1950-03-27

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, March 23, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) gave notice that today he would move the following motion:
That on Monday, the 27th of March instant, and on Wednesday, the 29th of March instant, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all business except the introduction of bills, questions and. notices of motions for the production of papers.
On Friday night I announced that this motion would be moved today. In the absence of the Prime Minister, on his behalf I now move the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Paul E. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table P.C. 1317, of March 14, 1950, authorizing the Minister of Labour to enter into an agreement on behalf of the government of Canada with each of the provinces for the movement and placement of persons in employment in agriculture and related industries, upon terms and conditions substantially in accordance with the form of agreement marked as schedule I attached but with such variations therein as the Minister of Labour may deem necessary to meet the requirements of the farm labour program of any province.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 55, respecting the Limitholders' Mutual Insurance Company.-Mr. Lesage.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Zina Sarah Fletcher Tannenbaum.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Fred Marcus. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Belva Rubin Bercusson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Reginald E. Martin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Dora Moore Holland Towers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Betty Bendit-sky Kursner Kobernick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Elizabeth Goodman Goldberg.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Helene Eugenie Hortense Holmes Said.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Amanda Doris Drachler Segalowitz, otherwise known as Amanda Doris Drachler Selton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Florence Druckman Oliver.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Albert Gedeon Martin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Brandel Avru-tick Cutler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Freda Geraldine Rodgers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Hattie May Dawson Wood.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Marie Yvonne Bouchard O'Rourke.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Ethel Margaret Murphy Watson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Clifford Willis Collins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Alfred Beatty Harris.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Claire Jeanne D'Arc Sagala De Montignac.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Nora Maria De Montignac Des Jardins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Rita Annie Wylie Morrow.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Olga Veleky Stepanovitch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Beatrice Norma Sabbath Finestone.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Adele Kuz-netz Paquette.-Mr. Winkler.

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

Mr. Campney:: Is any scientific research carried out in the labora-ties of the food and drug divisions of the Department of National Health and Welfare?


Mr. Martin:: Yes. Certain research work is necessary in devising new methods for detecting adulteration of foods and drugs and determining potency or safety of drugs and for the setting of standards for both

Questions
foods and drugs. Fundamental research is also carried out on the physiological action of drugs and on nutritional problems. This research involves pharmacology, pharmacy, physiology, organic and biochemistry, microbiology, physics, analytical chemistry and mathematics.


DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICINES AND DRUGS TO SANATORIA
Mr. Gingues:: 1.	Is the federal government contributing to the purchase of the streptomycin distributed free of charge in the various sanatoria?
2.	If so, what amount is being expended for that purpose in the province of Quebec?
3.	What is the amount allotted to the St. Francis sanatorium of Sherbrooke?
4.	Is the federal government contributing to the purchase of other medicine distributed free of charge in our sanatoria?
5.	If so, how much (a) in the province of Quebec; (b) at Sherbrooke?


Mr. Marlin:: 1.	Yes. The streptomycin which is purchased with the funds contributed by the federal government under the tuberculosis control grant is distributed free of charge in the various sanatoria, but beyond this the provinces act on their own initiative so far as free distribution of the drug is concerned.
2.	Amount of
Fiscal	approved	Amountyear	projects	expended1948- 49 .... $ 14,423.08	$14,423.081949-	50	
100,000.00	56,957.10*1950- 51 ____ 90,000.00t	___
*April 1, 1949 to Dec. 31, 1949.
tContinuing project pending approval.
3.	1948-49, $260; 1949-50, $5,445.
4.	Yes. The drug PAS (paramino-salicylic acid) is purchased with the funds contributed by the federal government under the tuberculosis control grant for distribution free of charge in sanatoria in certain provinces, including the province of Quebec.
5.	(a)	1948-49-nil (drug not generally
available). 1949-50-$50,000 approved (no accounts submitted as yet for payment). 1950-51-$60,000 approved (continuing project). (b) 1949-50-no information available at the moment.


STRAIT OF CANSO BRIDGE
Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	Will the province of Nova Scotia make a contribution to the construction of the proposed Canso bridge?
2.	Has an agreement been entered into with the province of Nova Scotia?
3.	What is the estimated cost of (a) the bridge:
(b)	the approaches for highways and for railways;
(c)	all other expenses?

4.	What contribution will be made by (a) government of Nova Scotia; (b) government of Canada; (c) Canadian National Railways?
5.	What is the estimated annual maintenance cost, and by whom payable?
6.	When is it expected that (a) tenders will be called; (b) construction work will start; (c) construction will be completed and highway and railway traffic be carried across the bridge?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No formal agreement.
3.	(a) $10,636,198; (b) $3,015,930; (c) $634,647.
4.	(a) One-third of the cost or $5 million, whichever is the lesser; (b) balance of cost; (c) nil.
5.	The estimate of the board of engineers is $68,000. Payable by the Canadian National Railways.
6.	(a) July, 1950; (b) main piers in spring of 1951; (c) late 1953 or early 1954.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many Canadian National Railways employees retired in each of the years 1948 and 1949 with retirement pensions of (a) $25 per month; (b) between $25 and $30 per month?
2.	How many officials with salaries over $5,000 per year retired or resigned in each of the said years?
3.	Did any of the said officials receive a bonus, retirement payment or any allowance whatsoever additional to or along with the regular retirement pension? If so, to whom, and what was the amount paid in each case?


Mr. Chevrier:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	(a) 1948, 311; 1949, 355.
(b) 1948, 53; 1949, 87.
2.	1948, 28; 1949, 35.
3.	The management of the Canadian National Railways has always taken the position that it would not be in the interest of the company or its personnel to make public information pertaining to the salary arrangements or remuneration paid to officers.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
Mr. Diefenbaker:: How many (a) married men; (b) married women; (c) single men; (d) single women, were paid unemployment insurance benefits in each of the months July, 1949, to February, 1950, both inclusive?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: The total number of persons who were paid unemployment insurance benefits in each of the months July, 1949, to February, 1950, is estimated as follows:
Number of persons, July, 1949, 65,957; August, 1949, 62,705; September, 1949, 65,443; October, 1949, 71,838; November, 1949, 104,320; December, 1949, 125,225; January, 1950, 218,963; February, 1950, 232,359.

The break-down requested is not available. However, of those who established benefit years in the period and who would be drawing benefit in the period, the percentage in each category is as follows:
Males with dependents, 38-2; males without dependents, 35-4; females with dependents, 1-4; females without dependents, 25.
BUTTER AND OLEOMARGARINE Mr. Fair:
How many pounds of butter were produced in Canada in the calendar year 1949?
2.	During the same period, how many pounds of margarine were manufactured?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	333,773,000.
2.	73,958,000.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Fraser:: 1.	What was the total cost of advertising done by the taxation branch of the Department of National Revenue in 1949 in (a) street cars; (b) buses; (c) daily newspapers; (d) weekly newspapers; (e) other mediums of advertising than radio?
2.	What is the estimated total cost of the same form of advertising for 1950?


Mr. McCann:: 1 and 2.
1949	1950
f(a) and (b) street cars
and buses	$ 15,746.63 $20,000
f(c) and (d) daily and weekly newspapers ... 11,985.05	3,000
(e) Other mediums than
radio	 Nil Nil
Total	$27,731.68 $23,000
fNo separate statistics are available.
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO______
CONSUMERS' EXPENDITURES Mr. Diefenbaker:
What was the total amount of consumers' expenditures in Canada for (a) alcoholic beverages of all kinds; (b) tobacco; (c) cigars; (d) cigarettes, in each of the years 1948 and 1949?


Mr. Mcllraifh:: Information not available.
These statistics are not compiled in such a manner as to provide the information requested.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
SALARIES OVER $10,000 Mr. Hodgson:
1.	What is the salary of president of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	What are the salaries of the vice-presidents and who are they?
3.	How many other officials of the railway receive over $10,000 per year?
4.	Who are they, what are their positions, and how much does each receive?
Questions
Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	$45,000 per annum.
2,	3 and 4. The management of the Canadian National Railways has always taken the position that it would not be in the interest of the company or its personnel to make public information pertaining to the salary arrangements or remuneration paid to officers.



IMPORTS OF BUILDING STONE

Mr. Sinnoii:: 1.	How much building stone was imported from the United States in 1949?
2.	What was the value of this stone?


George James McIlraith: 1 and 2.
Imports from the United States, year 1949 Item	Cwt. Value
Granite, rough 	[DOT]L 1	$ 53,325Granite, sawn 	t	41,136Marble, rough 	t	24,880Marble, sawn 	f	30,259Marble, ornamental, for churches 	778Building stone, other than granite or marble	301,702	213,475tQuantity not recorded in trade statistics.



SUNNYBROOK MILITARY HOSPITAL


[Stage Direction]
COAL	*
Mr. Catherwood:: 1.	What is the contract price per quart for milk to be delivered to the Sunnybrook military hospital, Toronto, for the year 1950?
2.	What is the contract price per ton for coal to be delivered to Sunnybrook military hospital for the year 1950?
3.	Were tenders called for these contracts?
4.	If so, what are the names of those who submitted tenders, and what was the amount of each tender?


Mr. Gregg:: 1.	Contract at present in force covering period November 1, 1949, to April 30, 1950: 55 cents per gallon.
2.	Contract at present in force for the 194950 heating season: $8.43 per ton.
3.	Yes.
4.	Milk-Highland Dairy, Toronto, Ont., 55 cents per gallon; Acme Farmers Dairy, Toronto, Ont., 58 cents per gallon; Canada Dairy, Toronto, Ont., 58 cents per gallon; Uplands Dairy, Toronto, Ont., 58 cents per gallon; Rice's Dairy, Toronto, Ont., 58 cents per gallon; Rose Lawn Dairy, Toronto, Ont., 58 cents per gallon; Silverwoods Dairy, Toronto, Ont., 58 cents per gallon; Donlands Dairy, Toronto! Ont., 60 cents per gallon; Borden Co., Toronto, Ont., 60 cents per gallon.
Coal-F. P. Weaver Coal Co., Toronto, Ont., $8.43 per ton; Dominion Coal Co., Toronto, Ont., $8.87 per ton; Rochester & Pittsburg

Questions
Coal, Toronto, Ont., $8.96 per ton; Empire Hanna Coal Co., Toronto, Ont., $9.00 per ton; Valley Camp Coal Co., Toronto, Ont., $9.05 per ton; Canada Coal Co., Toronto, Ont., $9.06 per ton; Conger-Lehigh Coal Co., Toronto, Ont., $9.16 per ton; Dominion Coal Co., Toronto, Ont., $9.19 per ton; F. P. Weaver Coal Co., Toronto, Ont., $9.27 per ton; The Milnes Coal Co., Toronto, Ont., $9.30 per ton; Great Lakes Coal Co., Toronto, Ont., $9.33 per ton; Harbour Coal Co., Toronto, Ont., $9.70 per ton.



FERRY SERVICE BETWEEN YARMOUTH, N.S., AND STATE OF MAINE

Mr. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth):: 1.	Have negotiations been carried on between the federal government and1 the government of the province of Nova Scotia concerning the provision of a ferry service between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and a port in Maine, United States of America?
2.	If so, has financial agreement between the two parties been reached?
3.	Has a conference between the two parties been held since March 9, 1950?
4.	Will the construction be a joint undertaking?
5.	Will the ferry be operated by the Canadian National Railways?
6.	Are detailed scale plans now being prepared?
7.	If so, what firm of naval architects has been engaged?
8.	What decisions have been reached as to (a) size of ferry: (b) number, if any, of staterooms;
(c)	service speed of ship; (d) type of propulsion machinery; (e) number of decks; (f) automobile and truck capacity; (g) passenger capacity; (h) facilities for recreation; (i) facilities for catering?
9.	When is it expected that the ferry will be put into operation?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No formal agreement.
3.	Yes. On March 13, at Halifax.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes.
7.	Messrs. Milne, Gilmore & German, Montreal.
8.	(a) Length (between perpendiculars) 350'-0, approximately; maximum moulded breadth, 66'-0, approximately; (b) still under consideration; (c) still under consideration;
(d)	still under consideration; (e) 5; (f) 200; (g) 1,000; (h) still under consideration; (i) dining-room, cafeteria, lunch counter.
9.	Summer of 1951.



SALES TAX


Mr. Benidickson:: How much money was collected in 1948 and 1949 from imposition of sales tax on (a) coffee; (b) tea?


James Joseph McCann: Information not available. No separate statistics are maintained of sales tax collected on individual commodities.
[Mr. Gregg.1



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Fair:: 1.	How many persons received unemployment insurance each month since March 1, 1949?
2.	What amount was paid each month?
3.	What is the monthly cost of administration?


Paul-Émile Côté: 1, 2 and 3.
Number
of
March, 1949 		Persons 	 240,088
April, 1949 			 191,677
May, 1949 			 150,747
June, 1949 			 111,811
July, 1949 			 65,957
August, 1949 			 62,705
September, 1949 			 65,443
October, 1949 			 71,838
November, 1949 			 104,320
December, 1949 			 125,225
January, 1950 			 218,963
February, 1950 			 232,359
March, 1949 		Amount 	 $10,399,831.63
April, 1949 			 7,605,833.49
May, 1949 			 5,511,135.01
June, 1949 			 4,113,253.49
July, 1949 			 3,371,182.48
August, 1949 			 3,716,999.74
September, 1949 			 3,671,772.62
October, 1949 			 3,845,541.33
November, 1949 			 5,048,372.50
December, 1949 			 7,181,001.68
January, 1950 			 11,781,142.67
February, 1950 			 13.605,340.11
March, 1949 		Admin. Costs 	 $2,471,112.43
April, 1949 			 1,429,407.67
May, 1949 			 1,522,019.11
June, 1949 			 1,642,382.37
July, 1949 			 1,569,649.60
August, 1949 			 1,545,802.60
September, 1949 			 1,660,634.72
October, 1949 			 1,546,303.91
November, 1949 			 1,649,243.73
December, 1949 			 1,771,172.81
January, 1950 			 1,663,546.12
February, 1950 			 1,887,465.94
Note: The exact figures are not available as to the number of persons receiving unemployment insurance each month. The figures given are an estimate based on the number of persons paid during one week of each month.



POPULATION

Mr. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth):: 1.	What is the present estimated total population of Canada?

2.	What is the present estimated population of Canada between the ages of sixteen and seventy
(a)	male; (b) female?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Estimated population of Canada, June 1,
1949, (including Newfoundland, Yukon and Northwest Territories):	Total, 13,549,000;
male, 6,896,800; female, 6,652,200.
2.	Estimated population of Canada between the ages of sixteen and seventy (June 1, 1949): Total, 8,779,800; male, (a) 4,471,700; female,
(b)	4,308,100.



ST. MICHEL DE BELLECHASSE, QUE., WHARF

Mr. Courlemanche:: 1.	Was a wharf constructed at St. Michel de Bellechasse in 1949?
2.	If so, who performed such work?
3.	What was the cost of same?
4.	By whom was the cement supplied, and at what cost?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	A contract was let for repairs to the wharf at St. Michel de Bellechasse, P.Q., in October 1948. The work is not yet completed.
2.	Contract awarded to J. Lionel Bizier, Quebec, P.Q.
3.	Amount of contract, $78,722.75.
4.	Cement was supplied under item No. 9 of unit price contract at the tendered price of 90 cents per sack.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


INCOME TAX


Mr. Noseworthy:: 1.	What is the amount of compulsory savings returned to the Canadian people during the months of January to June, inclusive, 1949?
2.	What is the amount of compulsory savings returned to the Canadian people in each of the six months January to June inclusive, in 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948?
3.	What is the amount of compulsory savings returned to the Canadian people in each of the six months July to December inclusive, in each year 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949?
_ 4. What is the amount refunded on overpaid income tax in each of the six months January to June inclusive, 1949?
5.	What is the amount of overpaid taxes returned to the Canadian people in each of the six months January to June inclusive, in 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948?
6.	What is the amount of overpaid income taxes returned to the Canadian people in each of the six months July to December inclusive, in each year, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949?
7.	What is the amount of payments made directly by the Department of National Revenue to Canadian citizens during the six months January to June inclusive, 1949, for reasons other than the refunding of compulsory savings and overpaid income taxes?


James Joseph McCann: Return tabled.
55946-73J
Orders for Returns



PRINTING BUREAU BUILDING

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	What was the cost of the site of the proposed printing bureau in Hull, Quebec?
2.	From whom was the land purchased, and how much did each receive?
3.	What is the total cost to date for surveys, architect's fees?
4.	What is the estimated further expenditure required to complete this project?


Alphonse Fournier: Return tabled.



COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS   LICENCES, ROYALTIES, ETC.

Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	How many licences did the government or the Department of the Secretary of State of Canada authorize the Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada, Limited, Toronto, to issue in Canada in 1949?
2.	What was the total amount collected for the issuance of these licences?
3.	What was the total amount collected by the Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada, Limited, in 1949, by way of fees, charges, royalties and other imposts?
4.	What was the total amount collected in 1949 by the government in connection with such licences, fees, charges, royalties and other imposts?
5.	Have increased charges been authorized for 1950 over previous years?


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.
st. John's, nfld., public buildings


Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Have plans been made by the government to erect a federal public building or buildings in St. John's, Newfoundland?
2.	If so (a) for how many buildings; (b) in what locations?



VANCOUVER POSTAL STATIONS AND LETTER CARRIER DEPOTS

Mr. Green:: 1.	Which postal stations and letter carrier depots in Vancouver are held under lease?
2.	What are the street addresses of such postal stations and letter carrier depots?
3.	Who are the lessors named in the respective leases?
4.	What persons signed such leases as or on behalf of the respective lessors?
5.	What is the annual rental payable under each such lease?
6.	To whom are such rentals now payable?
7.	What are the respective dates of such leases, and for what periods of time do they run?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: For a copy of all correspondence, documents and other papers relating to the agreement recently made between the government of Canada and the government of the United States, or any aviation companies of the United States, for the use of Gander airport.
1134	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry



UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of all reports in the possession of the unemployment insurance commission, dated since September 1, 1949, having to do with unemployment in Canada.


Paul-Émile Côté: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. friend will let this stand, and see me personally about it. I should like to meet his request as best I can, but I am not in a position to do so at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Atfairs. Apparently a new halibut treaty between the United States and Canada was signed last week. Would it be possible to have a copy of the treaty tabled?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secreiary of Stale for External Affairs):: It is true that a halibut treaty was signed last Friday afternoon by my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and the United States ambassador. The treaty will be tabled as soon as it is mimeographed and translated, within a few days.



MOTOR VEHICLES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue with regard to an order made by his department, to become effective next Thursday, under which the making out of new automobile identification forms is required to be made daily at the port of exit, or on every occasion on which a Canadian motorist crosses the border to visit the United States. This regulation, if carried out at such places as Windsor, Ontario; North Portal, Saskatchewan; White Rock, British Columbia, and other places-


Mr. Mitchell:: Don't forget Niagara Falls.


John George Diefenbaker: I did mention that there were other places, and I should have mentioned Niagara Falls and Prescott. This order will discourage traffic and result in chaos. It would seem to be a needless requirement. Will the minister reconsider the matter, and,


instead of enforcing this order requiring the form to be signed each day, follow the old system of having one form operative for a year?


James Joseph McCann: It is not a matter of giving reconsideration to an order that, has gone out. There has been a very slight change in our system in order to ensure better control of Canadian automobile traffic to the United States. We are continuing the system heretofore in effect for border residents who have occasion to go to the United States regularly. The change does not in any way affect our American tourists coming to Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps I might ask a question arising out of the minister's answer. Is there not a new regulation which requires that a form be signed each time a person enters the United States? That is the information the officials at border points have. Will the minister explain what the new regulation is? He says that it does not affect certain points, but does it apply to all other ports of entry?


James Joseph McCann: The new order will not affect people at border points who are in the habit of crossing regularly. They will have permits to indicate that they cross regularly, and those permits will be honoured for a period of six months. Persons who do not cross regularly will be required to fill in the form now being issued. There will be no inconvenience to those who live in Canada and go to the United States regularly and are known to the officers at the different ports of exit.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) asked a question, as reported on page 1086 of Hansard as follows:
In view of today's press reports, quoting a statement of the Minister of National Defence ini regard to the new four-engine prototype transport aircraft which is to be delivered shortly to the Royal Canadian Air Force, will the minister inform the House of Commons as to the date on which the Canadian Commercial Corporation was advised that the Royal Canadian Air Force required this aircraft?
I am informed by the Canadian Commercial Corporation that it was first advised of this requirement on December 23, 1948. The contract demand for this aircraft was actually presented to the corporation on January 4, 1949.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ACT


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 16, to amend the Agricultural Products Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the house to follow the same practice in connection with this bill and Bill No. 17, to amend the Agricultural Prices Support Act, that was followed on Thursday last in connection with the two resolutions. This bill contains only one section, to provide for the extension of the operation of the act for one year. As I explained the other day, this is merely to make it possible for us to carry out our undertakings under the agreements with Great Britain this year having to do with cheese and pork products.
On Thursday last I suggested that it would be quite all right to have full discussion of this measure when we were considering the resolution which preceded Bill No. 17. As the proposer of this measure I suggest that it might be helpful if we followed the same practice in this instance. If the suggestion meets with the approval of the members of the different groups, perhaps this bill could go through to third reading, and all discussion can take place on the motion for second reading of the other bill, or when it is in committee.


Mr. Charlton:: In view of the fact that this bill is only for one year, we have no particular opposition to its going through at the present time.


Mr. Wright:: I think we shall have to object to the procedure suggested by the minister. We recognize that this act is necessary for the carrying out of the present contracts, and we will support it for that reason; nevertheless we do not believe the act is sufficient to meet the present requirements of agriculture. We intend to move an amendment; therefore we cannot consent to second reading at this time. As was stated by a number of members of this group who spoke the other day, we feel that to extend the provisions for just another year does not meet the requirements of the agricultural industry in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) if he is making a speech, but if he has spoken to a point of order, and if there is not to be unanimous consent, we shall have to proceed with this motion in the usual way.


James Garfield Gardiner: While I cannot object to the procedure that has been proposed, I would
Agricultural Products Act point out that this bill only involves the continuation of powers which were given under the War Measures Act. I doubt if there is any way in which the house could continue this measure beyond a limited time, whether that time is a year or more than a year. There might be some discussion about that, but the position the government has taken since 1947 is that this kind of measure can be extended only for one year at a time. I think all the opposition have in general agreed with that principle. The only question is whether we extend it for another year or whether we do not extend it at all.


Percy Ellis Wright: I cannot agree with what the minister has just said. The war has been over for some five years, and the emergency period following the war must now have come to an end-


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Agriculture has moved that the bill be read a second time. If the minister has spoken on that motion, when he speaks again he will close the debate. Is the hon. member for Melfort now speaking to the motion, and has the Minister of Agriculture completed his remarks on the motion?


James Garfield Gardiner: I was just attempting to raise a point of order as to what procedure we should follow. I would prefer to have that decided before going into the other matter, because the debate on that could last for two or three days.


Percy Ellis Wright: The members of this group are not prepared to give consent to the second reading of this bill at this time without discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Agriculture has moved that the bill be now read a second time.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, before this bill is given second reading there are certain matters which I think should be discussed to a greater extent than was the case when the resolution which foreshadowed this bill was before the house. The house will remember that we gave consent to the resolution passing and to having the discussion on the resolution which preceded Bill No. 17, to amend the Agricultural Prices Support Act.
We contend that the principle involved in this bill, that of setting up a board in Canada to take care of the export of surplus agricultural products, should be placed on a permanent basis rather than be extended from year to year as in the past, depending on the state of emergency which exists as a result of the war. We have followed that procedure for the last four years, and as a result of the temporary methods which have been followed we have

Agricultural Products Act lost most of our markets for surplus agricultural products. So far as we are concerned we see no possible way of winning back those markets under this type of legislation. Only when we have permanent legislation shall we be able to make agreements and supply our customers, not only in England but in European countries, with products which are uniform, and which we can guarantee to supply regularly from year to year. The European market is demanding uniformity of quality in the products supplied to them, and continuity of supply. I do not think that is possible unless there is permanent legislation to provide for the supplying of those markets.
Surpluses of agricultural products are beginning to appear all over the North American continent. The international federation of agricultural producers, when they met in Paris in 1948, realized this problem. They stated in their report:
It is essential that effective machinery should be provided to deal with any surpluses that may develop, to ensure that they are directed to areas of the greatest need, and that such surpluses should not be allowed to undermine the world price structure.
When this organization met at Guelph, *Ontario, a year ago, they came to the same conclusion, and they set up a committee which would make recommendations to the food and agricultural organization at their meeting in Washington last year. That committee recommended at Washington that an organization should be set up under FAO for the distribution of surplus agricultural products to needy areas throughout the world. The recommendation of IFAP was not accepted by the food and agricultural organization, which set up a commodity committee to endeavour to ascertain the best way to distribute surplus products. If we are to work in conjunction with international organizations, we must have a national export act under which surpluses can be collected in Canada and turned over, when the time comes, to the international organization for distribution in the needy areas of the world.
As a matter of fact the Minister of Agriculture, addressing the food and agricultural organization in Washington, indicated it was his opinion that the national government should set up some organization for performing this particular function.
He said:
Any transactions developed under the short term trading functions will be subject to concurrence by the governments concerned, and the major details of such transactions will also be subject to agreement by governments.
This being the case it hardly seems necessary to have an international agency actually buying and selling in commodity markets. It may even be questioned whether such activity in commodity markets by an international agency is desirable. It

seems to us, therefore, that the question of the creation of a large capital fund for such a purpose is not necessarily an issue.
Later he stated:
Lord Boyd Orr, in presenting his proposal for a world food board, had in mind the fact that the world had surpluses during certain periods and extreme shortages in other periods. It was his purpose to stabilize returns to producers and costs to consumers by setting aside surplus quantities in good years for periods of shortages. As has been pointed out in other conferences, however, national governments can, and do, perform this function . . .
In other words, it is one of the functions under the present measure which we are extending for one year, but we are only renewing it for one year and we do not believe that is sufficient. The minister went on to say:
Canada, for example, has provided for the holding of stocks of wheat under government control. Moreover, it is probably consistent with other developments to envision the long-term holding of stocks as an element in an over-all commodity agreement.
I agree with the minister. If we are to carry out what he stated as government policy before the food and agricultural organization, we must have something more permanent than the act which we are now extending for one year. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce):
That Bill No. 16 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the introducing of a permanent agricultural products export act which would provide for the setting up of an export board, to fill present contracts, negotiate future contracts, and develop new markets abroad for surplus agricultural products.


Mr. Speaker:: Possibly I might hear representations now on the question whether the amendment is in order. Does the amendment oppose or differ from the principle of the present bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I may say a word or two on the point that you have raised, Mr. Speaker, I think it is unnecessary to read in full citation 657 of Beauchesne's third edition. I imagine you have it in front of you now. It sets out what it is competent for a member to do on second reading, namely, to move a resolution-and I am now quoting the significant words of the citation-"declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill." I take it from the question you have asked, Mr. Speaker, that you have in mind the kind of ruling that has been given on a number of occasions, one of which is referred to in citation 659, where the Speaker ruled the amendment out of order because it did not challenge the principle of the bill. I think it is clear from what the minister said in the interchange which took place earlier that the principle of the bill is to do again what the

government has done on a number of occasions, namely, extend the operation of the act for one year only. It is the extending of this kind of legislation for one year at a time which is the principle that the amendment challenges. The amendment contends that, instead of continuing the practice of having temporary legislation and extending it one year at a time, there should be permanent agricultural products export legislation. There are other questions that sometimes arise in connection with amendments of this kind, but if Your Honour will permit me the floor again to answer any other question that may be raised, I can save your time by saying nothing further now.


Mr. Speaker:: I might ask one question now. Could the bill not be amended in committee to bring about the object which the hon. member moving the amendment has in mind?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not see how that can be done, because when we get into committee there is only one section in the bill, and it changes only one section of the original act, namely, section 11, which fixes the expiry date. The only point before us when we get into committee is the carrying out of the principle which is before us on second reading, namely, the extension of the act as it stands, for one year and one year only. The amendment seeks a change in the principle before us at this stage; it seeks to put this legislation on a permanent basis and to broaden its scope, which certainly could not be done by amending the only clause that will be before us in committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amendment suggested is not new. This bill has been before the house each year since 1947, as I said the other day; in other words this is the fourth time we have had to consider it. Each time, whether or not an amendment of this kind was actually moved, the point has been discussed in exactly the same manner as it is being discussed now. In other words it has been urged each year that we should have a permanent measure of this kind. On each occasion I pointed out that in 1938 the federation of agriculture had come forward and asked for a permanent measure-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no "order" about it. Wait until I have finished.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a point of order. The Minister of Agriculture is taking advantage of this opportunity to discuss the substance of the amendment, but the question before us now is a point of order.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am speaking to the point of order.
Agricultural Products Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no; you are speaking to the amendment.


James Garfield Gardiner: The point of order is that the bill you are talking about is already on the statute book.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no.


James Garfield Gardiner: If you will wait long enough, I will indicate that it is. The federation of agriculture came to the government in 1938 asking for a measure of the kind indicated in this amendment. In 1939 they returned with the same request, and at that time we said that until the end of the war the federal government intended to operate boards of that kind under the War Measures Act, and that we could do so only by virtue of the reasons which were given. In 1946, after the war was over, the federation came back and asked for this legislation in almost the very terms contained in this amendment, and at that time members of all opposition groups rose and proposed that we should pass an act of that kind instead of extending the legislation we had for one year at a time.
The matter was argued back and forth here in the house, and we decided not to pass a measure of that kind then. In 1947 we came to the same decision, and also in 1948. In 1949, however, we did pass it. Last week I met with representatives of all the provinces and of the federation of agriculture to discuss whether or not the act passed in 1949 was adequate to carry out the purpose for which it was intended, and the explanation given at that meeting was that with respect to all other products except these two, cheese and pork products, the powers we had under the War Measures Act no longer applied, and the only way we could bring about what they desired was through the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, which we had passed in 1949 and which covers exactly what is dealt with in this resolution. Under that act, boards may be set up to deal with the marketing of farm products, either interprovincially or internationally. With that statute already in effect I think it is out of order to move here by way of amendment to this bill that we should pass another bill amounting to the same thing.


Percy Ellis Wright: Like the minister, I want to speak to the point of order. He is suggesting that the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, passed by this parliament last year, has the same effect as the amendment we are now moving. He knows differently. He knows that under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act provision is made for the setting up of producer boards over which the government has no control. The boards set up under that act cannot go into the export market today. It is this government, through legislation

Agricultural Products Act passed in this house, that decides on tariffs, on the availability of exchange, on the value of the dollar in the export market, and so on. Therefore the producers are beaten before they start with their producer boards. Only when this government sets up a board for the export of surplus products can we hope to compete in the markets of the world, and either get back some of the markets we have lost, or obtain new markets. That is the purpose of this resolution-to set up a government export board, not a producer export board. There is a distinct difference.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the point of order, the act itself, a one-section act which was read to the house the other day by one of the members of the group taking this position, provides for the appointment of a board by the governor in council, and by no one else.


Percy Ellis Wright: It says the governor in council may make regulations under the act.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read the part before that, under which the governor in council decides the board to which it will give authority.


Mr. Speaker:: The question has now arisen whether the object sought by the amendment is already achieved in an act now in force. I have not that act before me. There seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether the object of the amendment has already been attained; perhaps, therefore, I had better let the amendment stand until I can look at the act to which reference has been made.


Mr. Fulton:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, even if we accept the minister's contention, would the mere fact that there is another statute which does what is sought by this amendment necessarily make the amendment out of order? In the first place there is a difference of opinion as to whether or not the other statute is sufficient; but I would raise the question whether, even if it should be, that would necessarily mean that this amendment is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: At least it would be unnecessary. If there is an act now on the statute book which does precisely what the amendment proposes to do, I cannot see that any good purpose would be served by permitting the amendment to stand.


Mr. Rene N. Jutras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure many of my constituents would wish me to say a few words on this subject, particularly in view of the remarks that have been made by members of the various opposition parties. No one will deny the importance of the British market so far as agricultural products are concerned, and this is particularly true with respect to wheat. It becomes important indeed when

we recall that to a certain extent almost the entire economy of the west is directly or indirectly controlled1 by the price of wheat.
In the discussion it has become apparent that our C.C.F. friends place squarely upon the shoulders of the government the blame for our loss of export trade, particularly the reduction of our agricultural exports to the United Kingdom. They would like us to believe that if there have been reductions in the sale of certain agricultural products, that lessening in export trade is due entirely to the policies or attitude of this administration. Of course we know that many factors were entirely beyond the control of this government. In order to remedy this situation, our C.C.F. friends in this house have suggested ways and means of recapturing these markets; or, as the member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) put it, if certain things had been done these markets would not have been lost during the past few years. In order that I may be accurate in my reference to his remarks, I should like to quote from page 1059 of Hansard of the present session. After referring to the lack of dollars in Great Britain with which to buy our agricultural products, he said:
. . . under which we would have accepted British goods in exchange for our food, we would have been able to make agreements similar to those which Britain has made with many other countries.
That is a very easy solution, Mr. Speaker. In other words the hon. member says that if the British people have not dollars with which to buy our products, all we have to do is trade produce for produce. Naturally if there is a shortage of dollars in Great Britain it is due to the fact the people were not able to exchange products on a basis that would enable them to secure dollars. The problem, therefore, is still in front of us. This suggestion is not a solution of that problem.
The leader of the C.C.F. party went one step further with the same argument, and suggested that if the British people have not the necessary dollars to purchase our agricultural products, then we should accept sterling; trade could be resumed on that basis. Again this is no solution to the problem. It is a similar attempt to the one just mentioned, because, after all, to accept sterling is merely to sell on credit. Putting it on an individual basis, I wonder if the farmers of western Canada are willing to accept I.O.U.'s for their products? It is obvious that trade could not be conducted on that basis, because the farmers could not afford it. When you bring it to the state level, the question arises whether the state

is in a position to extend further free loans to Great Britain for the purchase of agricultural products.
I have noticed that the leader of the C.C.F. party has never at any time, nor have any of his supporters when dealing with this question, referred to an interest-free loan to the United Kingdom. They have phrased it as accepting sterling in payment for our goods. So, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the difficulty is the one experienced by many countries throughout the world, the exchange of goods for dollars. This was particularly true before devaluation of the British pound, because then the difficulty was that the British were more or less priced out of the United States market. Under those conditions, to suggest the trading of goods for goods leaves us with the same difficulty, because, for example, no one would trade two horses for one horse.
The official opposition, our Progressive Conservative friends, have taken a dangerously careless attitude, in my estimation. I believe they are completely blind to reality in their attitude towards increasing our exports to Great Britain. Our Progressive Conservative friends tell us that we ought to increase our markets in the United Kingdom, irrespective of the cost. Again and again they have referred to the United States as an unreliable market, as something that is meaningless, the importance of which can be dismissed by a wave of the hand. My main reason for participating in this debate is to counteract the idea that the market to the south of us is really unimportant.
The member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), in one of his speeches, referred to the United States as a country that produces the same type of surpluses we produce. There have been numerous speeches to that effect. I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a publication of the Department of Trade and Commerce entitled "Foreign Trade", under date of February 4, 1950. It contains a summary of Canadian exports for the year 1949 which is quite revealing. It says:
Canadian exports to the United States last year had a value of $1,503-5 million, which represents an increase of 0-16 per cent over that for 1948.
We must compare that with our export trade with the United Kingdom. This publication goes on to say:
Exports to the United Kingdom, Canada's second largest customer, were valued at $705 million, representing an increase of 2-63 per cent over the figure for 1948.
There you have a comparison of the two markets so far as Canada is concerned. It is interesting to note that the increase in our exports to the United Kingdom amounted to
Agricultural Products Aci 2-6 per cent. An hon. member behind me asks whether that is losing markets. I recognize that markets for certain types of products have been lost, but the over-all picture for last year shows that our export trade with Great Britain increased 2-6 per cent. Our export trade with the United States also increased, but only by [DOT] 16 per cent.
I still say that the market to the south of us is certainly the most important market. At this stage we should make every effort to increase our trade with the United Kingdom, particularly for agricultural products, but at the same time we must be careful not to do anything to harm the United States market. Whether we like it or not, the logical market for Canada lies in the United States. Unlike the member for Dufferin-Simcoe, who said that we should look east and west and forget about north and south, I say that we should look east and west, but we should be careful to look south as well. In that direction lies the best customer we have had in the past few years. We should not discriminate against the United States market. We were forced to do it; but fortunately our very good friends to the south were broad-minded enough to realize our difficulties and to understand the situation. Instead of retaliating, they have helped us further to overcome our difficulties. That is real friendship and real international co-operation. We have every reason to be thankful for what the United States people have done for us.
At this stage I repeat that in our dealings and in our efforts to increase our market with Great Britain, we should at the same time be very careful to allow no discrimination to intervene against the United States.
In the publication to which I have referred there is another interesting quotation which reads:
Despite the over-all decline in exports from 1948 levels, three of the nine main commodity groups showed higher export values in the past year. These were the agricultural products group, which rose by 20-1 per cent to reach a total of $773 million.
Actually, therefore, in 1949 there was an increase in the export values of the agricultural products group. To continue:
In the first of these groups, the increase was due to a larger volume of wheat exports at higher average prices than in 1948. These reached $435-2 million, as opposed to $243 million in 1948.
There is the real picture; there are the real facts as they stare us in the face. The actual figure in 1949 was $435 million as against $243 million in 1948. Yet we had member after member on the opposition benches rising in his place and telling us that we are losing all our markets, and that we are heading for certain doom in the years to come.

Agricultural Products Act
As I said, taking the over-all picture, the United States market, generally speaking, is our best market. We have yet to explore all the possibilities in that market. We know for a fact that so far as cattle are concerned it is a market that is advantageous to Canada. At the present time, owing to various factors, many of our agricultural products are not allowed to go freely to the United States. I am not going to enter into that phase of it, because it is a complex one. But I do not think it is fair or true to say that the Canadian government is keeping those products under permit merely to protect the British market, or, as has been said, that the government is doing it to keep the price of agricultural products down. Of course this might have been true during the war, but it is certainly not true today. That is not the reason at all for many of these products being kept under permit. The only reason for their being kept under permit is that in these various lines there is a danger that if we were to send all our surpluses of those products into the United States they would probably go to a region in which there is already a surplus, and it would have a bad effect. There would be a demand in the United States to prohibit the entry of those products into that country; therefore permits are required, and the products are distributed in areas in which a surplus does not exist. We are allowed to carry on on that basis. It has proved beneficial in the past; but still the fact remains that we do not know exactly what the possibilities might be, because there has never been a free exchange of these particular products.
I know that so far the Canadian government have always been careful not to do anything that would harm the United States market, and I am sure they will not take the observations of our Conservative and C.C.F. friends too literally or too seriously, and will continue to use sound judgment, as they have in the past.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this bill to amend the Agricultural Products Act, because I do not quite agree with the minister's interpretation of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright).
We in this group support the principle of the bill. We are going to vote for the bill when the vote is taken, but we believe in the terms of the amendment, namely,
That Bill No. 16 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the introducing of a permanent agricultural products export act which would provide for the setting up of an export board, to fill present contracts, negotiate future contracts, and develop new markets abroad for surplus agricultural products.

My few references to this bill will be with respect to the fruit industry, to which this bill is a matter of serious concern. The growers have done everything they can in the way of production. There are few problems so far as production is concerned. There are few problems in connection with the preparation of the product for market. They have done all they can so far as organization is concerned. They have an active organization, all within the power of the growers. The prospects for continued prosperity in the fruit industry depend entirely upon a good proportion of the crop being exported overseas. I believe the minister was correct in this sense, namely, that the other acts could be used- the Agricultural Products Marketing Act is one-if we were living under normal conditions, or what are termed normal conditions, with regard to export markets. The producer boards could organize export in the regular trade channels; but we are asking for this amendment to the act because of agricultural surpluses created by abnormal world conditions.
We do not think that sectional organizations or producers' boards can market surplus agricultural products satisfactorily under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, when we are facing a condition under which governments have to deal with varying exchange rates, international organizations such as the food and agricultural organization, the possibility of supporting the proposals made for an international commodities clearing house, and so on. In the opinion of the members of this group, that is beyond the capacity of the ordinary fruit producers' board or the legislation found in the Agricultural Products Marketing Act. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are putting this amendment forward in the hope that the house will give it consideration, because we believe that if the house does accept it we shall have introduced into the bill some teeth that will make it possible for the government, with the other legislation, to take effective action with regard to the marketing of agricultural surpluses which now exist and without any doubt are likely to exist in the days ahead.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), because I too am interested in the fruit industry. I am particularly interested in this amendment, because it is something that would place our industry on a sound and solid basis, with someone to go. to, someone to deal with effectively, in the matter of the disposition of fruit surpluses.
We know that a great deal can be done. Recently we read that the Minister of Trade

and Commerce (Mr. Howe), visited England and came back in the matter of a couple of weeks with $25 million in orders.
If we had someone on a permanent basis, with the same power, to go to Europe, to New Zealand and Australia, to travel the world seeing markets as the minister did on that occasion, then I could see a future for our Canadian surpluses. I have in mind the fact that New Zealand, facing a similar problem, where their great difficulty was one of distance, overcame it by setting up import-export boards to find markets and to get commodities to shipping points in the cheapest and best way. Then they proceeded to sell those commodities abroad, as government units. They were successful in finding markets at distances double those confronting us in Canada. They sold in Europe, and were able to establish sound foreign markets for their agricultural products, particularly butter. We in Canada could learn a great deal from their success.
I urge the minister and the house to consider seriously the amendment suggested by this group. Otherwise nearly half our crop is at the mercy of conditions which, if they continue, may make it necessary for us to dump or destroy those commodities, or give them away, as we have done this year.
While I am not condemning the bill- indeed, I support it-I urge upon the house consideration of the amendment in order to give the measure now before us a permanent and sound life, so that we may build up an industry which is handicapped by the length of time it takes to develop it-fifteen years; this no one can change. I wish to seek a permanent solution, and the only permanent solution is to make this act a permanent one.


Mr. J. I. Hetland (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, not so much to speak regarding the policies of the government, but more because of the criticism we have heard.
My constituency is mostly agricultural. We raise hogs and cattle, but our chief occupation is that of raising grain. When we have markets and receive good prices, because of the fact that we have few crop failures we have a reasonable degree of prosperity. I believe however that because we are producers of food the government will see to it that we will receive fair floor prices, so that we may be able to carry on. In my view, unless the producer is prosperous, no one else will be. If the farmer is not able to buy the products of labour it is not long before labour is out on the street.
_ Because I am a farmer I am naturally interested in the action taken by the government with respect to floor prices. If the farmers are to be given confidence in the
55946-74J
Agricultural Products Act future, we must have price support. If that support is not given there will be a greater flow of farmers to the cities, with the consequence that the unemployment situation will become worse. Today farmers cannot go into the labour market and obtain help, because most labourers do not care to go to the farms to work long hours for seven days a week. I believe however that labour and all other organizations will get behind this program of price support so as to keep our economy operating on the present scale. Workers will not enjoy shorter hours and good pay if the production of our farmers falls off to any considerable extent.
Farmers can tighten their belts to some degree, but there is the possibility that they may become discouraged and quit. The older folks may stay on the farms and raise enough for their own use, but certainly the younger folk will not. They will not stay on those farms, if other fields look greener. If we can maintain employment at its present level we will have a good market at home for our farm products. The home market is our best market. Even if we have some surpluses, surely that is better than to have scarcities. I believe, too, that labour and others will not complain too much about our program of price support if only they can keep up the level of employment and hold their jobs.
How are we going to keep farmers on the land? The only way I see in which it can be done is to give those farmers something to look forward to. Hon. members will know that the farmer is engaged in an occupation in which there are many hazards such as weather, drought, hail, grasshoppers and the like. If one more hazard is put in his path it may be just one too many, with the result that the farmers will leave the land to try something else.
I believe that on the whole our farming population is well satisfied with the way the government has handled our products in the past. Most cf the credit for this should go to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). The opposition, both in this session and the last one, have tried to discredit the efforts of the minister. The fact remains however that when he was sick last fall those farmers were worried, and were wondering who could do a better job than he has done.
On many occasions our wheat policy has been criticized. I know of nothing that has been more universally accepted by western farmers than has this policy, and we want it continued. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) has criticized the last payment on wheat of twenty cents per bushel. His criticism dealt particularly with the comparatively small amount of interest that had to be paid
1142	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Act out because the wheat board had borrowed a few million dollars from the banks in order to make this payment. I notice however that some members of the opposition are not now so anxious to be associated with the hon. member for Melfort in his criticism. I am sure the prairie farmers thought this last payment was a godsend.
Some members in the larger group of the opposition say that they were not supporting the hon. member for Melfort-


Mr. Ross (Souris):: The official opposition.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: -in his criticism of the last payment of twenty cents made by the wheat board. Someone has told me that the criticism of the hon. member for Melfort has received support from the leader of the opposition group in the Senate. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; I should have said "the other place". However, had I used that expression I might have misled many of my constituents; because out there, when folks wish to tell one to go to some hot place, and if they have a desire to be more refined or dignified in expressing their wish, they use the expression, "the other place". I apologize for having used the wrong expression today, but it will be realized I was in a tight spot. I did not wish to mislead anyone, nor did I wish to detract from the dignity of the other place.
The fact that most members of the opposition are now trying to run away from this *criticism indicates that they believe the government has done a good job in paying out this amount of money, instead of leaving it to accumulate in the banks at a time when the farmers in dried-out areas were in such need. I know opposition members have to look for something concerning which they can criticize the government, but I suggest they should not have criticized this action, particularly when about one hundred per cent of the farmers are in favour of it.
Let me say as a farmer that the comparatively small amount we paid for interest on loans to make this twenty-cent payment does not bother me. But when it comes to future wheat payments or future markets, then I might have some anxiety. It is not that I blame the government because this is one thing over which they have not very much control. Certainly the government cannot be blamed for what happens in other countries.
Then I do not think we should be too critical about what happens in other countries because those countries are trying to do what they think is best for their people. If we try to meet them with the idea or intention of helping them in their predicament,


then I believe something can be accomplished. We should let them know that we are anxious to help them out of their difficulties.
Surely if we know how to produce we should be able to find some way to distribute our surpluses. If we have small surpluses in certain cases, surely that is better than to have scarcities. Even with these floor prices I do think the government should let the markets carry themselves as far as possible. If there should be small surpluses at the end of the year I believe the government can well take care of them. When the $200 million fund is used over a period of years for this purpose there would be little loss.
We have to trade with the world, but it has to be a two-way market, or a twenty-way market as the minister said. The Canadian people have to be taught the fundamentals of trade. We have to take some goods for our own good because some day this trade will have to be equalized or balanced.
A word about home prices. Why should small export surpluses set the prices for our home market? The home labour market is not set by overseas wages, so why should the farmer's prices at home be set by competitive world prices? What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.
How are we going to get contracts?' It takes two parties to make an agreement and all agreements will have to be on terms advantageous to both parties. During the war the price of wheat to the consumer was held down, so is it not only fair that the consumer should pay a fair price for farm products? I am not pessimistic about the future as I believe we have learned a lot since the thirties.
On June 27 last this government received a definite vote of confidence from the people of Canada so I believe there will be little criticism when it passes legislation that is favourable to the producers. If the fifty per cent of our people who are producers are not prosperous, the other fifty per cent cannot be. I am sure the government realizes that fact and will act accordingly.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was objecting to the amendment moved by this group he said that we already had on the statute books an act which covered what is proposed to be covered by this amendment. The minister was referring to the Agricultural Products Marketing Act which was assented to on April 30, 1949. Section 2 of that act reads:
The governor in council may by order grant authority to any board or agency authorized under the law of any province to exercise powers of regulation in relation to the marketing of any agricultural product locally within the province, to regulate

the marketing of such agricultural product outside the province in interprovincial and export trade and for such purposes to exercise all or any powers like the powers exercisable by such board or agency in relation to the marketing of such agricultural product locally within the province.
I think it is clear that under that act the governor in council may give certain powers to provincial boards similar to those that can be granted within the province. But it does not envision, as does our amendment, the setting up of a federal export board to fulfil the present contracts, negotiate future contracts and develop new markets abroad for surplus agricultural products.
As the minister said, this act is just a temporary act. Apparently it was enacted on the assumption that our contracts will be on a temporary basis. Our amendment asks for the setting up of an export board which will negotiate future contracts on a permanent basis. Very little has been done under the legislation passed last year and certainly that legislation does not envision an export board carrying out the functions we are asking for in our amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no power in that act to appoint a board of any kind.


Mr. Speaker:: I raised two objections to the amendment, the first being that an amendment should not enunciate a principle different from the principle set out in the bill. I have noticed during the debate that a number of hon. members have said that they approved the principle of the bill, and also would support the amendment. I have come to the conclusion that the principle of the bill is to extend the act for one year, whereas the principle of the amendment is that permanent legislation be enacted. Notwithstanding what hon. members have said I am of the opinion that the principle of the amendment is different from the principle set forth in the bill.
The other point I raised was whether the amendment could not be moved in committee. As this is a money bill, and as its extension would involve the expenditure of money, I have decided that some objection might be taken to such an amendment in committee.
The other point raised was whether there was an act in force at the present time which carried out the objects of the amendment. The act referred to was the Agricultural Products Marketing Act. I am inclined to agree with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that that act does include the objects of the amendment. However, a number of hon. members seem to take a different view. The last hon. member who spoke suggested that provincial boards could be set up under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, whereas under the proposed amendment a federal
Agricultural Products Act board would be set up. In view of the difference of opinion I think I had better allow the amendment to stand.


Mr. Harris (Danforih):: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Breithaupt). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Expiration.
Percy Ellis Wright: Will the minister say whether the government propose to renew any of the contracts now in existence? I understand that these contracts expire in August, and I should like to know if it is the intention of the government to try to re-negotiate them.


James Garfield Gardiner: The contract with Great Britain for pork products calls for delivery of a certain quantity week by week throughout the year. In other words it is not a contract that is tied down to August; it covers the twelve months, and there will be no question about its renewal before the end of the calendar year. Whether or not we will be taking delivery of a sufficient amount of pork products to fill the contract is another question. Present indications are that this may be the case. The cheese contract is for the whole year as well, so the only question involved is the renewal of the contracts for another year. As in other years, of course, this government, is subject to the decisions that may be made by the other party to the contract.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister still has not stated whether it is the intention of this government to at least try to re-negotiate these contracts. I do not know whether the British government will be prepared to do so, but I would like to know if it is the intention of our government to try to have these contracts renewed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Canadian government is the agency that pressed for these contracts in the beginning and has pressed for their continuance right down to the present time. We have not been responsible at any time for the withdrawal or cancellation of any contract. I would impress upon the committee that in all probability, considering that the government is pretty much the same as it has been for some time, we will go right on doing what we have done in the past.


Mr. Bryce:: The minister said the sixty million pounds for this year was to be delivered week by week. Does that mean that if we fail to meet the weekly quota we lose that much, or can we make it up by sending an extra supply the following week?


James Garfield Gardiner: The only way it could be affected would be by delivering more than the specified amount within a certain period, but we meet that situation by keeping it in cold storage in Canada and delivering it week by week until we come to the end of the year. We are not allowed to deliver more than the contract calls for week by week.


William Scottie Bryce: Then that will be up to the meat board?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and if the quantity supplied is sufficient to meet that weekly quota. I assume that if we were to miss a week, or if we did not have quite enough one week, we might lose that amount, though I am not too sure about it.


William Scottie Bryce: Then for my own information I want to ask the minister another question. Does this contract price run out on July 31, or only the subsidy that is being paid? I understand the contract is good until December 31, but that the 32J cents now being paid to the packers is only good until July 31. Would the minister straighten me out on that?


James Garfield Gardiner: The contract does not determine that at all, nor does anything that has been said determine it. The circumstances as they proceed may determine it one way or another, but at the moment, as I said a little while ago, it looks as though in all probability the contract will continue right on through, without getting anybody into any trouble.


Mr. Lennard:: Will the subsidy continue?


William Scottie Bryce: If the minister would come out and say the government is right behind the farmer, and is going to see to it that he receives 32J cents until the end of the year, the farmers would know whether they were coming or going. The way it is now, they do not know.


James Arthur Ross: Just to follow that matter up, suppose the contract is not filled at the end of June, will the government continue paying the subsidy? As I understand it, the minister says that will expire at the end of June; but supposing the contract is not filled, and there is a great deal in what the member for Selkirk has said, that there is confusion among the western farmers. The western hog producers are fearful of what will happen to their markets on the first of July, 1950. The minister should give us more details as to what the policy will be following the first of July if the contract has not been filled.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been announced on a number of occasions, Mr. Chairman, but I do not mind announcing it again. When the 60 million pounds have been purchased and delivered to Britain, the undertaking in connection with the contract that the British will pay 29 cents a pound and the government will pay 3J cents per pound is at an end. It is at an end when we have obtained the amount of Wiltshire sides which are necessary to fill the contract.
Now, anyone who goes out and says that is going to be the 30th of June ought to know what the facts are before he says so. I do not think it is going to be the 30th of June, and I do not want anyone saying I think that. There is a possibility it could be, but that depends on how many hogs the farmers deliver, and at what price. The fact is that the Canadian people are now paying from one cent to two cents per pound more for pork in Canada than the farmers could receive under the British contract. That condition could easily continue, and then the contract would go through to the end of the year and there would not be any difficulty.


Mr. Tusiin:: Does this bill cover only one product? No one has mentioned yet whether the government intends to requisition cheese, so I should like to ask the minister if it is the intention of the government to requisition cheese this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: All I can say with regard to that is that the producers met me on Friday and asked that cheese be requisitioned. I have not taken the matter up with the government as yet, but we have been asked to requisition cheese.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Following up what the minister has said about hogs, I understand that as soon as we have supplied that 60 million pounds, the subsidy will be cut off, whether it is July, August or September, whatever time it is.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not if the Canadian people are as anxious to buy pork as they are
Agricultural Products Act at present. They are paying no attention to the floor price of 29 cents, and are paying about two cents additional. As long as that condition of supply and demand continues, there is not going to be any cut in the price the farmer obtains. As a matter of fact up until now, with the exception of probably one or two weeks, the farmer has had no benefit from this at all. The Canadian people are buying pork at higher prices than provided for in this contract.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, we know about as much now as we did when we started. If this contract is not filled by June 30, then what happens to the price of 32i cents? Do I understand that the government subsidy is to be dropped if the contract is filled by June 30?


James Garfield Gardiner: We shall go on buying pork until we get the 60 million pounds. If the contract is not filled on the first of July, purchases will be continued beyond that.


John Alpheus Charlton: But you will not be paying 321 cents for it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, otherwise we will not be able to fill the contract. There will be only one reason why we have not got it filled by the first of July, and that will be because other people will be paying much higher prices. If the other people do not buy at the higher prices, we will have the 60 million pounds. Up until now they have been paying the higher price, and while that condition continues we are not likely to fill the contract. The hon. member is right, however, in suggesting that the contract is not getting any more money for the farmer. Money is being obtained for the farmer from the fact there is a good market in Canada.


John Alpheus Charlton: Are we to understand that the 32J cent price will continue after the first of July if the English contract is not filled?


Hazen Robert Argue: If the English contract is filled, then the whole floor goes out from under hogs. The floor is tied up to the contract, and when the contract is filled, there is no floor.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should not like to say that, because we shall probably do something else at that time.


William Scottie Bryce: Tell us about it.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the reason why the farmers of this country are disappointed in the government's agricultural policy. They used to have a policy of announcing every year the price for the following year. Now, instead of making the policy more permanent, the minister says there is a price up until the end of June, up until the British contract is filled. After that, there is no floor under hogs.

Agricultural Products Act


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no difference whatever, Mr. Chairman, between the position right now and the position in 1949. In 1949, the position was that there was a floor under hogs, owing to the fact that we sold Wiltshire sides at 36 cents. This made a certain price possible in Canada. In 1949 hogs sold at 7 cents above that price and, for that reason, we were not getting bacon to fill the British contract. We never did fill the contract. At the moment there are suggestions that we shall not be able to fill this one; I do not know, and I am not guessing. We have been accustomed to following the thing through to its finish. If we find there is some reason for doing something different from what we are doing, then we usually do it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Under the policy last year, the government had a large contract which was not filled, and therefore the floor price remained throughout the year. This year there is a small contract, and as soon as it is filled-it will be filled if we ship in 1950 as much bacon to Britain as we did in 1949- there is no floor price.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no use having statements go on the record that are not correct. Right up until the end of 1949, within a month of the end of the year, the members on the other side of the house-I should say over in that corner of the house rather than on the other side-were making the same statements the member for Assiniboia has just made. It was true that we had not filled the contract up until the end of September or October last year. We got enough to fill this contract in the last six weeks.


An hon. Member:: The packers did.


James Garfield Gardiner: They had nothing to do with it; it was the farmer. Anyone who knows anything about farming, and apparently my friend does not know much-the member for Calgary East could tell him because he raises hogs-knows that the farmer in western Canada breeds his hogs in the spring of the year. Not a large percentage of the farmers raise two litters, because of the climatic conditions. These hogs are ready for market in October, November and December. That is where the big surplus of hogs is produced. Most of the hogs produced in the eastern part of Canada could be consumed in the eastern part of Canada. In order to get these supplies for the British contract or any other contract, we must wait until the latter part of the year. That is when we got them last year, and it is when we may get them this year. The present indications are that we are not going to get them in the early part of the year. The records over several years indicate that we shall not get them in July, August or September, so there are only the latter few

months of the year left in which to obtain those supplies. If we run into difficulties at the end of the year, I think we shall have some way of meeting them.


William Scottie Bryce: A man once told me that the Scottish people always died laughing. I asked him why, and he said that they began to see things just as they were passing away. I seem to be pretty well mixed up today, because I cannot get into a sensible argument with the Minister of Agriculture. I just do not know what he is saying. He is arguing two ways at the same time. I want the matter cleared up. I want him to tell us exactly where we are. Some time ago I said that the packing companies in Canada were paying less for pork than they had been before, and the minister told us that the consumer is paying more than he has ever paid before.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was talking about the packer.


William Scottie Bryce: What are you fellows thinking about in letting the packers get away with that robbery? It is robbery. Last September in Winnipeg the price was depressed from $30 to $24. Prices were depressed $9 a hog. The producer is getting $9 less and the consumer is paying from 1 to 2 cents a pound more. The packer is sitting and laughing up his sleeve at it, and the minister does nothing about it. We want you to settle these prices, and tell us what we will get for our hogs a year or two years ahead. If you do that you will have a steady stream of hogs coming to the market for Britain or anyone else who wants them.


James Arthur Ross: Did I understand the minister to say that he has the power to seize products, even on the farm, if they were required to fill these contracts?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


James Arthur Ross: I want to be clear about it because of what happened before we went into committee. The minister now has the power, or his officials have, to seize these commodities to fill the contracts?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mr. Fair:: In the event that the British contract is filled by the end of June and the Canadian people decide to switch to eating chicken or turkey or beef, and do not wish any longer to pay more than that which was guaranteed the farmer, namely, 29 cents a pound, will the government continue the subsidy of 3 j cents a pound?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are too many "ifs" in it.


Robert Fair: I just want to know whether we are going to be paid the subsidy if the British contract is filled, provided the Canadian people do not continue to purchase as much as they are doing at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only answer that I can give you is that the Canadian people ate 32 per cent more pork in the month of February this year than they did in the month of February a year ago. If the Canadian people keep right on eating that much pork, or anything near it, all your worries are going to pass away, and why worry until you have to?


John Alpheus Charlton: I should like to ask the minister if he is going to do any worrying about it, if that occasion does arise. He made the statement a moment ago that the bacon contract with Great Britain was filled in the last couple of weeks of 1949. Did I understand him correctly in that?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it was increased from down to where it was, lower than it would require to be this year, in order to fill this year's contract. My hon. friend across the way said that last year we were producing a lot more and we were marketing a lot more. Well, this year we have a very small contract, and I was saying to him that there was not enough delivered last year until we got down to within, I said, two or three months of the end of the year. There was not enough delivered to fill this year's contract, but after that time-most of it in the last six weeks- we secured sufficient to bring it up to 100 million pounds.


John Alpheus Charlton: That would not fill last year's contract.


James Garfield Gardiner: But it would fill this year's.


Percy Ellis Wright: I just want to give a few more "ifs" to the minister. When I was speaking a moment ago he said that in all probability, on the receipts of pork we were now getting, the contract would not be filled for some time, that it might be October when the spring litters are coming on the market before there would be sufficient to meet the 60 million pounds of the contract. If that is so, and we find that in October our marketings of hogs are the same as they have been in October and November of other years, in all probability we will find that the contract will be filled right in the middle of the heavy delivery season next fall, with the government support price being dropped right in the middle of that season, and with the packers getting fairly large deliveries. We shall find the market too in the same position as we found the egg market just a short time ago. From what
Agricultural Products Act the minister has told us, that is the position in which we are likely to find ourselves next fall.


James Garfield Gardiner: The contracts for the first three years of the war were from November 1 to October 31 the following year. Then we moved it up two or three weeks at a time until we got it from January 1 to December 31. What I said when we announced this program is that we were going back to the natural hog year, and any agreements that we make in the future will be as from the first of November to the thirty-first of October the succeeding year. Therefore in so far as any future arrangements of any kind are concerned, we are not worrying so much as some of our friends are, because we know from the statistics that there scarcely is ever enough pork produced, or at least marketed, between the first of July in any year and the first of October in any year to supply this market; and if we get down to the thirtieth of June without any trouble, we do not expect any trouble at all until at least the first of October, and then we are within thirty days of the end of the natural hog year in this country. That is what we expect to get back to this year, and any of our worries for the next year will start with October and go on into the next year.


George James Tustin: In the past years we have had large contracts for cheese with the United Kingdom government at 30 cents a pound. This year I understand the contract price is 25 cents a pound, plus a subsidy of 3 cents a pound paid by the federal government. I should like to ask a question along the same lines as the ones we have been asking in regard to pork products. Is the minister going to requisition cheese? Judging by the answer he gave a short time ago, that is his intention. When the 85 million pounds of cheese have been received by the government under requisition, will the 3 cents a pound continue on the remainder of cheese marketed during the year 1950?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, there is not very much in common between the position in relation to hogs and the position in relation to cheese. In the first place, in Canada we consume almost a billion pounds of pork, and we contemplate selling only 60 million pounds. On the other hand we export from Canada at least 70 per cent of all the cheese we produce, and that is the cheese that we are trying to anticipate; but we say we are going to sell 85 million pounds to Britain. If we are right in our calculations of the production for this year, which would be an increased production as compared with immediately preceding years, then we shall be taking a very considerable quantity of

Agricultural Products Act cheese from the farmers, if we get 85 million pounds in the whole year, and the remainder of the cheese is sold to the Canadian public.
The Canadian public is paying for their 30 per cent the extra 3 cents as well. That is the only way they get it. The result of that would be much the same as the other, I think, except that the means by which we shall arrive at the conclusion will not be the same. I think that cheese will market at a price which will be fairly satisfactory in relation to the floor price which has been established.


George James Tustin: I take it the answer of the minister is that the subsidy will apply only to the 85 million pounds?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, no; if the 85 million pounds, plus whatever is consumed in Canada, makes up the whole production, then the 3 cents will apply to it all. If there happened to be a surplus at the end, with which someone had to deal, then that again is the same question: the government would have to decide what they were going to do. At the present time we anticipate that the cheese will all be sold at this price.


John Alpheus Charlton: Has the 17 million pounds of cheese the government bought last year been disposed of? If not, where does the government contemplate disposing of it?


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact we purchased over 20 million pounds, and I think there is somewhere between 17 million and 18 million pounds of it still in the hands of the government. That will be sold, we expect, on the Canadian market.


John Alpheus Charlton: How is the grade standing up on the cheese held over from last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand it is standing up very well. There is the occasional cheese that does go wrong, as anyone connected with the cheese business will understand. But there is nothing out of the ordinary in connection with the cheese in storage now.


Mr. Bater:: The hon. member mentioned the bewilderment of the farmers at the present time. I would say that in my view in the last ten or twelve years the farmers of Canada from coast to coast have had a sense of security greater than they have ever had before. It is difficult to say, of course, what the future has in store. I should think it would be difficult to incorporate in the act any formula such as has been suggested. I do believe however that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce are well aware that a continuation of the general prosperity in Canada depends upon agriculture. I am convinced that between those two right hon. gentlemen, one of whom is connected with production and the other with

the selling of that production to any country in the world, we may rest assured that they will see to it that it is done to this country's advantage.


Robert Fair: In addition to what my neighbour down the line has said, I suggest he should have added the Minister of Finance and his crackpot staff, which restricts money to the people, in the belief that that is the way they can get rid of goods in Canada. Speaking of hogs, how many pounds of Wiltshire sides have been supplied under the present contract?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid if the hon. member uses those terms, in referring to the Minister of Finance, he will have to change his name.


Robert Fair: I was asking the minister a question. Apparently he has this financial matter on the brain, and it would seem that he did not hear what I said. I asked him how many pounds of Wiltshire sides had been supplied under the present contract.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that I have the figure right down to date. However, the last figure I did have was running considerably below last year's supply. It was running at about fifty per cent of last year's supply at the same time. I can dig those figures out of the papers I have here, if the hon. member wishes to have them. However, it was about 1,500,000 pounds less, the last time I saw the figures, for the first few weeks of the year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is never stuck for a figure.


Mr. Abbott:: His figures are right, too.


John George Diefenbaker: A number of farmers in my constituency sold their hogs early in January, before the announcement of the floor price. Those sales were made at prices considerably lower than the floor price. There was no way to stop them. Possibly if I were to place a concrete example before the minister he would be able to give an answer that would be generally applicable to the many other farmers in positions similar to the one I have in mind.
The farmer to whom I am now referring shipped a number of hogs that were slaughtered on January 18, 1950. The price received at the slaughter-house at Moose Jaw for those hogs was $23.75 per hundredweight for part of them and $23.35 for those in a lower grade. The farmer in question, who is typical of a number of farmers in a similar position, asks this question: As the price was at this low figure for only a short time, until the government established a floor price, what is being

done either by the government or by the companies to compensate producers for their loss during this period of adjustment?
The minister may at the same time explain how many hogs were marketed during the first eighteen days of January, and whether or not farmers who marketed at that time will be compensated for the difference between the price they received and the floor price established shortly thereafter. My personal view is that they should not be placed in a position in which they are discriminated against. They had no knowledge that a floor price was going to be established. They marketed at that time, and I think they have a good case when they ask for consideration.


James Garfield Gardiner: The announcement of the floor price on Wiltshire sides was made in December, not January, and before the Christmas vacation. They did know what the price was going to be, so far as the price of Wiltshire sides was concerned. However, the statement that the price was low in the first two weeks of January is correct. Indeed, it may have been a little longer than that; I have not the exact figure.


John George Diefenbaker: These figures are up to January 18.


James Garfield Gardiner: But there was a period in the early part of January when the price was low. Now, I am not too sure-it depends on what the hon. member is talking about.


John George Diefenbaker: Moose Jaw.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a long way from Toronto. The position at Toronto was that if prices were comparable with the 29 cents, plus 3i cents, which is 32J- cents on Wiltshire sides, then the price which would be obtained was, I believe, 26 and a fraction cents for hogs. Then, when you go back to Winnipeg on that basis you are down perhaps from 75 cents to a dollar, depending on the nature of the delivery. If you go back to Moose Jaw you go down that much further.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the difference?


James Garfield Gardiner: The difference is 75 cents to a dollar as between Toronto and Winnipeg, depending on the circumstances of the case. However, we usually count 85 cents when we are talking about shipping. It can vary that much.
There was a period of time when I suppose all the people were trying to adjust themselves to new conditions. The farmers did not deliver as many during that period of time as had been their custom and, despite the fact that they were not delivering as
Agricultural Products Act many, the price was lower for a while. We were not getting as much to deliver under the British contract. But as time went along and they got adjusted to the new condition- it took about two weeks, or perhaps a little longer than that-from that time on, the price has been running a little above.
I follow the market; I have the prices on my desk every day, and I know that it has been running a little above what the 29 plus 3J cents would make it absolutely essential for anyone to pay. I say in reply to the hon. member for Selkirk, as well as other hon. members, that while I have no reason to speak on behalf of the packers, I think probably sometimes he is a little hard on them. The packing houses last Thursday, when we were discussing this bill, were paying $28.75 for hogs. Under the floor price they do not need to pay that. They are paying that for hogs simply because they could get a higher price from the Canadian consumer than they could get under the British contract; they are selling at a higher price to the consumer. The price I was quoting was the price to the consumer. That is the price that is being paid for hogs on the market and that is higher than the purchaser of hogs needs to pay if he is going to stay at the floor. We have always argued that he is not necessarily going to stay at the floor, and as a matter of fact does not do so unless conditions force him into that position.


John George Diefenbaker: I take it from the words uttered by the minister that the government is making no compensatory payments to these farmers?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


William Scottie Bryce: Who holds.the Wiltshire sides? Are they held by the packer or by the meat board? If they are held by the meat board, who pays the cold storage?


James Garfield Gardiner: Wiltshire sides are delivered to the meat board, if there are any Wiltshire sides coming on the market at the floor price. That is all we get. We hold them and storage has been arranged for with the British under the contract. Under certain conditions they pay for it and there may be some conditions under which we pay for it, but I do not recall them.


William Scottie Bryce: How long can you hold Wiltshire sides with safety?


James Garfield Gardiner: If the conditions were to develop that my friends have been anticipating, namely, if we had 60 million pounds at July 1, we would be required to hold

Agricultural Products Act 30 million pounds for the last six months. That can be done without risk in connection with the product.


Hazen Robert Argue: Before I reply to the comment the minister made some time ago I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre who suggested that the farmer who suffered at the beginning of the year because of the government's indecision as to what floor price would be established is entitled to some consideration.
The minister said that I probably do not know very much about hog raising and I want to tell him that he is correct. But when I was a young lad of 16 years of age in 1937 I had 30 pigs which I was raising. They were a mile out of town and I had to walk out two or three times a day to feed them. While I may not have been raised on a farm as a boy I did have a few pigs and in that respect I probably know as much about hog raising as does the minister or anyone in the government service.
The minister made the statement that in 1950 the marketing of hogs probably would follow the same pattern as in 1949, namely, that many of the hogs would be marketed in the last three months of the year and sold under the British contract. I do not know whether that will happen in 1950, but I know that that has not been the general pattern of deliveries of bacon to Great Britain in the last few years.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will not be this year either.


Hazen Robert Argue: We are a bit alarmed because in the last three months the packers succeeded in offering to the government 37 million pounds of bacon according to the trade of Canada, exports, dominion bureau of statistics, for 1949, which was 55 per cent of all the bacon delivered. In the three months ending the year 1947 the packers offered to the government and delivered to the board only 48 million pounds out of a total of 232 million pounds during the year, or some 20 per cent.
I do not intend to place all the figures on the record, but I may tell the minister that in 1948 we delivered under the British contract in January 25'8 million pounds and 29-2 million pounds in March as compared with 7 million pounds in October, 4-2 million pounds in November and 7-2 million pounds in December, therefore I do not think it is correct to say that the pattern followed in 1949 is likely to be the pattern followed this year. If the pattern of deliveries to the board in 1950 is similar to that of 1948 then there would be much more than 60 million pounds offered in that period of time.


George James Tustin: The minister said a few minutes ago that the government had 20 million pounds of cheese in storage. Is it the intention to use a portion of that to partially fill the United Kingdom contract this year? What success has the minister had in developing a market for matured cheese in the southern United States?


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement I made a few moments ago was not that we have 20 million pounds in storage now. My hon. friend over here suggested that we had bought only 17 million pounds and I said we had bought over 20 million pounds in the year and now have somewhere between 17 million pounds and 20 million pounds in storage. That cheese has to be disposed of in some way. I understand that the question was whether we are going to use any of it to supply the British market. We have not determined that as yet.
We think at the moment-we may be right or wrong in this-that the Canadian people have not been great consumers of cheese largely because over the years that have gone by the poorest cheese has been palmed off on them while the best cheese has gone to the British market or elsewhere. There are some of us who think that we now have an opportunity of testing out this market with cheese that is well cured. If we do I hope we will get more than the British offered us for it. I said once before that I did not want to repeat the figure which was offered for the cheese some time around Christmas, but it was quite low. I am quite sure that unless we are able to get a little more than that for it none of it will go to Britain. We think we can sell it elsewhere, and our hope is that we can sell a lot of it in Canada.
The other question had to do with the market in the southern states. We have not been too successful there. When the British thought they could not get sufficient cheese from us last year they bought the surplus United States cheese which increased the price in the United States for a time. My understanding is that they now have considerable cheese. As I say, we have not been successful in attempting to market cheese there. On one or two occasions we have been in the position where we probably could have turned over some of that cheese at a price lower than we had paid for it. Someone might have made some money selling the cheese in the United States, but we do not think that that should be our objective. We think our objective should be to maintain the price of Canadian cheese at as high a level as we can and if possible to encourage the consumption of cheese in Canada. We hope

to utilize cheese which we think is good cheese for the purpose of trying to encourage that consumption.


James Arthur Ross: I realize that most of our cheese is produced in eastern Canada. In western Canada the dairy people produce butter rather than cheese. We also realize that butter and hog production go pretty well hand in hand. I know of quite a few dairy people in western Canada who are much concerned whether or not they should continue in the dairy business. I read an article reporting a speech of the minister delivered at the municipal convention held at Saskatoon about the middle of March in which the minister indicated that if necessary a campaign would be launched to prevent oleomargarine manufacturers producing to the extent that it would threaten the 400,000 Canadian dairy farmers. In all fairness I must admit that many farmers use oleomargarine, but the question that concerns me is what these dairy farmers are to do about continuing future production. They have an investment, and the fact that there is a guaranteed price for butter is not sufficient to keep them in business if the manufacture of oleomargarine is finally going to undermine them. It would be helpful to these dairy people if the minister could tell them what the campaign he intends to promote may consist of, or whether legislation is proposed. In all seriousness, may I say that it would be most helpful to dairy people west of the great lakes if they could be given a lead along this line. As I say, I am mindful of the fact that many farmers use oleomargarine.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want to object about the direction the discussion is taking, but you will recall that when we started this afternoon I was hopeful we could get this bill out of the way and have all these discussions on the other one. Both measures are somewhat involved in matters such as the one that has now been brought up, but I think the discussion would come better under the Agricultural Prices Support Act.


James Arthur Ross: I am quite prepared to leave it if the minister will make a statement which will be somewhat encouraging to the dairy people of western Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I could make a better statement at that time than if I were to attempt to answer the question under this measure. I would prefer to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
27, 1950	1151
Agricultural Prices Support Act AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT

James Garfield Gardiner: the second reading of Bill No. 17, to amend the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the Agricultural Prices Support Act is quite similar to the bill which was just passed. Under this measure the minister can do almost anything that can be done under the Agricultural Products Act except the seizure of products. I should like to make our position clear on the question of the amendment to the previous measure. What we voted against was the power left with the minister to seize agricultural products. In every other respect, as I see it-and I may be wrong-the Agricultural Prices Support Act gives the minister the power to do practically anything else that can be done under the Agricultural Products Act.


Percy Ellis Wright: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct the hon. member if he means that under the amendment which I moved we were suggesting that there should be compulsion.


James Arthur Ross: It is already in the act; it could not mean anything else.


Percy Ellis Wright: I was not referring to this act at all. I was referring to a new board set up under new conditions.


John Alpheus Charlton: The party you represent has always been in favour of government controlled marketing of agricultural products.


Percy Ellis Wright: And still are.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is the thing we are against. We are against government marketing of agricultural products. If you want to continue that kind of legislation and make it permanent, then, as I said previously, that is why we took the stand we did against the amendment. We do not want a continuation of government control of the marketing of agricultural products with the minister having the power to seize products of the farms.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, I suggest that the hon. member should be prevented from arguing about the substance of an amendment on which the house has made its decision, because if he is permitted to state his reasons for voting one way, other members could state their reasons for voting the other way. I think that question has been decided.
1152	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Prices Support Act


Mr. Speaker:: That point was brought to my attention by an interjection a moment ago. I did not stop the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton) because I thought he was merely making a passing reference. I think that is what he was doing, and I would ask him now to discuss the bill before the house. Probably I should point out to the house that the house did not agree to the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture that the two bills should be discussed at the same time. Not having agreed to that suggestion, the house must now discuss only the principle of the bill before it.


James Garfield Gardiner: While that is correct in the strictest sense of the term, Mr. Speaker, I think I would hardly be playing fair with members if I did not say that they agreed to put the two bills through the resolution stage in the way they did-after all I had only asked them to consider the matter up until then-to speed up the passing of those resolutions. They did that, and I would hope that you would not now rule that they cannot discuss anything in the bill we just passed, particularly in the light of what I said just before it was passed. I think members will keep themselves within bounds in doing so, and I hope that you will permit a rather free discussion of the two bills.


Mr. Speaker:: I was not in the house when the minister made his closing remarks on the last bill, but in view of what he has said I think I should allow considerable latitude in this debate. I would remind the house, however, that the question before it is the principle of the present bill.


John Alpheus Charlton: I appreciate your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I only wanted to make a few brief remarks about the other matter in passing. We of the Conservative party have always been in favour of legislation similar to that which is before us now. As I have stated before in the house, it was originally the policy of our party. We have no actual criticism of the principle of the bill except that the original act does not fix any formula for setting floor prices. Everything is left to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). In other words, he might still want to have a finger in the control. He cannot tell us how the present floor prices were arrived at except by the juggling of figures. There is no definite plan to relate it, in any way, to the farmers' costs. That is obvious, because their costs have not gone down, while floor prices have.
It is absolutely ridiculous and meaningless for the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to endeavour to create the impression that Canadian farmers are receiving higher prices than farmers in any other


country in the world, unless in each case he also shows the relationship of those prices to domestic costs. Can the minister give parliament the facts upon which he based that statement? Just this morning we received in the mail the latest Searle Grain Company report, that of Wednesday, March 22, from which I want to read one paragraph on the back page:
Supported British Agriculture
British farmers are being supported at the moment at prices for their products considerably higher than the prices at which most farm products could be imported. The London Economist in its issue of February 18 asks this question:
''In the course of time, increasing quantities of food are likely to become available from overseas which can be paid for in sterling. Supposing that the cost of such food is (as on present trends it certainly will be) substantially lower than the prices being paid to British farmers, what course will the government of the day pursue? Will it stand by the promise to purchase the whole output of British agriculture at whatever the cost? Or will it plead a prior duty to keep down the cost of living, and force on British agriculture a sharp and unpleasant adjustment?"
I think that is enough to show the minister was wrong the other evening when he said the prices of our agricultural products were higher than those of any other country. This quotation plainly shows that the prices of agricultural products in Great Britain are higher than those same products can be bought for elsewhere. All the figures the minister quoted last Thursday were wholesale prices, not prices to the producer; and in many cases there is a tremendous difference. For instance, the minister quoted 42-3 cents per dozen as the low price for eggs in 1949. I know, as do many hon. members, that the price to producers for ungraded eggs went as low as 16 cents a dozen last December. The government now guarantees the wholesaler who purchased those eggs for 16 cents a dozen a price of 38 cents plus storage for grade A large, which is rather a nice profit. It makes one wonder for whom the minister is actually working, the producers of this country or the wholesalers. A conservative estimate would be that one-quarter of the entire economy of this country is directly dependent upon agriculture. If our agricultural economy is allowed to deteriorate, the result must be obvious.
The other evening when the minister was reading his 1944 speech in the house, at page 1043 of Hansard, he said:
I hope that our markets for farm products for a period of years, possibly two or three or more, for most of our products, will be sufficiently good that we shall be able to obtain a price which is comparable with the price we are now obtaining for our farm products of different kinds. If so, the board that is in existence during that period of time will be keeping a check on what is happening during that period, comparing it with what happened during the war period-

I stress these next words.
-and immediately there is any necessity for taking action in connection with any farm product, authority is given the board under this legislation to purchase a surplus of that farm product at the floor price which the government of the day considers to be a reasonable floor in the light of all the facts existing in connection with the case.
Was that the situation when the floor price for eggs was fixed last fall or this spring? I do not think it was, because the government waited practically a month and a half before the floor of 38 cents was fixed. Certainly that is not "immediately." Then, in the same speech the minister quoted, he said:
Then I should say it would be unfair to the farmer immediately to require him to sell at the cost of production, without considering at all any losses he sustained because of the war or any returns he was denied through the controls established during the war. The suggestion was made that farmers had been denied returns in the earlier part of the war and that just at the time when in the ordinary course of events according to the experiences of the last war, he would have reaped some returns which would have been helpful to him, ceilings were placed upon prices, as a result of which he was denied as great a return as otherwise he might have received. All those matters would have to be taken into consideration during the transition period along the lines I have suggested.
Then, speaking over the radio from Niagara Falls on Monday, January 30, taking part in the national farm radio forum, he answered a question asked by Mr. Roy Marler of Alberta:


Mr. Marler:: I would like to direct my question to Hon. Mr. Gardiner. My question is "What basis or formula does the government use in arriving at a support price?"


James Garfield Gardiner: In the matter of arriving at a support price, we follow the plan or idea which was laid down in 1944 when we suggested that most of our farmers-at least as their opinions expressed in farm organizations-considered the years 1943-44 as very satisfactory from the standpoint of returns as compared with costs, and we estimated that 1945 would be a similar year. We hoped at that time the war would end in 1945. The war did end in 1945 and our undertaking was that we would keep a record of the situation existing-that is, the relationship between farm prices and farm costs in the last three years of the war; and through the transitional period, we would attempt to keep the returns to the farmers in that fair relationship to the cost of the products they had to buy. That, generally speaking, is the plan and formula.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say it was very generally speaking, with several ifs, ands and buts. Last Thursday evening the minister quoted the low price for eggs in 1949 as 42-3 cents. Let us look at the prices received under the contracts, during the years the minister mentioned. I find that the price in January, 1943, was 37 cents a dozen; in February, 36 cents; in March, 34 cents; and from April 20 it was 35 cents. In 1944 the price was 35J cents a dozen, and for 1945 it was 39 cents in the spring and 44 cents in the fall, with fresh eggs at 48 cents, fall storage. Then if we take
27, 1950
Agricultural Prices Support Act The Economic Annalist for February 1950, we see that the index of farmer's costs have varied a good deal in those same years. The average for 1943, 1944 and 1945, as I have worked it out, was 148. In 1943 the index figure of farm costs, taking eleven factors, was 143-4. In 1944 it was 148, and in 1945 it was 152-1. The average of those three figures is 148, while the index for those same costs as of 1949, the latest available figure, is 204. I think most hon. members will agree they have not decreased. It anything, they have gone up in 1950.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in arriving at the floor price the minister says that they took the figures for 1943, 1944 and 1945, based on the increase in costs since those years, and set the floor prices. As I calculate the changes and the increased costs using the low of 34 cents in March 1943 that would set the floor price for eggs at 46 cents. I should like to have the minister justify or substantiate his floor price of 38 cents for eggs which was set on January 26 this year.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the principle in the bill before us is quite simple. It asks that the Agricultural Prices Support Act be continued after March 31 of this year. I believe it is quite obvious to everyone that legislation is needed that will enable the government to place floor prices under farm products. During the last 15 or 16 months Canada has witnessed, as has the United States, a severe drop in farm income. Unless the government has legislation such as the Agricultural Prices Support Act, and unless the legislation is used in the proper manner, then there are sorry times ahead for the agricultural industry.
The farmers of this country are looking to the federal government to establish adequate floor prices under the main agricultural commodities. They believe that the low prices which have come about in the last few months have resulted directly from the policy this government has followed since the war. That being so, they are looking to this government to set proper floor prices. It is admitted by the government, and has' been admitted by it since the end of the war, that the government does not believe in contracts for agricultural products on a permanent basis. In order that that point may be quite clear-


James Garfield Gardiner: In order that it may not be repeated, I would say that is not true.


Hazen Robert Argue: I shall repeat it, and it can be substantiated by a reading of the preamble of the Agricultural Products Act, under which the government fulfils the contract.

Agricultural Prices Support Act I have not the preamble before me, but I think the minister will agree that the Agricultural Products Act was set up under the Transitional Measures Act. When the minister comes before this house and says there is still an emergency resulting from the war and we should, therefore, pass this act for another year, he is saying that contracts are not going to be undertaken on a permanent basis. If the government were really anxious to inaugurate contracts for the sale of agricultural products year in and year out, it would bring in a permanent act, instead of asking us to extend the Agricultural Products Act from year to year under this emergency powers legislation.
I say, too, that if this government believed in bilateral contracts and the bilateral method of trading, then the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) would not have denied that the government would undertake such contracts. It would not have been necessary, if this government believed in the bilateral method of trading, for the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) to amend what I considered was an excellent speech, in which he advocated bilateral agreements. The difficulty in which we, as a nation, find ourselves is that, in spite of what the member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) said, I still consider Great Britain is our best market. Great Britain believes in bilateral contracts not only for exporting goods but also for importing goods. Because the British believe in that method of trading, and because this government does not believe in it, we find we have already lost a substantial portion of the British market for many farm commodities.
For example, while we shipped approximately 65 million pounds of bacon to Britain last year, under these bilateral agreements Britain purchased 20 million pounds from the Netherlands, 40 million pounds from Eire, and 40 million pounds from Poland. Under that contract, she may buy as high as 120 million pounds. Britain bought 100 million pounds of bacon under bilateral contracts and in addition took 90 per cent of the Danish surplus. While we supplied about 65 million pounds of bacon, Britain had contracts for the purchase of 200 million pounds.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Hazen Robert Argue: When the house rose at six o'clock I was endeavouring to point out some of the need that has arisen for a support 
act, and why at this time a support act, with proper floors, was absolutely necessary. I had placed some figures on Hansard to show how we were losing the British market, and that the people of Great Britain had been able successfully, through bilateral trade agreements, to obtain large quantities of bacon from countries other than Canada.
In order to show how serious has been our loss of the British market for bacon, I might point out that back in the year 1938 Canada shipped to Great Britain 189 million pounds of bacon, whereas this year we are hoping to ship not more than 60 million pounds. This year the total value of our bacon contract is some $17,500,000; whereas in 1938, a year when we were just emerging from a depression, the value of .the bacon shipped to Great Britain was $32 million, or almost twice as much as the present contract.
Policies adopted by this and other governments certainly affect the chances we have of selling our commodities in the European markets. As has already been pointed out, the devaluation of the British pound has made it more difficult for Canada to export agricultural commodities to that market. I might say that when the British made the decision to devalue the pound it was not because they wanted to, but out of sheer necessity. In my opinion devaluation of the pound was brought about largely because of the failure of Canada and the United States to purchase adequate imports from Great Britain. Because that is so, and because devaluation followed, we find a reduction in the price of bacon and of cheese under our contracts. The bacon contract price is reduced from $36 a hundredweight last year to $29 this year, almost the exact amount brought about through devaluation.
We in this group have always supported the United Nations, and the various bodies set up under the United Nations. We support the FAO, and we were sorry that when they proposed an international commodity clearing house arrangement for the disposal of surplus foods in the world's market our government, through our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), found it impossible to support that arrangement. Because of that, and because of the other factors that I have mentioned, we have the problem of disposing of agricultural surpluses. In my opinion that problem has been brought about largely because of the various policies adopted by the government since the conclusion of the war.
In his speech this afternoon the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras), as did the Minister of Agriculture last Thursday,

emphasized the value of the United States market. Both the hon. member for Pro-vencher and the minister made the statement that the United States is our second best market. While the United States may be our second best market for many commodities, in my opinion that country is not our second best market for most agricultural products. 1 agree that the first and most important market is our own Canadian market; but in my opinion after that the United Kingdom offers the opportunity of a permanent market for most of our agricultural products whereas the United States does not offer that type of market.
At the present time the United States has, according to the Ottawa Citizen of March 10, almost $4 billion invested in agricultural surpluses held by the government. In looking over the list of agricultural surpluses one finds that a great many of the surpluses in the United States are identical with the surpluses we have in Canada. According to that article the United States has 100 million pounds of butter held by the government, and 25 million pounds of cheese, both commodities that Canada has had some difficulty in disposing of at 1949 prices. The United States has 52 million bushels of barley on hand held by the government, and some 627 million bushels of corn. While the United States does provide a market for surplus Canadian cattle, I do not think that country is likely to provide an effective market for Canadian hogs if after the conclusion of the present agreement with Britain no other agreement is signed.
While the United States government does not hold hogs in surplus supply, nevertheless the 627 million bushels of corn and the 52 million bushels of barley could be converted into hogs in a very short time. One cannot see that the United States is likely to provide a market for Canadian wheat, although I do know that in his speech to the FAO conference last fall the Minister of Agriculture said that he hoped the United States would lift the embargo on Canadian wheat. Whether the United States will lift that embargo I do not know, but judging by the surpluses of wheat they hold, I am afraid that such a move would be of very little value to Canada.
According to the article to which I have referred, the United States has invested over $1 billion in wheat. The United States surplus of wheat held by the government amounts to some 475 million bushels. Therefore I do not feel that the United States will provide a market for Canadian wheat.
In the last few weeks and months we have seen a drop in many agricultural food commodities produced in Canada. At the same time we do know that the prices of coarse
Agricultural Prices Support Act grains, such as oats and barley, are still high. No. 1 feed oats was being sold by the wheat board on Thursday, March 23, at 96 cents a bushel. No. 1 feed barley was being sold by the wheat board for $1.35J a bushel. I believe that these prices for oats and barley are high in relation to the new prices established for bacon, eggs and other agricultural products. I do not suggest that the price of oats or barley should be reduced in any way. I hope that these prices will not fall, but when I read in the press that the Minister of Agriculture was suggesting to western farmers that they reduce their wheat acreage this year by three million acres I was wondering whether he did not know that such a reduction in wheat acreage would mean an increase in the acreages of oats and barley. If there is an increase in the production of oats and barley, with the present support prices under bacon and eggs and cheese at existing low levels, then in my opinion it is inevitable that oats and barley prices will fall.
So I say the government, through the floor prices it has adopted, through the suggestion that three million acres be taken out of wheat production-and as a result, of course, most of it will go into the production of something else, probably oats and barley, with increased supplies-is expecting a lowering of the whole level of agricultural products.
If that is the policy of the government, as it seems to be, then I certainly object to it in the strongest terms. I did not expect under this measure any lowering of prices for various agricultural commodities during the present year. The Minister of Agriculture, as reported at page 1043 of Hansard for March 23, repeated a speech he made when introducing the Agricultural Prices Support Act in 1944. In that speech he said this:
Then I should say it would be unfair to the farmer immediately to require him to sell at the cost of production, without considering at all any losses he sustained because of the war or any returns he was denied through the controls established during the war. The suggestion was made that farmers had been denied returns in the earlier part cf the war and that just at the time when in the ordinary course of events according to the experiences of the last war, he would have reaped some returns which would have been helpful to him, ceilings were placed upon prices, as a result of which he was denied as great a return as otherwise he might have received. All those matters would have to be taken into consideration during the transition period along the lines I have suggested.
I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture could have considered the hundreds of millions of dollars of income the farmers of this country have been denied because of the government's policy over the last few years, when it was dropping the prices of bacon, cheese and eggs? Surely if the farmers are
1156	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Prices Support Act to receive something extra because of the money that was denied them, then floor prices should not drop. Floor prices should be held at the level prevailing in 1949, so that part of the money denied the farmers in the last few years could be made up to them.
I object that the bill as it now stands does not in any definite way set floor prices under agricultural products from year to year whereby the farmer can know in advance what floor prices will be. The other night the Minister of Agriculture reviewed some of the discussions which had taken place at the convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at Niagara Falls. He suggested in that speech that before Canadian floor prices were established he and his officers checked on the period 1943, 1944 and 1945. He made the statement in that speech that Mr. Galbraith, an economist from the United States, I believe,. informed the convention that the basis of parity in that country was for the period from 1909 to 1914, and that that period was a good deal lower than the Canadian period of from 1943 to 1945.
_ The minister quoted Mr. Galbraith as having said that the United States period was in the neighbourhood of 15 per cent lower than the Canadian period. Then the minister quoted Dr. Hope, Canadian Federation of Agriculture economist, as having been surprised that the Canadian period was higher than the period accepted in the United States. Then the minister makes this statement, in reference to Dr. Hope:
He did not say how much better, but he said it was better in Canada. In other words, our base is the highest price.
Well, Mr. Speaker, our base may be the highest price, but our base is not in legislative form. And our base, as used by the Minister of Agriculture, is only a base on which the government checks. Apparently it checks on that base, and then it sets a price lower than the base. It may be just as advisable-
I do not know-to check on the base period in the early thirties, when prices were very low, and then, instead of giving that base period as the established price, set a price a good deal higher.
It is not enough to have a base period on which you are merely checking. If the Agricultural Prices Support Act is to mean anything, then the price relationship prevailing in the base period should be written into the act, and that should be the price below which farm commodities are not allowed to fall.
At this point I should like to quote from an article issued by the Michigan state college extension service, department of agricultural economics, at East Lansing, Michigan. This article is written by Mr. Arthur Mauch, and


in it he points out the method used in the United States in the setting of floor prices. For 1950, under the basic crops, there is established a floor at 90 per cent of parity, and the basic floor under dairy products must be established at something between 75 per cent and 90 per cent of parity, according to the statute.
Then on the next page of the same article it sets out the various floors for 1950 for agricultural products in the United States, and shows that the United States formula arrives at a basic floor price for wheat of $2.12 a bushel; for butterfat, 63 cents a pound-5 cents higher than the present Canadian floor price under butter, and probably a good deal higher than the floor the minister may announce in a few days. I hope I am wrong in my assumption on that score. This table indicates that the floor in the United States under eggs is 51-6 cents a dozen, whereas the floor under Canadian eggs based, as the minister inferred, on the highest base period, is one of 36 or 38 cents a dozen. The floor under oats in the United States is 95 cents a bushel, as compared with the Canadian floor of 61J cents; that under barley in the United States is $1.49 as compared with the Canadian floor of about 90 cents.
So, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize again that it is not enough to have a measure like this before the House of Commons. It is not enough for the minister to say, "We have a certain base period, and we are checking on that base period"-if after he checks on the base period he does not establish floors equal to the prices prevailing in that base period.
While the United States base period may not be as high as some other periods, nevertheless the actual floor prices adopted in that country by their formula are a good deal higher than the prices established in Canada.


Mr. Gibson:: How many billions did it cost them?


Hazen Robert Argue: There is the lumber king interrupting. I suppose he is pretty happy that some of the western Canadian wheat farmers' money is now being used to support timber prices. If he will accept wheat money for the support of timber prices I think he should be willing to give the farmer a little timber money to support the prices of his products.
Because I believe that the present bill is not acceptable to the western farmer as an adequate piece of floor prices legislation, because I believe that the government should not be presenting to parliament the same act that was presented in 1944 but should be presenting legislation that spells out a formula below which agricultural prices cannot fall,

and because I believe that a change is fundamentally necessary, I desire to move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher):
That Bill No. 17 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the introducing of legislation to amend the Agricultural Prices Support Act so as to provide that floor prices should be established at such levels as to guarantee to producers a price-cost relationship not less favourable than that prevailing in the period 1944-48.
During that period certain farm prices were controlled and the farmers made a contribution to the rest of Canada through having to accept prices which were lower than they could have obtained elsewhere. I suggest that there should be legislation providing that the floor prices for agricultural products cannot fall below the level of 1944-48. If that were done Canadian farmers from one coast to the other would know that they had proper guarantees and they would not have to come to the minister every year just to learn how much smaller the contract is going to be or by how much their prices are reduced.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part in this debate. On Thursday last when the two resolutions were introduced we thought it would be advisable to hasten their passage through the house, but at this stage I desire to point out certain things which I feel are necessary in this type of legislation. I think all of us recall quite well the promises that were made in 1945 and 1949 with regard to the Agricultural Prices Support Act. We all know that there was a $200 million revolving fund set up under the act.
I think members of the house agree with the general principle of this act, but the workings of the act have certainly not come up to the expectations of the primary producers across this country. I agree with the statements made on the resolution stage by my colleague, the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton), and the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair). I think most primary producers welcomed the legislation because it was heralded as a step in the stabilization of prices by which they would know from month to month what they were going to get for their products when they planted them; but that has not been the result so far.
I think we all support this legislation because of the degree of stability it will bring to labour and industry. Unless the purchasing power of the primary producers is maintained it will not be long before the men in the cities will be looking for jobs. That has been demonstrated definitely during the past few months. As the prices of farm products
27, 1950
Agricultural Prices Support Act dropped, the number of unemployed increased. It is only reasonable to expect that, because it is the purchasing power of the primary producers of this country that keeps the wheels of industry turning.
As I say, the application of the act so far has been disappointing. As far as eggs are concerned there has been too little too late. That is not what the farmers voted for in 1949. Did it provide stability for hogs? It did after a large number of producers had suffered considerable losses through not knowing where prices were going. It took the government so long to make up their minds where they were going to set the prices and the result was losses for a number of producers.
Did it provide stability for butter? Only after the horse was stolen. Did it provide stability for honey? The price of honey is down to where it was in 1900. Did it provide stability for beans? Only in a very precarious way because the bean producers themselves provided the greatest amount of stabilization in the marketing of their commodity.
We need a realistic approach to this problem of agricultural prices support. Those prices should be arrived at by a definitely known formula. They should be arrived at after consultation with the various commodity groups that know something about the cost of production and the labour factors that go into the production of their particular product.
The prices support should be clear and be directly applicable to the primary producer rather than to the wholesale trade. We have seen the results of that so far as eggs are concerned. The wholesale trade can take care of themselves in all these changes that are taking place. It is the primary producer who gets the squeeze every time and therefore any floor prices legislation should be based on a scheme that will definitely assure the primary producer what he is going to get, not the wholesaler or the middleman.
I repeat that we require a workable formula, not one based on political expediency. In the past we have seen what political prices can mean to farm products. That is one reason why I opposed the amendment to Bill No. 16. I was afraid that the price that would be paid for goods that were requisitioned would have no relation to the cost of production or to the purchasing power that those particular goods might represent for the purchase of the products of industry and labour. We do not want a "tick, tack, toe, here I go" system of picking out what the price support legislation is going to be and the prices thereunder. Taking what it was last year, we do not want a guess as to what it might be next year. That is not good enough.

Agricultural Prices Support Act That is not what the farmers voted for. We want a formula based on the needs of Canada, on the needs of Canadian markets and the consuming public, because after all the home market is the greatest potential market we have. It should be based on reality, cost of production, purchasing power, and last of all, but most important, on the idea of maintaining the economy of the country because when the time arrives that primary producers are accepting 25 per cent less for their products than they have been, you are going to have unemployment and a decrease in income so far as the government in concerned. Income tax collections will fall as will sales tax receipts and with the expenditures to which this country is now committed you will find yourselves in a very serious situation.
The cabinet is the board of directors of the nation, a crown company in a sense. During the war they made certain promises to the producers that when the war was over they would be protected so far as their prices were concerned. Now some members of the cabinet are saying that conditions have changed and that we cannot now carry on with the program outlined at that time. When a company fails to carry out its promises or to honour its promissory notes it goes bankrupt and liquidation proceedings take place. That is just what will happen to this government if it does not carry out its promises to the primary producers. There will be a liquidation.
During the war years the primary producers contributed a very large sum of money to the maintenance of stable prices in Canada on the promise that when the war was over they would be taken care of. Now the government is reneging on its promise. Why do we ask for these particular safeguards? To ensure purchasing power in the hands of Canadian citizens who will continue to buy our products. The purchase of Canadian products will bring about increased employment. One thing that is bothering everyone in Canada today is the threat of greater numbers of unemployed in all our cities. If the purchasing power of the primary producers is reduced you will have more unemployment instead of less.
Recently the newspapers carried headlines regarding the rapid action taken by the government to protect the shirt and glove industry of Canada from competition with low-priced goods produced in other countries. They were not in as great a hurry to protect our primary producers from competition with low-cost products brought in from foreign lands. If it is good for one it is good for the other. It is quite possible that the farmer and the labourer might like to get a cheap shirt once in a while. The creation of a floor price formula should not be delayed until producers
fMr. White (Middlesex East).]

are discouraged, dismayed, or better still- mark my words, "better still" not "worse still" -fighting mad about it, because that will be all to our advantage. Again I say that while this legislation is not all that we would wish for, we welcome its introduction and hope that the amendments suggested will be carried out.


René Jutras: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise again this evening on these measures. However, the two bills are so closely related that I should like to make a few observations on the Agricultural Prices Support Act. First of all, we have heard a great deal, particularly during the resolution stage, about agricultural surpluses in Canada. It is a fact that for a great many years we have had the problem of agricultural surpluses, and apparently we will continue to have it for a few years to come. I was amazed at the attitude of the C.C.F. party as to these surpluses. If you will look at Hansard you will see at page 1047 the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) had this to say with reference to surpluses:
It is not right, it is not just, that we should be piling up surpluses of agricultural commodities in Canada when there are hungry people in the world.
Again and again during the debate, various members of the opposition have referred to our surpluses. They have pointed to them as if it were wrong for Canada to have surpluses, and have even almost insinuated that there was something wrong with our economic system, something wrong with our system altogether that we should have such large surpluses in Canada when there were people starving in other parts of the world. I suggest that if we have large surpluses in Canada it is largely due to our system of government, our economic system, our system of free enterprise. Instead of something that should be looked upon as bad it is one of the best tributes that can be paid to our free enterprise system. There is no question that some countries in Europe have suffered destruction because of the war, but the same cannot be said of some other countries where people are starving but which did not experience the war at all. We have developed one of the most efficient systems, and when I say "we" I refer to the North American continent. We should be proud of it. Of course it raises certain problems. We have surpluses and the question is how to distribute them. At page 1052 of Hansard the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones) said:
Obviously then, Mr. Speaker, our problem is one of distribution.
He would make it appear that the only problem involved is one of distributing our surplus goods. Of course when we go to the

bottom of the matter it is much more involved than just the question of distribution. Fundamentally it is not a question of distribution but a question of production. We know that in most of these underdeveloped countries, where people are in need of our surplus products, if their production reached the same level as ours we should have no difficulty in sending our goods to them. Therefore it is much more a question of the lack of production in other countries than a question of distribution. Be that as it may, we have this problem, and we will have it for some time yet.
Reference has been made to the many plans put forward to take care of the situation, including the Brannan plan, the ICCH plan, and I believe the Dr. Hope plan. In my humble opinion, however, none of these plans solves the basic problem. We have surpluses. People are starving in other countries. If our surpluses are to get to the people in other countries who cannot pay for them, that can be done in only one way; that is, we will have to give them away. If we give something away we get nothing in return for it, and somebody has to pay. Under the Brannan plan the taxpayer must pay for the charity that is extended. The ICCH plan is much the same thing, only at the international level. In considering this latter plan, which has been referred to by the C.C.F. party and particularly by the Social Credit group, who seem to place a great deal of faith in it, I would point out that under it Canada would be perhaps the country to suffer most. There is one problem for which a solution is not found in any of these plans; that is, a way to prevent the disposal of these surpluses from depressing prices throughout the country. As far as I know no one has found a satisfactory solution to that branch of the problem.
It is all very well to say we can depend upon the treasury to make up the difference, but we must realize that if the bill that must be paid by the taxpayers of Canada or any other country became too large, no government could possibly continue such a plan for any length of time. With prices depressed, you can imagine what would be the plight of the farmers throughout the country, so in the end the problem would be far worse than it was in the beginning. So I say that while there is a great deal of merit in all these plans, we must face the facts. If something is given away someone has to pay for it; there is no way around it. We must make up our minds whether or not we are in a position to do that. If we should go ahead with such a plan we will have to decide whether the producer or the taxpayer is to pay the difference, or whether it should be apportioned in some
27, 1950
Agricultural Prices Support Act other way. Basically the one thing we must face is that as long as it is a gift we cannot expect anything in return; so the cost must be borne by the people as a whole. It is all very well to say there is something wrong with our system of distribution because we have surpluses while other people are starving, but the matter is not so easily resolved, and we must face that fact sooner or later.
In the course of the discussion we have also heard from our C.C.F. friends a great deal of what I would call propaganda from their socialist friends in the United Kingdom. For a full day we had a recital of the wonderful things that have been done in the United Kingdom for the stability of agriculture, and we were told that conditions there were so much better than a few years ago. Well, I suggest to my hon. friends that instead of being so engrossed in their propaganda from overseas they should look around their own communities. Of course there have been great changes, in Canada as well as elsewhere. Compare the stability of agriculture in this country today with the position in the thirties. Compare the position of the farmer today with his position in the nineties. There has been a tremendous improvement, and that applies to most countries in the world. Everywhere there has been progress. A few years ago we heard all about Australia and New Zealand; now it is pretty well narrowed down to the United Kingdom, and they persist in spreading as much propaganda [DOT] as they can with regard to things done outside our own country.
It would seem, according to our friends, that all our problems may be solved by what they used to call a planned economy, by the stroke of a pen. That was the generality; that was supposed to be the cure-all. Of course we know the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan, which has had to face realities, now is not so keen as it was on this planned economy. As a matter of fact they are dropping their plans like hot cakes, and have got rid of most of their supposed planning experts. Our friends of the C.C.F. in this house have not had that unpleasant experience, however, so they can still play with these generalities. Last Thursday they came forward with a new slant, or what I might call a new catchword. It was referred to by the leader of the C.C.F. as "forward pricing arrangements," which I suppose is the new version of the planned economy. That is very general; I suppose it embraces practically all production, all marketing and what not. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), in his usual clear and straightforward

Agricultural Prices Support Act way, gave us a definition of what was meant by that terminology. He said, at page 1051 of Hansard:
I mean, by that that when we breed a cow we will know how much we will get for the steer three years hence.
That is supposed to be what the hon. member's leader called a forward pricing arrangement. Other speakers referred to the same subject, and they became so enthused over their discovery that when their leader had his turn he went still further and improved on the system. He said, at page 1064 of Hansard:
. . . they know what it will be four years in advance, even before the cow is bred.
If that is not a super-planning theory, I do not know what is. It just goes to show how easily our friends can be carried away.
We have before us at the moment an amendment moved by the C.C.F. group which, as far as I can understand it, asks that a formula be placed in the act. I for one will support the bill as it is. No doubt it is another step towards stabilizing agriculture in this country. It is the fulfilment of a promise that the government made. A good deal of criticism was heard to the effect that the government had not kept its promises. Here is a promise that was made which the government is attempting to keep, but which our friends are trying to prevent it from keeping, in spite of the complaints they have made.
This raises the question of the formula. I am willing to admit that there might be some good in the formula. Before supporting a formula, however, I would have to know what the formula contains. From the experience of the United States, and from our farm leaders in the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we know that no matter what formula we adopt, that formula must be of necessity a most flexible one. It must be adaptable from time to time. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, it is hardly a formula, if it has to be changed and adapted, or if it is left to the minister to decide to what degree the formula will be applied. If we have to have a formula of that nature, I cannot see any difference between that and the policy the minister is now following. Inevitably all conditions at the time have to be taken into consideration. It would seem, therefore, just as well to leave the matter in the hands of the minister and the cabinet. They have told us what formula they are using. Even if we placed another formula in their hands, we would still have to allow them to interpret it.
Frankly, I cannot see the merit of the amendment that has been suggested to this bill. We know that this bill is welcomed by the farmers throughout Canada. As I said,
[Mr. Jutras.l
it is a step forward towards greater stability in agriculture. It is a step forward in the policy of this government. For the last few years this government has continuously tried to give a greater degree of stability to agriculture. I can say without fear of contradiction, and I said it during the last election campaign at all my meetings, that I doubt if in the history of this nation farmers ever had a better friend in any government than they have in this administration. The farmers realize it, Mr. Speaker. Since trust and confidence have to be placed in someone, they are quite prepared to leave it with the present Minister of Agriculture. I should have said that, of all the ministers of agriculture this country has known, certainly no minister has done more for agriculture and the stability of agriculture than the present minister. I doubt if anyone would attempt to deny that. His reputation in that regard is certainly well known.
I quite readily admit that some of the farm organizations, individual farmers and even ourselves, might occasionally prefer to have a set formula that could be applied mathematically, so we would definitely know where we were. Everyone realizes that that is not feasible, nor is it practical. Why get involved in more red tape, if we are going to end up the same way? I can understand my good friends in the C.C.F., because they have to plan and control everything. It is to be expected that they will press for any measure that will add more and more control, more and more planning. They do not believe in free enterprise. They do not believe in this system. They believe they can do everything better than the individual can do it. I am not surprised, therefore, that they should move this amendment. I do say it contributes very little, and I certainly propose to vote against it.


Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words at this time. The member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) has made an excellent speech, which consisted largely of telling us what a wonderful fellow the Minister of Agriculture is. I know that is true in certain things. He played a fair game of football, or soccer as we called it at one time. He has always made money out of his farm. By that, I mean he has made money by growing crops. Some farmers make money from their farms otherwise, but he is a real farmer and makes money by growing crops, and without any guarantees of the kind he now gives since he has become Minister of Agriculture.
I venture to make a suggestion which I think will be quite unpopular in the farming portion of the constituency in which I live.

I am going to say now that I am quite content for another year. That may indicate how I shall vote. I do think it is about time that this parliament ceased (to be operated by pressure groups. The farm group is one of the most important, and the labour pressure group is the other group.
I think it is about time that we members of parliament started to look after the consumer a little. After all, he is the fellow who pays the bills. He has no organization. He has no way of getting at us. We are met by all these other people of influence who are organized to the nth degree, and so make themselves felt.
Someone will say, of course, that having said what I have just said, I am opposed to maintaining prices in agriculture; that is not so. I am one of those who still think that agriculture is our main and sustaining industry. In the time which I have lived, I have learned from experience that when agriculture lags in income, the whole nation lags in income. I believe there is a definite connection between the two statements. New wealth, sir, comes in only one way. You first take a natural resource, in this case the land; to that land you apply capital and labour, and you get new wealth. It is obtained in no other way, irrespective of what that natural resource may be. From these resources comes every bit of our new wealth, and it is only new wealth that makes a country prosperous.
Suppose you and I come by some stocks on the market tomorrow. We may sell those stocks at a considerable profit, but we must remember that that profit would come from the man who owned them before. No new wealth would be created by those city slicker methods of getting money on the markets, or on land or on anything of that kind. Having said that, I am in favour of the maintenance of prices. The amendment says minimum prices; I think it really means ceiling prices when the thing is worked out. Having said that I cannot come back and deny my first broad statement. But I am going to say to you, sir, that the minute we take the economy of Canada and patch it here and there and elsewhere with floors and ceilings, the closer we come to the destruction of our whole economy.


Percy Ellis Wright: How about tariffs?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I will tell the hon. member something about tariffs. This country was made by tariffs put on by Sir John A. Macdonald under the national policy. Tariffs made this country, and the United States was made in exactly the same way.


Percy Ellis Wright: Why not give the farmer the same protection?
27, 1950
Agricultural Prices Support Act


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am going to give you even more than that in a minute. Tariffs were the beginning of the industrial era of this country. We must always remember that tariffs were first made by any country as a means of self-protection. In those days the idea of nations getting along with one another was never agitated for or even suggested. It may seem strange for me to say this because I stand where I do. After all the tinkering we have done with markets, and since we have grown industrially, I am very much in favour of letting our products and our money take their places in the world's markets. Let us find out what our products are worth, and what our money is worth. My thinking now is all along that particular line.
I am in favour of holding the prices support act, as called for in the bill. I think that if we quit playing with our economy, if we quit this patchwork business, and let our goods find their own level in world markets, the better it will be for Canada. I do not mean world markets of the kind we have established recently, for example, in coarse grains. I know that what I say now will be very unpopular with all those pools and farm organizations in western Canada, which have been operated on a basis of hatred for the Winnipeg grain exchange, hatred, selfishness-


Mr. Ferrie:: Speak for yourself.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Speak for
myself! I am speaking for myself, and if you are capable of speaking for yourself you will have plenty of opportunity tomorrow.
So long as greed and fear are motivating factors in human conduct-and in my judgment they are, and I think they always will be-requests will be made for special legislation. But it is time the dominion parliament and government stopped being a "gimme" organization every time we are approached by any group of our population who are seeking a handout here and there.
Why should we tie our prices in this agricultural matter to 1944-48? The answer is that it certainly suits the producers of farm products, because it was in that period that, if we did not reach the peak, we reached a very high level. You may think, sir, that I have been arguing against this legislation, but I come back to say this. I support the idea of the extension of the Agricultural Prices Support Act. But I say at the moment I am not prepared to commit myself to having this parliament saying about one product, or one related series of products, that we shall maintain a certain level. True the amendment saves itself by saying that the relationship shall be preserved. I am one of those who hope that it will be preserved. I am one of

Agricultural Prices Support Act those who know that in the country from which I come the farmers for a long time have had the short end of the stick. In other words, there was not any proper relationship between the prices they got for that which they produced and the prices they paid for that which they bought. I know that is a good slogan, but I wonder just how much it means. We say that in producing grain we get so much a bushel. Then we are told that the price of a binder or a combine in these modern days has been going up and up. But I have never had anyone yet tell me how many bushels of grain a binder will cut. I have never had anyone tell me how many bushels of grain a combine will cut and thresh. Until we look at the thing in that way we cannot make a comparison. We cannot just take the percentage of the rise in price, because we sell grain and produce every year. We buy a binder once every ten years and a combine in roughly the same time. Therefore in our thinking about these matters we must average the increase in the price of a farm implement over the period of time, and over the produce that it will process, if that is the proper word to use.
You may ask me, sir, where does the member for Calgary West stand on this thing. I am going to say that the principle of the relationship in our prices is more than a pious hope. It is something which is interrelated, very sound. We know that the farmer has got the worst of it in times gone by.
I now come back to the remark made by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). I say to him that there is something in his question to me about tariffs. Tariffs are of two kinds. . As a matter of fact they were put on for the protection of Canadian industry. Just suppose I made tin dippers over here-I know this is beneath his dignity-and suppose the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) made tin dippers over there, the gangway being the boundary between the two countries. A protective tariff was one which permitted me, and only permitted me, to be able to sell my tin dippers at the same price that he sold his, which were produced at a smaller cost because he had a tremendous marketing area compared with my small one. I think, sir, that those days have gone by. I refer to one particular company, the Massey-Harris Company. I remember years ago we had to protect Canadian implement companies; but today the Massey-Harris Company is one of the greatest sellers of farm implements in the United States of America. We all know that they practically saved American crops some two or three years ago by putting in their combines down near the gulf, working north and thereby practically saving the crop.

My point is this:	I think our industryand I am saying this in answer to what my hon. friend asked-I think our industry in many lines has achieved a place where it does not need governmental protection from anybody. I will go a little further and say that those people who cannot operate without protection should first look to their own internal economy, their own costs, so that they do not need the cushion of a tariff.
Free trade, you say? No. I realize there are many conditions entering into this. If your labour costs in an exporting country- and we import into this one-are away below those of our workmen, then certainly you have to have a tariff. Why? Not to protect the workmen as such, but to protect the great numbers of our population who are engaged in working, perhaps not in that industry, but in one way or another. Our duty here, obviously, is to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people within our dominion. I think the amendment is wrong in endeavouring to tie the Canadian economy whose fluctuations are many, and some of them very quick indeed-I think it is wrong to endeavour to tie that economy to a given area, 1944 to 1948, without regard to the many things which may and easily can happen.
So, Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for the amendment, because it is an advocacy of the principle of tying our agricultural economy to the rest of our industrial economy. And by that I mean this, that I think it is perfectly true that the farmers get too little of the income of Canada. That did increase -and in this particular period it almost reached parity, or in any event reached a point which was the nearest our farmers had ever come to it.
In view of that fact I am going to vote for the amendment. I do not like the 1944 to 1948 period or any other period being fixed as a yardstick; because we can find from the bureau of statistics in any year what proportion of the income those persons who were engaged in agriculture, having regard to the population, got, as compared with those persons who were otherwise engaged. So I am going to vote for the amendment in affirmation of the principle of a proper relationship between the economy of the farm and the rest of our economy-and for no other reason.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to comment on the amendment, but I have a few observations to make concerning the bill itself. Before proceeding with that, however, I think I should refer to one remark by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) in that surprising speech of his. Apparently he

failed to see that when tariffs were put on they put a ceiling under prices of all protected goods. Call it a floor, if you like. They put a floor under all protected goods, when a tariff was put on. Yet he was opposing the idea of a floor. Probably in the quiet of his room he will figure that out.
We are living in a world in which men work together in giant combinations. The hon. member for Calgary West appeared to be objecting to having the farmers combine together-the farmers, who are the least protected of all the producers in our economy- to protect themselves against giant combinations of men far more powerful than they are. To me that was a matter of some astonishment.
Then, I should like to turn for a moment to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras).


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


John Horne Blackmore: A dozen, if the hon. member would like to ask them.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I will not ask the hon. member to be that generous, because if I asked a dozen he would have to stop speaking. I shall ask only one. Perhaps I did not hear the hon. member correctly, but I thought I heard him say that I objected to farmers getting their fair share of the national income.


John Horne Blackmore: No, I did not say that. But I do not wonder the hon. member could not hear what I said, because as soon as I began to speak, twenty-five or so members of the House of Commons seemed to think that was the signal for them to start talking among themselves.
What I said was this: I pointed out-and I wish to be fair to the hon. member-that he seemed to object to having farmers have a floor under their prices.


Arthur Leroy Smith: No.


John Horne Blackmore: But he failed to see that when tariffs are put on it automatically puts a floor under the price of every article that is protected by those tariffs.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the hon. member wish me to answer? Perhaps I should not.


John Horne Blackmore: If you wish.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Perhaps I will have eleven other chances; but when I use dice they have both the seven and the eleven.
I prefer to play it that way.
The point I am trying to make is this: I never consciously made any such suggestion, that I do not believe in floor prices for agri-
Agricultural Prices Support Act culture. As I said, I believe agriculture is our basic industry and our greatest industry, and I would prefer to let other products relate themselves to the prices of agriculture, rather than have us start on a tariff basis by basing our farm position on those other products. I believe agriculture is the basic industry of this country, and everything should relate itself to it.


John Horne Blackmore: Weil, I am very glad the hon. member for Calgary West was given the opportunity to put himself right, because he certainly had put himself wrong.
May I turn to the hon. member for Provencher. If I recall correctly-and I cannot
be sure that I did understand him properly_
he said that ICCH would result in a lowering of prices in all the contributing nations. Did I understand the hon. member correctly?


René Jutras: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, I can understand why the hon. member would say that, if ICCH is to be supported with money taken from the people by taxation. But if ICCH were supported by money created by the state-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Never mind laughing. Let us remember that, when the hon. member for Provencher laughs at that, he confesses he does not know anything about what to do in a situation concerning which something has to be done.
There is my question. The nations today have not the slightest idea how to distribute the abundance of the Americas among the needy areas of Japan, Siam, Malaya and the other suffering countries. They have not any idea of how to do it. And because the United States does not understand how to do it, I understand that country is going to limit the number of acres in production this year to the extent of 30 million acres. That means that she is not going to produce on 30 million acres of land right at a time when there are over a billion people in the world starving for the production of those 30 million acres.
t Mr. Jutras: The hon. member says that the United States and Canada and all the other democracies have no solution, but they have a good solution. In fact, I think they have a solution to the problem which will be implemented in the relatively near future. I propose to deal with that at some length when we take up the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


John Horne Blackmore: We always hear of what is going to be done, but we never do see the start of it. The best evidence I can think of to show that the United States and Canada do

Agricultural Prices Support Act not know what to do is this resolution proposed in the United States to reduce her production by 30 million acres next year. Imagine the richest nation on the face of the earth with $4,000 million worth of agricultural products on hand not going to produce on 30 million acres of land when there are over a billion people starving!


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not going to do any such thing.


John Horne Blackmore: That is what is reported in the latest news.


James Garfield Gardiner: No it is not.


John Horne Blackmore: I did not come down prepared to speak on that, but I have plenty of evidence to satisfy the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are going to stop producing grain because if they do not the soil will all blow away. However, they are going to produce grass and cattle instead.


John Horne Blackmore: We shall have to discuss that later on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Do hon. members imagine that I cannot do it now?


An hon. Member:: We are pulling up apple trees.


John Horne Blackmore: You are pulling up apple trees and you do not know what to do with the fruit production of British Columbia.


Mr. Hatfield:: Giving it away.


John Horne Blackmore: You are destroying the incentive to produce hogs. You are worrying constantly about surpluses. That means that you do not know how to get those surpluses to the nations where they are needed. You do not need any more proof than that; it is right there.


An hon. Member:: They never thought of that.


John Horne Blackmore: I suggest that members of parliament ought to be more responsible. They are here to find a solution for these problems and until we put our minds to it we will never find it. If money were created representing the surplus goods within the nation and turned into the ICCH fund with which to market the goods abroad, then the goods could be marketed abroad even in the soft currency countries without any additional tax or burden on the nation sending the goods abroad. That is just plain common sense. I know that people shake their heads because they do not understand it, but that is no sign that it cannot be understood. I taught school 21 years and I had many students who did not understand the binomial theorem, but it

was capable of being understood. If you would only stop talking and think you could learn a lot more.
The ICCH can be made an effective instrument in distributing goods abroad. Any one who has given any thought to the FAO and the ICCH realizes that they offer the solution. Then we are met with the argument put forward by the hon. member for Proven-cher (Mr. Jutras) who says that it cannot be done. His contention is in effect that we have to cease producing. The position of the United States today is that she has $4,000 million worth of goods and she does not know what to do with them. Let the hon. member for Provencher think that over. Knowing the circumstances, yet he persists in his attitude toward debt-free money created by the state to represent the surplus goods within the state. Until he realizes the possibilities of such debt-free money he is utterly useless to help guide this generation out of its troubles.
I should like to say a word or two about the bill. The right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was out west recently warning the people of Alberta and the west to discontinue sending their cattle to the United States in such numbers. He told the people in High River and elsewhere that they were going too far. The minister is reported in a Canadian Press dispatch in the Lethbridge Herald as saying:
I cannot agree that you were justified in getting down to the usual number of breeding stock.
I have a high degree of respect for the right hon. minister but may I say to him that I have been a stock producer ever since I was old enough to get on a horse. I know what it is to handle cattle. I am thinking now the way the ordinary stock man is thinking when he hears what the minister says. He is saying, "Now, then, Mr. Minister, I wonder if you are prepared to give us a guarantee that two years from now we will be getting a price that will pay us? What guarantee are you prepared to give us? If you are not prepared to give us a guarantee of a profitable price and a market two years from today, surely it ill becomes you to come out here and tell us not to get rid of our breeding stock."
Men who lived during the days of 1918 and 1919 know what can happen. Many of us went through experiences that made us sweat blood. I weU recall July, 1919, when you could sell beef-breeding animals at good prices. I recall my brother selling our herd of breeding stock, cows, calves and everything at $83 per head. Then we went through to the spring with a certain number of others and the price we got for those would not pay

for one-half the hay we had put into the cattle during the year. Scores and scores of men who had produced beef cattle, many for as long as 25 years, were ruined utterly and have never recovered.
I am speaking on behalf of the beef producers. My constituency produces lots of good beef. What evidence have we that two years from today the bottom will not drop completely out of the prices of beef cattle? There is no evidence at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: You have had five years' experience.


John Horne Blackmore: We had a good many years' experience before 1919.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just one year after the war.


John Horne Blackmore: We had a good deal of experience before 1919. Prices kept going down until in 1932 one of my brothers who was handling our stock industry told me that our balance on the year's operations showed that we were $5 worse off for every cow we had on the range. When you counted the cost of breeding, the cost of vaccination for everything like septicemia and all the other things, the cost of raising the calves and so on we were $5 worse off for every cow we had on the range. We are lucky it was not worse. These illustrations are sufficient to show the kind of thing that beef producers face. I do not blame the minister for saying what he said, but may I suggest that if he wants western beef producers to keep their breeding stock he had better give some sort of guarantee of a floor price for the beef and of a market for it. That is all it takes.
The same thing is true of hogs. I think the minister referred to the hog situation, and he said it was very similar to that of beef. All that men need is some sort of guarantee that the price of hogs is not going to go down below a certain level. They will produce the hogs, and plenty of them. It was estimated the other day by one of the periodicals in my constituency that we are not producing one hog now where we were producing six only a very few years ago. There is a reason for that. It is the fact that the men who would be producing hogs have completely lost confidence in the Department of Agriculture. They do not believe they will be protected in the matter of the price for their hogs and the cost of the goods entering into the production thereof. If we want hogs let us guarantee a floor price and a market, and we shall get hogs in abundance.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have had five years' experience of that too.


John Horne Blackmore: We have had five bitter years.
Agricultural Prices Support Act


James Garfield Gardiner: The price went up every year.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, the price went up, but it is a different story when you come to the cost of the things entering into the production of the hog. It is easy enough to look at the price of the hog, but when you look at the price of the barley and the other things entering into the production of the hog you find the bliss has a string tied to it.
According to the press the minister has just advocated that we reduce our wheat acreage by three million acres. I think that is a sound idea. He suggests that we produce oats and barley instead of wheat, and I think that is a sound idea, but it will not do much good to produce oats and barley if we are not sure of a good market for the hogs and cattle we produce with the oats and barley. Once more the soundness or unsoundness of the proposal depends upon prices and markets. I take quite a different view from the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith). Bless his heart, I do not believe he has ever had anything to do with the producing of real wealth in his life. I do not think he knows anything at all about what it costs to produce hogs, cattle, milk, cream, butter, eggs, or any of these things. He has stayed in town and probably lived on the cream of it all.
I say the time has come when farmers as the producers of the fundamental values of the nation must be protected against the attacks of well organized men who would destroy them if they had the chance. As the minister will argue-and correctly-the act is designed to give the farmer that sort of protection, and because it is so designed I support the minister in introducing the bill.
So far as I can see, there is no reason why there should not be a guarantee given for prices and markets in connection with all kinds of meats. I find in the October report of IFAP-I find it difficult to remember all these fantastic letter names-that there is not going to be any danger of a surplus of meats in the world so far as they can see. Here is the quotation on page 2 of the October issue:
There is no serious prospect of surplus either in hard or soft currency areas for a number of commodities, e.g., meats other than pork.
They do not seem to be quite as hopeful about pork as they do about other meats, but I read that to indicate that we do not need to be afraid to encourage the production of meats if we are prepared to be wise in protecting the farmers' prices and markets.
As several members have already said, our greatest market is the home market in
1166	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Prices Support Act Canada. We have not begun yet to use our home market. I suppose there are millions of people in Canada who are not in a position to have the beef they would like to eat, and a good many other fine things that the farmers are prepared to produce. These potential consumers in Canada can all be made actual consumers, the potential home market can be made an actual effective market, if wise measures are adopted in respect of the Canadian economy. These wise measures will be monetary. Later on I expect to quote the statement of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to the effect that our troubles are monetary. The trouble with the home market, like all markets in so far as they obtain for Canada, is a lack of appropriate monetary measures.
As to foreign markets, what is the trouble there? The minister himself has made the statement quite definitely that the trouble with our foreign markets is a lack of correct monetary measures. There is something wrong with the money. I think I will quote the passage in which the minister wisely made that statement. In a speech which he made before the food and agricultural organization at Washington on November 25, 1949, he said:
Our monetary difficulties today threaten to reproduce the situation which existed twenty years ago, a lack of that free movement of food from those with food to spare to those in want.
That is perfectly correct.
Unless some way can he found of solving this problem, we cannot hope for that "all-out" effort by exporting countries that is needed, if the people of the whole world are to be adequately fed.
The minister there speaks just as though he were becoming a Social Crediter, as if he were beginning to see the vision of Social Credit which would be the greatest honour that the minister has had conferred on him in his life, because he would then be able to see the way out of our difficulties.
It is one thing to say there are difficulties. I am glad that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is in the house now and a bit merry because of what I have just said. It is one thing to say there are monetary difficulties and it is another thing to tell what to do to remove them. The problem confronting the Minister of Finance and the other members of the government is what to do about these monetary difficulties. Up to the present time there has not been a word from them to indicate that they know what to do.
I should like to deal for a minute or two with the matter of ICCH inasmuch as the hon. member for Provencher has brought it up in the debate. I can imagine that a great many people in the country would like to


know something about what it is. I should like to quote certain passages from this IFAP periodical of October to give the people who will be reading Hansard an idea of what ICCH is. On page 3 I find the following: ICCH should1 be constituted as a public corporation with a capital fund equivalent to $5 billion. National quotas in this capital fund should be based on the national incomes of the member countries and be payable in the currency of the subscribing country. Twenty per cent of each country's quota should be payable on joining ICCH for the general fund of ICCH (referred to as the "free" capital or "revolving fund" of ICCH). The remainder of a country's subscription would be callable by the board cn consent of the country concerned and earmarked, when subscribed, for the purchase of surplus commodities in that country. The ICCH should be empowered to accept subscriptions in convertible currencies from any country, in addition to its authorized quota, for the purchase of surpluses of the contributing country. All receipts and outgoings from transactions arising from original earmarked capital or added contributions, as distinct from "free" capital, should be held in a special account for the contributing country. Replenishment of capital, when needed, would be dependent upon additional subscriptions of capital by member countries burdened with surpluses.
Further down that page we have two other paragraphs which, taken with the one I just read, I think will give anyone a fairly good picture of the objective in view and the means by which it is proposed' to attain that objective:
(1)	The exporting country would sell surplus wheat to ICCH at full market price and the purchase would be financed by the exporter contributing the value of the wheat to ICCH as additional capital. ICCH would then sell quantities of wheat to the importing country in addition to and not as a substitution for its usual purchases. ICCH would take in payment the currency of the importing country, even if it were at the time inconvertible. The importing country would guarantee against loss by currency devaluation. ICCH would hold this currency to the credit of the exporting country until enlarged trade or restored currency convertibility permitted clearing the account.
(2)	The exporter would sell surplus wheat to ICCH at a reduced price if the payment were in an immediately acceptable (presumably convertible) currency and provided that the quantity of wheat went to some special use in addition to regular consumption by the importing country. Such transactions would be financed from the revolving fund of ICCH established by the initially paid-in 20 per cent of capital, but would not normally involve any loss to ICCH.
I imagine practically everyone realizes, as I am sure the Minister of Agriculture must realize, that this proposal would be far too costly for the nations to participate in if the money required to finance it had to be taken from the people of those countries by means of taxation or by adding to their national debts. But if a contributing country were able to create debt-free money against the surpluses within its borders and make a contribution of that created money, the situation would be very different. It has been

suggested-and perhaps this is the suggestion the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) has in mind, which he is keeping such a secret-that an ordinary nation like Canada, in order to finance the sale of its surpluses in soft currency countries, or countries lacking United States or Canadian dollars, would raise the money itself to pay for the goods it was going to sell abroad on credit, and would itself buy the goods and send them abroad, thereby eliminating the need to use the international organization. I do not think I would have any objection to that, except this; that if the nation had to raise the money through taxation of its people to provide a fund with which to buy surpluses of goods in order to give them away, which is practically what it amounts to, that nation would soon find the burden utterly insupportable, and would resort to a limiting of production rather than go to the expense of buying its surpluses and sending them abroad.
This brings us to the feasibility or otherwise of the creation of debt-free money. I do not propose to enter upon a discussion of that matter this evening. I have discussed it already in considerable detail in speeches in this house on March 16 and February 21 of this year, and October 25 of last year. I believe the arguments I advanced on those occasions would justify anyone in giving pretty careful thought to the feasibility of the proposal to create debt-free money within a nation to the extent of the surplus goods to be found available for sale. I submit once more that unless this government and the government of the United States resort to some such device they are going to find their agricultural problem completely bewildering, as the United States is finding its agricultural problem today. Already in the United States there has been talk about the dumping of their products upon the markets of the world at low prices. If any action is taken along that line it will more and more destroy our chances of selling our goods, and will generally demoralize the markets of the world.
This indicates the sort of problems which confront us. We simply cannot solve those problems by laughing at any new ideas that come along. In the five years mentioned by the minister-yes, in the last fifty years- we have pretty well proved that the problem cannot be solved by any methods followed by the government so far. If Canada would create debt-free money, which it would be possible for her to create against the surpluses she could easily have, then we would be able to accept sterling in payment for our goods sold to Britain. Or we would be able to accept any other soft currency, with which we could shop around and obtain many of
27, 1950
Agricultural Prices Support Act the things we need. We would be able to store our surpluses and have something on hand in case of trouble. We would be able to finance barter arrangements, such as apparently were envisaged by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) the other day in that forward-looking speech of his.
The only limiting factor would be our productive capacity, together with our ability to become self-sufficient. Just being able to produce one or two commodities would not be enough. We should have to become more and more self-sufficient so our money would have a sound base, and then we would have no difficulty in creating debt-free money and putting it into circulation. Granted those two considerations, sufficient production from our abundant resources and a sufficient variety of production, we could do a great many things with debt-free money which to the orthodox financial mind appear utter impossibilities. Then we would be able to make ours a really expanding economy, rather than the restricted economy it is rapidly becoming.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word on this measure in view of some of the statements made in the debate thus far. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said every farmer realized that he was better off now than ever before. In my opinion that is not a fact. The hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Bater) has told us what a great job the members of this government have been doing and how well off our farmers are. Then I listened to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) this afternoon suggesting, if I understood him correctly, that we should concentrate on the United States market rather than the United Kingdom market. Certainly I am one of those who have always been in favour of the United States market, but the sad position is that the farmers of the United States invariably have the very same type of surpluses we have, and that makes things rather difficult.
Every year since I have been here I have stated that never since confederation have the farmers of this country received their proper share of the national income. They have never done so up to date. If my memory serves me correctly, according to the figures put out by this government, during the first world war the agriculturists of Canada received approximately 29 per cent of the national income. During the recent world war they received approximately 18 per cent of the national income.
We have been discussing markets of recent years, and current markets. According to the Sanford Evans statistical bureau, which is
1168	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Prices Support Act very reliable, a detailed survey for the first full calendar year following the war, 1946, reveals that our farmers in Canada suffered a loss of $378 million, over and above the great loss they had taken in the marketing of wheat. This is for livestock and coarse grains alone. This is a gigantic sum. When you have listened to the discussion today on the matter of tariffs and what not, when you take this amount of $378 million over and above the hundreds of millions of dollars lost in the marketing of wheat, it makes the great losses our western farmers have suffered because of tariffs look like peanuts.
In considering the matter of a formula, I have always advocated, since this act was brought into being, some formula based to some extent on parity; that is, a basis related to what it costs a farmer to produce these commodities. I believe that is a reasonable request. The farmer has not been receiving that. I have given you the figures for the full year of 1946, in which the farmer lost that great amount of money in comparison with what his neighbours in the United States received for marketing the same quantity of commodities. I believe we should bear that in mind. As I say, I followed the member for Provencher, but if I understood his argument it was not in agreement with a pamphlet put out by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). It is entitled "Foreign Trade" and is dated December 10, 1949. It states:
During recent years, as much as 44 per cent of our farm production has entered export trade. To take wheat again, as an example, about 75 per cent of our production has been sold abroad.
I realize that although some hon. members made their entire speech on wheat, it does not come under this act. Other farm production, however, is tied to the price of wheat; you cannot get away from that. These are rather startling figures. If we lose that export trade, then our farm people will not enjoy prosperity. I have never known a time in any nation, when agriculture was not prosperous, that anyone else in that nation was prosperous. I do not think you can get away from that. It is very important.
I was pointing out that it is quite important that the farm producer should receive prices which will compensate him for the cost of production. I have an interesting article before me, an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on March 20. It is entitled "It's Cheaper in Minneapolis." It reads as follows:
Here in Winnipeg comparable cars cost approximately 20 per cent more than in Minneapolis. Refrigerator, range, vacuum cleaners, radio, and washing machine cost is 30 per cent more. In part this is traceable to the depreciated value of the


Canadian dollar-90 cents in terms of U.S. currency -in great part however, it is due to the Canadian tariff and various Canadian taxes.
The article goes on to point out:
It is also possible because in all cases the articles chosen for comparison were articles produced by the same companies either in the United States or in branch plants in this country. All must pay the 10 per cent premium either for the whole article or for the imported components which go into the Canadian-produced goods.
To this there is one exception-electric ranges, the standards for which differ in Canada and the United States but do not materially affect costs.
The article points out that these two central points, Minneapolis and Winnipeg, are in the centre of the two nations, about the same distance from the great manufacturing centres. In the case of a Ford automobile-I suppose some people think our farmers are not entitled to an automobile-the price in Winnipeg is $2,037, and in Minneapolis it is $1,597. There is a like comparison in trucks, which are essential on farms today. In automotive parts, an eight-cylinder assembly for a Ford costs $255 in Winnipeg, and $231 in Minneapolis. An RCA Victor eight-tube radio phonograph costs $289 in Winnipeg, and $150 in Minneapolis. A certain type of electric range costs $369 in Winnipeg, and $244 in Minneapolis. There are many other articles listed on which similar comparisons are made.
On the following day, March 21, another article appeared on the editorial page of the Winnipeg Free Press comparing these prices. It is entitled "You pay more in Winnipeg." This article deals with electrical goods. It points out that electric clocks cost 40 per cent more in Canada than the same articles in Minneapolis. Glassware, clothing and other articles are also compared. It points out that the tariff is somewhat responsible for this condition of affairs. I do not believe there was ever a time since confederation when certain of these industries had greater protection than they have today, in these controls, taxes and embargoes applied by this government. All this adds to the cost of the agricultural producer of this country, and to the cost of living of every consumer of this country. There is no argument whatever about that. During a debate the other day, I placed on Hansard a set of figures which had to do with agricultural products in their raw state, and a comparison of the prices at St. Paul, Winnipeg and Minneapolis of the manufactured article. In the majority of cases the prices for the raw materials were considerably higher in Minneapolis than in Winnipeg, but when one came to purchase the processed article the prices were reversed, and were higher in Winnipeg than in Minneapolis. In many cases the cost of living in Minneapolis

is cheaper than in Winnipeg. I believe that is proof that there is something radically wrong with our set-up in this country.
I am not unmindful of the fact that, I believe it was two years ago, a cost of living inquiry was conducted. It cost the taxpayers of this country a large sum of money, and proved nothing. Many members of this house spent a lot of time on that committee, but the outcome was a farce. Nothing was proven, despite the great cost of that committee. I just wanted to point out how unfairly the farmer has been treated by the government of the day. I have given the house a set of figures covering the cost of articles, which I think are essential on any farm, and which affect the consumers of this country as well. Neither the farm producer nor the Canadian consumer has been fairly dealt with by this government up to date. I think it is essential that we pass this type1 of legislation.
The ex-prime minister, in statements in 1943 and in the years following that, and the Minister of Agriculture as well, have made statements that, in view of the fact the agricultural producer in Canada was not receiving for his commodities prices comparable to those received in other countries, this situation should be taken into account in the years following the war. It is true that some articles bring fair prices today. I do think it is essential that a formula of some nature be written into this act, whereby the farm producer would have some idea, before the production period, of the basis upon which he would be paid during that production year. I believe that is very important. It is not only important to the farm producer, but it is also important to the consumer of this country.


Mr. J. S. Sinnotl (Springfield):: I know the house is anxious to have this bill passed, but I think we have an opportunity here which we should not pass by. The Liberal government has more municipal men with practical experience in its ranks today than it has ever had before. The time was never more opportune for every one of the Liberal members to join hands and see that the farmers get a fair deal.
I listened with much attention to that great orator from Calgary West when he spoke tonight.


Arthur Leroy Smith: This is a stage entrance.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Lo and behold, here he comes!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Never misses a cue.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: He is one of those men who are experts on everything that goes on in the house. I must compliment him on his fine flow of speech. It reminds me of some
27, 1950
Agricultural Prices Support Act of the gas wells that they have in Alberta. But after he has finished and you boil it all down it is just an amalgamation of words, and some of them big ones.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is what a sentence is. You will find out one of these times.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: We have been waiting for a long time to find that out.


Arthur Leroy Smith: How true that is.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I have heard him speak so long and say so little in this house-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Now you are
being brutal.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Too much emphasis has been put on the suggestion that the farmers have been getting too much for their products.


Mr. Drew:: Who said that?


James Arthur Ross: Whom is the hon. member quoting?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: There is a big difference between what the farmer is getting and what the consumer pays. It is time that the consumers formed an organization to bring prices down. Last January I was on a farm in Saskatchewan and saw a 60-dozen crate of eggs. They graded 75 per cent A large, and they averaged out at 25 cents a dozen. Look at what the consumer has to pay for them in the store. There is a great difference. Would you say that the farmers are getting too much money for their eggs when they average out at 25 cents a dozen?


Arthur Leroy Smith: No.


James Arthur Ross: You are insulting the poor hen.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I have heard /the hon. member for Calgary West say that he would rather starve than go back to the farm. That statement was made here.


Mr. Sinclair:: He probably would, anyhow.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Has anybody heard of lawyers having a floor under their tariff, or a ceiling over it? They get all the traffic will bear.


Mr. Cruickshank:: And they use margarine, too.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: That is why we should give the farmer the fair deal.
I am in agreement with what some of the speakers have said here tonight as to a long period of time. I maintain that when a government is elected for five years it should proclaim a five-year program.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Right.
1170	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Prices Support Act


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Back in 1919 and 1920 cattle were selling at a fair price. In 1919 and 1920 steers on my farm were selling for $50 after being fed for a whole winter. In 1921 the same steer sold for $33. That is why the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) pointed out that the farmers should know in advance what they are going to get for their produce. If we knew that, we would produce the stuff; there is no doubt about that. They are not going to produce pork, beef or anything else if they know they are in for a drop in price in the next year or two, because after all it takes three years to produce a good steer, and we want to be steered the right way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Even a steer can try.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: It is all very well to say that the farmers are looking for protection. Tonight the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) stole quite a bit of my thunder. He read from a Winnipeg paper of March 20- and, I may say, it is a good Liberal paper.


James Arthur Ross: Which one?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The hon. member quoted from the Free Press tonight. It points out where there is protection. In Winnipeg washing machines sell for $249.50; in Minneapolis they sell for $189.95. In Winnipeg Arrow shirts sell for $4.75 and in Minneapolis for $3.95. I suppose the men in Winnipeg are entitled to the same kind of shirt as they buy in Minneapolis. We have heard the remark, "he pretty near lost his shirt". Sometimes they do. Manufacturers obtain tariffs and preference for a number of years, but they never have to contend with the conditions that the farmers are up against. Farmers have a hundred and one things to contend with. They have to contend with grasshoppers, drought, army worms-


George Alexander Cruickshank: And the Tory party.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: For instance, this year I saw crops that produced 40 to 50 bushels to the acre, already swathed, all ready for the binder, and the next day they were covered with two feet of water. Was that any fault of the farmer? The farmers have these things to contend with. Therefore I say that every hon. member who has anything to do with farmers should get up and say his piece.
While I support this bill I still say to the Minister of Agriculture that he should have a five-year program.


William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Speaker, I said at the beginning, when the minister introduced the resolution preceding this bill,


that I was going to support it, and I have not changed my mind since. One thing that has worried me a great deal is that the prices that have been guaranteed to the farmer are all packers' prices. The price is not set for the farmer at all. The packer is getting the 32J cents that we hear about in the house. One hon. gentleman brought up the matter of the price of eggs. The farmer was getting 18 cents, 20 cents and 25 cents; whereas the packer or the wholesaler is guaranteed a floor price of 38 cents, and that price comes into effect after they have left the possession of the farmer. That kind of legislation is not protecting the farmer; it is protecting the middleman, and that is what I object to.
The Minister of Agriculture has pointed the way. I do not know whether the' farmers of Canada will follow it. He says that if they are not satisfied they should find markets for their own produce. It should be easy for us farmers in any part of Canada to set up co-operative organizations, and follow the produce to its logical end, namely, the consumer. As I see it, that is the only solution to the problem. I do not care what good intentions the Minister of Agriculture or the government has to give the farmer a square deal. If these prices are all set at wholesale levels after the products have left the farmer, then the farmer is still at the mercy of the rank and file who wish to buy.
I am supporting this amendment for the simple reason that it improves the minister's bill. My good friend from Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton) tells us that there are too many controls in it. The only time we have ever had prosperity in this country was when we had controls on farm produce. That was during the first world war and the second world war, and during the time of controls since. Those were the most prosperous times Canada ever had, so far as the Canadian farmer getting his fair share of the national income is concerned.
So I am surprised to hear a sensible member like the hon. member for Brant-Went-worth speak that way about controls. I have just come back from Great Britain, and they have all kinds of controls over there.


An hon. Member:: Do they like them?


William Scottie Bryce: Yes, they glory in them. Indeed, they are so good that the Conservative candidates and the Liberal candidates said, "If you will only vote for us, we will keep them in operation." Every party agreed to that. There was no plank in either the Conservative or the Liberal platform over there that proposed to take one of those controls off. May I say to hon. members sitting to my right that it was a Conservative government that

brought in controls. They were brought in in connection with the milk board. But they made it a control such as some we have dilly-dallied with in Canada; they never put any teeth in it. Then, after they saw it would not work, they made it compulsory.
I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will agree with me that controls over there are doing a first-class job. Where there used to be five or six trucks going down the road to pick up milk, only one truck goes now. Where a farmer was trucking to Glasgow with his wilk, he now sends it to the local creamery. Everybody gets the same price; everybody knows what he is going to get. A person does not need to wait and see; he knows what he will get.
That is a good thing. My hon. friend from Brant-Wentworth really surprises me. Here is what a former prime minister was going to do for the people, when he brought in the marketing act. I am referring to page 2475 of Hansard for 1934. Section 14 of that act said this:
Every person who fails to comply with any order or determination of the board or of a local board or any regulation of the governor in council shall be guilty of an offence and punishable on summary conviction with a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars and not more than five hundred dollars, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment.
Nothing like that is being done in this bill. We are doing something for the good of the farmers. It will be recalled that it was the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett who introduced the marketing legislation to which I have just referred. There is compulsion there, all right.
I believe the Canadian Bar Association has more representatives in the House of Commons than has any other group. Yet they are the first to rise in their places and tell us about the farmers losing their freedom. They say the farmer will have no freedom left. Let me say there is no organization today that has greater control over its members than has that bar association. They say whether a person may practise, where he will practise, and how long he will practise. It is the finest closed shop in Canada today.
I shall not speak at greater length respecting the bar association, because there are other members who will wish to speak in this debate. Here we have controls. Whenever a farmer rises in the House of Commons and tries to assert himself, tries to handle his produce and get all he can for it, we hear this hue and cry that his freedom is being taken away-"Let us go back to the old days, when the farmer was the first man to cut his own throat."
I have said enough about hog prices; I do not want to go into that again. But if we
Agricultural Prices Support Act had guaranteed forward prices it would be of great advantage to the Canadian farmer. When he spoke this evening the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) took me to task. He said that in my remarks about forward prices I had gone so far as to say that when the cow was bred one knew what he was going to get for the steer. He also took to task the leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), for saying that before a cow was bred one knew what he was going to get for the calf. There are none so blind as those who will not see. I can assure my hon. friend that that is a common thing. In Great Britain today one knows what he will get for his steers. Perhaps I should qualify that by saying that one knows he will not have to take less than a certain price quoted three or four years hence. So my hon. friend does not need to laugh at or to ridicule me for saying that that is an actual fact.
Over there they know what they are going to do. In that way one knows where he is going, and what he will get at the end of the road. But the way we have been going, we do not know where we are heading. The Minister of Agriculture is worried about so many people producing wheat today. Why are they producing wheat? They are producing it because they know what they are going to get at the end of so many years' time. They did not know before, but they know now. If he tells them what he will pay for hogs or eggs, then I am sure we will find use for the extra oats and barley he is asking them to grow.
I do not wish to take up more time, because my views are fairly well known in the House of Commons. There is only one thing further on which I should like to straighten out the hon. member for Provencher. When he was referring to exports to the United Kingdom he said they were up 2 [DOT] 6 per cent in volume- or in dollars, I do not know which he said. But he forgot to say that we were not up in agricultural products: we are away down on them. We are up 2-6 per cent on something else.


René Jutras: I am sure the hon. member does not wish to misquote me. I have my notes here. What I did say was the value of agricultural products was up. Strange as it may seem, the facts reveal that there was an increase in the agricultural group.


William Scottie Bryce: By price only.


René Jutras: I said that.


William Scottie Bryce: That is not volume; we sell in volume.


René Jutras: I said that.


William Scottie Bryce: You did not.
1172	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Prices Support Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to take only a few moments this evening mainly to speak about the problem which confronts our fruit growers in British Columbia. I shall be brief because the matter was covered fully and completely by the hon. members for Yale (Mr. Jones) and Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). I should like to associate myself with what they said in that connection, and to add my voice to those which have been addressed to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in requesting that some action be taken now, and that an announcement be made now, as to the assistance to be given to the British Columbia fruit growers, in view of the difficulties they face in marketing the 1949 crop.	.
There is a good deal of controversy around this question of support prices and support price legislation. It is not my intention to enter fully tonight into that controversy, although I support the principle that some assurance should be given to our farmers that they will have steady prices, that some measure should be provided by which they will be guaranteed their full share of the national income.
Whatever may be the views and controversy with regard to floor prices, it seems to me that there should not be any room for controversy with regard to the extending of assistance this year to the British Columbia apple growers. They are facing an emergency which is not of their own making and against which they are powerless to act, an emergency arising from the loss of their markets. I sometimes think that the permanent solution to the difficulties of constant or recurring surpluses and depressed prices followed by years of shortages and rising prices should not be sought merely in subsidies or a floor prices program, but should be combined with the building up of the domestic market so that we are better able to consume at home some of the things that we produce.
I do not suggest that we could ever make ourselves entirely self-sufficient, but I do think that we should aim constantly at producing in Canada a more balanced economy so that we are not so vulnerable and completely exposed, as we are now to the loss of overseas export markets. I am convinced that no solution will be complete unless and until steps are taken which will build and maintain a domestic market of really large proportions.
I should like to read one section of the Agricultural Prices Support Act which the bill now before us seeks to extend for another year. Section 9, subsection 2 reads:
In prescribing prices under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection one of this section, the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable


returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to correct one statement which the hon. member made. The hon. member suggests that the act is to be extended for just one year whereas the bill provides that the act shall continue in force on and after March 31, 1950.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was an inadvertent error; the time limit is being removed by the amendment. It seems to me that that section which I just read is the section to which we should be directing our attention, the necessity of ensuring to our farmers a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations. I do not think we can do that by prices support legislation alone because we will be faced, as the fruit growers now are faced, with vanishing markets and then where would we get the revenue to pay the support prices? That would not be available without increasing our population and building up a home market less vulnerable to the adverse conditions which now face our overseas markets. I think the two measures must go hand in hand and I urge the government to round out their prices support program by taking steps to build up our domestic market.
I turn more particularly to the problem faced by our fruit growers. Hon. members have heard of this before and I need not rehearse it in full. Their whole production and marketing program was geared largely to the existence.of a market in the United Kingdom which through no fault of their own has now virtually vanished. As has been said before, a fruit grower's program is a matter of twelve to fifteen years. It takes that long to get a tree into full bearing. It is something that cannot be changed overnight. Surely the answer is not to go around pulling out more fruit trees and cutting down production. It seems to me that under those circumstances the fruit growers are entitled to the assistance of support prices, during those years when their markets have vanished, in order to tide them over their difficulties.
I should like to refer to the rising costs with which they are also faced. When you go into a store to buy an apple, particularly one of those wonderful British Columbia apples, you sometimes do not realize the high quality of the product you are getting. Sometimes Ontario members seem to be surprised when they are told what has gone into getting that apple to the market. First there is the planting of the trees, the tending of the trees each year, the spraying, pruning, irrigating, thinning; then there is the buying

of the boxes, the packing of the boxes, hauling the boxes to the packing house, grading the apples, stamping the boxes and loading on the railroad cars. All those factors enter into the cost of production and marketing and every single item has increased during the last five years. Our growers are faced with tremendously increased costs and virtually disappearing markets.
As the house knows, the British Columbia growers were faced with a surplus this year that appeared to be unmarketable. Not wanting to see it go to waste and knowing that there was a shortage of this type of food in the United Kingdom they decided to make a gift of one million boxes of apples. The indications are that had they not sent that million boxes to the United Kingdom they would have been faced with a surplus of a million boxes or more for which no market could be found.
In view of what has been said during this debate and on other occasions, I hope the minister will no longer take the position that the British market is not a potential market for Canadian apples. The figures of apples purchased from other soft currency countries and even from the United States completely disprove the contention that the British are now producing their full domestic requirements in apples. I hope the minister will not continue to take the position that the United Kingdom is not an attractive market for us.
I hope he will give careful consideration to the suggestion put forward Thursday by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) that in negotiating food contracts with the United Kingdom in the future he will use every endeavour to persuade them to take $4 million or $5 million out of their allocation to buy apples in Canada instead of concentrating their spending upon wheat and one or two other things on which they now spend relatively large sums.
I ask the minister if he will let us know before this debate is concluded whether he will accede to that request. Will he let us know particularly what assistance will be given to our apple growers this year and when they may expect to receive it?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can be accused of taking up much of the time of the house on this matter.


An hon. Member:: Wrong night.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It may be the wrong night, but let us pipe a little prosperity into the farmers of Canada generally as well as into British Columbia. I was not in the house when the floor price under butter was
55946-76*
Agricultural Prices Support Act announced. I am not going to talk about fruit because my friends from British Columbia, who have spoken about it previously, know more about it than I do. I am particularly interested in a report I have just received in connection with butter. My information is that certain unscrupulous butter dealers are importing the despicable stuff they call oleomargarine and mixing it with butter.


James Sinclair: Can you prove it?


George Alexander Cruickshank: My young colleague took a lot of the time of the house to talk about the pulp industry of the province of British Columbia. I should like to have a couple of minutes to try to improve the lot of the dairy industry, and not entirely at the expense of the pulp men of the province of British Columbia. As I say, the information I have is that certain unscrupulous butter manufacturers, or so-called butter manufacturers, are bringing in oleomargarine, mixing it with butter, and passing it off on the trade. My information also is that under the pure foods act the inspectors are not able to ascertain if oleomargarine has been mixed with butter-


James Sinclair: There is no difference.


George Alexander Cruickshank: -if it has less than nine per cent globule fat content. This is a most serious matter to the dairy farmers. I am not going to say anything about the difficulties that the wheat growers and fruit growers are undergoing now. Those matters have been dealt with by various speakers. I am particularly interested in the dairy industry because I happen to own a dairy farm. If this situation is being permitted I want to know if the minister knows anything about it, and I also want to know if the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) can tell me whether any complaints have been made as to oleomargarine manufacturers, or if it is possible for his department to ascertain whether oleomargarine is mixed with butter to any extent. The story we have in the province of British Columbia is that this has happened. We have the story that one firm manufacturing butter in the province of Quebec imported a carload of oleomargarine. They have never sold a pound of margarine in their lives before, but they imported a carload of oleomargarine.


James Sinclair: To improve the butter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to know for what reason the oleomargarine was imported. Surely one department of the government must have that information. Before I go on I should like to know whether either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of National Health and Welfare had any knowledge of the matter.

Agricultural Prices Support Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not customary to ask questions of ministers when a bill is before the house on second reading. I suggest that the hon. member might ask his question when the house gets into committee.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Instead of asking a question I will make a statement. This has been done, and if it has not been done either of the two ministers should be able to refute the suggestion that it has been done. I am interested in the protection of the dairy farmers of the Dominion of Canada. I am not asking a question now; I am making a statement.


James Sinclair: You are trying to build a straw man in order to knock it down.


George Alexander Cruickshank: My young friend says I am building a straw man. That would be quite easy in Coast-Capilano because they are accustomed to straw men out there. I am making that statement, and if it has not happened I should like to have it refuted. The statement is that oleomargarine has been imported by a butter manufacturing concern in Canada to adulterate genuine butter.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes to discuss some aspects of this question. One of the matters to which I should like to refer at the outset is one or two remarks which were made by the hon. member for Proven-cher (Mr. Jutras) regarding the disposal of surplus commodities. It seemed rather strange that he should discuss such a subject when he is a member of the party on the other side of the house inasmuch as the problem of surpluses has resulted from the policies of the government of which he is a follower. He said that some members claim that it is a disgrace to have surplus products destroyed when people in other countries are starving.


René Jutras: Let us be fair, Mr. Speaker. I never made such a statement. What I said was that some members had said that it was a disgrace to have surpluses in the country. That is an entirely different thing altogether.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is not the way I have it in my notes, and I think I took it down correctly. In any event, it can be verified in Hansard, tomorrow. I have not heard anyone on this side of the house say that it was a disgrace to have surpluses. Certainly no member of this party made such a statement. What we and most members on this side of the house have said on more than one occasion is that it is a shame to have surpluses with so many people in want, even in Canada, and have these surpluses destroyed. One of the ways in which surpluses are handled
IMr. Cruickshank.]
under the present policy of the government- and it is well known to everyone in the house-is to destroy production. As was mentioned a short time ago, we have a surplus of apples. How does the policy of the government deal with that situation? The way they are endeavouring to deal with the surplus of apples in Canada is by paying as high as $4.50 per tree to have the trees pulled up in order to eliminate production.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, no.


Charles Edward Johnston: Oh, yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: When did we ever destroy production?


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) the other day was discussing the situation in British Columbia. He pointed out that they have surpluses in their 1947 and 1948 fruit crops which they still cannot dispose of, and some of that surplus is being destroyed. That is the thing members on this side of the house are complaining about.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Where is that?


An hon. Member:: Fraser Valley.


Charles Edward Johnston: Read the speech of the hon. member for Peace River and you will find out where it was.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will he tell me in what part of British Columbia fruit has been destroyed?


Charles Edward Johnston: In Nova Scotia-


George Alexander Cruickshank: I deny that. It is not true and cannot be proven.


Charles Edward Johnston: In Nova Scotia they pulled up apple trees, and that is probably what they will be doing in British Columbia before very long.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You said the Fraser valley.


An hon. Member:: He did not say the Fraser valley.


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member for Peace River said it was during the election campaign that these surpluses were there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is an absolutely untrue statement.


Charles Edward Johnston: You don't know what you are talking about.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, don't I? I repeat-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it could still be and he still would not know what he was talking about.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not taking that statement. If the hon. member for Peace River is fair he will admit-


Charles Edward Johnston: Who has the floor now?


George Alexander Cruickshank: -that fruit was paid for by the Department of Agriculture. Is that not correct?


Mr. Low:: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, speaking in this house the other night I said I went into the town of Yarrow in the constituency of the hon. member and saw most of the 1948 berry crop and most of the 1947 berry crop lying in storage in hogsheads in the basement of the packing plant or out in the railway yard under the sun, and that the farmers had not received any returns for their crops at that time. That was during the election campaign of 1949.


Charles Edward Johnston: Now, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) has it straight-


George Alexander Cruickshank: I haven't got it straight, and neither have you.


Charles Edward Johnston: Probably he did not know that place was even in his constituency, so we will excuse him; but he will have another opportunity to explain the situation.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Did you count the vote in Yarrow?


Charles Edward Johnston: I believe the time has
come when this prices support legislation should be made permanent, and we are pleased to see that is what the minister is endeavouring to do now. The farmers of Canada are in need of such security. They are not begging for it, by any means. It should be realized now that this is something they were promised during the war years. We all recall that during those years, when the prices of agricultural products were restricted and controlled and the farmers were forced to take less than they could get in the open market, they were assured that they would not lcse in the long run by having their prices controlled. This is one way the government is taking to see that those promises are kept, at least partly; and for that I think the government should be commended. But of course it depends entirely upon what the floor price is going to be.
At this point may I urge that the floor price should not be below parity price for those things the farmers have to buy. In my judgment it is a shame that some supporters of the government, and more than that some who are in very responsible positions, should be permitted to go about the country making irresponsible statements. Some of the parliamentary assistants have been travelling about the country saying things which are not to the
Agricultural Prices Support Act credit of either the party to which they belong: or themselves. If those statements are not correct it is time the cabinet ministers, who are responsible for carrying out the policies of this government, corrected them; and it is also time they put these parliamentary assistants in their place. I want to refer to some of those statements for a moment, and I am going to quote from the Manitoba Co-Operator of February 23. The heading is "Hannam says Canadian farmers seeking reasonable price levels," and the dispatch goes on:
Strong exception was taken by H. H. Hannam, president, Canadian federation of agriculture, to the remarks made by Leslie Mutch, M.P., parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, in an, address on Wednesday to the Liberal businessmen's club in Toronto.
Why the assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs should be taking over the Department of Agriculture as well is quite beyond my comprehension; but apparently be is straightening out that department at the-same time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Everybody tries to run it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, perhaps it is time you' got some good advisers rather than the ones who are poaching on your territory. The article goes on:
Mr. Mutch was quoted as saying that the almost universal demand for some sort of security was evidence of a softening of the moral fibre, a narcotic of the weak-willed, excuse of the lazy and the refuge of the coward.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Would you call a farmer lazy?


Charles Edward Johnston: He is being called that by a member of your party.
Mr. Mutch had classed the farmers of Canada as the second best organized of the "fear-ridden" groups, labour being first.
There is no doubt to whom he was referring with all these adjectives. He was referring to the farmers of Canada; and when he speaks of the farmers being weak-willed, of their policies as an excuse for the lazy, it seems to me he is going beyond the bounds of decency. It is an established fact, as everyone in this house knows, that during the war the farmer did as much work, if not more, for less return than any other worker in Canada; and because that was so they were assured by the minister that in the long run they would not be the losers financially. To have one of the parliamentary assistants-come along now and class them as a lazy,, weak-willed bunch, and so on, is certainly not deserved.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He was speaking of his own group.


Charles Edward Johnston: He was speaking for the Liberal party, I presume.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He was speaking of the-parliamentary assistants as a lazy bunch.
1176	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Prices Support Act


Charles Edward Johnston: The article goes on:
In a statement issued at Ottawa, Mr. Hannam said:
"If Mr. Mutch's remarks are to be taken seriously, they exhibit a most unfortunate attitude of mind...
He might have said "state of mind."
. . . and it is sincerely to be hoped he does not reflect the opinion of his minister or his government."
I think it high time the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made a statement in that connection, so we may see whether or not the parliamentary assistant was expressing the opinion of his department or of the government, because after all one must remember that he occupies a responsible position.
"His remarks envision a return to the old economic anarchy of the past, wherein every man was for himself and the devil take the hindmost."
Now I would ask the parliamentary assistant who made that statement why, if there is any element of truth in what he said, the farmers are a fear-ridden bunch, or a lazy class of individuals. If there were any truth it would be because of the policies of this government. One has only to refer back to the hungry thirties to recall that one of -the most poverty stricken groups in Canada were the farmers, who continually sold their goods for less than the cost of production. No other industrial group in Canada has ever been asked to do that. A short time ago mention was made of these other industrial groups that have protection, and at that time something was said about tariffs. These are a very definite protection for those producing secondary goods. Take the machines the farmer has to buy. The Massey-Harris Company is one of the greatest producers of farm equipment in the world, I would say, with markets all over the world; yet farm machinery is protected by a tariff. Take the manufacturers who make automobiles and trucks. No industrial group in Canada has greater protection; yet those are the very implements the farmer has to buy. So when the farmers ask for a little protection in this prices support act they are not asking for charity. They are only asking for the same thing that other organizations have had ever since Canada was created, and something they were promised because of the low prices they took during the war.


James Garfield Gardiner: Why not pass the bill and let them get it?


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not so sure they will; that is the thing I am fearful of, that by the time this is put into operation the floor prices will be so low the farmers will not be getting anywhere near parity prices. May I say right here that I am of the opinion that


the prices should be included in the bill, so
the farmers would know exactly what they were going to get. The prices should be based on parity.
When we think of the trend in agricultural prices, it is not much wonder that the farmers across the country are fearful. Let me quote from another clipping which I took from the Manitoba Co-operator of March 23, 1950. It is headed, "Farm living costs advance but total farm costs lower." It reads as follows:
Over-all costs of commodities and services used by Canadian farmers showed a slight drop in the five months from August last year to January this year, while farm living costs increased, according to indexes compiled by the dominion bureau of statistics.
Farther down the article continues:
Reflecting increases for foods, fuel, health and maintenance, and miscellaneous items for both eastern and western Canada, the index of farm family living costs rose from 174-5 for August to 175-3 for January. The latest index was 3-5 points above the index for January, 1949. Clothing and household-equipment remained unchanged in the five months.
Indexes for farm equipment and materials increased 4-2 points, rising from 180-2 to 184-4, the latter level comparing with 180-3 in January last year. Among its components, price indexes were higher in January this year than in August for farm machinery, building materials, gasoline, oil and grease, feed, fertilizer, seed and hardware, but was unchanged for binder twine, while all sub-groups moved higher than a year ago except seed.
Is it any wonder then, Mr. Speaker, that the agriculturists are fearful lest the prices which are set under this bill are not going to be sufficient to give them anywhere near parity, when you realize that the figures I have just read indicate that the prices of those things which the farmers buy, and which are necessary to their production are all increasing? Is it any wonder that the farmers are fearful lest the prices which are set under this bill will not be sufficient to give them a fair return? I do not want to talk the bill out, or to carry it past eleven o'clock, but I do want to say that I think the minister would be doing justice to himself and the department if he were to put in this bill a price formula which would be parity for the farmers.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am afraid it is rather late to start taking a vote on this bill tonight. We would have hesitated to move an amendment to this bill had it not been for certain statements which the minister made on Thursday during the resolution stage of this bill. It had been hoped that when this act was to be continued indefinitely the government would be prepared to set floor prices under the act which would be reasonably satisfactory to the agriculturists of this country. But when the minister was giving his explanation, that did not appear to be

what the government were going to do. He stated that they were using certain years, 1943, 1944, and 1945, to determine what the relationships were during those years, between what the farmer was receiving for what he had to sell and what his costs were.
Then he went on to say that did not necessarily mean that, although they used those years to get those relationships, the government was prepared to maintain that relationship. In fact, he said the opposite.


James Garfield Gardiner: What I really did say was that there was not any place where they did undertake to give the exact relationship. I went on to say that the United States makes it 60 per cent in one case, 90 per cent in another, and so on.


Percy Ellis Wright: So that we can be sure of what the minister said, may I quote from page 1076 of Hansard:
The period we have been checking on is 1943, 1944 and 1945. We will continue to check on it. I do not say, neither do they in the United States, that when that has been worked out we are going to pay a 100 per cent floor price based on it. In the United States, they do not pay anything higher than 90 per cent, and most of the time they are paying 60 per cent.
I think the minister is wrong about that, because* the United States is paying 90 per cent on most of the basic products, not 60 per cent. On some of the perishable products, 60 per cent is being paid, but on the nonperishable products they are paying 90 per cent.
The minister continues as follows:
What I did say in Niagara Falls, and what I have said everywhere, is that, when we brought in this legislation, no farmer in Canada, no one anywhere, expected that we would set floor prices at the highest price level we would ever obtain from farm products.
We are not asking him to set them at the highest price level. We are asking him to
27, 1950
Agricultural Prices Support Act put a formula in the act, under which we will know where the prices are to be set, not necessarily at the highest point for the product. If the government will accept the period, as we have suggested in this resolution, and will continue to maintain the relationship between agricultural prices and the cost .of the things the farmers have to buy, that is all we ask.
Mr. Speaker, since it is eleven o'clock, may I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall continue the consideration of this bill, No. 17. Then we shall take up bills Nos. 54 and 56, an act to amend the continuation of the Transitional Measures Act, 1947, and an act to amend the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944. If we conclude those bills in the afternoon, we shall take up the motion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and the motion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At eight o'clock, the Minister of Finance will open the debate on the budget. When this debate is adjourned, we shall take up private bills, if it meets with the consent of the house. If not, we shall revert to the business we were considering before six o'clock.


Mr. Adamson:: How long is it for private bills, one hour?


Alphonse Fournier: One hour.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may say so, I think perhaps members would like to know that the legal advice we have is that these bills cease to exist at midnight on Thursday night. I thought all members should know that.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 28, 1950