1949-02-11

Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yesterday the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) asked a question with reference to Christie Street hospital at Toronto. As has been known, arrangements have been under way for some time under which all veteran patients are being transferred from Christie Street hospital to Sunny-brook. This transfer is now rapidly being completed. As the transfer permits, the Christie Street hospital will be turned over to the city of Toronto.
LLater.l


Mr. J. H. Harris (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Minister of Veterans Affairs has just retired from the chamber. I had intended asking a question, but in view of his absence I ask that my question be accepted as notice. It has reference to the matter the minister mentioned a moment ago, namely the disposition of an asset at present vested in the Dominion of Canada, Christie Street hospital.
I am asking that in due course the minister, in this House of Commons rather than through the press or through some other body, give a full report with regard to the sale of Christie Street hospital. Perhaps he might go so far as to state the price, what the hospital is to be used for, when the terms of the contract will be made known and the transfer of the property made to the corporation of the city of Toronto. I repeat that information of this kind should emanate from this chamber rather than from the press or some other source.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows the rule that he is not permitted to make a statement when asking a question, and that the question should be brief and to the point.


Mr. L. A. Mutch (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I shall draw the hon. member's remarks to the attention of the minister. I am sure that within the next few days the minister will be able to give the information for which the hon. member has asked.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as this transaction was handled by War Assets Corporation, for which I am responsible, perhaps I may answer the question now. The circumstances are that some time ago Chorley Park was sold to the city of Toronto, and payment of $100,000 was made to the crown. As the documents were being completed, circumstances compelled the Department of National Defence to ask that that sale be cancelled for the time being. This morning I had a conference with the mayor of Toronto, and we agreed that Christie Street hospital would be substituted for Chorley Park in the former transaction. The effect is that we have sold Christie Street hospital to the city of Toronto for $100,000. The sale includes certain beds and utensils which are not required for federal purposes. It is my understanding that the building will be used in part for a hospital and in part for a home for aged persons. Delivery will be made as quickly as final transfer of patients can be made by the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Joseph Henry Harris: I thank the minister for the information.



REQUEST FOR COMPLETION OF PROJECT IN ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. When will he be in position to answer the questions I asked about two weeks ago with regard to housing? They were not long, and only brief answers would be required. I think the minister has the information right in his office in Ottawa.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I will take the hon. member's question as notice.



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the report of the operations for the year 1948 under the Export and Import Permits Act. I wish to table also copies of order in council P.C. 570, dated February 8, 1949, consolidating all outstanding amendments to the list of items under export control, and at the same time removing from control a substantial number

Inquiries of the Ministry of new items. As a result, the number of articles for which export permit is required is reduced from 520 as of January 1, 1948, to 275.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 13 (from the Senate) respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions: The Prime Minister-Motion for address to His Majesty the King respecting terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I wish to ask that this motion be allowed to stand until Monday. It had been intended to deal with it immediately after the third reading of the Newfoundland bill, but some hon. members who are not here today have expressed the hope that they might have an opportunity, at the last stage of the proceedings necessary in this house to complete the union of Newfoundland with Canada, to make some remarks on the subject, and the consideration of this motion for an address to His Majesty will give them that opportunity.
Motion stands.



THE PRIME MINISTER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker,
I understand that the Prime Minister is to leave this afternoon for an important conference in Washington with the President of the United States. Before he goes perhaps I might take the opportunity of wishing him well on his journey and in his deliberations, and ask him to convey to the President of the United States not only the good will and warm wishes of the government and its supporters in parliament, but also of parliament as a whole and of the Canadian people. I would ask him also to indicate to the President, as no doubt he will, that the most treasured desire and central objective of the Canadian people and the Canadian parliament is that the dogs of war shall be chained once and for all, and that it will never be necessary to have another world casualty list; in other words, that this country wants a just, permanent and lasting peace.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: think in this regard the hon. member for Peel speaks for everyone.



INQUIRY AS TO SENDING OF TRADE MISSION FROM CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Assiniboia):: I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has a trade mission been sent to the state of Israel? If not, what are the government's plans in this regard?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, no trade
mission has been sent from Canada to the state of Israel. The hon. member will recall that de facto recognition by Canada of the state of Israel took place only a few weeks ago, in December. I think I should say, however, that since we recognized de facto the state of Israel the government has had conversations in Ottawa with the representative of that state in Washington looking to ways and means of extending and developing our trade and commercial relations with that country. These conversations have been most encouraging.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance with reference to the withdrawal of the Bank of Canada branch from Charlottetown. Will the minister consider the advisability of having proper accommodation arranged for the Bank of Canada branch when the new dominion building is being constructed in Charlottetown?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question. The situation in Charlottetown was this: The Bank of Canada was obliged to vacate the premises which it occupied, and was unable to find any other premises with suitable vault accommodation. Pending the obtaining of such premises the bank has made arrangements with the Eastern Trust Company of Charlottetown so that the people of that city and of Prince Edward Island as a whole will not be inconvenienced.
I understand my colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), in the preparation of the plans for the new public building in Charlottetown, is taking into account the needs of the Bank of Canada at that point.



SALES FROM SOUTH AFRICA AT PREMIUM OF $6.50 PER FINE OUNCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) asked whether in view of the approval by the international monetary fund of the sale by South Africa of newly-mined alloy gold to be used only for industrial or professional work at a premium of $6.50 a fine ounce over the fund's price of $35 a pure ounce, the government would extend the same right to Canadian gold producers. At that time I told him I had seen the press report but had no official information on the matter. I said I would make an inquiry. I have done so, and I find that the international monetary fund has not in fact approved any specific sale of gold at a premium by South Africa. Yesterday the international monetary fund issued a statement in that regard which, for the purpose of the record, I shall place on Hansard. That statement is as follows:
Following certain press reports about a gold sale at premium prices made by South Africa, the international monetary fund wishes to make it clear that it has not approved any specific gold sale at a premium price.
The fund was consulted four months ago by the South African government with regard to a proposed plan to sell semi-processed gold at premium prices for industrial, professional, or artistic purposes. The fund advised the South African government that it was "disturbed by the fear that the trade in semi-processed gold which is contemplated by the South African government would involve considerable sales of gold at premium prices for other than legitimate industrial, professional or artistic purposes. It felt that this would almost certainly be the consequence if the proposed transactions are to be on a scale sufficient to ensure an appreciable profit to . . . gold producers.
In these circumstances," the fund added, "the fund believes that South Africa should not engage in the proposed plan unless it is satisfied that it can take effective measures to ensure that gold sold under the plan will in fact be used for bona fide and customary industrial, professional or artistic purposes."
The South African government informed the fund over this past week end that it has agreed to sell a quantity of semi-processed gold at a premium price. However, in the light of the information submitted by South Africa, including the prices and quantities involved, the fund has found it necessary to get in touch with South Africa with a view particularly to determining whether the safeguards adopted are, in the fund's opinion, adequate to ensure that any gold sold will in fact be used for bona fide and customary industrial, professional and artistic purposes.


Mr. Harry R. Jackman (Rosedale):: Following the answer given by the Minister of Finance, I should like to ask this question. If the Canadian gold industry observes the same restrictions as the South African industry in
Inquiries of the Ministry regard to newly-mined gold for industrial and professional purposes, will the Canadian industry be allowed to sell on the open market?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not care to answer a
hypothetical question. Gold has been sold by the Canadian Mint for industrial and commercial purposes, and permits have been given for the sale of semi-processed gold for those purposes. However, in each case the price has been related to $35 an ounce, which is the amount paid by the United States treasury.



INQUIRY AS TO PRODUCTION PROGRAM FOR 1949

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture, of which I have already given notice. Is it the intention of the government to give a lead to western farmers as to what grains should be grown for 1949? If so, will the minister make a statement to the house in that regard?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: As the hon. member has said, a copy of his question was sent to me this morning. The practice of the provincial and federal governments in the years preceding the war was that the provinces had the most to do with production. They gave more direction in that regard than did the federal department of agriculture. At the beginning of the war however it was thought advisable that considerable direction should be given by the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa. Therefore we held conferences annually, beginning in 1939, with the provincial authorities, farming organizations, the farm press and representatives of the federal Department of Agriculture, upon which occasions we discussed all questions relating to the necessity for greater production of one product as compared with another during the period of the war. That practice continued until two years ago, when we decided to hold conferences during the first week of December of each year and discuss the probable or possible program in connection with agricultural production for the succeeding year.
A conference was held on December 6, 7 and 8 last, at which the provinces and the farm organizations were fully represented. The agricultural press was represented, and for part of the time the daily press also. The question of the production of different farm products was fully discussed, and at the end of the meeting it was unanimously agreed that the direction that should go out from all sources should be to the effect that the acreage that had been utilized in the

Inquiries of the Ministry previous year lor the purposes of producing different crops, or in connection with livestock, would be suitable for the coming year.
But there was one possible change. Where western farmers had seeded a considerable acreage in flaxseed in the years during the war and up to last year, it was considered, in view of our experience, that it might be well for them not to seed so much flax; and to the extent that they desisted from seeding flax it might be wise to put their acreage into coarse grains which would be required in greater and greater volume in the years ahead.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a return which was tabled on February 9 in answer to a question I had asked about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation staff in Toronto. The answer is insufficient. I notice that the Minister of National Revenue is not here; therefore I shall bring up this matter on the motion to set up the special committee, or on some other occasion when the minister is here.



PASSPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister answer the question I asked on February 4 with regard to passports not being renewed after January 1 of this year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am grateful to the hon. member for the patience and the courtesy he has shown in waiting for this information. I am afraid I have not even now all the information I desire to have in order to give him a full reply. But with regard to the point he raised the other day I can say this. After the Canadian Citizenship Act came into force on January 1, 1947, a new form of Canadian passport was issued. Subsequently it was found that certain inconveniences arose in renewing old passports which had been issued before January 1, 1947, because the national status of Canadians was not accurately described therein. Persons holding such passports are being asked, when they apply for renewals, to replace them with new passports. The new passports are issued without delay;


they are valid for five years in the first instance, and may be renewed for a further period of five years.
The situation in regard to passports is now under review, particularly in relation to the practice being followed in other commonwealth countries where a similar problem has arisen. Full information is not yet available but I hope to be in position to make a further statement next week.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When Newfoundland comes into the union, will residents of Newfoundland have to send their application forms to Ottawa?


Lester Bowles Pearson: All I can say is that if and when Newfoundland comes into the union the citizens of that province will be issued passports in exactly the same way as they are issued to citizens of other parts of Canada.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Will Peterborough have to have a special passport?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Being the favoured county of Canada, it would be well if we did. I should like to direct another question to the minister. Has his department issued instructions to post offices, and other places where passport applications and renewals are issued, that passports cannot be renewed after January 1?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not sure that that has been done, but it is one of the points I shall deal with in the answer which I hope to give to the hon. member at the earliest possible day.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: I should like
to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources. Unfortunately I was able to send notice to him only at a late hour. Is consideration being given to liberalizing existing immigration regulations to permit the admission to Canada of displaced persons who belong to the professional groups?


Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I received a copy of the
question just before coming into the chamber. I think it is generally understood how difficult it is to act effectively, especially with regard to two of the classes which come within the category mentioned by the hon. member-dentists and doctors. Those professions largely control the naming of those who will be eligible to practise in Canada. A few such immigrants have been allowed to come to Canada as labourers, or, in other cases, as assistants to medical men. I may say, however, that the matter is being given serious consideration.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. C. Miller (Portage la Prairie):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Some transfer of authority is taking place affecting the airport south of Portage la Prairie. I should like the minister to indicate what the plans of the government are with regard to this matter; in particular whether the airport will be reopened for training purposes, or whether other expansion is contemplated.


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: I shall be glad to look into the
matter and give my hon. friend an answer later.



SAM CARR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that Mr. Sam Carr is now in custody in Ottawa and will be brought before a magistrate in this city tomorrow. He will probably be remanded for one week. In anticipation of Mr. Carr's return we had retained Mr. John Cartwright, K.C., of Toronto to act as government counsel in this case. The charge with which we propose to proceed is that of conspiracy to commit forgery. This is under section 573 of the Criminal Code, and carries a maximum sentence of seven years. The alleged offence occurred in connection with the renewal of a Canadian passport issued to one Witczak and taken from him and used by an international spy posing under his name.



SOCIAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: desire to direct a question to the Minister of Health and Welfare. Has anything been done for the incapacitated people in Canada so as to give some relief and some social security to these unfortunate deserving people?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I think the hon. gentleman would be the first to admit the general character of his question. I cannot of course say what is being done, other than by the government of Canada, for the people concerned. I may say that much is being done for those who are incapacitated for one
Newfoundland
reason or another. I would call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the provisions that are made in the national health plan to cover tubercular patients, and persons suffering from cancer, arthritis, poliomyelitis, mental disease, and so on. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate the very wide scope of the services covered by these grants.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the third reading of Bill No. 11, to approve the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada.


Mr. John R. MacNicol (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not delay for more than a few moments the passage of this important and historic bill. I am fairly familiar with that magnificent island which is to be our tenth province; yet I feel that I should speak very briefly. Newfoundland was represented at the Quebec conference of 1864, when the four provinces of Canada, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-decided to enter confederation. I often recall the words of Sir Ambrose Shea, who was one of the two Newfoundland representatives. So far as they were concerned they were satisfied with the proposals and would have joined the confederation, but did not have the authority to do so at that time. Ever since 1864, well-wishers of confederation, both in Newfoundland and in Canada, have looked forward to this day. I am sure we are all happy indeed at the prospect that lies before us. I will not repeat the exact words of Sir Ambrose Shea, but he said that, looking into the future, he could hardly describe the great vista that opened before him, in the realization of what confederation would mean to his province and to Canada.
Confederation has turned out to be something much greater than anything Sir Ambrose Shea could have visualized. At that time British Columbia was not a part of Canada, nor were the three western provinces. If Sir Ambrose could have foreseen the Canada of today, of which Newfoundland will be the tenth province, he would have seen that we have one river, the Mackenzie, with the largest basin, all in the same country, on the whole continent of North America. Some will say at once that I am forgetting the Mississippi, but the basin of the Mississippi is not all in the United States; part of it is in Alberta and part of it is in Saskatchewan. The Mackenzie river is wholly in Canada.
Canada also borders the largest lake in the world, although not all of it is in Canada. Eleven thousand square miles of the 31.000

Newfoundland
square miles of Lake Superior are in Canada. We also have exceptionally high mountains. At the time of Sir Ambrose Shea, the St. Elias group of mountains between Yukon and Alaska, which rises to a great height, were not known to be in Canada. The highest mountain in that range is Mount Logan, with a height of 19,850 feet. Canada has inexhaustible resources. What would Sir Ambrose Shea have seen? He would have seen that the Canada of today is one of the largest national areas in the world. I believe we are exceeded only by Russia, including Siberia, but we are larger than European Russia. Together with Newfoundland's 152,000 square miles, we shall now have approximately 3,750,000 square miles. Including Newfoundland and Labrador, the population of Canada will be very close to thirteen and a half million people.
We have grown to be a very great state both in area and in population. Our cousins to the south have a larger population, but continental United States is more than 750,000 square miles smaller than Canada. Including Alaska it is perhaps 150,000 square miles less. I do not know whether it is there now because the building may have been blown down in the late war, but I often think of the inscription on the money exchange building in London near the famous monument to the great fire. The inscription is: "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." When God made this part of the world he must have been thinking of the fulness of this country, because, interpreting fulness as material wealth, in many respects we surpass the whole world. For instance, there is nickel; in Canada we have approximately nine-tenths of all the nickel in the world.


Mr. SI. Laurent:: Asbestos.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Asbestos is to be found in the eastern townships of Quebec; we have approximately eighty to ninety per cent of all the asbestos in the world. Our country is rich in all minerals. It is only a few years ago that Canada produced over $200 million worth of gold, and at the same time the production of all minerals in Canada exceeded $500 million.
In coming into confederation, therefore, Newfoundland is joining one of the great countries of the world, and with the new province we shall make a greater country still. To me it is a solemn occasion when I think that from 1864 to 1949, a period of over eighty years, many efforts have been made to make confederation complete. When this bill passes the house, as it will, confederation will be complete. As the years roll on, those who come after us will refer to that great year when the confederation of Canada was completed as the fathers of confederation visualized it in 1864 and 1867. We in this

house will be off the scene at that time, but we will be remembered for our humble parts in bringing to pass what the fathers of confederation sought to accomplish.
A short time ago I came across a few lines which seem to suit what is running through my mind at the moment. I will quote them:
For the structure that we raise Time is with materials filled.
Our todays and yesterdays Are the blocks with which we build.
The blocks with which this structure has been built are the men who carried on the negotiations for union from 1864 onward, the fathers of confederation of those days, representing Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, and those who carried on the present negotiations. Down the years all these men were labouring to build this fine structure which has finally come to pass. Now we and our brothers in Newfoundland may look forward to the certainty of rising to even greater heights.
Today we add another 1,500 miles to our Atlantic front. A moment ago when the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) was giving the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) some admonitions with respect to his trip to Washington, I thought of something else the Prime Minister might take up when he is in the United States. I hesitate to mention it, and I do not suppose he would have time to do it anyway, but on some future occasion he might consider negotiating with the United States in an endeavour to bring in the panhandle which cuts five hundred miles off our western coast. That is something for the future. If it should ever come to pass, what a majestic country we would have from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
As a humble Canadian, Mr. Speaker, I am proud and happy that the vision which these great men have had all down the years, and which our present leaders have worked so hard to fulfil, at last has become a reality.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ACT


James Garfield Gardiner: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Agricultural Products Act to extend the operation of the act for a period of one year.


Gordon Graydon: I take it the minister will want to introduce this resolution with a somewhat comprehensive statement, and I suggest that the appropriate time to do so would be before Mr. Speaker leaves the chair, having

in mind that this procedure has been generally followed so far this session.


James Garfield Gardiner: The bill it is intended to introduce if the resolution is adopted is short and simple, providing that the provisions of the act concerning the sale and export of agricultural products shall be extended to cover an additional year. The provision made last session was to the effect that this bill was to cover the period to March 31, 1949. The new bill will provide that the period be extended to March 31, 1950.
The reason a bill of this kind is required is the fact that the activities with which it deals were carried on during the war under the War Measures Act. When the War Measures Act came to an end provision was made for some of the matters that had been dealt with under that legislation to be continued under the special measures act. A special measures act was introduced to deal with many of the matters that had been carried on by order in council under the War Measures Act, but so far as the sale of agricultural products by contract was concerned, a special act dealt with those, and it is a bill to extend that act with which we are dealing at the moment.
At this stage it might be advisable to point out that the bill itself defines the agricultural products which are covered by it, by saying:
"Agricultural product" means any product of agriculture, except wheat, and includes "feeding stuff" within the meaning of The Feeding Stuffs Act of 1937.
I quote that in order to point out that the wheat contract does not come under this bill. That contract has been dealt with under the wheat board act. In addition I think I should point out that section 3 of the bill provides:
Subject to any regulations that may be made by the governor in council, the minister may
(a)	sell or export agricultural products to the government of any country or any agency thereof pursuant to any agreement made by the government of Canada with the government of such country or with such agency and for these purposes may purchase agricultural products and make such arrangements for the purchase, sale or export of agricultural products as he considers necessary or desirable;
(b)	on behalf of the government of any country or any agency thereof purchase or negotiate contracts for the purchase of agricultural products;
(c)	by order require any person to give such information respecting his facilities for the storing or processing of agricultural products and at such times as the minister may designate in such order;
(d)	enter into contracts for the storing or processing of agricultural products.
I read those two sections in order to call attention to two facts. The first is that this covers all agricultural products other than wheat. The second is that the products other than wheat are limited to those for which we have agreements. At the present time we have agreements with Great Britain for the
Agricultural Products Act sale of bacon, cheese and eggs. The agreement with respect to bacon is carried out under the meat board. The agreement for the sale of cheese is carried out under the dairy products board. The agreement for the sale of eggs is carried out under the special products board. These are the three boards that were in existence during the war. Each is still carrying out a contract with respect to one important item; therefore it is necessary to continue in existence the three boards we had during the war period, and it is necessary to deal with matters having to do with bacon, eggs and cheese in any discussions we may have concerning what is to be done in the year 1949-50.


Mr. Bentley:: May I ask the minister if horse meat is considered an agricultural product now?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I presume horse meat is considered an agricultural product, but we have not an agreement with any government concerning it, so it does not come under this act as it is now operating.


Mr. Brooks:: If I may ask a question, would apples or cheese-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not object to hon. members asking questions, but I suggest that the proper time to do so is when the house is in committee. As hon. members know, when the Speaker is in the chair an hon. member may speak only once.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was just going to say that I do not think it would be helpful for me to attempt at this stage to go into any details either with respect to the contracts we had in 1948 or the contracts we expect to carry through in 1949. As soon as the motion is carried and we go into committee I shall be glad to attempt to answer any questions anyone may care to ask; and I leave it to hon. members to determine whether they wish to go into committee at once in order that a discussion of that kind may take place, or whether they would rather proceed with the discussion for the time being with the Speaker in the chair. At some suitable time I hope we will get into committee, when I hope to be able to give any information that may be desired.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: As the minister has said, this resolution to amend the Agricultural Products Act to extend the operation of the act for a period of one year is really a continuation of the War Measures Act for certain purposes.
Part of the preamble of that act, brought in in 1947, says:
-the government of Canada entered into agreements for the sale or export of food supplies to other gov-

Agricultural Products Act emments or agencies thereof, which agreements still continue in force; and whereas certain orders and regulations were made by the governor in council under the authority of the War Measures Act and the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, for the purpose of enabling Canada to carry out the said agreements; and whereas the said orders and regulations will expire on the 31st day of March, 1947, and it is necessary by reason of the existing national emergency that parliament confer authority-
In another paragraph the act points out that,
"agricultural product" means any product of agriculture, except wheat, and includes "feeding stuff."
Another clause of the act reads:
-the minister may sell or export agricultural products to the government of any country-
The entire authority is vested in the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) under the act as passed in 1947.
As a companion to this act, there is an act known as the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, which was merely a transitional measure to provide for the maintenance of price levels and by which a revolving fund of $200 million was established. This amounts to less than 10 per cent of the amount this government has prevented the agricultural producers of Canada from receiving by means of controls, embargoes and government marketing programs. In other words, since 1942, this government has caused the farmers to lose over $2,000 million, which cannot be easily recovered. This figure is over three times the total expenditure of the three prairie provincial governments during those same years. It is a sizeable sum of money which the farmers have contributed by marketing their goods through government agencies.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture told the members of the house that, by taking less than the prevailing world price for bacon, wheat and dairy products, et cetera, the Canadian farmer would be assured of good overseas markets after the war. Mr. Speaker, today Britain is purchasing great quantities of bacon from Poland and Denmark, beef from the Argentine and wheat from Russia. The Canadian overseas market for apples, fruits and potatoes has been entirely lost. Beef on the hoof and certain other agricultural products in Canada have decreased in price during the past five months by over 20 per cent, yet the cost of living index has reached an all-time high and now stands at 159-6. I do not think the consumers can accuse the agricultural producer of responsibility for that situation.
With respect to the cost of living today, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), speak-

ing on December 11, 1947, as reported at page 215 of Hansard, said:
. . . we have continued our control on wheat by making a contract with Great Britain. . . . the price of feed grains to farmers in eastern Canada and in other parts of Canada has borne about the same relationship to wheat as the government would have been compelled to place upon oats and barley if they had followed the suggestion of the organized farmers . . .
On the same page, he said:
. . . the most effective control on feed grains is the fact that there is an established value for wheat.
The Minister of Agriculture, speaking on this Agricultural Products Act on December 19, 1947, said this at page 503 of Hansard:
There has always been the closest check made on the relationship between wheat and feed grains, and between feed grains and products fed from feed grains, when all these contracts were being negotiated.
At page 504 he said:
We have the No. 2 price, which is the price under which wheat is sold to countries outside Great Britain. The No. 2 price is one we are able to charge because of certain conditions, the first of which is that we have sold an average of 150 million bushels a year to Great Britain over a period of four years . . . That is the first factor which makes it possible for us to ask a price, rather than to go on the market and sell at a price which is offered.
The second reason is that we are able to say it has a higher intrinsic value;
I quote now from page 505 of Hansard:


James Arthur Ross: Could the minister explain how the wheat committee of the cabinet arrived at this price for No. 2 wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: The committee arrived at the price of No. 2 wheat by taking the United States price; then adding to it something to cover the intrinsic value of the wheat as compared with United States wheat, and then adding to that an additional value because of the extra protein content. We thus arrived at a price at which the wheat could be sold, and that price is higher than the United States price.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: By United States
price you mean the Chicago price?


James Garfield Gardiner: The price which has been established from time to time in the United States.
At that time, Mr. Smith was referring to the Chicago grain exchange.
At page 509, the minister said, the British government-
-is prepared to give us in writing the undertaking which was given by word of mouth with regard to 1949, which will carry the food contracts in relation to these four commodities right through until close to the end of the wheat contract, with a position established where the amount which our farmers are receiving for wheat is similar to that which is being received in the other great exporting countries.
I believe the four commodities referred to, along with wheat, were bacon, beef, eggs and cheese. In fact, the minister spoke of those commodities this afternoon.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not along with wheat, apart from wheat.


James Arthur Ross: Apart from wheat; the point the minister was establishing was the fact that all these must bear some relationship to the basic price of wheat.
I have cited the authority of the special legislation for what the government had been doing under the War Measures Act. During 1946, the percentage of the total imports of Great Britain supplied by Canada for the various commodities is as follows: wheat flour 57 per cent; bacon, 38 per cent; carcass meat, which is chiefly beef, 7-6 per cent; eggs in the shell, 15 per cent; dried eggs, 15 per cent; cheese, 24-2 per cent and evaporated milk 10-5 per cent. It is recognized throughout this country that the government, year after year, neglected the United States market. They systematically refused to sell to those who wanted our foods and, at the same time, created a heavy deficit of United States dollars.
In 1946, during the discussions on the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement, this party stood alone in opposition to forcing the Canadian wheat producer to carry the entire financial burden. There were no ifs, so far as we were concerned. We predicted exactly what would happen, despite the protestations of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and of our socialist friends, the C.C.F.
If the terms of the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement had been carried out according to the adjustment clause, the price for the fourth year of the agreement would have been over $5 per bushel. However, it has now been arranged to ignore the terms of the contract and leave the final settlement until after the next Canadian general election. According to press reports Canada to date has received $640 million for offshore purchases under ECA. During the past twelve months, most of this money has come from Washington. Fifty per cent of the total of $322 million has been used to buy wheat, for the most part on British order.
I think that is proof of the serious situation facing the producers of this country. When wheat was selling on the world markets for $3.35 a bushel the United States farmer was receiving the full benefit, and the same thing applies to other agricultural products; while they bought their implements of production as cheap as, and in some cases cheaper than, the Canadian farmer. In this respect I wish to quote a letter which I have received-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Have you anybody else
to quote?


James Arthur Ross: I have a lot more quoting to do. I want the hon. member to pay attention to what I am going to read
Agricultural Products Act now. I hold in my hand a registered letter from Morris, Manitoba. This is rather significant because a year ago the minister put on the record a letter which came from somewhere near that neighbourhood at a time when wheat was under discussion.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mine was from Portage.


James Arthur Ross: That is very close, but this one is different from the minister's correspondence. It reads:
After reading my Free Press tonight-
He is putting in a plug for the Free Press. -and your speech about the United Kingdom wheat agreement I cannot help but thank you personally. It is a pity that there are only so few like you that have enough guts when at Ottawa to fight for the right, and that is all that the western farmer wants.
I am just a young farmer who started farming in 1946, same time as the United Kingdom wheat agreement commenced; had to pay a very high price for all my farm machinery and high interest, which I still pay on $1,200, and then let Jimmie Gardiner sell our wheat for half price, and even then not pay us cash. What does he think we are? I happen to be one that took a wheat certificate for 1,000 bushels to the bank to borrow some money on it, and all I got was a big grin from the bank manager, and he said, "they are no good, young man." I am a true Canadian, and been a good Liberal all my life, but God forbid to ever again vote for a party that will let Jimmie Gardiner sell you down the river.
The minister put a letter on the record a year ago which came from Portage. It was addressed to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the writer said that he was going to trust in God and Gardiner and continue the production of hogs. The writer of the letter I have read apparently has not the same faith as the chap who wrote to the Minister of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: They will balance out all right.


James Arthur Ross: An editorial appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of February 7, and the heading was: "Empty criticisms". It says: The Conservative party supported the wheat agreement when it was entered into in July, 1946. The Conservative party voted in parliament for the wheat agreement.
I have challenged the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to show me any record in Hansard of 1946 where that vote took place. I cannot find it myself. I say it is an absolute misstatement of fact. The editorial goes on, but this is further proof of what the Free Press does have to say on some occasions.


James Garfield Gardiner: If it was a unanimous vote, there would be no record in Hansard.


James Arthur Ross: There was no vote.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was unanimous.
476	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member did not oppose it.


Mr. Wright:: The hon. member should have voted against it if he opposed it.


James Arthur Ross: We have the new Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture going quite a long way together in the last few months. I shall have some reference to make to that in the future.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They will go a long way further together.


James Arthur Ross: The first announcement of the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement was given by the then Minister of Trade and Commerce on July 25, 1946. The hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Bracken) asked when we might discuss the policy, and the then Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) said:
The estimates of my department will be before the house very soon, and we can then have full discussion.
These estimates were first introduced in the house on August 14, 1946, and my leader then, now the hon. member for Neepawa, and many others, spoke in opposition to that agreement as wholeheartedly as we could at that time. There never was any vote on the matter of the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement at all.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Why did you not call for a vote?


James Arthur Ross: The Deputy Governor General in closing the 1946 session of parliament on August 31, 1946, said, among other things:
An agreement has been made with the United Kingdom for the marketing of our wheat. The wheat agreement, with agreements for the marketing of other foodstuffs already in operation, will greatly assist the government in its policy of maintaining stable prices for agricultural products.
There was no vote whatever in 1946. Hon. members will recall that there was a by-election in Portage la Prairie in October, 1946. The Minister of Agriculture has referred to Portage. He took up his residence there for a considerable period of time. I do not believe he addressed a meeting in that constituency in which the wheat contract was not discussed. It was an issue there. In that campaign the government was supported on the wheat deal by C.C.F. speakers. We opposed that agreement throughout the byelection and hon. members know the result.
I should now like to refer to the price of international farm implements. In the letter I read reference was made to that. In 1945, just prior to the wheat agreement, these implements were selling for the following


prices: the three plow tractor sold for $1,630.60; the combine for $3,150; the twelve foot swather for $394.60; the harrow plow for $401.75. In 1948, after the agreement the same three plow tractor sold for $2,179.75; the combine for $4,219.85; the twelve foot swather for $519 and the harrow plow for $488.
Of course today prices have gone considerably higher. I have comparisons as to the number of bushels of wheat the United States farmer has to produce to buy these same implements as compared with the Canadian farmer. To purchase in Canada a Farmall M tractor, international company tractor, required 1,225 bushels of wheat; in the United States, 710 bushels of wheat. To purchase a 3-furrow international tractor plow in Canada required 151 bushels of wheat; in the United States, 82 bushels. To purchase a 24-run international double disc seeder in Canada, required 270 bushels of wheat; in the United States, 146 bushels. To purchase a 10-foot international binder in Canada required 333 bushels of wheat; in the United States, 184 bushels. To purchase the same tractor in Canada would require slightly over the price of eleven finished 1,000-pound steers, while in the United States the same type of tractor would require the proceeds of only slightly over six such animals. It would require 46 select hogs weighing 210 pounds in Canada or 26 such hogs in the United States to purchase the same type of tractor. After all, what can be purchased with the goods that the farmer produces is what he is interested in.


Mr. Reid:: Will the hon. member permit one question? Can he give us some of the prices of farm machinery across the line as compared with Canada? He is giving us the number of bushels of wheat to purchase the machine. My advice has always been that to compare machinery in one place with machinery in another you should have the prices, and my understanding is that the prices are cheaper in the United States than they are in Canada.


James Arthur Ross: I have already made that statement in the remarks I have made. If the hon. member had been listening he would have heard me say that. I said that the farmers in the United States, while receiving all the benefits of high agricultural prices, were able to buy their farm implements cheaper than we could buy them in Canada.
With respect to federal taxes, direct and indirect taxes amounted per capita to $22.41 in 1913, and in 1939 the per capita had risen to $38.67. In 1947, the year just past, that per capita tax was $192.97. The tax has multiplied over five times since the beginning of the second world war, and it has greatly

added to the cost of production and the cost of living in Canada, a fact which government officials have ignored in compiling the cost of living index and of production for this nation.
I should like to say to the government backbenchers who are now making vehement speeches asking for the reduction of taxation that they had an opportunity a year ago to vote against the tax measures of this government. That was at a time when they were showing the largest surpluses in the history of this nation. They apparently think, along with their government, that they can bleed the people of this nation for four years and then play Santa Claus in the fifth year just prior to an election.
A year ago we proposed a motion giving hon. members an opportunity to vote against that if they had wished.
The Canadian federation of agriculture, in their brief of December 14, 1948, showed that the urban consumers have made great gains over the past fifty years in their food purchasing power per hour of work. Hourly wage rates last September could buy 60 per cent more food than in 1913 or 68 per cent more than in 1920. The farmer does not begrudge the gains of urban groups, provided these gains are not made at the food producers' expense, and provided these gains are in line with increases in productivity.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You are on the wrong page now.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, a moment ago the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) politely asked the minister if he could ask a question. There were cries of order from the government benches. The Speaker rose of his own volition; the question was never answered and the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) was asked to sit down. We on this side of the house expect the same courtesy and also the same ruling; and it about time these asinine interruptions from over there were stopped.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a point of order, I will leave it to any member of the house from any party to say who interrupts more, when my leader, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent), is speaking, than the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). Who interrupts more than the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith)?
Then, Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order, according to the rules of the house one is not allowed to read his speech; but the hon. member for Souris has read every word of what he has said this afternoon.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I must point out that hon. members who have the floor should not
Agricultural Products Act be interrupted, nor should questions be asked without permission.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And they should not read their speeches, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Also in this instance I should add that the hon. member for Souris did provoke some of the interruptions by referring to certain backbenchers. I believe that is why the interruption was made.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am no backbencher; but when it becomes a matter of listening to the reading of a speech-


James Arthur Ross: In the ten sessions I have been here it has become quite apparent-this session is different and I am not sure whether it is the fault of the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, or the government whip-that they certainly have lost control of the house. That has not engendered respect for parliament throughout this nation, when people read Hansard and note the performance in the last two weeks of this session.


Mr. Grant:: You have been the worst offender yourself.


James Arthur Ross: The loss on the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement-


George Alexander Cruickshank: What are you reading from?


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I suggest the house should now allow the hon. member for Souris to continue without interruptions.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Make him stop reading.


James Arthur Ross: I think the whip on the government side should be called into action occasionally. The loss on the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement to the wheat producers from August 1, 1946 to December 31, 1948 amounted to $392 million.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, when I was introducing the measure I deliberately pointed out that it does not cover wheat at all. I did it for the purpose of avoiding what is now taking place. However, if other hon. members are to be permitted to discuss wheat on this measure, then in making my reply it will be necessary for me to discuss it too. There will be another opportunity during the session to discuss wheat; this is not at all the time to do it.


James Arthur Ross: On the point of order the minister has just raised, I have quoted from many pages of his speech on this subject of agricultural products delivered a year ago, on December 19. If anyone cares to look up the record of that speech he will find some five pages wherein the Minister of Agriculture dealt continually with wheat and its relationship to other agricultural products of
478	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Act this country, and the wheat contract with Great Britain in particular.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am just pointing out that that was done on previous occasions. If it is going to be repeated on this occasion, then I should hope no one will call me to order when I reply to what is being said. However, I do not think that is the way to keep order in debate. The hon. member has just made the statement that the Chair has lost control of the house. The only way to keep the Chair in control is to act according to the rules, and the rules provide that we cannot discuss wheat on this measure.


Mr. Fulton:: On the point of order, the Minister of Agriculture should keep in mind that we are discussing a resolution, not a bill. That resolution states:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Agricultural Products Actand so on. That bill is not before us. It is all very well for him to say how it is to be amended. I should think, however, that until we have the bill before us we do not know exactly what it contains. Therefore we do not know whether it discusses wheat or other products. I submit that, despite what the minister has said, and his attempt to confine the discussion, the hon. member for Souris is perfectly in order in speaking as he has done on the resolution stage before the bill is introduced.


James Arthur Ross: I believe I am in order. There was no interference and no question raised in a similar discussion respecting this act a year ago, when the Minister of Agriculture, on page after page, dealt with wheat. Now he raises the point of order. I am sure I am as much in order today as he was at that time.


Thomas John Bentley: We have a right to Your Honour's ruling. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has pointed out that there is nothing in the resolution to indicate whether wheat is included. The resolution does specifically mention agricultural products, and the act states specifically that it includes all agricultural products, except wheat.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But it may be amended to include wheat.


Thomas John Bentley: I am not taking any sides as to who is right or wrong. But, as the minister has said, if permission is given to others to discuss products not included in the act, then we should all know it, so that we can take whatever part we care to take in the debate. We would like a ruling on the point of order.


Gordon Graydon: May I speak to the point of order? I was out of the chamber at the time it was raised, but I believe I understand the purport of it. I should not think that a reasonable and sensible decision with respect to the question as to how far an hon. member may go in discussing wheat can be made until the bill is before us. However, I believe it has been the experience in the house throughout the years that those matters mentioned in the act can be debated, and other things omitted from the act may have the attention of the House of Commons as they are related to the matter under discussion.
I am in agreement with the views expressed by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley), while this is in the resolution stage. When the bill comes before parliament I believe we should have the widest range of discussion of the whole matter, including the marketing of agricultural products.
I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, that you will not attempt to confine the discussion and that you will allow the hon. member for Souris to continue; for after all this matter has a great bearing upon the economy of Canada, and is a major issue at the present time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He has only about ten pages to read.


Gordon Graydon: Thank you, Fraser Valley- but you are not making the speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must take some exception to the remarks of the hon. member for Souris, when he stated that the Speaker had lost control.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think it is
proper for him to make that statement. At times there are interruptions which should not be made, and I think hon. members on both sides are responsible for those interruptions. Mr. Speaker-and in that I include myself-must try to prevent hon. members from making those uncalled-for interruptions. All I can say at this time is that I would ask the co-operation of all hon. members in maintaining order for the proper decorum of the house.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Read the next four pages.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then, referring to the point of order raised, may I point out that the resolution before the house states:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Agricultural Products Act to extend the operation of the Act for a period of one year.
Although I have not the act before me, I understood the Minister of Agriculture to say that wheat was not included in it. However, I think I would be making too fine a decision if I said that the hon. member could not

suggest at this time that wheat might be included, and that he could not discuss the possibility of the inclusion of wheat in the act. I do not intend to interrupt the hon. member for that purpose.
I would however point out to the hon. member for Souris that the objection has been raised that he is reading his speech. I do not know whether he is reading it, or whether he is following his notes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Very closely.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: But I would ask him, if he is reading his speech, to discontinue doing so, and to speak freely.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That would tongue-tie him.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the point of order, I am afraid Your Honour did not understand what I said. The question of wheat, which is now being discussed, is provided for in another act, namely the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Another minister has charge of that bill.


Mr. Knowles:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, do you permit discussion aiter you have ruled?


James Garfield Gardiner: Another minister has
charge of that bill and I am not in a position at this time or at any other time to have that matter discussed on this bill. This bill distinctly states that agricultural products mean any product of agriculture except wheat. You have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing to prevent my hon. friend asking that wheat be included in the bill, but that is not what he is doing. He is trying to discuss what took place under another act and I submit that he is not in order.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I thank
you for your ruling and I intend to abide by it regardless of the minister's objections. During this discussion I have done nothing but make a comparison of other agricultural products, and the Minister of Agriculture himself did that a year ago.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My ruling was that
I could not object to the hon. member asking that wheat be included in the act, and giving his reasons therefor.


James Arthur Ross: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Many people in this country have said that the Minister of Agriculture, who has objected to my referring to wheat, made the greatest gamble ever made by any individual or government in the history of the world when he sold this country short some 600 million bushels of wheat, of which 440 million bushels had not even been seeded and for
Agricultural Products Act which no man or woman had any idea what the future price would be. On the basis of that contract he has attempted to tie in the value of all other agricultural products, coarse grains, beef, pork, dairy products and poultry products; they have all been tied in with the price of wheat. Anyone can read the remarks he made, as reported in Hansard on December 19. The tying of the value of those agricultural products to the artificial price of wheat which had been created by this government has cost the agricultural producers of this country considerably over $2,000 million, an amount which they have no way of recouping. Statistics will prove that. I am one of those who believe that the government should reimburse those producers who have made altogether too great a contribution, along with paying their own share of the taxes for the subsidization of consumers during the war years.
A few minutes ago the Minister of Justice had something to say and I should like to call him as a witness on my behalf. I have before me the report of a speech which he made on March 31, 1948, not quite a year ago, when he was discussing the wheat board act. I intended to quote it but as that seems objectionable to some of my hon. friends across the way I shall just state that he pointed out that the wheat board was created in the interests of the wheat producers of this country and was so used until 1943, when by order in council this government decided to use it for some other purpose. Ever since then they have been using it to keep down prices.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a question of privilege, I
would much rather have my hon. friend quote my remarks than give his own interpretation.


James Arthur Ross: I wish they could get
together over there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member was
reading his speech, not quoting.


James Arthur Ross: Page four of this published speech, which was pretty well distributed throughout the province of Manitoba, reads:
The Canadian Wheat Board Act of 1935 set up the wheat board as the voluntary agency of the wheat producers, charged with the fiduciary responsibility to secure for farmers who shipped wheat to it the best price available consistent with the promotion of the sale and use of Canadian wheat in world markets; and until the change made by order in council in 1943 all the business of the board was conducted on this basis.
During the war, on September 28, 1943, by order in council P.C. 7942 your government provided that the wheat board was to become a compulsory agency or monopoly where it had formerly been a

Agricultural Products Act voluntary agency; and that it was to become the agent of the Crown, instead of continuing as it had been the agent of the wheat producers. Later in 1947, the provisions of this order in council were incorporated into the provisions of the wheat board act where they now appear as section 4, ss. (2), reading as follows:
"4. (2) The board is for all purposes an agent of His Majesty in the right of Canada and its powers under this act may be exercised by it only as an agency of His Majesty in the said right."
And again:
The effect of these provisions in practice was that the wheat board was changed from being an agency of the wheat producers charged with responsibility for getting the best possible price, to an agency of the government, getting a price which would be fixed by the government, that is a political price, using that phrase in its best sense. Since 1943, when the wheat board was changed from being an agency of the wheat growers to being an agency of the government, the price paid to Canadian farmers for their wheat has been determined as a matter of government policy in the light of such consideration as the food agreements with Great Britain and the advantages of holding down the cost of living in Canada, and doubtless other equally worthwhile reasons.
Then I quote from page 13 as follows:
The holding down of the Canadian cost of living and the embargo upon the exports of farm products to the United States are examples of policies which are intelligible and perhaps wise. But they are also national policies, the cost of carrying out which should be paid, in our opinion, by the whole body of the Canadian people and not by the Canadian farmers only.
I hope he is able to bring that about now as a minister of the government. Farther down on the same page appears the following:
What other products of Canada, either primary or secondary, is the government going to fix the price of and leave the burden of carrying the difference between the government price and the market price upon the producers of those products? If this is a good policy for wheat and pork and beef and poultry products, and now oats and barley, why is it not a good policy for copper, newsprint, fish, tractors and farm implements?
It will be seen that the minister and I do not differ on everything all the time. I am pleased to call him as a witness and I hope he can exercise enough authority with his colleagues to see that these producers are reimbursed for the altogether unfair contribution they have made for so many years to the consumers of Great Britain and Canada. I am sure that is only a fair and reasonable request.
I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks that this was a continuation of the war emergency measures. It will give power to the Minister of Agriculture to arrange, through the cabinet, all these contracts and to do what he pleases with what our farmers produce in order to fill them. When the act was brought into being he told us that the representatives of many farm organizations were then in Ottawa asking for marketing
[Mr. Ross (Souris) .1

legislation. That was not the type of legislation they were asking for, or, if they were, they have changed their minds.
Last year the farm federation of Canada presented to the government a brief asking for a natural products marketing act. As my time is just about up I shall not attempt to read the brief, although it is important. The Bennett government brought such an act into being but when the Liberal government took over they sent it to the courts where it was declared to be ultra vires.
The farmers of the country want enabling legislation so that they may have control of the marketing of their own products. They are asking for legislation similar to that passed in 1934 by the Bennett government, which legislation was then known as the Natural Products Marketing Act. The resolution follows:
Whereas the organized farmers of Canada, through the provincial and Canadian federations of agriculture, have on many occasions since the court decision that the 1934 marketing act was ultra vires, requested the dominion government to enact comprehensive marketing legislation that would enable farmers to market their products in an orderly manner;'
And whereas the government has not seen fit to pass such legislation and has not as yet given any logical reason why this request of the farmers should not be granted;
And whereas eight of the nine provinces of Canada have shown by their actions in passing provincial legislation that, in their opinion, such legislation is necessary and in the public interest;
Therefore be it resolved:
1.	That the Canadian federation of agriculture again puts on record its belief that dominion marketing legislation, to supplement the provincial acts, is urgently necessary if the farmers of Canada are to be placed in a position equal to that of other elements in the community.
2.	That once more the Canadian federation of agriculture requests the dominion government to introduce at the next session of parliament comprehensive marketing legislation that will make it possible for groups of farmers to control the marketing of their own products rather than be at the mercy of speculative interests.
3.	That failing assurances that such legislation will be introduced, the Canadian federation of agriculture demands to know the reasons why the government of Canada, by its lack of action in this important matter, is apparently of the opinion that the farmers of Canada should be kept permanently in an inferior position as compared with other elements of society, and that such reasons be published for the information of all Canadian farmers.
I think that is sufficient proof, Mr. Speaker, that farmers in general across Canada are not satisfied with this act. I know personally that they are very much dissatisfied with the state of confusion that has been created by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the government under this act. They are very fearful about their future. Their costs of production have risen consistently. I have given some instances with respect to the cost

or farm implements. The cost of farm labour is higher today than at any time in history, although I am sure we want to see all workers well paid in this country. Then there is the cost of fuel oil, the twine they use, and everything else which enters into agricultural production. These things have not been taken into account at all at this time.
The bureau of statistics issues figures showing the income of the agricultural population, but that is gross income. In many cases it would be very significant to have the net income and compare it with the gross. I say the farmers of the country are very fearful about their future. They are not satisfied with what has been done in the past under this act, and under the orders in council of the government. They are entitled to a great deal better act at this time. Therefore I disapprove of this measure as it is drawn, and I think there should be other marketing legislation provided in the interests of producers.


Thomas Reid: At
this time I desire to say a few words on the resolution. First of all I have something to say with regard to the speech to which we have just listened. I suppose it is not unnatural for men who are growing wheat to want more money. Everybody usually wants more.


James Arthur Ross: All agricultural producers.


Thomas Reid: But I think the time has come when a decision will have to be made about many classes in this country. I sat in the House of Commons during the depression years, and I remember that wheat dropped to something like 40 cents. The cry in those days was that it was the responsibility of the government to do something about it. I have always felt that if citizens of the country are going to say on the one hand that they want to be free agents in the sale of their products on the markets of the world so that they may obtain the best price, if they are going to say in that situation that they do not want government interference, then the same philosophy should be followed throughout the lean years. You cannot say at one time that it is the responsibility of the government when prices are not good, and then when there is a better market come along and say to the government, "get out of it; it is ours now; we are free individuals." It is about time that some of us, who are buyers of wheat, told the farmers of the prairies what we are up against in British Columbia.
We have a splendid market for wheat in British Columbia. I should like to ask hon. members, including the hon. member who 29087-31
Agricultural Products Act has just spoken, what kind of poultry and egg prices he thinks can be obtained when we are called upon to pay $3.75 per 100 pounds for No. 5 wheat. It is no wonder our people are beginning to look at the prairies and say, "well, those boys are surely getting away with a real harvest."


James Arthur Ross: What about the poultry
producers?


Thomas Reid: The cry of the wheat producers just now is not that they are not making ends meet, that they are not making money, but that they want more than they are getting at the present time.


An hon. Member:: You had better interview the butter producers about their prices.


Thomas Reid: There are interruptions, and I will take them as they come. I do not complain about interruptions as long as they are intelligent. It does not bother me, but I think I can say that I interrupt less than any other member. It may be that some of our poultry-men should be told to go to the prairies and grow wheat, because I understand there are some 400 wheat farmers now living during the winter in Regina. They can close their farms after about three months' work a year, and live well in the city.


Mr. Nicholson:: Nonsense.


Thomas Reid: They can close their homes and go to British Columbia, or go to Regina, and live the life of Riley, but poultrymen in our province have to pay $3.75 per 100 pounds for No. 5 wheat.


An hon. Member:: You said per bushel a
while ago.


Thomas Reid: If you would listen more intelligently you would know that I said $3.75 per 100 pounds. When the member for Souris (Mr. Ross) blames the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for fixing the price of wheat on the basis of other products in the contracts with Great Britain, I can certainly say to him that the price of wheat is not linked to the price of eggs. With the price of eggs which we obtain from Great Britain, and which is paid by the special products marketing board, the poultry farmers of the Fraser valley are simply going out of business.
I have one further word to say regarding the British market. At this time I am not going to raise animosities-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You have done so already.


Thomas Reid: You are making a good attempt right now, as I may have animosity against you if you do not keep quiet. There should be no reason for animosity between the people of this country and the people of Great Britain, because every member knows, and

Agricultural Products Act the Canadian people know, of the wonderful part the British people played in saving democracy, and that they at the time practically stood alone. Certain misgivings arise in the minds of many people, now that peace has been declared, when they see Britain sending metals and war planes to soviet Russia, and leaving the markets of Canada alone, or out of their purchases. They do not want any British Columbia canned fish, lumber or eggs. While the Minister of Agriculture has been criticized, I feel that inwardly hon. members will agree with me that he put up the best fight that anyone could with the British authorities.
The British are great traders, as we all know. I do not have to remind you of that, and they usually send people from the north of Scotland to do the trading. When they get around a conference table they drive a pretty hard bargain. While the contract with Great Britain is not all that it should be, and we in British Columbia are certainly displeased with the British egg contract, I think it is to the minister's credit that he brought back to this country as good a contract as he did. It is not my duty, however, to warn the British people or to warn our people, but I would not like to see the lack of trade agreements bring about differences between the people of Canada and the people of Great Britain. I think that while we owe a great debt of gratitude to the British people, the British nation also owes some recognition to the Canadian people for what Canada did during the war.
Owing to the fact that the people of Great Britain and Europe required food, we were naturally encouraged by the government, at the request of Great Britain, to increase our agricultural production. In British Columbia, because of sentiment, shall we say, because also of our desire to help the British people, and at the request of the government, we increased our poultry flocks. Throughout the Fraser valley, and all through the province, men went into the poultry business who had not been in it before. But now it appears the British are not prepared to buy as many of our eggs, nor our lumber or canned salmon.
I think we can take a great deal of credit for one thing, Mr. Speaker. Of all the eggs that reach the British market, none can compare in quality with our Canadian eggs. So much is that the case that I understand this year two great egg-exporting countries, Eire and Denmark, are sending experts to Canada to ascertain how this country produces such fine eggs. So it is hard to understand why the British people or the British government would not want more of this excellent product.


I rose particularly to make a suggestion, and I ask the Minister of Agriculture to give it very serious consideration. Under this act, in order that the contracts for the various agricultural products may be fulfilled, we have been debarred from a free market. In British Columbia, at least at the present time, we could sell our eggs and poultry at much higher prices in the United States than the special products board will pay or even than Canadians are willing to pay for these products. If no better contract with Great Britain can be obtained, we are asking that we in British Columbia should be allowed to find that higher market, and that we should not be barred from that lucrative business across the boundary line. In all sincerity I ask the minister to give the people of British Columbia at least that consideration.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, the measure before the house merely extends for another year the operation of the Agricultural Products Act, though the discussion has covered a somewhat wider field. I want to state, first of all, that as far as we here are concerned we feel that this act is a poor substitute for a natural products marketing act on a national scale, but in view of the fact that it is necessary in order to carry out the contracts that have been or may be entered into, we are prepared to support the extension of this act.
I believe the real issue is whether or not this government or this parliament is going to take steps to provide a marketing act on a nation-wide basis, so that all commodities may be sold in such a way that the producers will receive the fullest possible benefit from their production. I agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), in that it is the responsibility of the government to reimburse or compensate the farmers who have incurred losses in the past few years owing mainly to the fact that the government has failed to carry out its price stabilization policy. But I cannot agree with the argument, which is at least implied, that the farmers would like to see the open market return. The fact is that the Canadian federation of agriculture has asked this parliament, or at least the individual members, to pass a marketing act; and if I understood the hon. member correctly he indicated that he was in favour of a natural products marketing act. If we are in favour of an act to provide for the orderly marketing of farm products we cannot argue at the same time that we are for the open market, because we cannot be on both sides of the fence at once. I am sure it is within the memory of all hon. members that when the Canadian Wheat Board Act came up-which was an endorsa-tion in an indirect way of the British wheat

agreement-hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party to my right voted for it. One hon. gentleman here says he did not; there may have been one or two.


James Arthur Ross: We have never voted on that agreement as such. It was never before this house in the form of an agreement.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I point out that what I said was that when the wheat board act came before this house the members of the Progressive Conservative party voted for it, with the exception of one or two who may have opposed it.


James Arthur Ross: I have supported the wheat board right from the start.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am not speaking of the wheat board; I am speaking of the wheat board act, which implied approval of the British wheat agreement, because it was only under the wheat board act that we could carry out that agreement at all. There is no use trying to wiggle out of that position; this house did support the wheat board act and at the same time, tacitly if not expressly, endorsed the British wheat agreement. But the basis on which that was done, as far as western agriculture was concerned, was that we were entering into an agreement with Britain for the purpose of having a guaranteed market at a guaranteed price over a period of time, and that in return we were willing to accept a price lower than the world market price at that time. We wanted stability; and it was the responsibility of the government to see that such stability was maintained.
That is where the difference of opinion arises today. As far as I am concerned it is not a question of whether we should be for or against orderly marketing. I am for it. It is a question of whether the government has carried out its end of the bargain. I contend that it has not, and to that extent I agree with the hon. member for Souris. But I do not agree with him if he implies that the Canadian farmers wish to get back to the open or speculative market; I cannot go along with him on that.
Since the statement has been made that no one to my right supported the British wheat agreement, let me quote what was said by the then leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Bracken) on August 14, 1946:
I rise at this time to criticize the government's wheat policy. But before doing so, let me say this, with respect to the United Kingdom wheat agreement. Any agreement such as this which tends to level out the inequalities, and the wide fluctuation of prices in the past, is a step in the right direction.
Agricultural Products Act
That pretty well makes this house unanimous in approving the principle behind the British wheat agreement, if not the details themselves. The then leader of the official opposition agreed that any contract which would tend to cut out fluctuations or inequalities in marketing was a step in the right direction, and I agree with him one hundred per cent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The question was raised a short time ago as to whether a discussion of wheat generally was in order at this time, and my ruling was that wheat could be discussed by any hon. member who' thought it should be brought within the Agricultural Products Act. I think that a general discussion on wheat is not now in, order, nor is a discussion of the wheat board act and other related acts. I made that ruling some time ago. I do not wish to limit discussion unduly, but I would ask hon. members to observe the ruling to the best of their ability. I made the ruling during the course of a speech by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). I do not think he proceeded with his argument until some question was asked him by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson).


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that as I proceed I shall have no difficulty in keeping within the terms of your ruling. The chief point at issue so far as we are concerned, as I mentioned at the outset, is whether the proposed bill to follow this resolution will go far enough to provide the type of marketing legislation the farmers of Canada desire. We contend it does not go far enough. We contend it is necessary to have a natural products marketing act on a nation-wide basis, with marketing boards in the various provinces. These boards would have producer representation on them and would be a means of carrying on a nationwide system of interprovincial and export, trade.
In 1945, the Canadian federation of agriculture presented a draft bill to all members' of:: the house, a copy of which I have in my hand. This draft bill sets out in a general way the type of legislation the farmers are requesting.. According to the_ wording of this draft bin, it would have as its purpose the improvement of the methods and practices of the marketing of natural products in interprovincial trade within Canada, and in export trade, to make provision for the regulation and control of the trade and commerce therein, and to make further provision in connection therewith. Then, the draft bill sets out the way in which the act would operate.
Recently, the president of the Canadian federation of agriculture made this statement.

Agricultural Products Act as reported in the Plural Co-operator of Ontario:
Are we again to see food products-real wealth- backing up, clogging markets and bringing distress to farm families while populations elsewhere suffer undernourishment or stark hunger simply because they have the wrong currency, and because the rules of the financial world won't let one currency be freely converted into another?
We thought we had learned the lesson in two world wars that what is humanly and physically possible should also be financially possible.
The challenge to this parliament is to make it financially possible to carry out what has been made physically possible. The production is here. Under the old system of marketing, the farmers have often produced themselves right out of the market. In other words, they have produced so much that the cry of overproduction has gone up.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: That is what happened to two crown companies in Saskatchewan; they had to close down.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I do not know what that has to do with this argument. Let us continue with this argument, instead of deploying in all directions.
Sir John Boyd Orr has proven his argument that there has never been enough food in this world to satisfy all the hungry people. There has always been starvation, famine and lack of proper nourishment in the nations of the world. Our health department shows that, in this country, which is supposed to be the bread basket of the world, there was before the war a highly disturbing proportion of undernourishment amongst our own population. That being so, no one can say the larmers produce too much. It is simply due to the fact that agricultural production has not been efficiently distributed to the markets of the world. It is also due to speculations in the market when the motive was to make a profit out of food production rather than to deliver food to the people who needed it.
The president of the Canadian federation of agriculture has challenged this parliament to get around the dollar difficulty. He does not say how that can be done, but it is not his function to do that. He is placing the problem before us.
On the 19th of March, 1948, a very interesting exchange took place between the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and the then minister of reconstruction who is presently the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I should say that a question was asked by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell), and this is recorded on page 2418 of Hansard:
I want to ask the minister one simple question.
I am much impressed, as X hear him talk, as to the position of the milling and other industries. He
[Mr. Zaplitny. 1

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 be 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.
Now, that happened last March. Events since then have proven, to a very great extent at least, that what the minister said at that time was quite correct. Regardless of the type of trade we may like to have, we are governed to a certain extent by the type of trade that is prevalent or in vogue in the rest of the world. If Great Britain and the other countries have dollar difficulties and cannot buy from us in dollar currency, it is up to us to find a way in which we can dispose of our marketable products without involving dollar difficulties.
One of the ways in which this might be accomplished was suggested by my leader in a recent speech in which he pointed out that we could make bulk trade agreements with Britain and other countries on the basis of blocked sterling which would not involve immediate payment. By whatever manner it is done, I think it is highly important that this parliament realize the importance of this problem so far as the agriculture of this country is concerned. We shall be faced again with this artificial surplus, food piling up while people are going hungry. It is going to be the old story of hunger amidst plenty.
There are those who argue we should get around it by going back to the open market system. These people may have some reasons for presenting that argument, but recent events seem to argue strongly against it. This morning I clipped an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal, headed:
U.S. administration seeks to stabilize slump in farm prices.
The dateline is Washington, February 9: The Truman administration moved today to shore up farm prices ordering an investigation of the commodity market slump which it attributed in part to "speculative influences."
Would the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) or any other member of this house suggest that we follow the United States pattern of open market trading when it is breaking down right before our eyes and the government of the United States has to step in to save the producers? In western Canada we pride ourselves that, at least, the farmers many years ago foresaw this condition. The

mere mention of the Winnipeg grain exchange to a farmer is a challenge to come out and roll up your sleeves, because they will not any longer fall for that open market story so assiduously proposed by certain interests which are spending millions of dollars to publicize the glories of the open market and to attack the wheat pools and the co-operatives of western Canada. I do not think they will fall for that propaganda. I would be very sorry if any hon. member coming from western Canada, and representing a rural constituency on the prairies, would lend himself to be the vehicle for the arguments of the Winnipeg grain exchange.
Let me quote some figures to supplement those quoted by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). He quoted figures to show how many bushels of wheat were required to buy certain farm implements in the United States as compared with Canada. Let me remind him that from 1931 to 1935 we did not have the Canadian wheat board. We had the wide open free enterprise speculative system of selling grain. Here are some of the figures that it is well worth while to keep in mind. In 1931 it took 715 bushels of wheat to buy an 8-foot binder.


James Arthur Ross: How much in the United States?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: In 1932 it took 823 bushels of wheat to buy an 8-foot binder. The next year it took only 560 bushels, then 442, and so on. If the hon. member will compare those figures with the figures he gave to the house-


James Arthur Ross: Compare them with other countries.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I have not the figures for the same years in the United States, but we are now dealing with Canada. We must face the question in a reasonable way. It is not an ideological matter; it is a matter of being practical. The farmers have realized that they cannot trust the speculative market to handle their produce because it is not being handled for the purpose of giving farmers the greatest return for their labour nor to give the consumer the cheapest food possible. It is being handled for the purpose of extracting the greatest possible profit out of the labour of the farmer and out of the consumer of food.
Having come to that conclusion, the next logical step is to find another system by which their food products may be marketed. Various members have proposed various schemes, but in order that there may be no doubt about where we stand on the question I wish to place on record the six points
Agricultural Products Act adopted by our national convention last summer when it dealt with agricultural markets. They read as follows:
The C.C.F. therefore proposes:
1.	A system of guaranteed or forward prices. Minimum prices will be established well ahead of the planting or breeding season to enable farmers to plan their production in advance without worrying about market fluctuations.
2.	Enactment of a national marketing act, and the establishment, with producer and consumer representation, of marketing boards for all agricultural products, which enter into interprovincial or export trade.
3.	Orderly world marketing based on long-term international agreements.
4.	Assistance in the development of co-ops, commodity groups and other farm organizations for orderly marketing.
5.	Elimination of speculation in the marketing of 'foods.
Adoption of the "ever normal granary" principle. The federal government will assume the major responsibility for financing the storage of sufficient feed and seed grains to ensure a continuous supply. It will also construct strategic storage facilities itself and will assist provincial and local governments as well as farmers to build supplementary facilities in all appropriate areas.
If these proposals were adopted-and I think this parliament could adopt them without doing any violence to its political views -they would be practical steps which would help the farmer to dispose of his products to the very best advantage to himself and to the ultimate consumer.
I wish to emphasize that the time has come when scientific methods can be introduced for the processing and the storage of foods which could not be stored some years ago. We have advanced in the field of refrigeration, cold storage and processing to the point where it is possible to carry a far larger proportion of our surplus than was possible some years ago, and we should take full advantage of that. Surely in a world such as we live in, when no one knows when the next famine will come, or where, when no one knows when peace may be violated, it would be only sensible and humane to provide large storage facilities for surplus foods; which could be used in times when production fails. That, together with machinery set up on a nation-wide basis for the proper and orderly marketing of farm products, is what the farmers of Canada want.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to cover the whole field which has been covered by the speakers who have preceded me, but I feel it is my duty at this time, in dealing with wheat, again to place on record the stand of this group in connection with the British wheat agreement. At the time when the agreement was before the house we said that we would support it
486	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Act because we felt that we had a moral obligation to the people of Britain. At the same time we made it quite clear that this was a job for the people of Canada to perform, and under the wheat agreement, and things which have matured since, this whole load is being borne by the wheat growers of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, the Speaker has just ruled that it is out of order to discuss this question on this particular measure. When I tried to get the ruling at first I said that if this was going to be discussed I would reserve the right to answer the statements that were made.


Mr. Quelch:: On the point of order, two speakers, one from the Progressive Conservative party and one from the C.C.F. party, have already spoken and both dealt fully with the question of wheat. Surely, in fairness to other hon. members, at least two members from each party should be allowed to continue the discussion in the way in which it has been conducted up to the present time.


Robert Fair: Since we have a new Speaker in the chair at the moment-


James Garfield Gardiner: It is on record that the
Speaker has ruled that it could not be done. I want it to be understood that if we are to have another ruling-


James Arthur Ross: It has been done by everybody.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: I was
not in the house when the Speaker made the ruling, but I did hear him suggest that it would be in order, if an hon. member was speaking to the point that wheat should be included in this bill. I gathered from his remarks that it would not be in order to deal with wheat unless it was for the purpose of asking that it be included in the bill. If the hon. member is proposing that wheat be included in the bill, then I would not wish to stop him. On the other hand, if he is dealing specifically with wheat, I think he would be out of order.


Robert Fair: Mr. Speaker, when I rose to speak a few moments ago I said clearly that I did not intend to cover the whole field covered by the previous speakers; but in order that our stand might not be misinterpreted I wanted to place on record once more our views in the matter. I think it is only fair that I be permitted to do so, since other parties have spoken, and we have heard two speakers from the other side of the house. I think you are being fair to me, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank you for that.


I had stated that the losses under the British wheat agreement had been borne and are being borne and will continue to be borne by the wheat growers of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and that portion of the Peace river bloc in British Columbia coming under the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. That is not generally known, and perhaps it is well to have it on the record at this time. I am going to state once again, as I have already said, that these losses which will finally be figured out by statisticians should not be borne by the wheat growers of the prairie provinces. That is a responsibility of the people of Canada. It is my hope that the loss will be made good as soon as the amount of it can be properly ascertained. It has been stated that people are looking for tough times in agriculture. It is only natural that those tough times should come again, even though there is no necessity in the world to have them brought about. If they do come again it will be through the machinations of evil men. Some of those evil men may be in the House of Commons and, through legislation passed, become responsible for conditions which may develop later.
Agriculture has always taken the rap. When war comes, the farmers are the last to have the prices of their products raised; but when war is over the farmers are the first to have their prices reduced. Reading from the publication The Budget, published by the Alberta wheat pool, we find this in a recent issue:
The average prices received by farmers in the United States in mid-December, according to the United States department of agriculture, were eleven per cent lower than those prices received a year earlier. Some of the price declines which began last summer were:
Percentage Decline in Price
Feed grains and hay	 40
Food grains	 26
Oil bearing crops	 23
Truck crops	 29
Cotton	 13
Meat animals	 4
Dairy products	 ,9
Poultry, eggs	 1
In the matter of egg and poultry production, my sympathies are with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), who spoke a little while ago. However, I should not want him to get the impression that the wheat growers of the prairie provinces are responsible for the high prices being paid in British Columbia. He must consider the people in between, chief of whom are the railway companies who carry the grain and receive the mountain differential rate for

doing so. Those injustices should be removed -indeed those rates never should have been allowed in the first instance. It is time something was done, and we hope the hon. member for New Westminster will do his share in having that condition rectified. I am sure he will.
In order to give some support to the contention that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is not entirely opposed to the arguments I have made on several occasions, as recently as Wednesday and Thursday of last week, upon which occasions I dealt with wheat-and for that reason I shall not deal with it today-let me quote from the afternoon edition of the Ottawa Journal of yesterday an item bearing the heading "War Sacrifices of Farmers Entitle them to Fair Prices." The article states:
Canadian farmers were "entitled now" to prices which would justify their wartime sacrifices, agriculture minister Gardiner said last night. He was speaking to the annual meeting of the Ontario concentrated milk producers association at the Chateau Laurier. More than 153 delegates are attending the two-day session, the largest in several years.
"Because there have been declines in the United States, people here are suggesting that food prices should drop to that level, forgetting that prices there rose during the war to a peak never experienced here."
The whole idea in preventing high food prices in Canada during wartime was to allow a "levelling out" afterwards, Mr. Gardiner remarked.
He was "inclined to agree" with the popular statement that consumers did not appreciate what farmers did during the war in keeping the cost of food down. Mr. Gardiner said he was "surprised that farmers had not been able to sell that idea fully."
Commenting on that, may I say that farmers and representatives of farmers in the House of Commons have been much too modest and too silent in making demands of the government for their farmer constituents. In what he said last night, the Minister of Agriculture has surely borne out that statement. The article continues:
To reduce the cost of food would mean "bringing down returns to farmers."
"People are inclined to forget that farmers, and dairy farmers in particular, were asked to hold their hand on prices during the war-at a time when they might have charged almost what they wanted."
Then the minister proceeded to deal with trade with Great Britain. I believe I am safe in saying, without fear of successful contradiction, that the evil doings of men in high places are responsible for the restricted trade we have with Great Britain and other countries. In that connection I believe the Bret-ton Woods agreement and the Geneva trade agreement are wholly responsible.
I said earlier in my speech that I was not going to cover the whole field of agriculture. My main purpose in rising was to say that we are going to support the resolution in the
Agricultural Products Act hope that in the future something better will be done for the farmers. Those of us who are alive to conditions which have existed in past years realize that because of the circumstances I have mentioned farmers have lost hundreds of millions of dollars.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a brief word. I am not going to make a political speech, as have other speakers. I made my speech a little earlier in the day over the radio. The best speech I could make to my constituents over the radio would be to quote the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who committed himself publicly last night to the effect that no longer will he permit farmers to be sacrificed.
Let me offer my apologies to the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). I never questioned the quotation he has made; but I must say he has been one of the most proficient in the House of Commons-in a good-natured way-in interrupting the leader of the government, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent). The hon. member ought to be able to take it when occasionally it is handed back to him. I am surprised that this great supporter of Western Canadian farmers would shove down the hill one of the greatest exponents of agriculture this House of Commons has ever known, namely the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Bracken), and, in doing so, do his best to prevent another great exponent of agriculture from Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) from arriving at the position he should have, rather than having the farmers of Canada led by Bay Street. That is all I have to say in that connection.
May I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that I am in the difficult position of not agreeing entirely with any of the three speakers who have preceded me. The Liberal party until recently had held office for twenty-one years under one leader because it adopted the policy of compromise. Perhaps I have adopted that policy by accepting the best parts of the speeches of the three preceding me.
Having the privilege of representing the leading agricultural constituency in British Columbia-and I say that without fear of successful contradiction-I support the resolution offered by the minister. I am not satisfied with what was said by a previous speaker representing the C.C.F. party. We in British Columbia, and certainly in my constituency, want a natural products marketing act, and we are willing to support that. We do not believe, with the hon. member for Souris, that the farmers should continue to be sold down the road for the benefit of a few
488	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Act St. James Street and Bay Street exploiters, and the Winnipeg grain exchange. So far as my constituency is concerned-


James Arthur Ross: On a question of privilege, I have never yet said a word in the House of Commons on behalf of the Winnipeg grain exchange, and I am on record as moving a resolution to abolish it, if possible.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I accept the apology of the hon. member for Souris. In my riding we are not in favour of the Winnipeg grain exchange, and we do believe in a natural products marketing act. Let me point out to the Minister of Agriculture that we in the Fraser valley of British Columbia are not satisfied. I do not agree entirely with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) in what he has said about the grain supplied to our poultrymen. It is not my view that the prairie farmers get all the benefit. Unfortunately it goes to the exploiters in between, including those who collect the freight rates.
I do agree with the hon. member however [DOT]-and perhaps it is not a popular thing to say from a political standpoint-that Great Britain might remember just a little bit more the country which, with all due deference to what they did over there on our behalf during the war, came to their aid to the extent of three billions of dollars. And no class in the Dominion of Canada did more than the farmers of this country by way of sacrifice to see that that large sum was provided.
I am informed through the press-I do not believe all I see in the press unless it is complimentary to myself and then I am quite in accord with it-that the minister stated at Kelowna that he was in favour of and would introduce a dominion marketing act. I can assure him that if that report is correct he will have the one hundred per cent support of the member for Fraser Valley. I hope he will bring it down at this session so that the farmers in Canada will get their just rights.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on the resolution, but as several other hon. members have spoken I should like to say a few words. The general position of this group was placed before the house by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) and I am not going to take up time by repeating what he said. There are one or two aspects of the demand for national marketing legislation which particularly concern some of my constituents.
First of all I must say that I agree with much of what the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) had to say with reference to the position in which the poultry producers find themselves at this time. The same situation which he said was developing in the riding of New Westminster is develop-

ing in the riding of Kootenay West. Many people are going out of poultry production because under the terms of the special products board's contract they cannot produce eggs at a profit, especially during the last year with the increased price of grains.
That is a serious situation to a great number of these people who have invested several years of hard work and in some cases considerable money in building up poultry farms. I do not believe there is any other section of agriculture that is in such an unstable position. I sympathize with the poultry producers because I am under the impression that, owing to the smallness of their number and organization as compared with the grain growers and beef producers and so on, their voice is not listened to in Ottawa to quite the same extent. Before proceeding to say a word or two with regard to the fruit industry I wanted to point out to the minister the serious situation that is facing many of the poultry producers in British Columbia.
For five or ten minutes I am going to speak, not only as a member of this house but as a pioneer settler in the district from which I come, as one who has been connected with the fruit industry for over forty years and who has seen it develop-I am speaking of the apple industry now-from one that was able to ship only a few hundred boxes to one that had a total production of over 8 million boxes in 1947.
The demand for marketing legislation is not a demand by a few members of parliament who represent various parties. The hon. members who have spoken represent the points of view of the agricultural producers in their ridings. They are simply representing the urge and the wish, based on past experience, of the farm producers in their districts.
Experiments have been carried on in British Columbia for many years in developing marketing machinery and various forms of selling organizations. We fully expected that as soon as the war was over a natural products marketing act would come into being. There is a sense of disappointment throughout the fruit-growing industry that that has not happened, particularly at this session. The growers, and rightly so, were very expectant in that regard.
I should like to review the situation briefly, and in doing so I speak of the fruit industry because that is the industry of which I have the greater knowledge. What the growers are asking for is based on experience and knowledge. What they are asking the government to do is to pass legislation which will give them an opportunity to carry their efforts

into a wider field. They will do the work and they will see that the act functions.
The pioneers in my district started to plant orchards about 1905. There were a few trees planted before that, but I think it is safe to say that the commercial planting of orchards in the interior of British, Columbia commenced about 1905. By 1916 we were producing about 1,000,000 boxes. In 1947 we produced approximately 8,000,000 boxes of apples. By that year peaches were up to about 150,000 packages; prunes, 1,000,000 packages and pears over 600,000 packages. That was a short period of time in which to see an industry build up to that extent from zero.
I can remember the early days quite well. For several years we found excellent markets in the local lumbering and mining camps and in the small villages throughout the district. In about five or six years, possibly by 1911 or 1912, considerable shipments were made to the prairies. For a few years we found sufficient outlet for our surplus apples on the prairie markets, apples going east as far as Winnipeg.
By 1913 or 1914 it became obvious to the fruit growers of the interior of British Columbia and to the officials of various organizations representing them that some form of orderly marketing was necessary. As a result of that realization the first large organization in British Columbia was formed known as the Okanagan United Growers. While that was its name its membership included the whole Kootenay group. That organization functioned for a few years, but not very satisfactorily owing to somewhat inexperienced management and the increasing need for marketing legislation.
In 1923 a larger organization was formed. A prominent United States citizen of that date, whose name I think was Aaron Shapiro, came to Kelowna to lecture us on the benefits of a large united co-operative movement. At that time I thought it was simply a waste of time and money, but he had the evangelistic spirit and as a result the Associated Growers of British Columbia was formed. That organization functioned for a few years fairly satisfactorily, but it was realized that voluntary co-operation alone was not sufficient to satisfactorily market the fruit and vegetables produced in the area.
By 1926 there was a growing demand for provincial marketing legislation. Organization meetings were held throughout British Columbia and growers expressed themselves as being definitely in favour of provincial marketing legislation. In 1927 the first provincial marketing act in Canada was passed in British Columbia. That act operated to a limited extent for about two years when it was declared to be ultra vires.
Agricultural Products Act
Then we come to 1934, when the federal government passed the dominion Natural Products Marketing Act. After two years, I understand, that act was declared to be ultra vires. In 1935 a new British Columbia act was drafted and passed and found to be sound law by the privy council. Since that date we have had no difficulty so far as the British Columbia legislation is concerned.
Out of that act developed the tree fruits board of British Columbia, and out of that board has been established Tree Fruits Limited of British Columbia. The authority upon which Tree Fruits Limited is based is twofold. First it receives authority for its organization from the tree fruits board, and secondly by virtue of the three-way contracts signed between growers, shippers, and Tree Fruits Limited. At the present time Tree Fruits Limited is the sole marketing agency in British Columbia for the sale of tree fruits. All this time it was realized that we would have to go further afield to achieve success.
In the matter of provincial legislation and co-operative organizations great success has been achieved. There is no question that the history of marketing in the interior of British Columbia is a credit to any group of growers, and a credit to the executives and officers who have guided and controlled the organizations throughout the years. Every problem has been approached in a constructive way. At this time I want to stress particularly that in British Columbia we have been most fortunate in having a particularly efficient, capable, and fine type of officials administering the fruit organizations.
Then the growing demand for a dominion marketing act arose. In 1938 the Canadian federation of agriculture asked the federal government for the first time to give effect to a dominion marketing act, and it has been asking for that legislation ever since. I believe when the first proposals were made by the Canadian federation of agriculture there was not unanimity throughout all Canada as far as agricultural producers were concerned, but owing to the experience of recent years, the realization of the benefits that accrued under the War Measures Act, and other wartime legislation, and the possibilities of development in somewhat different form for peacetime purposes, there has now been recruited, in support of dominion marketing legislation, the greater body of the farmers in this country.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may be permitted to
keep the record straight on the matter, the hon. member has said that the Canadian federation of agriculture have been asking for it ever since. In 1938 they came before the government asking for a marketing act,

Agricultural Products Act and they also did so in 1939. In 1939, however, we intimated to them that we intended to take control of the marketing of most farm products for the duration of the war under the measures with which we are dealing today in this act. From that time until the war ended, the Canadian federation of agriculture did not ask for a marketing act, but immediately the war was over they asked for it again.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister is quite correct, but I think I was correct in so far as the desire and demand for an act was there. Like many other activities, however, it was suspended during the period of the war. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to stress, as I did on first rising, that this proposal is not a child of the members of the house. It is a grass-roots proposal that comes right from the farmers themselves. That has been very clearly demonstrated to me quite recently, as it has been many times before. Recently I attended a meeting of my own local of the Kootenay organization. There again a resolution was passed urging the adoption of a national marketing act. The British Columbia federation of agriculture held its convention in Kelowna on November 24 and 25, 1948. The delegates passed a resolution which I should like to read. It is as follows:
Whereas the need for dominion marketing legislation is now more urgent than ever before as farmers face changing conditions with increasing production costs and declining demand for many of their products, and
Whereas at a public meeting held at Kelowna, B.C., on May 17, 1948, the dominion Minister of Agriculture stated that the government was prepared to enact marketing legislation that would meet the demands of Canadian farmers;
Therefore be it resolved that this 1948 convention of the B.C. federation of agriculture instructs the Canadian federation of agriculture to register an emphatic protest with the Canadian government against the unreasonable delay in introducing marketing legislation, which legislation is now recognized by all main political parties as being necessary and desirable.
That, if unable to obtain from the government a definite promise that a satisfactory marketing act will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity, the federation insist upon being given valid reasons for the ignoring of the wishes of the farmers of Canada by failure on the part of the government to furnish them with a legal basis upon which the marketing of their products could be stabilized.
That resolution was carried unanimously. Since that meeting I have had the opportunity, with the member for Yale (Mr. Jones), to attend the meeting of the Canadian horticultural society and I am sure he will endorse all I am saying here today. At that meeting we heard the disappointment expressed by the delegates attending it representing fruit interests from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
I am not quite sure of the terms of their resolution, but they adopted one expressing


their disappointment with regard to the failure of the government to pass a marketing act, and urging that all parties be asked to declare their stand on the matter before the expected federal election.
I think this demand has been a matter of slow evolution. It is not legislation that is being asked for as a result of hasty and unconsidered action. It is the culmination of a long period of evolution, experience and practice in the marketing of agricultural products in this country, co-operative experience, experience with provincial marketing legislation, experience with war measures, experience with commodity agreements, and so on. As I have said before, I believe the people have laid the foundation for such legislation as a result of their own efforts, their own work, and their own experience. I urge the minister and the government to give consideration to their plea, and by so doing forge the necessary link between provincial and international marketing.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate at the present time because I am anxious to place before the house the position of a great number of people who live in my constituency, and who are engaged in a particular form of agricultural pursuit, namely, that of the poultry industry. I do not think that it is exaggerating to say that there is no branch of agriculture which is facing greater uncertainties and greater difficulties at the present time than the poultry industry. It is because of the condition which has been produced that I wonder whether the result of the activities carried out under the Agricultural Products Act justifies the continuation of that act for another period of time. It was only a few years ago that representatives of the government toured Vancouver island urging various people to go into the poultry business, and urging poultrymen to increase their production. During the war the poultrymen co-operated in every possible way, and in the years succeeding the war every effort was made by them to increase production, and to produce eggs and other poultry products at a time when those products were most urgently required in the United Kingdom market, as suggested by representatives of the Department of Agriculture who traveled about the province.
As a result, egg production was increased from something like one million dozen before the war to as much as eighty-nine million dozen during the war. An endeavour was made also' to meet the desire of the department that early chicks be produced. This could be done on Vancouver island, because of our climate, but to do so it was necessary to expand plant, to construct different types of poultry houses, and so on, all of which

meant an increased outlay by the poultrymen. They constructed new buildings, invested in new types of equipment for breeding and hatching purposes, and also invested in new and better types of stock. After the war many veterans entered this business, investing their savings and gratuities.
About that time the cost of all materials began to rise; and even though it cannot be laid right at the door of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), this government must take some responsibility for those increasing costs; the cost of living, the cost of construction materials, equipment and labour required for the additional buildings and to look after the increased flocks. Very shortly after that the price of feed began to increase. When the subsidies on feed grain were removed the price jumped $10 a ton. Freight rates have also gone up, as we all know. All these factors have contributed to the increased cost of the feed the poultryman on Vancouver island must purchase. So I do not think it is reasonable to suggest that the prairie farmer has been in any way unfair. I have lived on the prairies too long not to have the greatest sympathy for those farmers. In any event, the cost of feed has gone up, and that is a reality we must face today. I believe now it costs as much on the Pacific coast to purchase feed grain as it costs to buy No. 1 milling grain landed in the United Kingdom.
Then came the greatest catastrophe of all. After all the encouragement given the industry to expand, the government failed to obtain the same type of contract they had previously negotiated with the United Kingdom; in other words the United Kingdom began to curtail its purchases of poultry and poultry products. In the years 1946 and 1947 thousands of tons of poultry products were purchased by the United Kingdom. Now those purchases are being discontinued. Only a few weeks ago the Canadian poultry council stated that the United Kingdom had taken the entire surplus of poultry production ever since 1941; then they added these words: "Now our contracts are obscured by monetary difficulties." They urge the government to seek new markets other than those of the United Kingdom, in order to take care of what they describe as the $40 million worth of eggs now being produced.
Actually in the last two years the United Kingdom has been increasing her imports of poultry products, not from Canada but from such countries as Eire and Denmark. According to government statistics her total imports have shown an increase of 38 per cent in the first six months of 1948 as compared with the first six months of 1947. On the other hand imports of eggs from Canada have decreased. If, as we believe, our eggs are superior to 29087-322
Agricultural Products Act those of other countries, surely some way can be found by which we may supply those excellent eggs to the people of the United Kingdom, who quite obviously are anxious to obtain poultry products since their total imports have been increasing.
Not long ago, I believe, the Minister of Agriculture announced that Canada's contract for this year had been reduced by something like thirty million dozen eggs. At the present time the special products board, which markets our eggs, has discontinued buying fresh eggs for shipment to Great Britain and is concentrating upon buying eggs for drying purposes. When the minister was asked by the poultry council about these wider markets to make up for the reduced market in Great Britain, he suggested that we were overproducing eggs, which was rather a change from the attitude taken by his department ony a few years before, when poultrymen were asked to increase their production. In a newspaper report appearing in the Vancouver Daily Province, coming from New Westminster, I find this statement:
Present indications are that B.C. egg production this spring will not be sufficient to permit this province to participate in the 1949 contracts, said Mr. Gardiner.
That is discouraging to the poultrymen of British Columbia. If these contracts have been made with Great Britain, are the poultrymen of British Columbia to be prohibited from participating in them?


James Garfield Gardiner: Just to keep the record
straight, I did not make that statement.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am merely quoting from a report in the Daily Province, and if it has misquoted the minister I am sure it will regret having done so. Perhaps later the minister will be able to explain what was his exact statement in that regard. Then the newspaper report goes on to say:
The regular domestic and nearby export trade would take all the production from B.C. and permit the establishment of egg prices above those of a year ago.
I do not believe the domestic market in British Columbia can possibly take care of the production of eggs in that province.
Then we find a rather different note being sounded in another report from the Vancouver Daily Province, in which the minister is supposed to have been told:
Hethat is referring to the minister.
-had been told repeatedly Canada's egg production was far too high in relation to the market this country can hope for in the next few years.
"There is danger in the quantity of eggs being produced at present." he said.

Agricultural Products Act
That is a complete change from the encouragement which was given only a few years ago. Still, the producer in British Columbia has difficulty in selling his eggs to the continental United States. It is my understanding that export permits still have to be obtained for eggs to be exported to the United States. I believe those export permits are given according to the percentage of the quota supplied by any particular producer.
The minister is again reported as saying that he sees no immediate likelihood of any change being made in the price of food. Quite obviously there is some reason for the concern which the poultrymen of British Columbia now have over the future. I do not think I am exaggerating if I say I think it is a sad state of affairs that we cannot distribute our goods to satisfy the needs of the people of the world. The reason seems to be that we are beset with quotas, licences, prohibitions and embargoes which hinder the free distribution of goods. There is also the monetary difficulty which now hampers production and distribution of our raw materials. This could be removed. It seems to me the sooner the government realize they cannot legislate or regiment Canada into an era of prosperity, the better it will be.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask the date of the
newspaper article in the Daily, Province?


George Randolph Pearkes: May I send it over to you? I find I have not the date on the article.
I should like to continue from the point I left off when interrupted by the minister. If the poultrymen of British Columbia are to be able to cover the overhead on their investment in trying to meet these requests of the department for increased production, then it is essential that production be maintained. I should like to put on the record what I think might be described as the average return which might be received from a first-class flock of hens. It will be a conservative estimate. Let us assume that a hen produces about $6.10 worth of eggs during the year. Feed in British Columbia for a hen that would produce eggs to that value would cost approximately $5.10, which would leave a margin of seventy cents to cover expenses and profit.
On motion of Mr. Pearkes the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Arthur Leroy Smith: May I say that I asked the Prime Minister if he would let us go on Friday evenings at six o'clock. I
now change that request to ask if we could go tonight at six o'clock. We have made a great deal of progress this week and I wonder whether whoever is leading the house would consider adjourning now until Monday.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I was informed this afternoon that there was some objection to adjourning at six o'clock. We would need the unanimous consent of the house to do so, and the government is prepared to accede if there are no objections.


Some hon. Members:: Carried. .


Alphonse Fournier: Well then, we will adjourn.


Gordon Graydon: What will be the business on Monday?


Alphonse Fournier: On Monday we will first take up the resolution under government notices of motion relating to Newfoundland. The second order of business will be Bill No. 12, an act to amend the statute law. When that is completed, we will take up the resolution we were discussing this afternoon, and when that is completed, the emergency resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the question of the order of business, was it not understood that when we finally completed everything in relation to Newfoundland we would return to the debate on the address?


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps there was some misunderstanding. After consulting my colleagues, I was told that a motion was made for government notices of motion and government orders to precede other business until the 18th of February. It was for that reason I suggested this order.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister will remember that, when this was discussed with me, there was a definite assurance that we would return to the address as soon as the Newfoundland matter was disposed of. That was the understanding I gave to my friends and the understanding upon which we agreed to defer the debate on the address.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will be in his seat on Monday. I suggest that Monday be devoted to the business that has been announced and that at that time a decision be made as to the business to follow.


Major James William Coldwell: So long as an attempt is made to clear up the matter.
On motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) the house adjourned at six o'clock.

Monday, February 14, 1949