in the regulations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know what the wording will be. But the wording will say what can be done. I can assure my hon. friend, however, that if there is no side-tracking of the proper channels, the owner of the wheat and the miller will not be adversely affected.


Calvert Charlton Miller: The minister will agree that if the wording is general, it would bar a farmer, if he lives right on the border of Saskatchewan, from coming into Manitoba and buying shorts, bran and that sort of thing, would it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it would not bar the farmer from buying anything. If it is flour, bran or shorts made from wheat purchased by

Canadian IVheat Board Act
a mill through legitimate channels, there will be nothing to bar the farmer anywhere from buying those by-products.


Calvert Charlton Miller: How will the farmer know?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The penalty will not be against the farmer; it will be against the miller.


Mr. CHARLTON:: I wish the minister would make quite clear just how this bill will affect the eastern soft wheat grower? Can he explain that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What is that?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He does not know about soft wheat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Soft wheat is not pooled.


John Alpheus Charlton: All the hard wheat is in the designated area west of the great lakes. What happens with regard to the eastern wheat grower?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He is outside the designated area.


John Alpheus Charlton: What about wheat
products?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They will not be affected. As I understand it the eastern wheat can be sold to the miller under any condition the grower may determine.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The minister had better think that one over.


John Alpheus Charlton: In other words, we can sell our wheat where we like, when we like, and buy what products we like-that is, the products of eastern	wheat-within the
province?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is what you are doing now.


John Alpheus Charlton: This has no effect on eastern wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I would not think so.


John Alpheus Charlton: I should like a definite statement on that from the minister. Surely we can have it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will not affect the eastern grower.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the section carry?


John Alpheus Charlton: No, Mr. Chairman; the minister's statement is that it will not affect the eastern wheat grower-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will not affect the eastern wheat grower, no.


John Alpheus Charlton: -as long as the wheat by-products are from the eastern wheat that
we grow. It is only with regard to the byproducts of western wheat that we shall be affected. Is that true?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should think so, yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What would happen to a blended product of soft and hard wheat?


John Alpheus Charlton: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. Surely the minister can answer the question I asked a little bit more thoroughly than that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Wheat grown east of the great lakes is not wheat grown in the designated area.


John Alpheus Charlton: I understand that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Therefore this bill does not touch it. Can the hon. member understand that?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, I can understand that; but can the minister explain how we are to tell the difference between bran made from eastern wheat and bran made from western wheat, to be sure of it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are talking about the wheat grower.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am talking about the by-products.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are shifting ground now. You asked how it would affect the wheat grower; did you or did you not? If necessary, we will send for Hansard.


John Alpheus Charlton: We also have feeders along with growers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us talk about the feeders separately.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am asking a question about feeders, too.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The position of the feeder will depend upon whether the mill with which he deals has bought western wheat through official channels. If it is an eastern mill its wheat is pretty sure to come through those channels, because I do not see how it could get wheat from the west except through the board. The mill which might be inclined to go astray would be a mill in one of the western provinces, we will say, which could buy wheat from nearby farmers at cut prices and disturb the pool arrangements.


John Alpheus Charlton: Then just how is the price to be set on western wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Now you are getting into still another category, are you not? Government policy in that connection will be announced in due course.
Canadian Wheat Board, Act


John Alpheus Charlton: Then I come back to the previous question. What would be the penalty imposed upon a farmer who bought bran, shorts, middlings, or whatever byproduct it might be, thinking it was a by-product of eastern wheat, when it turned out to be a by-product of western wheat? Would any penalty be imposed upon him if he bought that by-product unknowingly?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can give my hon. friend the greatest assurance in the world that no farmer buying bran and shorts will be fined for doing so. The penalty will not be against the farmer. Perhaps my hon. friend will be satisfied with that.


Albert James Bradshaw: Take an Ontario miller buying Ontario wheat. Can he ship the byproducts of that wheat outside the province?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Albert James Bradshaw: Supposing he makes bran or other by-products, can he ship them outside the province?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why this discrimination against the western miller? He has hard wheat, but very often he must have soft wheat, too. An example I know of, and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture would know of it also, is a big mill at Medicine Hat, which at times may have to go out and get soft wheat for blending purposes because, by [DOT]itself, the hard wheat does not make the right kind of bread. As a matter of fact, I understand that all millers need some soft wheat at times. What is the position of that mill? Is it in any different position from that of an eastern mill if, in fact, it bought the soft wheat in Ontario and shipped it west?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: All right then. Is this the answer, that you do not control byproducts made anywhere from soft wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We control by-products of wheat grown in the designated area, and the designated area is the three western provinces. If my hon. friend will keep that in mind it will narrow his argument a little.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then let us go on with that. In this designated area we will say these by-products are not made solely from grain grown in the designated area, but from wheat blended with soft wheat shipped from Ontario. Does the government intend that the board shall have control of the
[Mr. Howe.1
products, the mixtures such as flour and other things, coming from that blended wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then you are controlling the by-products of grain grown in a non-designated area, are you not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Only because we must.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then the answer is, I gather, that you are?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The answer is that we are not controlling the by-products of grain grown in the designated area. If in doing so we incidentally control mixtures containing by-products of grain grown in some other area, that is just too bad; but the positive statement is that we are controlling all products of wheat grown in the designated area.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Plus an
unknown quantity?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps so. I have never heard of it. Will my hon. friend tell me if he has ever heard of a mill in Medicine Hat importing wheat from Ontario and mixing it with western wheat?	.


Arthur Leroy Smith: No, I never did.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And you never will.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Well, I said I had not and you say I never will. I admit I am not capable of seeing as far into the future as you are, but I can see just as far into the ground as you can, and anything that is normal I can do just as well as you can. Then I want to ask if I heard the right hon. gentleman correctly a moment ago and if he said this; I want to be corrected immediately if I am wrong. I understood the minister to say they could not have these regulations until somebody knew-I suppose it is the wheat board-what wheat products they wanted to control. Did I hear the minister correctly?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then I suppose the situation is this. Today we in this House of Commons are asked to pass a bill dealing with the products of grain grown on farms; the government are asking us to pass this bill, not knowing what those articles are. I am sure that what I have said is quite logical in view of the last answer given by the minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I want to ask a question.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


An hon. MEMBER:: What do you know about wheat?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Not a great deal, but I want to ask one question. The minister said this would include all wheat products. Would that also include bread or biscuits or cake? Should the bill not specify raw wheat products? Some of the boards which have been set up in the past under bills of this kind have later been found to control almost everything under the sun. [DOT]


Clarence Decatur Howe: This paragraph is concerned with the price of wheat. It would be the purpose of the board to control only such products as will enable it to ensure that the wheat going into those -products is bought through legitimate channels. That is all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister has told us he cannot say what those products will be. I think he must be able to give us at least some of them. He must know now that certain products will be brought under this control, and I wonder if he could tell us those so that we would have at least some idea where we are going in connection with this bill. At the present time I for one am coming more and more to the conclusion that the minister does not know what he wants the bill for or what he intends to do with it. If that is the situation I see very little use in adopting these amendments, unless the government has some definite use to make of them or some definite value in mind for them. Otherwise what is the use of passing the bill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can give my hon. friend the assurance he requires. The regulations will certainly include flour.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Will they include anything in addition to flour? Is flour the only thing you know they will include?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not say that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then why not tell us the others?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am going to make an admission. I do not know anything at all about wheat; I am not like the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then you can speak freely.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I may not be in such a different class from some others who have talked quite a lot about it. But it seems to me that the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary East is very reasonable. Why will the minister not tell us now the products that will be covered
by these regulations? Why is that to be a secret, one day to be given out to the press, while we cannot have it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have given the one product I know will be included; that is flour. Conceivably it may be necessary to include other by-products in order to achieve the objective I have stated1; that is, to make sure the wheat going into the flour is bought through legitimate channels. I would think probably if flour is controlled, that would be all the control necessary. But it may develop otherwise. If it develops otherwise, I should not like to be bound by any statement I make here.


James Arthur Ross: What about bran and shorts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know whether it is necessary to control bran and shorts or not.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
William Ross Macdonald: Section 5?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Ross Macdonald: Does the title carry?


James Arthur Ross: What about section 5; is that carried?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: No, it is not carried.


William Ross Macdonald: Speak up.


James Arthur Ross: I want to ask one question at least on section 5.


William Ross Macdonald: Then section 5 is not carried.


James Arthur Ross: I do not suppose the bill can be divided at this point. But, in respect of oats and barley, I cannot for the life of me understand this House of Commons, in view of the statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the effect that the handling of oats and barley is unconstitutional. He argued that himself in the resolution stage of the measure. Other people who should know have pointed out that enabling legislation from every province in Canada would be required before this could be made operative. That would apply not only to the three prairie provinces which produce oats and barley. I understand from those trained in the law-and they should know-that the same type of legislation would be required from other provinces where this oats or barley may be traded. This would mean that each of the nine provinces in Canada would require that legislation.
Canadian Wheat Board Act

I thought I had protested this as strongly as I could. The minister introduced the legislation and argued, himself, that it was unconstitutional until such legislation was provided. The Minister of Justice certainly felt that it was unconstitutional, and said on repeated occasions that the law officers of the crown had advised that it was unconstitutional.
Why in the world would a government introduce a measure like that, knowing that it is unconstitutional at this time, and without referring it to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization for at least some study?
We do not want to appear as foolish as that in the eyes of the people of this country, or to people of other countries. That does not seem to make common sense at all, in the matter of legislation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure the hon. member that the bill as it is drafted today is quite constitutional. There is a limitation on the power that the government can exercise under the bill. But so far as power to control products crossing provincial boundaries, or exported beyond the country is concerned, there is no doubt in the world that the federal government has that power.


James Arthur Ross: About what percentage of this will be exported?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A small percentage. That is why I have said, in introducing the resolution, that a workable system of marketing cannot be founded on this bill alone. We have gone as far as we can go. We are passing enabling legislation which, so far as this measure goes, will permit us to do all we legally can do. In saying that, I repeat that our powers are'not sufficient, and this bill is not sufficient to organize a compulsory pool on wheat and barley that would succeed. What others do is the responsibility of others.
It may be that we shall have sufficient legislation passed in those proper jurisdictions to enable the pool to be worked out. If that is so, the government has done its part, and will be ready to act. We will make sure that others have taken the necessary steps to permit the operation of the pool within their jurisdictions. We will also make sure that both sellers and buyers, so far as they are organized farmers, are also satisfied that the combined legislation will permit a workable arrangement, and that a pattern for operating the pool can be worked out satisfactorily to both.


James Arthur Ross: I want to know if the minister does not think this enabling legislation will be required from all the provinces in

Canada for the marketing of oats and barley. It is not limited to the three prairie provinces in which those products will be produced. Will it not be required in other provinces where a great deal will be marketed and fed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say as to that. I know it will be required in the three prairie provinces. Whether it will be required in other provinces depends upon the objective of the farm organizations which are pressing for this legislation. I think it is more for them to say whether, in order to make the plan workable, legislation would be required, possibly in Ontario. But it is their program; and it is their responsibility to determine what their objective is, and what legislation is required to give them their objective.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Will this government take the initiative or, if this legislation is passed, will it just sit back and await developments? Will it take the initiative to see whether or not coarse grains are brought under the wheat board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This government has already taken the initiative. This is the first legislation of this type passed by any government covering the pooling of barley and oats. The government is doing its share; it is doing all it can do. It is not now going to dragoon other governments into doing what they need to do. We shall assume that the reasons which led us to do what we are doing will lead other governments to do what they require to do. If it does not have that effect we shall assume that we were mistaken in thinking we have that unanimity of farm opinion behind the bill which seems to have been indicated.


Calvert Charlton Miller: After the passing of this measure, your initiative will be still-born; is that right?


James Arthur Ross: Is it not probable that the same enabling legislation would be required in this instance as was required for the natural products marketing legislation, which was declared ultra vires? There is little difference in the two, is there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Enabling legislation is ultra vires; it has been declared that complementary legislation is not ultra vires.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Conjoint.


Percy Ellis Wright: The question I was about to ask was along the same lines as that which has just been asked. Is it the opinion of the minister and the government that the same type of complementary legislation will be necessary in the three prairie provinces for the successful operation of the bill?

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; undoubtedly, to make the bill effective there must be conjoint legislation in the three prairie provinces.


Percy Ellis Wright: Last year we moved an amendment to include oats and barley under the wheat board. At this time we would, in the ordinary course, have moved that all grains be placed under the act, when we were placing oats and barley under it. However, due to the length of discussion which has taken place, and the necessity for getting this bill through, we are not going to move that amendment, although our people still agree that all grain should be included under this measure.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I might reply to the hon. member, I have no objection to including flax in the amendment. I am quite willing to offer an amendment; indeed I have one prepared to that effect, and I am willing to offer it to the committee. I am not pressing it, but I am willing to do so.


Percy Ellis Wright: Why not rye?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Rye is in a different position. As my hon. friend knows, rye is planted in the fall, and anything we do now would not interfere with the rye crop for next spring. It is in the ground no\v.
Rye has had a dizzy market career. On March 8 last the cash price of 2-CW rye was $3.98 a bushel. The May quotation was $3.86; the July was S3.21J, and October, $1.88.


James Arthur Ross: What about today? It is quite a bit over that today.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps so. But if anyone thinks this government is going to run a pool on rye with that sort of dizzy market history, he is much mistaken.


James Arthur Ross: I am not asking for it.


Percy Ellis Wright: I think the committee would like to see flax included in the bill; at least we in this part of the house would. We would also like to have seen rye included. We do not want to start a long discussion but, if possible, we would like to see flax included.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I can assure my hon. friend that we shall have a long discussion at this late date if he tries to get things added to the bill, or to alter it by the addition of another kind of grain. I want to make one thing plain, and I hope I am not repeating what I have said. I have no doubt at all that the resolution required will come back from the Saskatchewan government so fast that you will not even be able to catch it 5849-155
on the first bounce. This is part of state control which my hon. friends to the left honestly believe in and support.
But I think you will have difficulty with some of the others. The minister has not answered this; but I think, having regard to property and civil rights, that if you need conjoint or complementary or enabling legislation in the provinces where the grain is grown and where it is bought, you will also need it in those places where it is sold. Western coarse grains are sold today in Ontario, Quebec, the maritime provinces and British Columbia.
When I first rose today the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised a point of order before I had said anything. I had not mentioned any subject at all, but he apparently was reading my mind. Had I continued: I would have been out of order, but I was not when he spoke because I had just said, "good morning."


Stanley Howard Knowles: You said oats and barley.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I should like to speak to the minister about oats and barley. I have received a lot of correspondence lately with respect to this matter, including a file which the Minister of Finance knows all about, because I have been sent copies of the correspondence that was exchanged with him. I am not going to read it, first, because it is too long and, second, because the last letter contains a reference to myself. With my usual modesty I just could not have that become public property.
It is a fact that today in Canada we have a large surplus of oats and barley. If anyone is interested I have all the figures here of what is at the head of the lakes and at the lake ports. In various parts of the country there will be new grains of this type coming on to the markets everywhere. It is said that at the present time there are bids in the market from the United States, Eire, Belgium, the Scandinavian countries and Holland, with payment in United States dollars and at prices higher than can be got for the grains in this country. In short they say that this is a matter, possibly of great urgency; that unless this surplus which amounts to-I shall put it very low-30,000,000 bushels is taken care of, unless it is channeled off for useful purposes, it will lie there against what is at present maintained west of the lakes. It is contended that immediately navigation opens there will be trouble, to say nothing of what will take place when the new crop comes on.
I am taking this opportunity of saying to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has been known to act quickly in times gone by-
Canadian Wheat Board Act

it is one of his most admirable qualities among many-that this matter should be looked into immediately. If the information I have been given is correct, it indicates a serious condition in western Canada. I am not going to say any more than that. I am sure, from the various sources of information which I have and which I think are accurate, that this is a matter which needs correcting. The minister can, by one swift move, eliminate this top-heavy thing which is rolling around on top of our market. He can do that by loosening up on export permits. We do not need to put ourselves in danger, but in this correspondence there are a number of letters from Ontario and Quebec cancelling orders. In fact today feed is just not moving. That is an unusual condition at this time of the year. Everyone seems to be saying that he is well stocked up.
I am merely asking the minister to look into this matter because it seems to those of us who are amateurs, who have not his knowledge from the various sources of information he has, that this is a serious condition. There is a possibility that I am overstating it, but I am quite sure I am not to any great degree. If what I have said is correct, I think it is something the minister might well look into in the course of the next few days.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The matter is being looked into at the present time. The Minister of Finance wishes to make a statement before six o'clock, and I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to ask the minister when the wheat board report will be available and whether he could table it before the 1946-47 crop year ends? Also, will it be referred to the standing committee on agriculture?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have received the report in typewritten form, but I have not tabled it because I was told the printed copies would be available in a few days.


James Arthur Ross: Will it be referred to the standing committee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Calvert Charlton Miller: May I suggest that the minister reconsider his statement regarding wheat products and designated areas because, if you look at part IV of the act, you will see that there is no restriction or designated area

for the products covered by part IV. I do not say the minister is in error, but he may be in saying that, by this amendment, wheat products must originate in a designated area.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon. friend will
agree that the purpose of the act is simply to see that wheat which should properly go into the pool is delivered to the pool rather than being short-circuited to nearby grist mills.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Will the minister reconsider
that statement?


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, the question was raised a few moments ago by the minister that we were prepared to stop the committee at two minutes to six in order to allow the Minister of Finance to bring down some estimates which he desired to get before the house. It was understood that rather than interrupt the passing of the section and the report of the bill we would carry on for a few moments. It was agreed that we go on and finish this and forget the clock for a -minute or two.


William Ross Macdonald: I understood that hon. members agreed to carry the section before six o'clock.	[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Gordon Graydon: I think some hon. members agreed to separate the bill, did they not?


William Ross Macdonald: Shall section 5 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Progress reported.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1947-48

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1948, was presented by Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house and referred to the committee of supply.
John Bracken: Can the minister say when the estimates will be brought forward?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot say, Mr. Speaker. I had in mind Tuesday. I do not see how we can do it before then. We are proceeding with the wdieat bill this evening. I understand that we shall proceed with the tax resolutions on Monday, but we shall proceed with this just as soon as we can dispose of the other emergency resolutions.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Bell Telephone Company
After Recess
The house resumed at eight oeloek. PRIVILEGE



MR. COLDWELL-REFERENCE TO REMARKS IN DEBATE ON MARCH 12

Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise to a matter of privilege if Your Honour will permit me to do so, in order to make a correction in last week's debate on insurance. I do so for the purpose of setting the record straight. There was a good deal of questioning as to what the Saskatchewan benefits really were, and I have here a very short paragraph which I desire to read1 in order to complete the record and ensure that no misunderstandings were left in the matter. It will take only a minute.
I have a letter from the minister of social welfare, Hon. 0. W. Valleau, of Saskatchewan, which reads in part as follows:
Public liability and property damage insurance of $5,000 injury to one person in one accident, $10,900 injury to two or more persons in one accident, and $1,000 property damage. This is what is known as standard liability and property damage insurance, and is the type required under the liability laws in force I believe in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario as well as some thirty-eight states in the United States. The insurance on all ears when they are outside of the province of Saskatchewan will be standard in every particular, but on cars inside the province the property damage of $1,000 will be subject to a deductible of $100. This is to bring it in line with our collision insurance and also to relieve us of the administrative task of being involved in every accident on 170,000 to 180,000 vehicles where the damage is less than $100 in extent, no changes being made in the rates which, as you will recall, were $4.50 for cars under 111-inch wheel base, and $6.00 for those over, with varying rates for trucks, buses, et cetera.
I simply wash to put that question right. The other benefits regarding hospitalization, medical attention or funeral benefits and1 so on are as I stated them last week.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Rinfret for the second reading of Bill No. 8, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, when we were discussing this bill on Friday two weeks ago we were 5849-155J
considering the application of the Bell Telephone Company for an increase in its capital stock by the sum of $350 million up to $500 million, and I was saying that in the absence of a great deal of information, this is a remarkably large amount for any company to receive under one bill at one time from this parliament. Had the amount for which the company is asking been much smaller, I could have understood why the application was before parliament at this particular time. But when we realize that, as I believe, this practically equals the assets of the company itself -they are not very much in excess of $350 million, and indeed they may be a little less- and when we consider that in all the years prior to 1929 the company managed to get along very well on $75,000,000, being authorized to increase its capitalization by another $75,000,000 in 1929, it seems that we are being asked to swallow a great deal when we are asked to support a bill for this huge increase in capitalization.
Let me say again that I am in agreement with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), and I know that other members in the house, in various quarters, are of the same view, that these huge public utilities should be publicly owned. Whatever our differences of opinion may be on private enterprise, I believe there is a considerable body of opinion in all parts for the public ownership of public utilities in order that they may be properly regulated with a view to giving proper rates and service to the community.
Moreover, the Bell Telephone Company is a very important company in our own country, for this company owns more telephone lines in the country, and has a larger number of subscribers than all the rest of the telephone companies in the country including the three publicly owned telephone systems in the prairie provinces. These three are owned, of course, by the provincial governments, and as I said on a former occasion they give excellent service, and incidentally encounter many more hazards and difficulties than a telephone system which is serving more or less congested areas. Yet they are able to make substantial returns to the provinces and at the same time, as I shall show in a moment, give the users of those telephone systems cheaper rates than are provided in this part of the country by the Bell Telephone Company.
I should point out, too, that the Bell Telephone Company is controlled by a large corporation in the United States. It is, I believe, controlled in part by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and therefore may be considered to be a subsidiary of that great
Bell Telephone Company

organization. My hon. friend opposite who is piloting the bill shakes his head, but that is what I have been informed. If I am wrong, I have no doubt he will correct me and I shall accept the correction. I give him an opportunity now to do so.


Mr. RINFRET:: I have already indicated to the house that the American Telephone and Telegraph Company owns only 14-8 per cent of the stock.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: But very often, when there is a large corporation owning a minority of the stock, the stock is widely diffused; and in this particular case, under a clause in the bill before us, it is proposed to split the shares four ways and diffuse them more widely. If. therefore, you have concentrated ownership of even ten per cent or less there is effective control of a corporation, and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company is the largest shareholder in the Bell Telephone Company, holding over 14 per cent of its stock.
The Bell Telephone Company of Canada has sixteen subsidiary companies in this country and besides owning telephone exchanges, trunk lines and) urban and rural telephone systems, it owns, I believe, or controls companies that are engaged in the manufacture of telephone equipment, radios and a number of other pieces of equipment that are common to the telephone industry.
I was looking up the debate which took place in 1928 and 1929, when a similar request for a much smaller amount was before the house, and I noted carefully some of the representations that were made by the province of Ontario officially at that time, and the manner in which one subsidiary, the Northern Electric Company, figured! in the discussion. While this company is limited, in the amount of dividends it may pay, to eight per cent,-


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It is S8.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: That is, $8 on $100 a share, which is eight per cent according to my calculation.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Selling at $160.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. They are selling at $162, but the actual value of each share is $100. If people are prepared to pay $162 for something that has a face value of $100 that, of course, is their business and I have no quarrel with them. But may I say that if that is the case, and if this capital stock of $350 million were issued, the public then would pay considerably more than $350 million for the stock, if it sells at $162 or less or more as the case may be.

I wish to say something about the rates. I looked up the rates in my own province, and I took the recent telephone directory for the city of Saskatoon which the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Knight) brought with him when the house assembled in January. I did not have the recent one from Regina. Here is what I find. We will take the person to person call. The minimum time the Bell Telephone Company charges for is three minutes. In Saskatchewan you can have, for less money, a two-minute conversation and there is no additional charge for a person to person call. So I will take the person to person call in each case. For three minutes the telephone rate from Ottawa to Montreal is $1, but there is a federal tax of fifteen cents on the call. I have that bill in my hand.


Mr. MITCHELL:: What time of the day is
that?


Major James William Coldwell: That is the daytime rate. That makes it $1.15. From Regina to Saskatoon, which is a much greater distance and over a much less congested territory where there are not nearly as manj- subscribers, the daytime rate for three minutes is $1.05, but that includes the federal tax. For two minutes from Regina to Saskatoon the daytime rate is seventy cents, including the federal tax. What about the night rate?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: What about the overtime?
What about the time bej'ond three minutes?


Major James William Coldwell: It is paid for proportionately. From Regina to Saskatoon the night rate for three minutes is seventy-one cents, including tax; from Ottawa to Montreal it is seventy cents, and in addition there is the federal tax, w'hich is eleven cents. We will take the rent of the telephone. In most instances today, probably the cradle telephone is used. My Saskatchewan friends tell me that the rate is a little more than it was when I lived: in Regina a few years ago. At that time we paid $28 a year for a cradle telephone. Today my Saskatchewan friends tell me that the rental of a cradle telephone is $30 a year. In this city -again I have my own bill-for a cradle telephone the charge is $3.45 a month. If hon. gentlemen work that out for twelve months, at $3.45 a month, I think they will find that it comes to $41.40 a year, or $11.40 more than is paid in Saskatchewan for the same tjrpe of telephone.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Might I be permitted to ask the hon. member a question?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is it not a fact that a telephone in Ottawa has a great many more free connections than a telephone in Regina?

Bell Telephone Company


Major James William Coldwell: Many more which?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Free connections; that is, it is connected with a great many more people.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is an important element in the cost of telephones.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, I would say that the more people who are using the telephone system, the cheaper the rate should be.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It is the other way around.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, it is the other way around.


Major James William Coldwell: No. I do not think it should be the other way around.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, it is.


Major James William Coldwell: I will get you another rate.


Humphrey Mitchell: Get the figures for Saskatchewan.


Major James William Coldwell: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) said two weeks ago, "What are the British rates?" I may say that I did not catch the word "rates" when he mentioned British rates.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should have said, what about the British service?


Major James William Coldwell: British service or British rate.


Humphrey Mitchell: Awful.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, I do not know about the British service being awful. As a matter of fact, until recent years telephones were almost unnecessary in Great Britain. When I was a boy at school in the city of Exeter, forty miles from where I lived, and to which I used to go every morning by train, I know that if my parents wanted me to bring something home from the city in the evening-I used to leave at seven o'clock in the morning before my mother was up-she could write me a note and it would be delivered to me before noon. I could do my shopping in. my noon-hour and take home what she wanted on the evening train, getting home at six o'clock in the evening. Everyone who has lived in Great Britain knows that the telegraph took the place of the telephone to a large extent, because you could telegraph very quickly and very cheaply indeed-and you still can-because, may I say, the telegraph is owned by the post office in Great Britain. I believe the telephone system is too. But until quite recently telephones were not used extensively.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a reason for that.


Major James William Coldwell: I remember that in 1924, when I was over there, I wanted to telephone home to my wife, and I found that she was one of half a dozen people in quite a large town who had telephones in their own homes, because the rates were prohibitive then. The rates have come down because there are more telephones. What I was going to say was this. The last time I was in Britain, in 1944, I discovered that I could call anyone from John o'Groats to Land's End after seven o'clock at night for one shilling; that is twenty cents. You could call anyone who had a telephone anywhere in the United Kingdom for twenty cents. That rather discounts the idea that in a congested area the rates should be higher, because in the city of London-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, no. May I point out to my hon. friend that it is a well-known fact that all the connections that have to go on the switchboard to serve a big community make the service vastly more expensive in a big centre. He will find that if he traces the rate structure from one end of the United States to the other or from one end of Canada to the other.


Major James William Coldwell: All I can say is this. I am not as well versed in this matter as is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On a matter of this sort I usually take his word for it. But it seems strange to me that where you have a large city, with a large number of automatic telephone connections and a large number of users who are paying a high rental per telephone, you cannot supply the service more cheaply than you can in a smaller community where in many instances the telephone exchange is operated manually. Maybe I am wrong, but I cannot understand it.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is a fact.


Major James William Coldwell: I know that some people argue that way. But I remember the old story about the post office; how it was said before we got penny postage that because many people would use the facilities, it would never pay at a low rate.


Mr. IRVINE:: May I ask a question? I should like the hon. member to explain this, if he can. If a telephone system in a congested area is more expensive, how is it that telephone companies pass by all the rural community areas and pay attention to the cities?


Major James William Coldwell: That is a very good question.


William Irvine: Certainly it is a good
question.
Bell Telephone Company


Mr. COLD  WELL@: It points up the argument that we are having; because after all-


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is what happens in Saskatchewan.


Major James William Coldwell: In the western provinces of Canada-


James Horace King: May I direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that we are on the motion for second reading, and under the rules an hon. member may speak only once. If hon. gentlemen have questions to put, I suggest that they wait until we have reached the committee stage.


Major James William Coldwell: Very well, Mr. Speaker.
I was going on to say that this points up the fact that, because it was not thought to be a profitable venture, the Bell Telephone Company did not enter the telephone business in the western provinces. There are now many telephone users there; and I think it is an open secret that in one or two of the provinces approaches have been made in recent years for the acquisition of the provincial telephone systems.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Not by the Bell company.


Major James William Coldwell: Then by private interests; I will put it that way. But I do not consider it likely; in fact I am sure it is quite unlikely, that the people of the prairie provinces, who own their own telephone systems, will relinquish them under any circumstances. One of the features of this bill to which I am thoroughly opposed is, as I said last week, that portion the purpose of which, so they say, is to clarify the powers of the company under its original act of incorporation with regard to the use of the latest and most improved! means and inventions, including radio and wireless telephone and television, in furnishing communication service, and to make clear the company's position with regard to the use and operation of radio and wireless telephone in furnishing service to mobile stations and to remote communities where the construction of wire facilities may be impracticable, and in interconnecting its wire facilities with radio links. The section contains a declaration that the company has always had the right, under its original charter to do these things, which I believe to be wrong.


Mr. W. A. McMASTER (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because a great increase in capital is being asked for by the Bell Telephone Company. I have no quarrel with that company. I have been acquainted and connected with all its personnel in the city of Toronto, and I have 
found them to be fine, outstanding men. The employees must live up to certain standards. The executives take part in every worthy work in that city. I know they engage in a great deal of research work, and are all the time trying to find out what the necessities of the future will be as far as telephones are concerned. In that way they acquire a great deal of knowledge which they have always placed at the disposal, free of charge, of any worthy cause or any municipal or other body. Therefore I say I have only the kindliest feelings toward the Bell Telephone Company.
Nor do I intend to complain particularly about their rates as far as the city of Toronto is concerned. I think those rates are very fair. That may not be entirely true as far as the suburbs of Toronto are concerned, and I think that is where the main objection comes from. The city of Toronto covers a very large area, and from time to time the telephone company has extended its basic area to include not only the city itself but the township of York, with some 85,000 people, and the township of East York, with another 45,000. So that from time to time, perhaps as a result of a little pressure from the municipalities, the basic area has been extended. In the last few years the suburbs have grown tremendously; and many people in those districts which have been built up during the war and since are complaining of the higher rates they have to pay, and urging that they should be included with those who enjoy the basic rate. That is, of course, a matter which can be threshed out before the board of transport commissioners.
However I do object to the Bell Telephone Company coming here at this time and asking for an increase of $350,000,000 in their capital. That is a sizeable amount and, as far as I can see, it has not been justified by anything presented by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret) in sponsoring this bill. The hon. member gave the house information which I have read. I have read, as well, the financial statement of the company for 1946, to which I shall refer a little later. I say I do not see any justification at all for this application. When this company was incorporated in 1880 it was given powers about as extensive as it could think of at that time, though those powers may not be so extensive now as the company would wish, because of new inventions which have come along. At that time the company started with a capitalization of $500,000. Some time later this was increased to $50,000,000, and eventually, in 1927, the company was allowed to increase its capital to $150,000,000.
As far as I can learn, as late as 1945 the company had used only $35,000,000 of this

______________Bell Telephone Company
increased capital. In other words, in 1945 the issued capital of the telephone company was only $85,000,000, and, after all, in 1945 they were serving a very large number of people. We must remember that this company operates only in Ontario and Quebec; and from the remarks of the hon. member sponsoring the bill we have learned that there are about 1,300,000 telephones in use. Even allowing for the fact that there are a great many business telephones, the number of other users cannot be increased very greatly unless the company goes into outside districts; and here again I want to corroborate to some extent what was said by the last speaker. I do not think the Bell Telephone Company is anxious to go outside the cities and larger centres of population. In other places there is a municipal, township or county telephone system which provides service for the local people, with perhaps as many as twenty-two on a line, and the Bell Telephone provides a long distance connection with that line. These people are quite satisfied; they get their telephone service quite reasonably, and have the benefit of long distance calls through the Bell Telephone Company and their own connections through their own little company.
I said that up to 1945 only $85,000,000 of the authorized capital of the company had been used. In 1946 this was increased to $86,000,000, and at the end of 1946 it stood at $104,000,000. The sponsor of this bill says that, in the last year or a little more, it has gone up to about $134,000,000. In other words, during the past four years the capital of the company has been increased by $50,000,000 and, as the sponsor says, this has been used to bring about certain improvements and extensions, and to give service to those who could not obtain it previously.
But that is not all the money available to the company. According to the Canada Gazette of very recent date the company has issued notice that it will apply to execute a mortgage bond which will give it another $35,000,000. I do not suppose all this money will become available to the company, because, as I understand these statements, there is a balance of $7,500,000 of a five per cent loan which, I believe, has never been paid off, and probably that will be paid out of this amount. But even so they will have $27,500,000 from this bond issue. They will also have all their free assets. I must admit that their assets are not entirely free, that they consist largely of fixed assets, but still they have some investments. For instance, they have investment securities amounting to $21,000,000, as well as other securities amounting to another
few million dollars. So it is only fair to say that at this moment they have some $40,000,000 with which to go ahead; and that again is a considerable sum of money.
As I have said, the capital issued amounts to $136,000,000 but they have a depreciation reserve of $99,000,000, which ordinarily would be available for maintenance, repairs, improvements and so on. I am afraid, however, that this reserve has probably been used in connection with the fixed assets, to provide new telephones and equipment. But it is in fact there, and it is a nice, sizeable sum of money available to the stockholders, though they cannot use it at the present time.
I say that the amount of money for which they are asking cannot be justified in any way. The hon. member for Outremont who is sponsoring the bill spoke about what has been done in the last two years. I believe he pointed out that between August 1, 1945, and December 1, 1947, the company had installed a total of 293,000 telephones at a cost of $89,300,000. If that is so, those installations must have cost $305 each. Another 89,000 telephones are required, and they should not cost much more, if any, than the $35,000,000 or $40,000,000 the company has available at the present time.
I do not think anyone is so naive as to doubt that if a depression, however small, were to come, a good many telephones would be taken out, and would be available for use somewhere else. As a matter of fact, I believe the business of the Bell Telephone Company is as good an index as can be found of business conditions across the country, because one of the first things a person does if he is in difficulty is to get along without any telephone.
I am not suggesting that one should have to do without telephone service. It is a necessary service; and not just to keep the members of families talking to one another, but so that a businessman may keep in touch with his business, and so that doctors and other people may keep in contact with those for whom they are acting.
I do not want the people of Toronto to have to pay higher rentals for their telephones. The company has got along in the past. It is my belief that, the larger a city becomes, the more the telephone rates should be reduced, because the service is contained in a small area. All that is required under the automatic system is to get more automatic equipment. I know it has happened-in my own experience only once-* that when one tried to get a party on a certain exchange he could not do so because
Bell Telephone Company

the connection was engaged as a result of too many people talking through that exchange. Up to the present time, however, that has happened only once in my experience, and I use the telephone frequently.
If $350 million in stock is issued at a rate of eight per cent it will mean an additional $28,000,000 per year to charge against the service. If that were divided among 1,500,000 subscribers it would mean about $18.65 a year per individual telephone. And, remember this, that you have only a limited number of new subscribers to whom telephone service may be extended and in the number of subscribers above I am adding on 200,000 to the telephones which are now in use. I feel certain that, if this great expenditure is permitted the cost to owner and user is bound to be increased.
Is it necessary for the Bell Telephone Company to sell more stock? Let me say that while they have been a satisfactory company, so far as their business methods are concerned, yet in one sense they are the greatest monopoly one could possibly imagine. There can be two railway companies; there can be two street railway systems; there can be two gas companies-two of almost anything else. But there cannot be two telephone systems operating in the same area, because, in my younger days, I lived in a town where there were two systems, and the result was that one had to have both installations. For satisfaction, you have to have telephone connections with all other telephone users.
In this instance, therefore, the Bell Telephone Company has the greatest of all monopolies. Perhaps its only justification for its existence lies in the fact that, like the gas company in Toronto, this telephone company has operated well, and at least to my satisfaction. I know nothing bad about it.
But, after all, they have a monopoly. They are really trustees for the people. If it became a question of whether the Bell Telephone Company should operate privately, or under government control, at the present time I would choose the private company, on account of the manner in which it has operated. But, after all, they are operating their company to make money, and they must be stopped. No, I shall say they must be controlled, not stopped, because human nature is too strong to resist making more money, if there is an opportunity to do so.
I do not think this parliament of Canada, at this particular time of all times, should consent to such a large increase in capital. It would1 tie the hands of succeeding parliaments, and we do not know what lies in the future.

I do not believe we have any right to make that commitment. It may be said that this matter will go before the board of transport commissioners. That, of course, is a fact. But, after all, we are the body who are responsible to the people. We are the governing bodjr responsible for this matter, although we have not had a great deal of opportunity lately to carry out our wishes in a democratic way. I still think, however, that at this particular time we cannot give up rights which we have, nor can we abuse the trust the people have placed in us.
May I say a word about television. I believe television is a reality of the future, and something which may be of importance to the people. I do not know how it will develop, nor do I know who will produce it. I do not think, however, that the Bell Telephone Company should use funds made available for the operation of the telephone system for purposes of developing television.
I cannot think of anyone who wants television badly. Certainly I do not; I have no great desire to see the person to whom I am talking. It might be all right, but if it is to cost a hundred million dollars or a hundred and fifty million dollars, we can quite well do without it. I suggest that if television is to come in, and if the Bell Telephone Company is interested in it, then it should operate through a subsidiary, and the money the people pay in for a telephone service should be used for that service alone.
If the stock is offered on the market it cannot very well be offered at $100 a share. I believe the average price obtained from new stock issued over the years has been considerably higher than that, running up to $130 or $140. At present I believe it is being sold to employees of the company at $145.
There are many of the original shareholders who still own their own stock. The sponsor of the bill has said that the American telephone company owns fourteen per cent of the stock; I thought it was more, but I suppose it is a fact that, as the stock increases in amount their percentage decreases. That is quite right. I believe a short time ago it was as high as twenty per cent, but as stock is sold their percentage increases. The American telephone company are still holding stock that they bought at $100 a share. So that in any event, where stock is sold at more than its par value it means that they get the benefit to that extent. I should think that after sixty-seven years, since the original stock was sold, they could well do without getting any increase in

Bell Telephone Company
the value of their stock by new stock being offered to the public at less than market value.
I am strongly opposed to section 3 of the bill, which splits the present stock in four parts. I know the Bell Telephone Company do not want it, and it is to their credit that they do not. I can recall when one large organization in Toronto divided its stock into a four-to-one split. The stock went up in a bull market to such an extent that the one-fourth share sold for as much as the old original share. I cannot conceive of anyone wanting to buy a share of stock who cannot pay S100 for it. I think it is our duty to see that this stock is not cut up. I think it is just a stock selling proposition.
I am glad to see that the company has clarified to some extent the situation in connection with stock bequeathed by wills, and I believe that a transfer office has been opened in Toronto in addition to the office in Montreal. If that is not true, I think it should be done. It is not fair that people who own stock in a company which is at least one-half an Ontario company should have to go to Montreal in another province to have stock transferred.
I think the Bell Telephone Company should modify their bill. If all this stock is issued it will mean that they have a capitalization equal to that of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. If they get in all this money they will actually have more money than the Ontario Hydro Electric system has now or will have when recent developments are completed. They are really asking for something that no one can foresee they will ever need. I do not think they have a right to come here and ask us to vote to approve their request.


Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring out a few points in this debate. From what I can learn, the company has $20,000,000 left and it wants $350,000,000 more. I like speaking in those terms, because in the past I was always in the nickel and dime class. Seemingly we are now dealing in astronomical figures. With this $350 million this company could absorb all the remaining privately or publicly owned telephone systems in Canada and become a monopoly. Perhaps the greatest weakness in the system of free enterprise is the constant tendency to go into monopoly. I would think that hon. members on the Liberal side would be quite sensitive about this and try to protect the people from this form of economy.
When monopolies such as this grow to such an extent they wipe out the small businessman and become what we term a soulless and heartless machine. During the war the army built
a telephone line between Prince Rupert and Jasper for its own use. After the war that was taken over by the public works department. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation pipe in a few programs over that line, but not all. If they piped in all their programs the Department of Public Works would charge so much that they could not afford it. The public works department said that they were giving a figure which was comparable with what a privately owned company would charge, and when they said that they were talking about only one company, and this is it.
Another interesting feature is that, while all the programs of the C.B.C. are constantly going over that wire, they charge only for those which are broadcast. I assume that the rest are run down the sewer, simply piped to one side. That is what you are up against when you try to get something for people in outlying parts of the world. You are met with the statement., "This is what private industry would1 charge." I submit that private industry as represented by this company dominates the whole picture in Canada today.
I suppose if one were to look at it from a cynical point of view or a non-constructive point of view he would let such bills as this run their course, so that the thing would become so transparent to the people that they would solve their problem by putting in a socialist government. Actually the people of Canada are becoming only too aware of such companies as this, and it is such things that are causing a political awakening of the people.	.
Mr. HOWARD C. GREEN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, there are two features that have given me some concern in connection with this bill, and I should like to draw them to the attention of the hon. member for Outre-mont (Mr. Rinfret) who is sponsoring the bill. The first has to do with the question of rates. In the press of February 26 there appeared a dispatch from Montreal headed, "Hints of increase in telephone rates", which read as follows:
Frederick Johnson, president of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, told the annual meeting today that the company "cannot live forever within its present rates for service."
We had some experience in the house last year in connection with a bill brought in by the British Columbia Telephone Company. At that time I asked the sponsor, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), the intentions of the company with regard to rates. I should like to quote from page 2718
Bell Telephone Cojnpa.ny

of Hansard of May 2, 1947, just to show the house what was said at that time. I asked the hon. member:
In this case, where there is a big increase in capital-
At that time we thought it was quite a big increase, but it was only from $11,000,000 to $25,000,000, which was small change compared with the increase asked for in the present bill.
-I think it is essential that some protection should be given to telephone users of British Columbia. I understand that the hon. member has been authorized to give assurance to the effect that the company has no present intention of applying for an increase of rates and will not make any such application unless compelled to do so by extensive changes in conditions.
Mr. Beid: That is my definite understanding.
Mr. Green:	That assurance is clearly worded
and contains a statement to the effect that an application will not be made unless the company is compelled to do so and then only by reason of extensive changes in conditions. If the hon. member for New Westminster is prepared to give that assurance on behalf of the British Columbia Telephone Company I for one shall have no objection to the bill passing.
Mr. Reid:	I am authorized to do so, and it
is my definite understanding.
I should like to know whether the hon. member for Outremont can give the same assurance on behalf of the Bell Telephone Company. It is important that we know whether or not the company intends, once this bill goes through, to apply for an increase in rates which, of course, will affect thousands and thousands of people and is a very important factor.
The second feature which has given me some concern is the amount of the increase requested, from $150 million to $500 million. By an amendment in 1882 the works of this company were declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. I suggest to hon. members that this parliament is responsible for, and should keep in touch with, what is done by the company. For that reason it is important that the company should have to come back to the house every so often. That is one reason why it should not be given an increase that is too large; the result might be that it would not come back here for twenty or thirty years; therefore I do ask the sponsor to give consideration to agreeing to have the amount of increase cut; I do not say to what figure, but I think the company is asking for too much. Last year the British Columbia Telephone Company increased its capital from $11,000,000 to $25,000,000, as I have said; or slightly more than double. Perhaps some such provision would be satisfactory to the Bell Telephone Company.

In speaking on second reading of the bill, the hon. member for Outremont explained that during the next five years it was planned to spend about $362 million. That information will be found at page 1701 of Hansard. Then, on page 1702 he explained that only about half of that amount would be raised by sale of capital. He said the rest of it would be obtained from borrowings and from other available resources of the company. Therefore, to provide for this capital expenditure in the next five years the company obviously does not need to have its capital increased by $350 million.
I would point out that the company has been coming back to the house in years gone by. Perhaps the hon. member for Outremont will correct me if I make a mistake in any of the dates. My understanding is that the company was incorporated in 1880, at which time it was given the power to do certain things. The maximum capital allowed was $1,000,000. In 1884 that was increased to $2,000,000; in 1892 to $5,000,000; in 1902 to $10,000,000; in 1906 to $30,000,000; in 1920 to $75,000,000; in 1929 to $150 million, and in 1948 we have the request for an increase from $150 million to $500 million.
I hope that the hon. member for Outremont will be able to make some statement to the house on these two points; first, as to whether assurance can be given with regard to an application for an increase in rates; second, whether the company would be satisfied to have a smaller increase at the present time. His answer to these two suggestions might make a material difference in the vote of quite a few hon. members.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) struck the nail on the head when he suggested that, in the event of this house permitting the capital expansion requested by this bill, it might place the company in a position where it might not come back to this house again in the next twenty-five or thirty years. I suggest also that the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret) should be able to answer the questions definitely, before the bill passes as to whether or not the company would be satisfied with a smaller expansion than it is requesting at the present time.
My main objection to this type of bill is that it creates in the company a virtual monopoly in that field. I am also mindful of the fact that during this war the army, navy and air force created the greatest communica-

Canadian Wheat Board Act
tion system that this country has ever seen or ever will see, and I should like to know what happened to it. Where has it gone? Perhaps a lot of the money the Bell Telephone Company are requesting in the way of expansion of capital will be used to buy from War Assets a complete communication system built by the people of Canada, which has completely gone out of the picture.
I should like to ask a number of questions and have them answered before I would be prepared to say that this bill should pass. For example, the par value of the shares is being changed from $100 to S25. There is no time now to go into that particular angle of the matter, but I am familiar with amalgamations, the change of share values and the manipulations of a few, who own a lot of shares, in gobbling up the little people who have a small number of shares in companies of this kind.
Bills of this type asking for such a large capital expansion are bad legislation. It requires a lot of serious consideration by hon. members before it is allowed to pass. Are you getting anxious, Mr. Speaker, that we are approaching nine o'clock?


James Horace King: The hour reserved for private bills having expired, the house will now revert to the business at six o'clock.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 135, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935-Mr. Howe-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
William Ross Macdonald: The committee is considering section 5, extension of parts III and IV to oats and barley.


James Arthur Ross: Before the measure carries, I wish to say just a word or two. When the resolution preceding this measure was introduced on February 27 I moved an amendment as set forth on page 1681 of Hansard, which, if carried, would mean three bills instead of one and would have dealt separately with, first, the payment of pensions; second, increase in minimum prices to the producers and, third, control of interprovincial movement of wheat products and extension of the present system to oats and barley. The hon. member for Swift Current presented a strong argument in support of my argument, as set out on page 1687 of Hansard. The Minister of Agriculture, as reported at
page 1716 of Hansard said he believed my amendment was out of order. Then, on March 11, at page 2113 of Hansard, the Speaker ruled my amendment out of order. I appealed his ruling, and the hon. member for Swift Current, along with all other members of the C.C.F., voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling. As set forth on page 2128 of Hansard, the hon. member for Yorkton suggested moving an amendment to divide the bill. The Minister of Trade and Commerce then rose and said that at the proper stage, when we were discussing the bill in committee, he would undertake to separate the part concerning coarse grains and have that part sent to the agriculture committee for discussion. Today at the proper stage the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think what I said should be correctly quoted. I am sure my hon. friend will not mind my correcting him. This is what I said, as reported at page 2129 of Hansard.
It may shorten debate if I say that at the proper stage when we are discussing the bill in committee, I will agree to separate the part concerning coarse grains and have that part sent to the agriculture committee for discussion, provided that such discussion -will make it possible to expedite the remainder of the bill, which should be non-eontentious.


George Hugh Castleden: It did not hasten the bill.


James Arthur Ross: I understood that the minister was speaking on behalf of the government and it was an undertaking that tne bill would be divided. At any rate, today at the appropriate stage, the Minister of Trade and Commerce moved the appropriate motion to divide the bill. The Prime Minister, who had just voted for the passage of the second reading of the bill, then left the chamber, and on the motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to divide the bill, the hon. member for Yorkton, along with all other members of the C.C.F., voted with some of the cabinet ministers, I believe, including the Minister of Agriculture and supporters of the government, to defeat that motion which I considered an undertaking that the government would carry through.


George Hugh Castleden: On condition that it would facilitate the bill.


James Arthur Ross: We were double-crossed by the members of the C.C.F. and the government. The minister himself has argued that the measure at present is unconstitutional, and he admits that enabling legislation must be passed by all the provinces in Canada before the board can handle oats or barley, as suggested in this measure.
Canadian Wheat Board Act

I have certainly never witnessed anything like this in the matter of legislation. We are opposed to such tricky legislation as is introduced at the present time. I wish again to point out., as I have done at every opportunity, that the increase in the initial price should have been set out in the bill, but the government have refused to do that. I cannot understand yet why the minister refuses to tell us what price they have in mind putting into the regulation after the passage of the bill.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I think the hon. member is getting beyond clause 5.


James Arthur Ross: I have one other thing to say. This legislation was referred to in the speech from the throne last December, and when I was discussing that I referred to it and asked the responsible ministers at that time to see that this legislation would be introduced early in the session and that it would be referred to the committee on agriculture where it could be properly studied and dealt with at that time. That is quite a while ago, and I still think it was an undertaking on behalf of the government to divide the bill and should have been carried out. I feel we were double-crossed, and I am sure many other people in the country will also feel the same. With that, I wish again to register our disapproval of this measure as it is at this time.


Thomas John Bentley: We take exception to one or two of the remarks made by the hon. member. They cannot go unchallenged. We double-crossed no one, and we have no working agreement with anyone on which to double-cross anybody. On February 27 when the bill was introduced and that is nearly a month ago, and there was still a month before the Easter recess, we felt that the position we took in support of the amendment was such that possibly it would facilitate the passage of the bill, and we were extremely anxious that this money should go to the farmers who so sorely need it and who own the money and will have to have it this spring.
We lay on the government the responsibility for the delay in not bringing that legislation back again until, I believe, March 11 or 12. But no matter where the responsibility lies for that, and whatever the causes of it were, the fact remains that two weeks have been lost, and we were in a position where we would not stand by and see any delay take place, which we could prevent, in having the money go forward.
There is nothing in the bill that is obnoxious to us. That is obvious. Other members may not like what we like, but there is nothing in the bill obnoxious to us. In principle, we agree with it. There are some things not

in it which we should like to see there. The situation on February 27, nearly a month ago, with at least a month between then and Easter, made the position different from what it is at the present time. Consequently, as I say, when the government did not bring in the legislation until two weeks later we considered it imperative on our part here to change our position in order to facilitate the passage of the bill. We will do so, and we will do our best to see that this bill goes right through every stage tonight.
So far as that is concerned, the position is as I have stated it. I want again to declare that we double-crossed no one. I had made no commitment, nor had any member of the
C.C.F. made any commitment to the Progressive Conservatives that we would support their amendment. At the time, as I mentioned before, and for the reasons I mentioned, we felt we could justifiably support it. We could not do so two weeks later. When it comes to the question of a vote on their amendment, His Honour the Speaker had ruled that the amendment was out of order.


James Arthur Ross: I stated that.


Thomas John Bentley: That is right; the hon. member did. But I want to make it clear.. I did not vote and no one in this party voted on the subject matter of the legislation before the house. We always try to vote on the Speaker's rulings according to our belief as to whether he is right or wrong. If we think he is wrong we vote against the ruling; if we think he is right we vote for it. In this instance we believed he was right in his ruling. That was the information we gathered from, a reading of the rules.
I want to ask the hon. member for Souris whether he himself honestly believes that the Speaker's ruling was wrong. We took that position and continue to take it, and there was no other position we could take than the one we took. And it had nothing to do with the subject matter of the legislation which occasioned the amendment which the Progressive Conservatives brought forward, and which was declared out of order.
I do not desire to prolong the discussion. I do not wish to provoke a further debate because we want this to go through. But I want our position to be clear. I wish to say this also, that when it comes to a question of getting something which we believe is necessary for the citizens of our constituencies and for the people of Canada generally, we are prepared to facilitate it to the best of our ability, and we have consistently done so. But the two weeks' interval made us take a dif-

Canadian Wheat Board Act
ferent position in the middle of March from the position we took at the end of February.


William Ross Macdonald: I think I should point out to hon. members that the rules provide that no member may reflect upon a vote of the house. If there is to be further discussion I shall state my position. I think the hon. member will agree with me that the discussion is out of order. The word "double-cross" is, I am inclined to think, unparliamentary. I think it means to deceive, and it is an improper word to use.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Perfectly true even if unparliamentary.


William Ross Macdonald: I will say nothing further because the discussion on this point is ended. Shall clause 5 carry?


George Hugh Castleden: In the light of the insinuation made by the hon. member for Souris, which I cannot allow to go by-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. After the hon. member for Souris had made his statement I allowed the hon. member for Swift Current to reply. As I have said, that discussion was out of order and I do not think I should allow any further discussion on that point.


George Hugh Castleden: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Souris used the word "double-cross"-


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


George Hugh Castleden: -and he referred to myself. You have ruled that word out of order. If the word is unparliamentary, then I would ask that it be withdrawn; otherwise, surely I have the right to defend myself against an imputation made with respect to me personally and other members of this group.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


William Ross Macdonald: I would request that the hon. member withdraw the word.


James Arthur Ross: I defer to your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


William Ross Macdonald: In my opinion, the word "double-cross" is unparliamentary and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw it.


James Arthur Ross: If so, I withdraw the word. We feel that we were certainly sold down the river.


Gordon Graydon: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.


Mr. CASE:: I think we have now arrived at the place where we are dealing with a part that concerns us. May I say to the minister that if this will stimulate production, then I
am all for it, because I am convinced that before many months go by we shall want all the production of which Canada is capable. The trouble I have discovered in most of these regulations, bills and restrictions is that they have a tendency to dampen enthusiasm, curtail production and cause people to vie for an opportunity to market their goods in a more restricted market. In other words, we are legislating for an economy of scarcity in a land of plenty. That is the warning I sound.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. May I remind hon. members that we are on clause 5.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Will the minister permit an unorthodox question? Does he now know how much additional he will pay out on this initial payment? Does he know the amount of the initial payment he will pay now or what he will increase the initial payment by now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have arrived at a conclusion with regard to the payment that I shall recommend to my colleagues. Whether that is the payment the government will decide upon, remains to be seen.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Can the minister not recommend it to parliament and let us pass on it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is one aspect of this matter which I think deserves attention, though I do not intend to delay the committee long.


An hon. MEMBER:: Another long speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This particular section should never have been included in the same bill with other matters which are included in it. If the government had taken the proper course from the outset, and if their principal purpose had really been to expedite payment to the farmers, they could have had such a measure through the house long ago. But they have delayed that measure. Their tactics are responsible for the fact that the measure has not been passed hitherto. The government and the government alone are responsible for cluttering up this measure with a number of schemes of their own which should never have been introduced into it. Their attempt to bedevil this measure by bringing in all kinds of extraneous matters is responsible for the fact that the farmers have not received their payments before this. That is where the responsibility lies.
It does not help matters one bit for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to do as he did this afternoon, and commit a breach of faith with this house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now. now!
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: -in regard to the undertaking he gave to the house some days ago in this matter. This question was put squarely to him; and his undertaking, if one can speak of an undertaking on the part of the government after the hair-splitting done on that subject by the Minister of Finance a couple of weeks ago-


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member cannot resist speaking on every subject. He is an expert on everything.


Walter Adam Tucker: Why do you not follow your leader and let this go through?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was referring to what might have been called an undertaking on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce if we had not had that other experience with his colleague. Here are his words at page 2129 of Hansard. They are perfectly plain words that the minister uttered. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce uses words of this kind and says, in effect, that the bill ought to be split and that he is quite prepared to have it split, it must be apparent that it should have been split right from the beginning and should not have been brought before the house in the form in which it was.


Gordon Graydon: He was splitting hairs instead of splitting the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Here is what the minister said, as reported at page 2129 of Hansard:
It may shorten debate if I say that at the proper stage when we are discussing the bill in committee, I will agree to separate the part concerning coarse grains and have that part sent to the agriculture committee for discussion, provided that such discussion will make it possible to expedite the remainder of the bill, which should be non-contentious. I am quite willing to do that.
Then, farther down the page he puts it on the basis of an offer to the house.


Mr. McILRAITH:: Go ahead and read the rest of it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He says:
I think the offer I have made is a good one, and I hope hon. members will feel disposed to expedite the bill so that the money can be paid out and so that a pension plan can be made effective.


Gordon Graydon: It gets worse as it goes on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The house took him at his word, Mr. Chairman, and you will find that debate on that resolution ceased forthwith.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not taking your word now.


George James McIlraith: Read it all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What happened? Was this undertaking fulfilled? Well, what kind of fulfilment was it?


George James McIlraith: What kind of reading of Hansard was it tonight?


Donald Methuen Fleming: When the Minister of Trade and Commerce rose this afternoon he did not say, I gave this undertaking on a condition which has not been fulfilled; therefore I feel released from my undertaking. He did not say that at all. What he did say was this.


Walter Adam Tucker: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He said, well, I am going to go through the form of carrying out my undertaking, but I serve notice on all government members in this house that they ought to vote my motion down. The Minister of Trade and Commerce on March 11 was either speaking for the government or was making a statement which the house was led to believe was made on behalf of the government. In either case, what I say to you, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce broke faith with the house this afternoon. It is about time that this house realized, and the house made the government understand, that the only basis upon which democratic institutions can be carried on and the only basis upon which they will command public respect at a time like this, when democratic institutions are being assailed in every quarter of the globe, is this: statements made in the House of Commons must be backed up by good faith; when a statement is made by a minister of the government, in language as plain as this, in unmistakable language, and the house takes that language at its face value and keeps faith with the minister, the minister and the government which he represents should be required to keep faith with the house. What we saw this afternoon is, in my opinion, if I may say so-[DOT]


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was a free vote.


William Ross Macdonald: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has not himself seen fit to object to the charge that he broke faith with the house. In my opinion, that is unparliamentary language; and even if the minister himself does not object to it, I am forced to do so. I would ask the hon. member not to use that kind of language.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I took it whence it came, Mr. Chairman.

Agricultural Products Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said something about the importance of good faith in undertakings or statements to the house by ministers of the crown. These statements should be given with the full weight of good faith behind them. Recently in the house we had a distinction drawn by the Minister of Finance between a statement and an undertaking. A statement is said to be different from an undertaking. In other words, if it is simply a statement without being couched in the word "undertaking", then the ministers apparently feel free to be relieved of it at their whim. I hope this house will make it clear to the ministers one day soon that it will not be trifled with, and will insist upon the most punctilious performance on the part of ministers of statements made to the house. We shall be satisfied with nothing less than complete good faith on the part of ministers, and I hope a change in that respect will soon come.


James Garfield Gardiner: I rather think we are all out of order, but I think I should be permitted to say something in reference to what has just been stated. As a matter of fact, I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce today went very much farther than he undertook to go when the statement was made. The proposal at that time was that if, by doing so, we could advance the discussion of this measure, he was prepared to move that we instruct the committee to divide this legislation. That proposal in the first instance came from the C.C.F.; and immediately after it was made, members of the official opposition rose in their places and protested, making statements which were interpreted by the house to be in opposition to the proposals made by the minister. As a result of those statements, three members of the C.C.F. group rose one after another and withdrew their support of the suggestion they themselves had previously made that the bill be divided and the oats and barley section be referred to the committee on agriculture.
At that time I rose in my place and tried to suggest to the official opposition that they should accept the proposal of the minister. At no time did they accept it. They went right on discussing the question, and continued to discuss it for, I think, about two days. Then, when the matter came back to the house the discussion was continued, so that I think the minister would have been quite justified in saying today he was under no obligation whatever to go farther with the proposal which was made a few days ago, or what has come to be a few weeks ago. However he took the position that, since some objection was raised by the official opposition
to that suggestion, he would make the motion he had suggested he would make. That motion was moved; the house was given an opportunity to divide on it; it did divide, and the result of the division was a denial of the suggestion made, not by the official opposition but in the first instance by the C.C.F. group, and never at any time assented to by the official opposition. So that I say the minister went very much farther than he undertook to go originally. The house divided and, in the light of all the circumstances, I think came to the only reasonable decision it could reach.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time on division, and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Agricultural Products Act by providing that the act shall be continued in force until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-nine.
John Bracken: Would the minister prefer to make his statement now or in committee?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it would expedite matters if we had our discussion in committee. This is the same bill that we dealt with before the Christmas recess, during the present session. At that time we considered it at some length. I presume hon. members will desire to ask some questions with respect to the agreements entered into since that time, and I think that could be done to much better advantage when we can discuss matters back and forth across the floor. So I suggest that it be done in committee rather than on second reading.


John Bracken: We are quite agreeable to the course suggested by the minister. I suggest that when we get into committee the minister give us what information he can, particularly in regard to the details of the contracts already entered into with Great Britain.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.


John Bracken: Is the minister not going to make a statement?
Agricultural Products Act


James Garfield Gardiner: When this measure was before the house before the Christmas recess we were discussing the possibility of entering into agreements with Great Britain concerning some of our most important farm products. At that time the house was most anxious to have the terms of those agreements and some facts based upon the discussions then taking place. I found it impossible to give that information at the time, so that this evening I should like to place on record the main facts with regard to some of the most important of those agreements, more particularly those concerning the four products which have been most under discussion, bacon, beef, eggs and cheese, and possibly some of the less important products as well.
With regard to bacon, what was known as the seventh agreement with Britain applied to the period from January 1, 1947, to December 31, 1947. The maximum quantity contracted for was 350,000,000 pounds, and the contract provided that not less than 265,000,000 pounds be delivered. We anticipated that we would exceed the 265,000,000 pounds by about seven or eight million pounds, but following the strike in the packing plants across the country it was found impossible to reach the total we had hoped. The actual amount shipped under this agreement, down to February 29, 1948, which included Wiltshire side which had been placed in storage prior to the end of the year, was 225,893,000 pounds, to the value of $62,174,527.
On January 1 we entered into the new agreement, which is known as the eighth agreement in relation to bacon. The minimum quantity contracted for was 195,000,000 pounds. The percentage of Wiltshire sides specified is 75 per cent. The price per 100 pounds, A grade. f.a.s. Canadian seaboard is $36. The actual quantity shipped from January 1, 1948, to February 29, 1948, was 23,725,882 pounds, to the value of $8,525,317. I can give some of the facts later in answer to questions, if desired, but I do not think it is necessary for me to review with the committee the other pork products such as pork offals, hog casings and different products of that kind which make up the pork products which come under this contract. But the prices were raised in each of them in proportion to the rise in the price of bacon.
The next contract has to do with beef.


Percy Ellis Wright: When did that contract expire?


James Garfield Gardiner: On December 31, 1948, the contract as drawn expires. But the understanding is given, by letter, that the contract

will be drawn for 1949 covering the calendar year and will have in it a floor price not less than the 1946 price.


Hazen Robert Argue: What was the 1946 price?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not recall at the present time exactly what it was, but there have been two increases since that time. The 1947 price was increased from 1946, and there is a 1948 increase.


George James Tustin: Did I understand the minister to say it was $36 a hundred, or $36 a hundredweight.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is $36 a hundred.
Then, with regard to beef, the third agreement was entered into on January 1, 1947, to December 31, 1947. The minimum quantity contracted for was 120,000,000 pounds. The price per 100 pounds f.o.b. Canadian seaboard, choice quality red, was $24.25; good quality blue, $23.25, and medium quality, $21.10. The actual quantity shipped from January 1, 1948, to February 29, 1948, inclusive, was 39,414,000 pounds, carcass weight, valued at $7,650,940.
The fourth agreement was entered into on January 1, 1948, to December 31, 1948, and the same terms as in the bacon contracts are agreed to with regard to 1949 as to payment. The minimum quantity contracted for was
50,000,000 pounds. The price per 100 pounds f.o.b. Canadian seaboard, choice quality red, $27.50; good quality blue, $26.50, and medium quality, $23.10. The actual quantity shipped, January 1, 1948, to February 29, 1948, inclusive -I must say I have not the exact figure; I shall get it later. I notice that the figures are not filled in here.
Then we have beef offals, the same as pork offals, which are also covered. Then we have Canadian canned meat also covered under the agreement. Mutton and lamb are covered under a special agreement but for smaller quantities.
We also have an agreement with regard to oxtails. Then, under the dairy products we have cheese agreements-


John Bracken: What is the amount of
the contract for last year? What was the amount you undertook to deliver last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: We undertook a year ago to deliver 120,000,000 pounds of beef.
Then in respect to cheese, the eighth agreement was on April 1, 1947, to March 31, 1948. The quantity contracted for was 125,000,000 pounds. The price per pound, first grade, twenty-five cents f.o.b. factory or grading station shipping point. Actual quantity ship-

Agricultural Products Act
ped from April 1, 1947, to February 29, 1948 inclusive was 56,439,324 pounds, valued at $14,565,060.
The ninth agreement on cheese becomes effective April 1, 1948, and continues to March 31, 1949. The quantity contracted for is
50,000,000 pounds. The price per pound is thirty cents f.o.b. factory or grading station shipping point. Of course there is none shipped under that contract up to the present time. April 1 is the first date upon which shipments will be made.
Then there are contracts with regard to evaporated milk which cover 600,000 cases with an increased price, and roller dried skim milk for 8,000 pounds at increased prices.
A most important contract for a considerable amount of farm produce is that for eggs. The seventh agreement of February 1, 1947, to January 31, 1948, shows a quantity contracted for of 83,000,000 dozen. The price per dozen grade A large eggs, Montreal basis, was forty-one cents for spring eggs, and the price raised to 42-5 cents effective May 5, 1947, to compensate for rising feed costs. The price was 47-75 cents for fall eggs, and it rose to 50-57 effective May 5, 1947, to compensate for rising feed costs. The actual quantity shipped was 56,690,670 dozen in shell from February 1, 1947, to February 29, 1948 inclusive. The value was $26,230,313. Then, 13,619,968 pounds of dried eggs for the same dates, valued at $11,885,770; and of frozen eggs 4,994,615 pounds for the same dates valued at $1,552,700. When those quantities are totalled up they amount to a little in excess of the quantity we had undertaken to deliver, namely 83,000,000 dozen.
The eighth agreement February 1, 1948, to January 31. 1949, showed a quantity contracted for of 80,000,000 dozen. The price per dozen grade A large eggs Montreal basis was 47-50 cents for spring fresh eggs and 54-25 cents for fall fresh eggs. Storage eggs were 52-75 cents; dried, 99 cents per pound; frozen, 35 cents per pound. The actual quantity shipped was 414,120 dozen shell, spring export 1948, February 1, to February 29, 1948; value, $193,090.
These are some of the facts with regard to agreements which have been entered into. I may add that the contracts with Great Britain are for quantities which we estimated could be sent to Great Britain this year.
In so far as bacon and beef are concerned up to date we have greatly exceeded the quantities we had estimated at the beginning of the year. I should like to say, however, that it is probably too early to suggest that that production will keep up throughout the year. We estimate that the production of
hogs will be higher down to the middle of August than we had anticipated, and that there will probably be some drop off as compared with the production estimate from that period until the end of the year. But we do anticipate that we shall be able to fill this contract in quantity as it is now drawn during the present year.
So far as beef is concerned, deliveries there again have been higher in January and the early part of February than anyone anticipated. I should like to say in that connection that this was probably somewhat due to the fact that barley prices ran to quite a high level in January. There was a much heavier marketing of cattle during the month of January than anyone anticipated. The result of this was that cattle prices went down about one cent. Those prices have been coming back recently, and the run of cattle is not as high as it was in January. For that reason there is not as much grain being fed in Canada. I think the farmers anticipated that if prices ran along about where they were in the latter part of the year, and as we anticipated they would through that period, they would feed these cattle through until the end of April, as was their practice. But this year when prices went up to over $1.30 a bushel for barley in January, there were heavy shipments of cattle to market. Those heavy shipments placed more beef in the hands of the meat board to be shipped to Britain than was anticipated, but it is expected that, as we come toward spring when those cattle would have been normally delivered, the deliveries will be down as compared with previous estimates. The one may just about balance against the other. In other words, our deliveries down to about the end of April may not be greatly in excess of what was anticipated at the beginning of the year.
In stating that I draw the attention of the committee to the fact that that has something to do with the figures given today by the hon. member for Calgary West with regard to the increase in grain holdings in Canada at the present time. That grain is not now being fed to cattle that have already been slaughtered. There are results from that which I do not w-ish to discuss on this particular bill at this particular time. No doubt there will be a time during the session when we can discuss that matter.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Can the minister tell the committee how the amount of bacon exported to Britain from January 1, 1948, to the end of February compares with the amount that was exported in the same period of 1947?
Agricultural Products Act


James Garfield Gardiner: Very much higher. I do not think the proper term to use is "the amount exported", because Wiltshire sides go into the vat for curing and when they are once there they are on their way. If we look at the situation from that point of view about 48 per cent-I am speaking from memory- more Wiltshire sides went into the cure in January of this year than a year ago. There was about 25 per cent more beef delivered to the meat board for delivery to Great Britain in January than there was a year ago. Those deliveries remained high through the greater part of February, although I have not the exact percentages.


Mr. REID:: How do egg shipments this year compare with those of last year? Are they going up?


James Garfield Gardiner: I just read the actual shipments for 1947 into the record. There were 750,000 more marketed for export in January, 1948, than in the same month of 1947.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, we on this side have no intention of delaying the discussion on this measure at this stage, but I wish to take a few minutes to state our position. I might say that the hon. member for Kamloops will be leaving and will not be able to contribute to the debate at a later stage; therefore he intends to take some part in the discussion tonight.
As the minister has stated, he is asking for the continuation for another year of the Agricultural Products Act. This act was passed in March of last year and was to be effective for one year or until the end of December if we met again in 1947, as we did. It was extended again in December, 1947, to be in effect until the end of March of this year, and now the minister is asking leave to introduce a bill to provide for its extension for another year.
It will be remembered that the original act gave the minister the power to take the farmers' crops and sell them at prices to be fixed in contracts with Great Britain. Some prices were already fixed, but others were to be fixed by the government. Under this amendment the minister is seeking the power to continue to make such agreements. As he says, this bill will continue the powers which he considers necessary to carry out the present agreements.
Some days ago we asked the minister to table the agreements. Later he gave some of us copies, but I do not believe the agreements were tabled because, as he said, they were not signed. I suggest that the minister indicate,

before we pass this stage, why agreements which were made in December are not signed by March, three months later?
Our general position on this measure is well known. We are opposed to it in principle. We are opposed1 to it because it is a complete negation of the form of marketing act which we favour and which the organized producers from one end of this country to the other are seeking. We favour an act based on the principle of provincially sponsored marketing boards operated by the organized farmers themselves.
The minister indicates and, of course, we all know that it is necessary to pass whatever legislation we are going to have within the next few days. Our opposition to this bill is one thing. It is well known. We do not propose to try to kill the bill by a long debate. We are, therefore, disposed not to delay it any longer at this time if I may speak for those associated with me, except for one address by the hon. member for Kamloops.
As I said, we favour marketing legislation of the nature I have outlined. We favour legislation which gives the producers themselves more say in the fixing of the prices of their products than is allowed them under this kind of legislation. We are opposed to the type of legislation which puts all price fixing powers in the hands of the government. We favour legislation of the nature of the Natural Products Marketing Act.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to say just a few words. We supported the extension of this act the last time and we intend to support its extension at this time. However we are doubtful whether this is the proper method to adopt, to extend the act from one year to another. We doubt whether that will fulfil the purpose of the act, which is to carry out the contracts we have and to encourage further contracts with Great Britain in connection with basic agricultural products.
It seems to this group that if this act were permanent, if we did not have to renew it from year to year, it would give much more permanency to our contracts with Great Britain and increase our ability to make future contracts with that country. We would much prefer to see a permanent Agricultural Products Act in Canada which would give permanency to longterm contracts and provide for the orderly marketing of our agricultural products.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The leader of the opposition has outlined our position with respect to this measure, so that I shall confine my remarks to as short a space as possible. With other members of this party I am opposed to this

Agricultural Products Act
bill, to its principle and to every stage of its proceedings, because, unlike the hon. member -who has just taken his seat, I feel that the longer the Agricultural Products Act remains on the statute books in its present form, the more confused becomes the situation with respect to the marketing of agricultural products in Canada, and particularly the more difficult it becomes to get the type of marketing legislation that we wish to have, and which the farmers themselves wish to have, *namely, enabling legislation giving control over the marketing of their produce to producer boards.
Since our position is so well known, and since we have opposed this measure on each occasion it has been before the house-it has been before the house twice, once in its original form and once in the form of a temporary extension; we opposed it on both these occasions-it is not necessary to go in detail into the reasons why we are opposed to it. My remarks can be kept to a very brief compass.
I want to say at the outset, in outlining the reasons why we are opposed to it, that the first is the unwarranted assumption that the necessity of this particular legislation is based on a continuing emergency. We have slipped into the habit, it seems, of accepting government statements that there is a continuing emergency, while no longer requiring them to prove that as a fact. I feel, in passing, that it might be more realistic for the government to say that it is necessary in view of some impending emergency, and for them to direct their attention to the future, instead of making this unwarranted assumption that there is an emergency continuing from the past. If they did that there might be a basis in logic and reason for calling this emergency legislation. But since it is based on the so-called continuing emergency, I find no reason to agree with that view.
Second, the administration of the particular marketing policy of the government under this act has been such as to inflict serious losses on the farmers, and for that reason as well I am opposed to its continuation. The practice has been to force the farmers to carry the burden of national policy as represented in the contracts with the United Kingdom, under which Canada provides food at low prices to the people of that country. The result has been that the farmers alone have suffered the loss, instead of that loss being spread over the whole economy of Canada; while at the same time the effect of these contracts and the embargoes on exports to the United States, all tied up in this policy,
has been to freeze prices in Canada and to impose further losses on our agricultural producers.
The third reason why I cannot support the continuation of this act is that there is in it no proper provision to give a voice to the producers in the regulation of their own affairs. That can be seen by a study of the bill in general; but, without reading it, I refer particularly to section S, a brief study of which proves conclusively that the governor in council, the Minister of Agriculture, is the one who determines every aspect of prices, amounts produced, amounts sold, every aspect of our production and marketing, taking control away altogether from the farmers who do the work, grow the produce, and who are anxious to have legislation enabling them to regulate their own marketing.
What we need, what we demand, is a marketing act giving an opportunity to the producers to control their own production and their own sales, giving recognition to producer boards which are already established, and encouraging the establishment of other producer boards. This has been the cornerstone of the Progressive Conservative platform with regard to agricultural matters ever since this party has existed, and it has had a tremendous impetus, of course, since the leadership was taken over by the present leader of the opposition. This is a policy which reflects the view of organized agriculture; but in this particular case it is fair to say that, although we are frequently accused of being reactionary and behind the times, yet in this case-and it is not confined to this case-the policy of this party has preceded the expressed view of agricultural producers, of organized agriculture in this country, because in 1935 this party actually introduced such legislation, which, while perhaps not perfect in all its terms, did contain the principle which we have continued to advocate.
I should like to indicate briefly why, although we do not find in this legislation the kind of marketing proposals we advocate, we go farther and oppose the present act and ask that it be discontinued. We wish it eliminated so that a producers' marketing act may be substituted in its place. Last year, when the bill was first introduced the then hon. member for Yale outlined the position which we took with respect to this matter. In order to abbreviate my remarks, I think I cannot do better than quote two or three passages of what he had to say at that time. I am reading from Hansard of March 14, 1947, at page 1371:
We are not in accord with the principle involved in this bill. We do not consider it right
Agricultural Products Act

that the farmer who produces the product should have no say in its disposition or in the price he shall receive for it, and in that regard we are on all fours with the representations made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture a fortnight ago today.
He was referring to a meeting which had been held in Ottawa in March, 1947. He continued, further down the page:
The main reason why I am so strongly in favour of recognition of the boards at present in existence under the provincial marketing acts is that they are producer boards. The basis of those nine acts is just this, that in any stipulated area, if there be a majority of producers of certain commodities who desire to form themselves into a board, they may receive permission to do so. They elect their board, and that board carries out the control and the regulating of the marketing of the crops in an orderly fashion for the benefit of the producer, the benefit of the consumer and the benefit of trade, and it is only reasonable to my mind in a matter of this kind that the government should recognize the fact that such boards are in existence and that they are efficient.
The then hon. member for Yale accordingly moved on behalf of the official opposition an amendment to the bill, embodying our attitude with respect to marketing legislation. The amendment read as follows:
That the said bill be not now read the second time, but that it be resolved that an Agricultural Products Act should be based on the principle that producer boards, set up under provincial marketing acts, where such boards exist or as they may from time to time come into existence, be used for the purposes of such Agricultural Products Act, instead of commodity boards established by the minister under section four of the said bill.
This particular type of marketing legislation which was desired and which was contemplated in the amendment, which we desire to see in place of this act, affects most particularly a commodity grown in the province of British Columbia. I refer, of course, to apples. The uncertainty with respect to the future of the marketing of apples arises particularly through the loss of the British preference and through the lowering of tariffs against United States apples under the Geneva trade agreements. I have had consultations with representatives of apple growers, and they tell me that they are particularly concerned with regard to the marketing of their crop in the coming year. They have virtually no hope of getting into the British market; they are uncertain as to the competition which may come from the United States, and they are afraid that chaotic conditions of marketing in Canada may follow from the lack of overseas markets and the lack of effective powers in their own boards adequately to regulate marketing in Canada.

That is why they feel particularly that the time has now come that we should no longer delay the enactment of enabling legislation to give producer boards power to control and to regulate their own marketing within this country.
On this point I wish to make a brief reference to the loss of the British market and to emphasize why it is important that we in Canada should have marketing legislation of the type to which I refer. Officials who appeared before the senate committee to discuss the Geneva agreement and elimination of the British preference on apples have said that the reason why Canadian negotiators were willing to give up that preference was that the British market was very much less attractive now than it used to be. Their statement can be found in volume 2 of the proceedings of the standing committee of the senate on Canadian trade relations. If that were the case, and if the British market were actually less attractive than it was, then there might be good reason why we in Canada should look elsewhere for a market for apples.
I got in touch with the British food commission to check up on figures as to United Kingdom apple production, and I find that the figures they have do not substantiate the statement that the British apple market is less attractive to Canadian producers than it was before. It is true that, owing to the shortage of dollars, the British are not at the moment buying apples, but the officials referred to above went further and said that Great Britain has tremendously increased domestic production of apples, so that in the long range view the United Kingdom market is not as attractive to Canadian producers.
The figures given by the British food mission on British apple production do not bear out this contention. The number of apple-producing trees in Great Britain and Northern Ireland-I obtained the figures for the years before the war and after the war-is in each year approximately the same. Before the war they had 14,506,000 producing trees in 1938-39, and 15,245,000 in 1939-40; after the war in 1946-47, they had 14,799,000. Before the war, in 1938-39, the total consumption in the United Kingdom was 444,200 tons; after the war it was 451,300 tons. Domestic production for the years before and the first year
after the war were:
Tons
1936-	37	
345,3001937-	38	
156,4001938-	39	
86,4001939-	40	
453,0001946-47 (post-war year)	
360,500
Agricultural Products Act
So that there is no increase in domestic production, nor is there an increase in the plantings of domestic trees, and therefore the figures do not bear out the statement made that the United Kingdom apple market is a less attractive market in the long run for Canadian producers.
That being the case, it is, I think, most regrettable that the Canadian apple producer has been faced with this reduction in the United Kingdom preference on apples, and of course it has confronted him with uncertainty as to the marketing of his crop in the future. Moreover, as I have said, it drives home the fact and makes more important than ever the necessity of introducing in Canada marketing legislation which will give the producer the responsibility and the opportunity of regulating the marketing of his own produce in an orderly fashion.
Last year, when the matter was being discussed, the minister indicated-I think it is fair to say he so indicated-general agreement with the principles put forward by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on behalf of organized agriculture, but he said the time was not yet ripe to introduce the type of marketing legislation for which they were asking.
Here we are asked to renew the same act for another year, and no amendments have been made; there has been no progress toward the introduction of producer marketing legislation.
In closing, I wish to ask a number of questions and I hope the minister can give some answers to them before the resolution passes the committee. First, when may we expect to have the type of marketing legislation which the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have been pressing for, which they pressed for last year, and which I have been discussing tonight? Second, what commodity boards have actually been established under the Agricultural Products Act as it exists at present, and with what provision for adequate producer representation? These are the words incorporated in the act, and I would be interested to know what producer representation has been provided for on the government commodity boards.
Another question is this. Would the minister give details of payments into and out of the agricultural products account since its creation under this act?
Finally, could he give the committee a rough estimate of the proportion of the total Canadian production which is going to Great Britain under the continuing contracts in connection with beef, eggs, cheese and bacon in
particular. Could the minister give an estimate of the proportion of total Canadian production represented in the supplies we have agreed to send over under these contracts?


Mr. QUELCH:: We support the idea of a commodity board because we believe in longterm international agreements. If you are to have such agreements you must have commodity boards, and we believe that such agreements are essential to Canadian agricultural production at a high level. But there is a question I would ask the minister. I believe the various farm organizations have asked the government to continue the Agricultural Prices Support Act as a permanent measure. Since that measure really underwrites the provisions of this measure, is it the intention of the government to make it a permanent measure? I understand that it is merely a transitional one at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: The present measure has no terminating date in it at all. The only way in which it can be terminated is by the house. There is no period defined as a transitional period. It may continue right on. So far as legislation can be permanent, it is permanent.


Victor Quelch: But in the 1947 Canada Year Book it is stated that it is merely a transitional measure from war to peace and will therefore terminate shortly.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not responsible for what is in the Canada Year Book, but when the legislation was put on the statute books it was stated definitely that we were not prepared to limit the number of years to which it applied. It will be recalled that when I discussed the legislation I said that the term did run for eighteen or twenty years at the end of the first war.


Victor Quelch: I am glad to have the assurance.


Eric Bowness McKay: I have a few words to say on the measure. I shall be brief because I do not wish to delay the passage of it. First, I think it is generally recognized that agriculture is so interdependent on other parts of our economy that the general welfare of all Canadians has a distinct effect upon the wellbeing of this industry. In the last five or six years, as a result of the war economy, Canadians had reasonably full employment and good incomes. As a result of this condition, the consumption of agricultural products in Canada was the highest in history. More milk, butter, cheese, eggs and meat were consumed than ever before.
Agricultural Products Act

Second, the prosperity of agriculture in this country is also dependent on international good will. This is very true, since a good deal of Canadian agricultural produce enters world trade. Throughout the world today there is great need of agricultural products. The farmer could capitalize on that need by demands of excessive prices for his produce, but he prefers stabilized prices which are fair to farmer and consumer alike. He favours organized and orderly production and marketing in order that the production of farm products may be maintained to meet the world's needs.
Without that production the world will face malnutrition and, in some cases, virtual starvation. The production problem is closely related to the problem of distribution. In order to assist in the distribution of agricultural products, international commodity agreements are essential, especially in so far as the staple products are concerned, since these are always in demand on the international market. These staples include such commodities as wheat, bacon, cheese, beef, eggs and several others. I understand that this resolution has to do with the marketing of those agricultural products other than wheat.
The resolution before the house provides for the extension of the Agricultural Products Act until March 31, 1949. I have been informed that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in its presentation to the federal government at as recent a date as February 26, advocated floor prices for agricultural products and establishment of the Agricultural Prices Support Act as permanent legislation, with development, of course, of a fair statistical index which would indicate when support for agricultural prices is needed. I commend that program at this time to the government, I should like to suggest to the government that the Agricultural Products Act be retained until such time as federal marketing legislation is enacted. I feel that such legislation would be most acceptable to the farmer of Canada, especially if the farmer has some voice in the board that is set up under such legislation. The farmer would then know that his product will not be subject to the price fluctuations which, in the past, have been his unfortunate experience. The farmer is too often faced with insecurity, which is the natural result of speculative marketing of any kind. Most farmers have faced economic dilemmas because of the failure of governments to solve the marketing problem which often confronts the selling of agricultural produce. Mr. Henry Morgenthau, Junior, secretary of the United States treasury

under the Roosevelt administration, puts it aptly in the following words:
Of all the economic dilemmas which periodically confront us, the farmer's dilemma is one of the most terrible and, at the same time, one of the toughest to solve. When the farmer does not grow enough to satisfy the demand, prices rise, he makes a good living-and millions of people do not have enough to eat. When he raises too much, the bottom falls out of the market, he cannot keep up the payments on his mortgage, and his crops wither in the fields. The problem of the agricultural surplus is a tragic irony in the very centre of our economic system.
The extension of the Agricultural Products Act will help to solve this all too frequent economic dilemma; at least it will do that temporarily. I feel that much can yet be done to improve the lot of our producers. The government should now be considering federal marketing legislation to replace the act now before this house when it is discontinued one year from this date.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I rise to express my support of this measure. I shall not take up the time of the committee for long because I think unnecessary repetition is frightfully boring. In view of the representations of the agricultural organizations in this country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, I think the time has come for this government to introduce federal marketing legislation. Experience justifies that act. We have the experience with provincial boards. Limited as they are through federal legislation, they have brought a measure of improvement to the agricultural producer. We have the experience through the War Measures Act in which the activities of various provincial boards were co-ordinated. I will say that the War Measures Act would not have functioned so efficiently had it not been for the provincial boards operating in various sections of the country.
We in Canada are falling sadly behind other countries with respect to agricultural marketing legislation. We have only to read the history of marketing boards and their development in Great Britain to realize that milk boards, potato boards, bacon boards and so on, are performing a necessary function. Those boards have been developed because of the necessity for them. Those boards were not introduced in the first instance, when they were originated in 1931, by a socialist government but by a Conservative government of Great Britain. I hope that this is the last time the minister will introduce a measure of this type into this house.
Before concluding, I wish to say that as far as I could hear I understood that the Progressive Conservative party oppose this

Agricultural Products Act
type of legislation. If they do, I would suggest that if their campaigners in the coming by-election in Yale tell the fruit growers of that constituency that such is their position, their vote will drop considerably.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have just done that. We want producers marketing legislation, not government compulsion. Would the minister answer the question I asked in regard to how many commodity boards have been established under this legislation?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am just looking that up in Hansard. The question was answered for the hon. member for Brant. The hon. member has the answers on his desk. I have not them at the moment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was in answer to a question on the order paper?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, or an order for
return.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about the other question? Has the minister the information before him as to the proportion of the production of each of the commodities which is sent to Great Britain under the contracts?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is about 22 per cent of the eggs. While I have not the exact figures here, the commodities generally, outside of cheese and wheat, run from 20 to 25 per cent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does that apply to beef?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. That is taking meat as a whole. I cannot give the exact figures for each one. I could get them. I just have the general position in my mind. With regard to wheat, of course it is about 70 per cent of our wheat; 70 to 80 per cent, depending on the size of the crop. Of our cheese, it is about 70 per cent that goes to Britain. The bacon runs higher than the figures given. They run up probably over 30 per cent, between 30 and 50 per cent, ini different years.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then has the minister
before him information as to the payments into and out of the agricultural products account under this act? That account was set up and it was provided that all the moneys received under the contract should be paid into the account and all the moneys paid to the farmers for commodities delivered under the contracts should be paid out of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the total, but the amount paid in would be whatever was necessary to cover the amounts we wanted to pay out. The act provides that up to $200 million may be paid into the account in a
year, but the amount paid into it in any particular year up to the present would be a very small proportion of it. It would be only amounts having to do with the marketing of potatoes and the marketing of apples last year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister says the account is limited to $200 million. I refer to section 8, which says that all expenditures shall be paid out of the agricultural products account, and any moneys received shall be credited to that account. I was wondering what the totals would be, because I take that to mean all moneys received under these food contracts.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, that has had nothing to do with the food contracts up to date; it has not been utilized in that connection. I presume the hon. member is speaking of the Agricultural Prices Support Act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I am speaking of the agricultural products account established under section 8 of this Agricultural Products Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: That would be the total of the amounts I read into the record a few moments ago, showing what we had received from Britain for the different commodities. I read those figures into the record to begin with.


Percy Ellis Wright: If this act expires on March 31, 1949, and we still have contracts with Great Britain, will it not be necessary to renew the act again at that time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Last year we gave an undertaking to the house that we would not extend either this act or that dealt with by the Minister of Justice the other day for more than one year at a time, that we would come back once a year and give an accounting if we wanted them extended farther. I would presume it may be necessary to extend this for another year.


Hazen Robert Argue: The answer of the minister points up the fact that the government has no permanent policy in regard to an agricultural products marketing act. The stand of this group is clear. We want a permanent policy for the marketing of all agricultural products along the line of that provided for wheat, and oats and barley, if that ever goes through. On March 14 of last year, both the hon. member for Humboldt and the hon. member for Melfort moved the same amendment at different stages, and both were ruled out of order. Those amendments clearly state the position of the C.C.F. party. They read:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of
Agricultural Products Act

this house the government should give consideration to the redrafting of this bill to make provision for:
(a)	A dominion marketing board to have control over the orderly marketing of any farm product in interprovincial trade within Canada and in export trade;
(b)	Authority to confer on any existing local marketing board or agency established under law of a province, power to administer any scheme of the dominion marketing board in respect of interprovincial trade and export trade;
(c)	The establishment where any provincial local marketing board or agency does not exist, of local marketing boards to administer any scheme of the dominion marketing board in respect of interprovincial trade and export trade, providing the establishment of such a board is favoured by a majority of the producers in the area concerned, the membership of such a board to consist of producers of the regulated product in the area to which this scheme relates.
While members of this group have advocated permanent, adequate legislation, nevertheless we are willing to have this measure pass, though it be quite inadequate, because certainly it is better to have this measure for one year than to have no measure at all. I thought the hon. member for Middlesex West gave the Minister of Agriculture some good1 advice last year, and I hope he is still giving the same advice now that he has become his parliamentary assistant. On March 17, at page 1441 of Hansard, the hon. member for Middlesex West said:
I as a farmer, and representing farmers, am here tonight from western Ontario in this great old province of ours, to support this Bill No. 25. I feel that the minister is too modest in bringing down this legislation and making it operative for only one year. I think it should extend for two or three years instead of one.
I hope the hon. gentleman still thinks so; I hope he is still giving that advice to the minister, and I hope the minister will listen to him and bring in a proper agricultural products marketing act. It seems to me that one of the reasons we do not have proper production in the agricultural products with which we are dealing this evening is that the government has not gone to the farmers and told them it would implement adequate legislation to guarantee the farmers decent prices year in and year out. No one knows when the government may decide that the transitional period is at an end; therefore no one can tell, the farmers cannot tell, how long this legislation will remain in effect.
I am glad the minister has signed new contracts with Britain for this year, but I think we should be clear as to what those contracts amount to as compared with the contracts of

last year. The bacon contract last year was for 350,000,000 pounds. I was unable to take down the figures given by the minister, but at page 220 of Hansard for this session it was estimated that Canada would supply in 1947 about 250,000,000 pounds, or 100,000,000 pounds short. This year the minister has signed a contract providing for a minimum of 195,000,000 pounds of bacon, or just a little more than half the 1947 contract. The contract last year for beef was for 120,000,000 pounds, while this year's contract is for 45,000,000 pounds, or less than forty per cent of the contract last year. The cheese contract for 1947 was for 125,000,000 pounds. The contract for this year is for only
50,000,000 pounds, or a drop of sixty per cent. Speaking in this house in 1946, the minister said there was a contract for 1948 calling for the delivery of some 400,000,000 pounds of bacon. Now, largely as a result of government policies which have brought about a drastic reduction in the production of bacon, the government comes along with a contract for only 195,000,000 pounds. Speaking in this house in 1946, the minister said, as reported at page 4779 of Hansard:
Under the contract entered into we have agreed to a reduction in the quantity that we are required to deliver to at least 350 million pounds. In 1948 we have agreed to attempt to deliver 400 million pounds. In other words we believe that we can increase deliveries in 1948 over the deliveries in 1947 and therefore we have entered into 'a contract under which we agree to deliver a greater quantity in 1948 than in 1947.
And again:
We have attempted to avoid giving wrong information to the British as to what food would be supplied or could be supplied from year to year. Then we have written into the contracts the highest quantities that we felt sure we could deliver to the British.
The Minister of Agriculture certainly missed his guess in 1946.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Canadian people are eating more than 30 per cent more.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am glad they are. But the minister guessed wrong in 1946. And if he does not guess any more correctly this 3rear, perhaps even the 1948 contracts, which are only a small part of the 1947 ones, will be no more accurate.
I would suggest to him that if he wishes production from the farmers he should do what his parliamentary assistant said last year he should do, namely, bring in a more permanent form for an adequate agricultural products marketing act. Then, if he will see

Agricultural Products Act
that the prices the farmers receive for these particular commodities bear a fair relationship at all times to the cost of feeds going into the production of those commodities, the farmers will come through with the production.
Late in 1947 we were given the financial agreement for the first three months with Great Britain to provide for payments under these contracts. The amount of that financial agreement was $145 million. Great Britain was to pay Canada $100 million in United States funds, and $45,000,000 was to come from the loan. According to a recent press dispatch last week Great Britain used its final $9,000,000 of the S45,000,000 credit set up for her for the first three months of 1948. I would ask the minister what financial arrangements are being made for the payment for products shipped from now until the end of March and for products shipped to Great Britain after the end of March, and if he can assure the committee that financial arrangements will be made to implement, even throughout 1948, contracts which have already been agreed upon as to both quantity and price.


James Garfield Gardiner: In answer to the hon. member's first question, let me say the British have definitely undertaken to take quantities of food which are stipulated in the contracts at prices stipulated in the contracts. I have enough worries without worrying about where they will find the money. They will be worrying about that. They will find the money.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The question asked by the hon. member for Wood Mountain has put a question in my mind. Would the minister give for the last three or four years the amounts of bacon shipped to Great Britain and also the amounts supplied to Great Britain from other sources? He will realize the import of my question. It is to show whether other people are getting a larger share of the bacon market and whether we are getting a smaller share. It seems to me that for the future that is important.


James Garfield Gardiner: The quantities of bacon shipped to the United Kingdom for the last five years are as follows:
Hundredweight
1913	 5,603,003
1944		 6,923,103
1945		 4,400,693
1946		 2,850,291
1947		 2,320,014
In 1948, deliveries are higher thus far than in 1947.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What other bacon supplies has Britain received during those years, and from what countries?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have here a table which shows the quantities of food Great Britain has received from Canada, and the percentages these quantities represent of the total of food supplies. The figures are as follows:
Per cent of total United
	Cwts.	Kingdom imports	
1947	1947	1938Wheat 	67,785,527	81-9	28-3Wheat flour	13,218,766	75-9	47-6Barley ....	27-5Oats 	1,968,609	92-9	93-9Beans 	57,605	6-8	24-3Beef 	292.543	2-9	0-6Mutton and Lamb ....	22,996	0-2	Bacon	1,962,454	74-4	18-6Ham	1,265	78-5	34-9Pork 	0-7Pork offal ..	14,023	90	10-6Butter ....	0-3Cheese ....	458,024	11-9	23-2Poultry ....	107,479	18-2	2-8Shell eggs (converted)	640,286	47-8	0-5Dried egg ..	110,453	16-3	Frozen egg..	14,145	5-2	Condensed milk (unsweetened) 245,557	20-7	56-6Casings .. [DOT].	6,183	6-2	7-8Apples (fresh)	663,145	43-8	42-5Potatoes ...	1,500,000	43-7	Canned tomatoes [DOT]	28,157	9-0	19-0Canned foods (not specified ) 	12,225	10-5	85-5SO2 fruits, pulp 	70,733	13-7	5-9Canned salmon .. .	204,938	30-7	13-5Total .... 1	89,385,112	53-4	24-9


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister has given us a comparison of 1947 with 1938. I should like to have a comparison with 1943 or 1944 if he has the figures there.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not those, no.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why was 1938 taken?


James Garfield Gardiner: That was the last complete year before the war, and the comparison shows our position now in the British market in the first complete year of the loan.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister put the 1945 figures on the record later?
Agricultural Products Act


James Garfield Gardiner: They could be, yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Could the minister state what has been happening to the bacon market? He tells us that the percentage in 1947 was 74 per cent, which, of course, is much higher than before the war. Has he any figures in his mind which would indicate what is likely to be the continuing position? In other words, what are the prospects?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course the figures for 1943 and 1944 were the highest that we have had. They were very much higher than anything we might hope to be able to reach or maintain. That is due entirely to the fact that we had a greatly increased production of feed grain brought about by paying so much per acre to get it. We fed that feed grain in 1943 and 1944 together with the increased crops of those years. We never hope to get back to that position unless we are again under a condition of war when we would be practically the only exporter to Great Britain as we were during that period. Our aim this year, as was stated a few moments ago by the hon. member for 'Wood Mountain, is to reach the 1945 production. On some of these commodities we have not been able to do that, but I would point out that the exports do not give the complete picture.
The gross income figures of farmers for 1947 have just been published, and the amount as compared with the 1946 gross income is $2,002,195,000 as compared with $1,769,632,000 for 1946. In other words, there was an enormous increase in the return to farmers in 1947 as compared with 1946.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Have you the quantities?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. I have the total cash returns for the different products, but it would take quite a long time to read them. They are all published in a sheet that is distributed to anyone who desires to have it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has the minister the net
income figures for 1947?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, but I can get them.


Hazen Robert Argue: They are really more important than the gross.


James Garfield Gardiner: The net income figures will be just as much higher in 1947 over 1946 as are those figures I have given. That has been the proportionate general trend right through the years. The year 1946 was the highest we ever had down to that time.

I can give the figures for the provinces in millions of dollars for 1947 as against 1946. They are:
	1947	1946
	(millions)	(millions)
Prince Edward Island . .	... 19-0	17-2Nova Scotia 	... 33-1	34-2New Brunswick 	... 38-3	35-9Quebec 	... 295-8	251-9Ontario 	... 546-3	472-9Manitoba 	... 185-9	170-8Saskatchewan 	... 434-1	399-2Alberta 	... 345-5	285-0British Columbia 	,... 92-7	85-6Total 	.. 1.999-6	1,752-7
In every province but one there is an increase, but Nova Scotia is down $1,000,000.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: I should like to make some observations which, to my mind, will help not only the farmer in this country in his production but will be of general benefit to the whole industry, particularly in connection with the export of bacon to the United Kingdom. As the minister well knows, during the last, two or three decades there has been a movement, probably led by Denmark, to reduce the weights of Wiltshire sides that are finding a market in the United Kingdom. The observation which I wish to make, speaking from experience-I think this will be borne out by hon. members-is this. The last ten pounds put on the hog before it is slaughtered are the easiest and cheapest ten pounds to put on. In view of that well-known fact the farmer makes his profit there. On the last ten pounds he makes a substantial profit. Has our policy been to encourage the British market to take a product a little heavier in weight, or are we still being led into a market which demands an even lighter weight or more lean and not so much fat? That has been the trend during the last thirty years. Has it started to turn the other way? If it has it should be encouraged to keep on in that way. If that were done the Canadian producer would find himself in a much more profitable position. It would increase our poundage for export with the same number of head of livestock; and as far as dietetics are concerned, in the judgment of many people who have studied this, it would be better for the people who are consuming the product if we reverse the trend a little. Has the minister's department made any study of that, and is he in a position to say that we are now down to the lightest possible weight, or are we able to increase the rate by four, five or six pounds? Even four, five or six pounds would be greatly to the benefit of the farmers of Canada; it would also benefit the consumers. What is the policy of the department in that regard?

Agricultural Products Act


James Garfield Gardiner: The general policy is about the same as it was prior to the war; that is, we are encouraging the light, lean bacon hog, the long, light, lean bacon hog. We have increased the weight. During the war the weight went up somewhere between twenty and thirty pounds per live hog. That has been maintained; we have not changed that.


Joseph Henry Harris: Did the minister say, between twenty and forty pounds?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. We allowed hogs to grade as selects, A's, at that weight. That happened about the middle of the war, along about 1942 or 1943, and we still maintain those weights.


Joseph Henry Harris: Not as high as forty pounds?


James Garfield Gardiner: An average of about twenty. I say from twenty to forty pounds, somewhere in those ranges, depending on how they were finished. They can go up from twenty to forty pounds.


Joseph Henry Harris: If the average is twenty pounds, how could they go up to forty pounds?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member had better read the regulations and he will find that the weight is not set at even figures; but a man can get A's at a range that runs from about 200 to 240 pounds.


Joseph Henry Harris: Not forty.


James Garfield Gardiner: In these weights. I am getting them, and I suppose you are, too.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Would that not depend on the kind of hog that the weight was on?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. It has to be the long, lean Yorkshire hog.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have some more remarks to make at a later stage of the bill,
but there is one thing I should like to ask now. I have been following closely the figures that the minister was giving a while ago. I have my return in front of me now. I do not think the figures quite jibe with the wording in this return, and I am just wondering which ones are correct. For bacon, cheese and beef the 1947 figures are preliminary. Between now and Monday could the minister get these figures up to date? They should be available for 1947.


James Garfield Gardiner: They may be.


John Alpheus Charlton: Can the minister do that?


James Garfield Gardiner: If they are available.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister will remember about the 1945 figures. He is going to give those.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 171, to. amend the Agricultural Products Act,
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Monday we shall take up, first of all, the resolution on the excise taxes, and when it is disposed of we shall proceed with the second reading and the committee stage of the bill which just received first reading. If any time remains after these are disposed of, the Minister of Veterans Affairs will go on with his resolution for leave to introduce a bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
5849-156i
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 22, 1948