1950-03-23

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 23, 1950

Mr. A. F. Macdonald (Edmonton East):: Mr. SDeaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to announce to hon. members that yesterday in England the Edmonton Mercury hockey team regained the world amateur hockey crown for Canada. The victory gave the western Canada intermediate champions a clean sweep in the seven tournament games, and Canada's twelfth title since 1924.
I wish to place on the record the name of Jim Christiansen of Edmonton, sponsor of the Mercury club, as well as the names of the players. They are as follows: Marsh Darling, team captain; Jimmy Graham, coach; Jack Manson, goal; Pete Wright and Jack Davies, defence; Doug Macauley, centre; Billy Dawe and Harry Allen, wings. Others on the team include Wilbur Delaney, Jim Kilburn, A1 Purvis, Don Goff, Bob Watt, Bob David, Ab Newsome, Hassie Young, Leo Lucchini and Bert Tonsi, trainer.
Yesterday in London the world amateur trophy was presented to team captain Marsh Darling by Dr. W. G. Hardy, also of Edmonton, who is president of the International Hockey Association. This hockey club has brought great honour to Canada, and I know that their expression of good will will be long remembered by the people in those nations where they served as excellent ambassadors for Canada in the field of sport. I am sure all hon. members will join in the congratulations to this great hockey club that has brought such honour to Canada, the province of Alberta and its home city of Edmonton.


Mr. Fair:: Mr. Speaker, my home town of Vermilion takes second place to none in the field of sport. I should like to announce that Bob Watt, a member of the Edmonton Mercury hockey team, is the son of Mr. A. M. Watt, manager of the Canadian Bank of Commerce at Vermilion. We are proud of Bob Watt because he is responsible for scoring many of the goals that made his team the champions. My congratulations to the Edmonton Mercurys.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
31, 1949
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table the following reports in English and in French:
Annual report of the Canadian National railway system for the year ended December 31, 1949.
Annual report of the Canadian National Railways securities trust for the year ended December 31, 1949.
Annual report of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, for the year ended December 31, 1949. (English and French editions).
Auditors' report to parliament for the year ended December 31, 1949, in respect to the Canadian National railway system and the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited.
Financial budget of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, for the calendar year 1950.
All these reports are being distributed today.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Benidickson:: 4.	What experience has he had that directly quali-
3.	Where does this person have his domicile?
2.	Who was in charge of the employment service at Sioux Lookout, Ontario, on March 15, 1950?
1.	What persons were working in Sioux Lookout, Ontario, employment office on (a) March 15, 1950; (b) February 1, 1950? fies him for his present work?
5.	Is he a veteran?
6.	What is his present remuneration on a monthly basis (a) salary; (b) expenses?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: 1.	(a) J. E. Brannan, R. A. Kelly, D. M. Maskerine; (b) J. P. Paolucci, I. M. Feather-stone, J. E. Brannan.
2.	J. E. Branman.
3.	Sioux Lookout, Ontario.
4.	Nine and a half months of general employment, and claims officer duties in the Sioux Lookout office.
5.	No.
6.	(a) $155; (b) nil.

Questions


LAC SEUL
Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	What persons have possessed timber-cutting rights on Indian Reserve No. 28 within the past fifteen years?
2.	What has been the annual cut of each of the said persons during each of the said fifteen years?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	In the past fifteen years timber licences on Lac Seul Indian Reserve No. 28 have been held by the Keewatin Lumber Company, Limited, Ontario-Minnesota Pulp and Paper Company Limited, and Charles W. Cox.
2.	Timber licence No. 173, covering the
southerly 44 square miles of the Indian reserve, was issued to the Keewatin Lumber Company Limited in 1920; was held by that company until 1941 when the company became the Ontario-Minnesota Pulp and Paper Company Limited, which company held the licence from 1941 until the termination of the licence, April 30,	1949. Under this
licence the annual cut during the past fifteen years has been reported as follows:
1935	
no	cut1936	
no	cut1937	
fbm	1,609,4981938	
fbm	4,317,2941939	
no	cut1940	
fbm	1,896,6881941	
cords	7901942	
cords	7,9821943	
cords	2,4181944	
cords	1,0681945	
cords	2,6351946	
cords	9,923.691947	
cords	17,316.97"	
fbm	31,8421948	
cords	962.35fbm	103,3531949	
cords	557.68
fbm	99,757
The south part of the reserve, 59 square miles, has been covered in licences to Charles W. Cox, licence No. 207; granted in 1926, ran until April 30, 1947. This was followed by licence No. 337, also to Mr. Cox, which ran from May 1, 1947 to April 30, 1948. The annual cut under these two licences during the past fifteen years is as follows:
Licence No. 207-Charles W. Cox-
1935	
ties	96,5511936	fbm	660,0001937	
ties	18,2781938	
ties	22,5251939	
ties	27,1501940	
no cut1941	fbm	301,0171942	
no cut1943	
no cut
[Mr. Cote (Verdun-LaSalle) .1
1944		 no cut
1945	
cords	1,4311946	
cords	2,949
ties	6,0001947	
cords	7,107
Licence No. 337-May, 1947 to April, 1948-
1947-	48	
cords	8391948-	49	
cords	5,1201949-	50	
cords	3,800*
ties	250*
* Not scaled.


SOLDIER SETTLERS
Mr. Fair:: 1.	How many soldier settlers of world war I were in debt to the soldier settlement board as at (a) January 1, 1949; (b) January 1, 1950?
2.	What was the total amount of indebtedness of those settlers as at (a) January 1, 1949; (b) January 1, 1950?
3.	What is the total amount paid in by the settlers during the above period?
4.	In how many cases were reductions made?
5.	What is the total amount of reductions granted during the year 1949?
6.	Have any foreclosures been made since January 1, 1949?


Mr. Muich:: 1.	(a) 2,545; (b) 1,634.
2.	(a) $2,668,611.89; (b) $1,838,303.18.
3.	$697,921.98.
4.	692.
5.	$269,311.95.
6.	No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Noseworihy:: 1.	What is the amount of money paid out as further payments on the wheat crops of 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948 in each of the months January to June inclusive, 1949?
2.	What is the amount paid out as further payments on the wheat crops of 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948 during e ach of the months January to June inclusive, in the years 1946, 1947 and 1948?
3.	What is the amount of money paid out as further payments on the wheat crops of 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948 in each of the months July to December inclusive, in each of the years 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949?
4.	What	is	the	amount	paid	out	on	P.F.R.A.
account during each of the six months January to June inclusive, 1949?
5.	What	is	the	amount	paid	out	on	P.F.R.A.
account for each of the months January to June inclusive, during the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948?
6.	What	is	the	amount	paid	out	on	P.F.R.A.
account for each of the months July to December inclusive, for the years 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949?	.
7.	What	is	the	amount	paid	out	on	P.F.A.A.
account during each of the six months J anuary to June inclusive, 1949?

8.	What is	the	amount paid	out	on	P.F.A.A.
account during each of the months January to June inclusive, for the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948?
9.	What is	the	amount paid	out	on	P.F.A.A.
account during each of the months July to December inclusive, during the years 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949?
10.	What is the amount of payments made by the Department of Agriculture directly to Canadian citizens during each of the six months January to June inclusive, 1949, for reasons other than further payments on wheat, on wheat crop, P.F.R.A. account and P.F.A.A. account?



CIVIL SERVICE


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many appointments to the civil service (a) permanent; (b) temporary, were made by the civil service commission month by month, from the first of January, 1949, to the first of February, 1950, both inclusive?
2.	How many appointments were made to the civil service (a) other than by the civil service commission; or (b) after certificate granted by the said commission?



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many (a) individual; (b) township applications for payment of P.F.A.A. were refused or denied in each of the prairie provinces between the first day of July, 1949, and the first day of February, 1950?
2.	(a) In how many cases in each province was the refusal or denial of payment under the P.F.A.A. submitted to the board of review? (b) What is the total number of cases in each province in which the said board reversed the decision appealed from?



CANADIAN PACIFIC SECURITIES

Mr. Knowles:: 

RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


Lionel Chevrier: That a sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, be appointed to consider the accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys; and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time, and that notwithstanding standing order 65, in relation to the limitation of the number of members, the said committee consist of Messrs. Adamson, Beaudry, Bourget, Carter, Cavers, Chevrier, Cleaver, Follwell, Fraser, George, Gillis, Hatfield, Healy, Helme, James, Knight, Macdonald (Edmonton East), McCulloch, McLure, Mott, Mutch, Picard, Pouliot, Thomas, Tustin.
He said:	This, Mr. Speaker, is the usual
motion which, is made every year prior to the establishment of the railways and shipping committee to which are referred the annual report of the Canadian National Railways, the report of Trans-Canada Air Lines and certain other items of the estimates which are withdrawn from the committee of supply. It is in the same form as it was last year.


Mr. Graydon:: Did the Minister of Public Works tell us about this yesterday?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I did not announce this, Mr. Speaker; but generally the setting up of this sessional committee is a matter of form.


Lionel Chevrier: My understanding is that it has never been the practice to announce a motion such as this the evening before; certainly it has not been done in the five years I have been in the Department of Transport.


Alphonse Fournier: That is why I did not
announce it.


Gordon Graydon: I was just asking an innocent question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry

Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Fulton be substituted for that of Mr. Tustin on the special committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I should like to move:
That the annual reports for 1949 of the Canadian National railway system, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, the Canadian National Railways securities trust, the auditors' report to parliament in respect to the Canadian National railway system and the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, and the budget of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited for 1951, tabled this day, be referred to the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, together with the following estimates for 1950-51:
Vote 493-Maritime Freight Rates Act, Canadian National Railways;
Vote 494-Maritime Freight Rates Act, railways other than Canadian National;
Vote 558-Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals, deficit 1950;
Vote 559-Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, deficit 1950.
And that the resolution passed by the house on February 24, 1950, referring certain estimates to the committee of supply, be rescinded in so far as the said resolution relates to votes Nos. 493, 494, 558 and 559.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Francois Pouliof (Temiscouaia):: As a private member of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have been informed that a memorandum prepared by the Auditor General has been distributed to the members of the several committees of the Senate which are scrutinizing the estimates. I hope that the government will supply each member of the house with a copy of that memorandum. I suggest that it should be printed in legible type and with subtitles.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue


if the officers of his department, in collecting taxes on capital gains, are acting on the instructions of the department; and if so, whether any change in those instructions is contemplated by the government.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: The officers of the Department of National Revenue are not collecting taxes on capital gains.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, arising out of a speech which he delivered in Saskatoon within the last week. It has to do with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Having regard to the fact that the drought area in the western provinces was worse last year than -ever before, has the government in contemplation amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in order to provide for an increase in the amount payable, the alteration of the qualifying boundaries, or, generally, amendments to remove certain anomalies that have been found in the operation of the act; and if such amendments are made, will they apply to the 1949 failure?


Righi Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The gathering which I attended in Saskatoon was, as my hon. friend knows, the mee.ing of the municipal association of the province of Saskatchewan, with representatives from Manitoba and Alberta also in attendance. A number of their resolutions had to do with possible amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I told them that at this session I would be introducing an amendment to the effect that the area reduced by the amendment of last year, from nine seotions to six sections, both of which were to be rectangular, would not need to be rectangular. That applies on the taking in and putting out of areas.


John George Diefenbaker: That will be very helpful.


James Garfield Gardiner: That provision will be introduced. So far as I recall, that was the only proposed amendment I discussed with them. There were, of course, suggestions made that there should be other amendments. I was asked the direct question whether we were going the change the amounts. I did not give any encouragement in answering that question. As a matter of fact, so far as I can remember at the moment, I said there would be no change in payments.


Mr. Argue:: Since I have asked the Minister of Agriculture a question identical to that asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre, except in one particular, would the minister mind saying whether any amendments will be introduced to make the half-township provision apply to all parts?


James Garfield Gardiner: We brought in an amendment last year which to all intents and purposes, does that.


Hazen Robert Argue: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: We may have a difference of opinion about it, but there is no further amendment on that point.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, notice of which I have sent him. Have instructions been issued by officers of the Department of National Defence to the effect that families of servicemen occupying emergency quarters at the Sea Island, British Columbia, R.C.A.F. station, are to vacate these quarters by April 1? If so, will the minister authorize an extension of the time limit to those who are unable to find other suitable accommodation?


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: There is no information on this subject available at national defence headquarters. Since receiving notice of the hon. gentleman's question today I have caused inquiries to be made by the R.C.A.F. at Vancouver, and just as soon as information is received I will communicate it to him. If the information indicates the desirability of taking action such as he suggests, that action will be taken.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question arising out of the answer to a question which is to be found at page 1003 of Hansard. In that question I asked:
Was a submission made to counsel following delivery to the Minister of Justice on the McGregor report on the milling industry for an opinion to ascertain whether the recommendations were such that proceedings either under the combines act or the Criminal Code should be taken?
Inquiries of the Ministry
And also:
Was a legal opinion secured from the law officers of the crown or other counsel on the question as to whether the limitation of actions provided for in section 1141 of the Criminal Code applied to prosecutions under the combines act?
The answer was yes, and the counsel were named. Will the minister table the replies given by Mr. Kelly and Mr. Phelan?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will refer back to Hansard he will see that a question almost identical in substance to the one he has just asked was asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). Having received no notice of his question, I am sorry I cannot give him the exact page in Hansard. The answer which I gave on that occasion will answer exactly the question which my hon. friend has asked.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister this: Instead of filing the submission or the answer given by counsel, will he say whether prosecution was recommended, or whether in their opinion the limitation of actions actually applied?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will consult the answer to which I have referred, I think he will find that it is an answer to his present question as well.


John George Diefenbaker: No; far from it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend wishes, I have no objection to repeating the substance of the answer, which was to this effect: Upon receipt of the question asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar I consulted with the deputy minister of the Department of Justice, who told me it was the first time in his experience that any such question had ever been asked, seeking the production of confidential legal opinions given to officers under the Combines Investigation Act. I also said that I had consulted with the then commissioner, Mr. Fred A. McGregor, and was informed by him that, having regard to the fact these opinions were based upon a consideration of all the evidence and exhibits, which were analysed and examined at very great length, and that since in these opinions the advising counsel indicated the course of actual conduct of the prosecution in these cases, it would be of the greatest value to the defence; and for that reason these opinions had always been regarded as confidential in nature, had never been produced, and, as I indicated before, had never even been asked for.
I might add that we have at the present time three prosecutions under way: one against certain companies in the bread

Inquiries of the Ministry industry, another against certain companies in the flat glass industry, and another against certain companies in the match industry.
As to the legal point concerning limitations, I am informed that that point will arise in each of these prosecutions. As to the prosecution against the bread industry, there are several points which arise in connection with the milling report which will have a possible bearing legally upon the issues in the bread industry. For these reasons we think that, in accordance with what has always been the practice, these opinions should not be tabled, nor should any indication be given of their contents.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege arising out of the answer given by the Minister of Justice, I will not seriously contend that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I am rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I have given considerable leeway on this question. Probably I should read the first paragraph of standing order. 44:
Questions may be placed on the order paper seeking information from the ministers of the crown relating to public affairs, and from other members relating to any bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the house, in which such members may be concerned: but in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered-, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same. And in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.
It seems to me we are getting into a debate. Probably I should allow the hon. member for Lake Centre to proceed with his question, but I hope that in future hon. members will endeavour to observe the rule.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall not transgress the rule. I want to point out that I agree with my hon. friend so far as a portion of his reply is concerned. He says that the question of the limitation of actions will come up in other prosecutions, and that therefore the crown should not reveal the attitude of its law officers. I am going to agree with him on that. That does not apply, however, to the first part of the question which asks whether a submission was made to counsel following delivery to the Minister of Justice to ascertain whether prosecutions may be taken under the combines act or the Criminal Code. Your Honour will remember that the Minister of Justice, in the case of the bread prosecution, the glass prosecution and the match prosecution, said he would not proceed until he had a recommendation from counsel to whom the matter had been submitted.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: It is for that reason I ask why in this case that course was not followed.


Mr. Wrighl:: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order,-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The leader of the opposition is raising a point of order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think there is an aspect of this that has not been placed before you.


An hon. Member:: What is the point of order?


George Alexander Drew: I am addressing my remarks to you, Mr. Speaker, in case there may be any doubt about it.
The point that arises in connection with the discussion which has taken place is this. The Minister of Justice supported his previous announcements of prosecutions by the statement that he was acting upon recommendation. If that is an appropriate explanation to the house for acting, then surely it is equally appropriate for the minister to inform the house whether he received an opinion to that effect in the case under which he is proceeding. I submit that only Your Honour can determine whether the question as asked is in keeping with the practice which has been established.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me say, as I said a moment ago, that this discussion is out of order under our standing orders. I would also say, however, that if the minister of whom the question is asked thinks it should be answered, he may answer, but I cannot compel him to do so.



QUESTION AS TO MAKING CHURCHILL A DELIVERY POINT UNDER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Last session, while we were discussing amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act to make Churchill a basing port under that act, the minister stated that negotiations were under way with respect to making that port a delivery point under the world wheat agreement. Can the minister say whether any agreement has been reached in the matter?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, speaking subject to confirmation after I make sure, I was informed that Churchill is a delivery point under the wheat agreement. I am quite sure I was advised of that about six weeks ago. However, if that is not so I will inform the hon. member.


Percy Ellis Wright: Can the minister say what the price of wheat will be at that port, as compared with Port Arthur and Fort William?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall have to secure that information and answer at another time.



PROCEDURE IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OP THE DAY

['Yes.\nResolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.\nMr. Fournier, Hull (for Mr. Mayhew) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 54, to amend the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944.\t[DOT]\nMotion agreed to and bill read the first time.']
Mr. Speaker:: I have noted that some of the questions asked today on the orders of the day have been lengthy. Perhaps I might remind hon. members of the stand taken by my predecessor, that questions on the orders of the day should be brief and to the point; that hon. members should seek information rather than give it, and that there should be no debate.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John M. James (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to call the attention of the house to what I consider a very serious matter. Apparently there are others in the house who believe as I do about it.
My question concerns a report which appears in the Kingston Whig-Standard, of Tuesday, March 21, and refers to a speech made by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). Let me say that I have the greatest respect for the hon. member and I regret that in this instance he has fallen from grace, and also that he has adopted an attitude which I am sure-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Durham has a question of privilege, he should state it.


John Mason James: I shall begin by reading the article as it appears in the Kingston Whig-Standard, and I believe as I go along the question of privilege will become clear. The article is headed "Canada nears one-party state, is charge of General Pearkes here".


Mr. Speaker:: That does not suggest to me a question of privilege.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Mason James: There is one paragraph further down in the article which, I think, will suggest a question of privilege to every member of the house. It reads:
Certain members of the Liberal party are calling today for the elimination of all opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Graydon: They always are.


John Mason James: That is an inaccuracy which must be brought to the attention of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. When the Speaker rises the hon. member should resume his seat. I would say, with respect to the last sentence to which the hon. member has referred, that members of the opposition have the privilege of making that statement at any time they may wish. I am not, of course, offering any opinion as to the accuracy or otherwise of the statement. I doubt however if it involves any question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I must maintain order in the chamber. From what has been read thus far I doubt whether it amounts to a question of privilege affecting hon. members of the house and for that reason I do not think I should allow the hon. member to continue at this time. However, if he would like to show the article to me I will decide whether it is one on which a question of privilege might be raised, and, if I so decided, I could allow him to proceed at a later time. At the moment I do not think he should proceed.


INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF STATUTORY REPORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has yet been able to make the inquiries he said he would make, in answer to my question of March 14, having to do with whether or not all reports the tabling of which is required by law have yet been tabled this session.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I have been able to make the inquiries, but I have not yet been able to get the answers.


IRRIGATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. D. Wylie (Medicine Hat):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the
1042	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Act minister has been in Alberta during the past week, and in view of the various statements appearing in the press-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: In view of the various statements appearing in the press about an agreement being signed between the dominion and provincial governments with respect to the St. Mary-Milk river project, will the minister tell the house whether that agreement has been signed?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, my answer, as briefly as I can give it, is no. Perhaps, however, I should say something more than that. A verbal agreement was reached at Edmonton, and I left officials there to work with officials of the provincial government in the drafting of an agreement which we have said we will sign.


AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ACT
James Garfield Gardiner: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Agricultural Products Act to extend the operation of the act for a period of one year.
He said. Mr. Speaker, I have discussed with representatives of the groups on the other side of the house the procedure which I hope will be agreed to, and with which those with whom I discussed the matter are in agreement. This is a resolution on which will be based a bill to amend the Agricultural Products Act to extend the operation of the act for a period of one year.
The original act, passed in 1947, provided that the contracts which were entered into during the war could be carried on following the war. The legislation has applied only for twelve months at a time, and therefore on three occasions we have passed a bill similar to the one which will be introduced providing that the act shall continue in existence for a further period of one year. That is all there is in the bill to be presented.
I realize that that raises the possibility of a discussion of the British contracts, and some hon. members may wish to have a rather free discussion. I would point out that I am hoping to introduce another resolution in connection with the Agricultural Prices Support Act. The introduction of that resolution would permit the discussion of everything that we might discuss under this resolution, and probably the British agreements as well.


What we do under that act has been done to replace what was being done under the other.
If it meets with the unanimous consent of the house I suggest that this resolution be permitted to go through, and that the bill to be based upon it be passed through its various stages; we could then proceed immediately to discuss the other resolution. I was going to suggest that Mr. Speaker do not interfere with us when we are discussing the other resolution as he might if we were to attempt to discuss certain matters under this resolution and other matters under the other. Otherwise we would probably be called to order, and quite properly.
I think we would get along better if we discussed everything under the other resolution and the bill which will be based thereon. I hope this procedure will meet with the approval of members of the opposition. If so, we could get this legislation through quickly and on its way to the Senate and then have our discussion on the next resolution. I am not pressing this if it does not meet with approval; I am only suggesting it.


Percy Ellis Wright: So far as we are concerned we would be quite prepared to let the resolution go through its necessary stages today, but I do not think we would be prepared to let the bill go through. It could be given first reading and then come up for second and third readings tomorrow.


James Garfield Gardiner: Allow it to go through and it can be called for second reading later.


Mr. Charlton:: We in this group are prepared to let the resolution go through today and give first reading to the bill, but not to go any further at this time.


Robert Fair: That position is agreeable to us.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 16, to amend the Agricultural Products Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT ACT
James Garfield Gardiner: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, shall continue in force on and alter the thirty-first day of Maich, 1950.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the minister going to make a statement?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to make a statement now, but it would not cover everything we will want to discuss.
This act was passed in the session of 1944. It provided for the placing of support prices under staple agricultural products, during the transitional period. There was also a provision in the act requiring that it be extended from time to time if it was going to be applied. In other words, it was not permanent legislation. It has already been announced that the legislation will be made permanent during this session. The simplest way to do that would be to take out the provision which made it necessary to extend the act from time to time. The act would then be in exactly the same position as most acts passed by this parliament; that is, it would continue in effect so long as the parliament of Canada did not take any further action.
There has been considerable discussion as to the intentions of the old act, and I do not think I could do better this afternoon than read what I placed on the record on July 29, 1944, as to the intentions of the act. We have operated under the act on that basis up to the present time. I should like to quote from page 5611 of Hansard of July 29, 1944, where I am reported as follows:
That is another reason why the bill is applied to the transitional period. That does not mean that when the transitional period is up, any government which happens to be in power at that time is in duty bound to do away with the legislation in its entirety, that it will have no right to amend that legislation in any way. Of course, any house that may be here at any time after the war has the right to amend the measure in any way it may see fit. But this particular bill is for the purpose of dealing with a situation that does exist, as it exists, during the transitional period between war and peace. 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: 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.
I am asked what will they do with all that; will they get rid of it?
That is, all the surpluses.
I can assure hon. members that if I am minister charged with the task, there will not be any of it that will be burned or dumped into the ocean or into the lake. One thing has been demonstrated
Agricultural Prices Support Act
to us during the war, and as a matter of fact we have always known it. We have always known that there are areas in the world where there are famines from time to time. There are areas where great masses of the population are never properly fed, and there has never been a time when it would not have been possible to take all the food commodities of Canada and send them to some place where someone could) have made use of them. Unfortunately, in the past we have kept our actions of that kind limited pretty much to the people that we know most about. But we are entering upon a period when one can leave his home in any part of the world and be in any other part of the world-in which he wishes to land some time within the next twenty-four or forty-eight hours. Therefore the radius of our activities and our friendships and all that kind of thing will be very much wider when this war is over than they have ever been before. I am not worrying about finding some place where we can put the surplus food of a country that has only twelve million people in it to start with.
Then we went to dinner, and during the interval I prepared a statement which I read to the house when I came back at eight o'clock. This is the statement, to be found at page 5612 of Hansard for July 29, 1944:
Before the dinner recess I was dealing with some of the points that were suggested by hon. members opposite, particularly the questions raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Lethbridge. Perhaps I can best sum up the answers I should like to give to those questions by saying that it would not be fair to the farmers of Canada to do certain things in the transition period. First, I should say it would not be fair to order them, immediately the war is over, to reduce production to the level at which it is certain the commodities could be sold at a given price. I was asked what we were going to do, provided that we had great surpluses, and I call attention to what I have just stated as an answer to that question, and to repeat what I said just before the dinner recess.
During this war period we have been asked to increase production to the limit in order to provide food to those of our allies who require it, as well as to our own people. I repeat that it would be unfair to the farmers, immediately the war is over, to say they must reduce their production to the point where everything they produce can be disposed of at a given price. And I would state that this bill contains provision for dealing with the situation where a given price is essential for uncontrolled production during the transition period.
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, too, I should say it would be unfair to hold that because a farmer had an exceptionally good crop during the transition period he should be prepared to accept a low return per unit, and I make that statement also based upon what I said

Agricultural Prices Support Act a few moments ago. During the period of control, in 1942 the farmers had one of the best crops they ever grew. They had a very fair crop in 1943, and it seems likely that this year they will have one of their very best crops again. During these three years we have had prices controlled. I am not at all sure, and neither is anyone in this house, how many years longer those controls are going to remain in effect, but up to the present the production of field crops has been far beyond what we had any right to expect at the time those controls were established.
I make that statement in reply to the suggestion of the hon. member for Lethbridge this afternoon that because we had suggested that wheat acreage be reduced for the time being we were really paying the farmers to decrease production. If he had applied that statement to the efforts of the government in relation to wheat only, it would have been a statement of fact; but when one takes into consideration the further fact that the government made those payments in such a way as to increase the production of feed grains and in turn increase the production of livestock products, it cannot be said that the policy was intended to lower the production of food products. If the policy had been adopted for that purpose it certainly failed, because in 1942, 1943 and, as far as we can tell, In 1944, as was stated this afternoon by the hon. member for Halton, our production has increased by at least 50 per cent. While hon. gentlemen opposite may not agree, I venture to say that, making allowance for the fact that we had good weather in some of those years, these results have come about almost entirely from the policy that was announced and put into force by this government in relation to agriculture.
So that I say the fact that we shall have had two very good crops and one average crop during the period of price ceilings should be taken into consideration in the post-war or transition period, and that farmers who were denied higher returns during wartime should not be denied a fair return on their product simply because in some of the years following the war the yields may be very high.
One of the questions asked directly was this: Is this bill intended to make this country self-sustaining? I would put it in a little different form and say, if the question is whether this bill is intended to promote the production of everything we need in this country, or all the food products that we might desire to have in this country, then those of us who had to do with the drafting of the bill had no such idea in mind and did not intend that the legislation should be used for that purpose. The hon. member for Lethbridge was very much concerned as to how we were going to raise the money. He spoke of this $200 million as an amount of money that had to be found somewhere in order to carry on the activities contemplated by this measure. Of course the $200 million is a revolving fund.
I want to repeat that.
Of course the $200 million is a revolving fund. If a market can be found for all the products over which the government may take control, owing to the fact that they have taken charge of those products at floor prices through some of the organizations provided for in this legislation; if the government can dispose of all those products at floor prices, it will not be necessary to raise any money by taxation or in any other way. In other words, the $200 million is provided in order to have a fund from which to purchase the commodities, or with which the purchase of commodities may be made. Those commodities may be some I mentioned in my speech this morning. One commodity might be butter purchased in the months of May, June and


July, put in storage, and put back on this market at possibly the same price in the winter months with the costs added to it.
If the whole $200 million were used for transactions of that kind, then, of course, it would not be necessary to raise money from taxes, or to issue paper money, or to do anything else of that kind, in order to get the money that would be necessary with which to carry on activities under the bill. But if, on the other hand, in dealing with some of these products we were to find it necessary in order to provide floor prices, which we think are essential to give the farmer a proper return, to place the products on this market in Canada, or on any other market at a price lower than that which we had paid under the floor, then it might be necessary to take part of the $200 million in order to make up the difference between the price paid to the farmer for the surplus, and the price received from whatever country we were sending it to. In other words, there might be part of the money which would have to be found by general taxation, or in some other way. But to the extent that products can be disposed of at any price at all, the price received for them, or the money received for them, will go into this revolving fund. And if we make up $200 million through transactions, it would not be necessary to raise anything by taxation.
I read that again because there has been a great deal of discussion with regard to what we had in mind when this bill was introduced. It does reveal that, when the bill was going through the house and before it became legislation, everything which has been done under it since that time was then outlined as a possibility. We have been following almost exactly what we suggested at that time we might follow. I only call attention to what I have just read, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the handling of butter, to show that in the handling of butter during this last year, we have followed to the letter what was outlined.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more than that at the moment. In closing I simply say that we have no different intent in the bill as it now is; we are not changing the terms of the legislation in any manner whatever, except that the time limit is being removed. The proposed amendment removes the time limit, so the bill will contain only one section, just as the other one did. The time limit is removed from the act as it now stands, and it is made applicable over the years that are ahead, as long as this parliament sees fit to keep it on the statute book. I suggest, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the idea behind it all is to put this legislation in the position we suggested, namely, that it is to apply throughout the future.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I think in the past all parties in this house have expressed approval of the principle in this floor prices legislation for primary producers. The unfortunate situation arising from the difficulty of securing markets now makes the application of some measure of this sort extremely necessary. I am sure

that we as a party do not believe it is necessary to take further time of the house at this stage, until we see what the bill contains.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I, too, welcome the introduction of this legislation, which foreshadows the placing of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, on a permanent basis. I had hoped the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), in his introductory remarks, would give us something new, something more specific as to what might be done under this act in the years that are ahead. Instead, he read the speech he made in introducing this legislation in 1944.
I think the farmers of Canada, while they welcomed the bill in 1944, and while they welcome the placing of this act on a permanent basis in 1950, do not feel that the government has given any real stability to farm income under this act.
I might point out for example, what happened within the last week of August last year, while this measure was in force. The price of hogs at Winnipeg was $31.85 per hundredweight for grade B-l. At the end of December a similar hog was selling for only $26.10 per hundredweight. A drop of $5.75 per hundredweight for hogs within a period of a few months, with this act on the statute book, is certainly not giving farm income any real degree of stability. While this act was in effect, and while the Agricultural Products Act was in effect, the act which will be continued for another year, we find that the packers were not playing the game, either with the Canadian producer or with the British consumer.
For example, in the year 1949 there was shipped a total of 65 million pounds of bacon to Britain. In the first ten months of 1949 we shipped to Britain approximately 33,800,000 pounds of bacon. In the last two months of the year we shipped over 31 million pounds. In other words the packers of this country held bacon in storage until near the end of the year when they learned the new contract price, and then in the last two months of the year unloaded as much bacon on the British market as they had delivered in the first ten months of the year. That is not stabilizing the bacon market, nor is it providing bacon, month in and month out, for the British people. The British do not want to go hungry for bacon for ten months and then have a feast in the last two months of the year, merely because the packers can make a lot more money by conducting their business in that way.
To further substantiate what I have said with reference to the fact that the farmers have not been satisfied with what has been done under this act, I might point to the 55946-682
23, 1950
Agricultural Prices Support Act drastic drop that took place in egg prices last December and January. After December 17, eggs were not bought for the British market, but it was not until January 27 that the government announced it was placing a floor price under eggs. It was not until the farmers across this country had held one protest meeting after another that the Minister of Agriculture finally used the act which he said in 1944 would be used to provide stability in the transition period. I might quote from memory a sentence in a speech of the minister last January in which he said price support for eggs was necessary because at Dauphin, Manitoba, for example, prices for eggs had dropped to as low as eighteen cents a dozen. In the first part of December the farmers received at least fifty cents a dozen, and some of them a good deal more; the government wailed until January, waited until a great many producers were getting as little as eighteen cents before any steps were taken to provide a floor under egg prices. I should like to say to the minister that it is all very well for him to read the speech he made in 1944, in introducing this bill; but if the government does not do more in the next five years than it did in the last five years under this bill, the farmers will be thoroughly and justly dissatisfied.
Under the act $200 million can be used by the government from time to time to provide support for agricultural prices. I think it is not good enough that the minister have $200 million with which he can support agricultural prices at any price he may choose. We know that the floor price of butter today is 58J cents a pound; we do not know how low the minister will allow the price to go. While there is under hogs today a floor of $32.50 a hundredweight, we do not know what the floor will be next year. The farmer certainly has no way of knowing from one year to the next what floor prices, if any, will be established. I therefore believe that the government and the minister should write into this act a parity formula whereby the agricultural producers of this country will be guaranteed, under the statutes of the nation, a price that will not go below a certain figure based on that formula. It is not good enough to say now that eggs shall be supported at 36 cents and 38 cents a dozen when we do not know what,, support, if any, will be under eggs next year. In my opinion it is not good enough to support egg prices to the packers as the government is doing, and not to the producer and to support bacon prices to the packers and not to the producers. As I pointed out earlier we saw the packers holding off the sale of bacon they had in cold storage until such time as they themselves could make the greatest profit. '.

Agricultural Prices Support Act
No one can produce hogs with any degree of assurance that he will obtain a reasonable return if hogs are going to drop as they did last year more than $5 a hundredweight within a period of four months. That amounted to $8.60 for a 150-pound dressed hog. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who has raised hogs in the past and is no doubt raising them today, would agree with me, I think, that if a farmer made $8.60 per hog after he had paid for any necessary labour, feed costs, depreciation on buildings, transportation and what-have-you, he would consider that he was making a good profit indeed. If that is the case, then the fact that hog prices dropped so greatly within a period of a few months means that the farmer lost money or in any event worked for nothing.
The minister is going to have $200 million, which he may or may not use from time to time to support agricultural prices as he sees fit. Every time the Minister of Agriculture gets a little surplus of butter, as he would say, or a little surplus of cheese or whatever it happens to be, a cry goes up in the press across the country that the taxpayers of this nation are providing millions of dollars to store agricultural surpluses to keep prices artificially high, and that the taxpayer in the final analysis is the one who will suffer. These comments usually end with saying a free market is best and support prices should not be established under agricultural commodities.
I am going to say that if the government uses the whole $200 million over a period of five years, and does not recoup a dollar from that $200 million, the farmers are still entitled to that kind of support program. The farmers have contributed in various ways to put a floor under the standard of living of certain other sections of our community. I might refer to the Unemployment Insurance Act. It protects, to some extent at least, workers who find that their services are being offered in a falling market. Since 1941, under the Unemployment Insurance Act, the government has contributed a total of more than $127 million; and in the estimates before parliament at the present time is a further $23 million for unemployment insurance for the coming year. That makes a total of $150 million that the taxpayers of Canada are paying into a fund to protect the workers of this nation. I support the unemployment insurance fund, and I believe the agricultural industry would also support a measure of that kind.' But I want to point out at the same time that all that those engaged in agriculture are asking is that they be given a program similar to the unemployment 

insurance program, in that a minimum standard of living be guaranteed the primary producer.
I might point out that through tariffs a great many industries in Canada are protected at the expense of all the Canadian people, including farmers. We have tariffs on British woollen goods, British clothing made from wool, British boots and shoes, washing machines and bicycles, to mention only a few. The farmers of Canada and the people of Canada generally are making a contribution to keep certain industries in operation in this country. The tariff; have protected industry, and farmers ask that they too be given protection through floor prices in the marketing of their products.
I might also mention the fact that the government found it possible, from 1939 until February 1949, to pay to the iron and steel industry a total of more than $51 million in subsidies. I hope the steel industry and other industries that have been protected through tariffs and subsidies will not set up a howl if it costs some money, and some real money, to protect the agricultural producers of our nation. I feel that the prosperity of agriculture in this nation is important not only to the farmers but to each and every occupational group in our country.
Whenever a recession or a depression occurs, farm prices are the first to fall, and with a fall in the level of farm prices, with a reduction in agricultural income, we soon witness widespread unemployment. Whenever the farmers of this nation cannot purchase the products manufactured in our factories, the workers are out of work, the factories are shut down and the whole Canadian nation is suffering. Therefore, in asking that the $200 million be used in a way that will give farmers in the next few years a standard of living at least equal to that enjoyed from 1947 to 1949, I am asking for something that I believe is in the interests of all Canadian people.
One might go over some of the statements that have been made in the past as to whether or not we are losing our markets, and as to whether or not the government is to blame for what has happened. However, I do not propose to pursue that argument at this time. I want to remind the minister of the statement he repeated in introducing this measure this afternoon, namely, that when the world is hungry, when millions of people across the face of the earth are underfed, Canada has no business worrying about finding a place for surplus food, particularly when we are a nation of only 12 million people.
I want to tell the minister too that farmers did have a ceiling placed on farm products,

and that they accepted lower prices during the war, and in many instances since the war. Farmers made that sacrifice in the belief that a proper permanent stabilization program would be adopted. How many hundreds of millions of dollars the wheat producers have sacrificed, I do not know. I do not think anyone else knows, but I do know that because of the government's policy of keeping bread prices down in this country, and signing a British contract which hon. members on all sides of the house supported, farmers in western Canada took substantially less for their wheat than might have been received. But the very fact that in the past farmers have accepted less for their products -and in the last few years farmers have made a real contribution to the whole Canadian nation by providing food at reasonable prices-is an indication that they have a just cause when they ask the government to inaugurate a policy which will give them adequate floor prices in peacetime, and when they ask the rest of the nation, if necessary, to provide the money required in order that stabilized prices may be maintained.
The minister is going to have a great deal of difficulty in selling a price-support program to the Canadian nation which results in merely a piling up of surpluses in Canada. We cannot sell that kind of program to the Canadian people. It is not enough to set floor prices. We must move food into consumption channels, and into trade channels throughout the world. I suggest to the minister once again that, along with his colleagues, he explore the possibilities of implementing bilateral trade agreements not only for the sale of agricultural commodities to other nations of the world, but for the importation of manufactured commodities into Canada.	[DOT]
I suggest to the minister and to the government that they might well consider the possibility of accepting sterling in payment of farm products sent to Great Britain. 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. We are trying to sell democracy to the world but you cannot sell democracy to a man who is hungry. The United States is trying to sell democracy to every nation in the world. But in my opinion they cannot sell democracy to nations in which millions of people are hungry at the very time when in the United States they have $4,000 million of agricultural surpluses. To summarize I suggest that the government place in the present act a proper formula that will give farmers stability year in and year out, and then take all the necessary
23, 1950
Agricultural Prices Support Act steps to see that Canadian agricultural products find their way into the markets of the world, so that we may make our contribution toward feeding mankind.


Robert Fair: Mr. Speaker, we are told that the Right Hon. Winston Churchill a few years ago said that it is just as healthy for a man to change his mind as it is to change his shirt. I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the government have seen fit to change their opinions with regard to the resolution that was on the order paper last session in connection with the Agricultural Prices Support Act, and which died there. At that time we were afraid that the government was going to do away with this legislation. Perhaps because of the minister's travels throughout Canada he found that the people of Canada, farmers, business people, labouring people and others, were not satisfied to do away with the legislation. I am glad that the resolution we are discussing at the present time is on the order paper and that very soon we shall have a permanent Agricultural Prices Support Act on our statute books.
I am just a little worried that the agricultural industry is again being relegated to a place which it should not occupy, namely, to the position of Cinderella. With the assistance of the government, many other industries seem to be able to take care of themselves. While agriculture was boosted to the skies during the war for the effort it was putting forth at that time, not enough is said at this time about the efforts put forth by the farmers of Canada and of the actual losses they have sustained because of government policy. Because of that, something really worth while should now be done to keep agriculture in a prosperous condition.
In the past few months we have heard leaders of labour organizations advocate that a healthy policy be made effective for the industry of agriculture. These men are finally beginning to realize, as they should have done many years ago, that just as soon as the farmer has not got money labourers will commence to walk the streets, because the farmers cannot buy the products of industry. They are also beginning to realize that the best potential customer the manufacturer and others in Canada have is our own Canadian farming population. I believe that was made clear also to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at its meeting at Niagara Falls recently by the Minister of Agriculture. I hope that others in high places will soon take cognizance of this fact and do something about it.

Agricultural Prices Support Act
It would appear from an article printed in the Manitoba Co-operator of December 8 that many people are dissatisfied with the stand taken in connection with the international commodity clearing house. I have here a number of complaints which I should like to put on record to show that people in many parts of Canada, and engaged in different occupations, are beginning to realize the importance of our industry.
The article reads:
A strangulation of the international commodity clearing house, as proposed by Director-General N. E. Dodd, at the fifth annual conference of the food and agriculture organization in Washington, has brought a flood of strong and vigorous protests. The U.S. State Department and other government representatives from other countries, succeeded in defeating the ICCH plan.
I might point out that Canada is one of the countries which voted against the proposal. Perhaps there were some reasons, but I think those reasons might very well have been overcome. The article continues:
The protests came from organized agriculture, through the international federation of agriculture producers, labour and religious organizations.
The conference backed a substitute proposal providing for a consolidated international committee with no authority and no funds.
The hon.-member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), speaking in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, dealt with this matter in full detail, pointing out that representatives of the international monetary fund were present when those discussions took place, and that they will be present again when there are other discussions. He pointed out that, as in the past, money will again be made the master rather than the servant of the people.
While this condition is allowed to continue I feel that agriculture and the people of Canada generally will not be permitted to have that degree of justice to which they are entitled. The article continues:
H. H. Hannam, president of the IFAP, and president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, spoke on behalf of the farm organizations associated with IFAP.
Murray D. Lincoln, president of the Co-operative League of the U.S.A., took an aggressive part to overcome opposition to ICCH.
Wm. Green, American Federation of Labour president, cabled from London-"Economic interests of the people of all nations will be best promoted through the adoption of such a policy," as outlined by FAO Director-General N. E. Dodd.
Philip Murray, CIO president, said "CIO feels that an extension of principles of aiding the countries of the world to balance their foreign trade would be furthered by the adoption of the principles and concepts of ICCH."
"American farm families are confronted with sharply curtailed incomes as a reward for their productivity, while underfed families elsewhere find it impossible to secure the food they desire . . . It is neither humane nor economically sound to wait for a gradual adjustment in international


An hon. Member:: Use it anyway.

Agricultural Prices Support Act


Robert Fair: It was turned down because of the mischief that was worked among the delegates by the representatives of the international monetary fund.
4.	The extension of export markets and acceptance of non-convertible sterling as a means of recapturing and retaining British and European markets. This parliament has to accept its share of the responsibility of our present day dollar trouble and the dollar trouble that we will continue to have unless some action is taken by it and other governments.
5.	Provincial-dominion marketing boards to serve as a foundation for-
6.	A permanent Agricultural Prices Support Act.
As I have stated already, we are not satisfied to have the Agricultural Prices Support Act on our statute books unless it guarantees something worth while. It is true that there is $200 million in the revolving fund but up to the present time very little of that has been used. I understand that the United States has nearly $4,000 million invested in agricultural surpluses and other purchases. I submit that we should not stop at $200 million if further amounts are necessary, because with an impoverished agricultural population the rest of the country cannot be prosperous.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: When the Minister of Agriculture introduced the resolution he said that he had discussed the matter with the opposition groups and there was an undertaking that the passage of this measure would be facilitated, at least through the committee stages. I have some questions which I want to ask in committee, but in view of the debate that has been precipitated there are a few remarks I should like to make at this time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I may be permitted to explain so that there will be no misunderstanding. The arrangement with the other groups was in connection with the other bill.
I did not ask for an undertaking that there would be no discussion at any stage on this bill. I would appreciate it very much if we could get on to the second reading without further delay, but so far as this bill is concerned there was no undertaking.


James Arthur Ross: I appreciate the minister's explanation as I had understood that the understanding applied to both measures. I would point out that the revolving fund provided in 1944 of $200 million is approximately ten per cent of the contribution the Canadian farmers have made since 1942 toward subsidizing the consumers of Great Britain and Canada. As has been pointed out by other speakers, they have a right to claim some legislation of this nature.

The minister quoted from the speech he made in 1944 but I notice that the October issue of the review of agricultural conditions in Canada apparently brought that statement up to date. There is considerable useful information in this issue and perhaps I should read a paragraph or two to indicate the necessity for this type of legislation. I quote:
In addition to population increases the food situation has also been affected by a growing awareness of the basic importance of food and nutrition in the welfare of all people. At the same time, the emergence of self-government for some populations has fostered an increasing effective demand for adequate diets in countries where diets formerly were not of much moment except to the millions of individuals themselves. Plans and programs for agricultural development and better diets are now an integral part of the policies of most governments. In some, the energetic prosecution of these programs-along with the contribution of favourable weather-has resulted in substantial progress. In others, the plans tend to remain plans and the blueprint has been accepted as the building.
The pattern of agriculture in the world today is shaped by many factors: the food needs of the people, the necessity for better cultural practices, the problem of balancing external accounts and, in some cases, the expediences of international politics. Many devices are employed to develop the production dictated by these factors. These include subsidies, guaranteed prices, bilateral agreements and many others. The degree of this governmental activity varies from country to country. In some, it reaches down to the individual farm," controlling the area of specific crops, the number of each class of livestock, the amounts of food and seed which can be retained on the farm, prices paid and prices received. In others, governments have intervened to the minimum extent thought necessary to protect agricultural economies from the effects of abrupt price changes in the post-war transition period.
I think most farm producers realize what happened in Canada a few months following the publication of that article. It was announced then that we had suffered the loss of certain contracts with the United Kingdom, and a sudden downward trend in the price of bacon and other hog products began. We had a disastrous price fall in eggs. I know of many people who over a period of time had developed splendid flocks of poultry in western Canada, where I am more conversant with these matters, but they had disposed of them before the government tackled the situation. In fact at recent poultry producers' meetings we have had the prediction that, as a result of the failure of the government to take hold of the matter sooner, there will probably be a shortage of eggs next fall. At any rate many of these poultry producers suffered great losses on their investment. There is no doubt about that. According to the bureau of statistics there were in storage at the first of February, 1950, some 25,075,000 pounds of poultry meat. That is about ten million pounds more than a year ago. The

same thing can be said of many more agricultural commodities. There are more eggs and egg products in storage now than there were a year ago, and so it runs all through the picture.
As the previous speaker pointed out, we are not entirely satisfied with this legislation. We admit that something has to be done. As was so well pointed out by the prime minister in 1943, when he was urging farmers to produce to the limit, it was true enough that they were not obtaining the prices that farmers in all other countries of the world were, and the fact would have to be taken into consideration in the years following the war.
I have not the quotation before me, but I know that nobody will deny that statement. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has himself repeatedly pointed out the same thing, that farmers were then working for less than agricultural producers of other countries and that fact would have to be borne in mind in the years that followed the war. We know that these people have made a great contribution.
I have before me a report of a speech made by the minister at Saskatoon. It can be found in the Winnipeg Tribune of March 16 at page 4. The Minister of Agriculture is reported as telling a meeting of the Saskatchewan rural municipalities association that:
A campaign would be launched "If necessary" to prevent oleomargarine manufacturers producing to the extent that it threatens the 400,000 Canadian dairy farmers.
I have a question that I think the minister should answer concerning this measure because there were stocks of creamery butter amounting to 36,578,000 pounds as of March 1, 1950, compared to stocks of 18,769,000 pounds one year ago. That is double the quantity in storage. If the minister has some type of legislation in mind, or if he is going to be responsible for such a campaign as that indicated in the speech he made to the great convention at Saskatoon, then members of the House of Commons should have more information from the minister about the type of legislation or the campaign that he intends to foster in this important matter.
As for the legislation itself, we believe that a formula should be set forth for arriving at these floor prices. Producers have no idea how they will be arrived at. The formula should be set forth in the act, and the floor prices should be announced well in advance of the production period. We also believe that the formula should be arrived at in consultation with representative producers of the various commodities throughout the country. I am sure that is a very fair request.
I do not want to take any more time at this stage. I should like to ask some questions
23. 1950
Agricultural Prices Support Act in committee. I only want to point out now that this party is not satisfied with the measure. We will facilitate it as being partially effective at this time, but it is a long long way short of what we should have now to protect agriculture in Canada. I hope the minister will tell the house what he has in mind as to the form of legislation or the campaign that he will promote on behalf of the 400,000 butter producers in Canada.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the house for any length of time, but there are one or two remarks I want to make. I am pleased that the minister has introduced this legislation and that it does not contain any expiry date. I think that is a good thing. I am happy to see that because the resolution is something on which we can base forward prices, which I believe in. I do not know whether the minister believes in forward prices, but I know from conversations with him that he has seen them in operation in different countries. I think we will come to that in Canada sooner or later. I mean by that that when we breed a cow we will know how much we will get for the steer three years hence. The drawback that I have noticed in the operations that have been taking place under the Agricultural Prices Support Act is that prices have always been based on the packers' level. I think the minister should take that into consideration and see if something cannot be done.
I placed one instance before the minister a couple of years ago. It had to do with the time when lambs were selling at about seven or eight cents a pound on the market, and they agreed to pay 10 a, I believe it was. I am not quite sure of my figures. It was a quarter less than the price set by the meat board. That did not help the farmer. It was meant to help him, but it never helped him because the packer just paid what he felt like paying for the lambs, eight or nine cents. Immediately the packer skinned the lambs and hung them up by the heels he received the guaranteed price under the Agricultural Prices Support Aot.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Skinned the farmers, too.


William Scottie Bryce: And skinned the farmer at the same time. We have had the same thing with hogs. I raised that matter with the parliamentary assistant to the minister the other day. Hogs are based on the packers' level. The packer can get any price he likes for them. He can pay any price he likes for them, and he is sitting pretty all the time. If that is to be the case, then the only thing that will happen is that we will have to set up co-operatives, kill our own hogs, and sell them as bacon. As

Agricultural Prices Support Act long as the hog industry is so definitely in the hands of the packers, then the farmer will be at a great disadvantage.
Those are the things I wanted to bring to the minister's attention. Later, I may have an opportunity of bringing some other matters to his attention, but I thought I would have a better chance of pointing out these things to him now. [DOT]


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: I should like to take a little time to place on the record the condition that now exists in the fruitgrowing area of British Columbia. I fully realize that the minister is conscious of that condition, and possibly knows more about it than I do. I should like to place it on the record, however, because I have received a copy of a resolution recently submitted to a convention of fruit growers at Penticton.
As you know, the fruit-growing area of British Columbia is concentrated in the interior, mainly in the Okanagan valley. The other day mention was made of the fact that unemployment in Canada is spasmodic and is in pockets, and one might say that depressed farming communities are also in pockets. I feel that applies to the fruit growing industry; it is a depressed pocket at the moment. Suggestions have been made that we grow less, or that the trees be torn up. I should like to point out that an apple tree takes 15 years to fully mature, or to give its best crop. A fruit farmer cannot change his crops as easily as a wheat farmer, or a chicken farmer. In a fruit growing area there has to be long range planning. For that reason, while there is a surplus at the present time, in five or ten years there may be a shortage of fruit in Canada. We in the valley must look at the long range picture.
Curtailment of planting has been suggested, but this would work a real hardship on the veterans who have recently taken up acreage for fruit growing. Any curtailment of new acreage would definitely strike at the veterans. I am confident that would be the greatest mistake the government could make, to place a barrier against veterans entering the fruit industry. I know that the surplus situation today is serious. It is a question of economics. I am sure a solution can be found.
The other day I was interested in reading a speech by the Hon. Henry Bowman, minister of agriculture in British Columbia, which possibly may bring home the seriousness of the situation to each one of us. It reads as follows:
We heard a very interesting talk from Norris E. Dodd, director general ot the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Mr. Dodd had recently returned from a visit to many of the

European countries on both sides of the iron curtain. He stated that the world population had increased by 200 million during the last 12 years.
This is the point I should like to draw to your attention.
Two-thirds of the population were undernourished. In some of the countries he visited, the people were dying in the streets from starvation. In most countries it was considered that some 2,500 to 3,000 calories were required to sustain life. Many of the peoples in the countries visited were getting less than 1,500 calories.
Obviously, then, Mr. Speaker, our problem is one of distribution. I feel it would be a good policy for the government to supply some of these missing calories by sending Canadian wheat, fruit and other foodstuffs, which we have in abundance, to these people. I know it is difficult to do it, especially in view of the dollar shortage in those countries. We in the interior of British Columbia, in my opinion, set an example not only to the government but to our neighbours to the south, when we made a gift of over a million boxes of apples to the British people. Time and again it has been suggested that barter deals be arranged. Small amounts of fruit and vegetables have been bartered efficiently and profitably during the past year or two. I should like to see those barter arrangements extended a little further with the European countries that cannot purchase our fruit in any other way. By doing this, we would be building up good will, and at the same time retaining those markets until the world returns to a state of normalcy. I think we can be proud of the Canadian gift of fruit already made to the world. We can hold our heads high as a nation that has done its Christian duty towards our fellow men.
On the other hand, this afternoon the minister said he would not want surplus foodstuffs dumped in the ocean or in the lake. When he mentioned "the lake" it recalled to my mind our own lake which has, in previous years, received some of these dumped foodstuffs, particularly soft fruits and apples. Our problem is a big one. I should like to place on the record the extent to which the industry has grown in the last few years. Last year, our apple production exceeded 8 million boxes; our crop of cherries was the largest we ever produced, and 520,109 cases were marketed in fresh form; of apricots, we had 603,339 lugs; of peaches, we had over 2 million cases; plums, far in excess of 1948; prunes, 1,023,000 lugs; plus 640 tons of SO2 cherries which went to the processor. I am not mentioning the grapes, pears and so on, but that is the problem. Last year we had an abundance, and on top of that Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes

had one of the largest crops they have ever grown, of truly fine quality, making the competition rather keen.
We have tried to find markets everywhere. We have emissaries all over the world. I should like to read to you a report made in Penticton early this year by Mr. J. B. Lander, the sales manager of B.C. Tree Fruits Limited. I point this out to show the government that we in the valley have done our utmost to find markets. It reads as follows:
Shipments of boxed apples to off-shore markets in 1948 aggregated 568,245 boxes, distributed in nine countries, of which the most important, in terms of volume, was Brazil.
As I speak to you this afternoon, off-shore sales are practically non-existent, owing in large part to an export subsidy of $1.25 per box on U.S. apple exports. The United States department of agriculture in Washington made this subsidy arrangement effective on the 12th day of October, 1949. This immediately shut off off-shore exports, We had orders from trans-Paciflc markets for twenty carloads of apples when the subsidy was announced, and these orders were immediately cancelled. Where this obstacle is not operative, and it only excludes a few countries, such as Venezuela and Cuba, exchange control regulations made no provision for fresh fruit importations from dollar areas. This is the reason we were not able to enter the South African market. Protracted negotiations aimed at working out a barter deal involving an exchange of our apples for Brazilian cocoa butter broke down, when the control authorities of Brazil refused to authorize details acceptable to the suppliers in each country. It would have necessitated our obligating ourselves to sell in Canada a large quantity of cocoa butter, which would have been Stored in New York, and we found, after a thorough investigation, that Brazilian cocoa butter was not particularly acceptable to the Canadian chocolate and biscuit manufacturers.
A world-wide canvass through the Canadian trade commissioners' service within recent weeks was not productive of a single encouraging prospect. Our sales off-shore as at January 11 totalled 110,000 boxes to nine separate, countries, of which the largest single item is again Brazil. We have shipped 444,500 boxes of apples to the United Kingdom. This figure perhaps could have been included in the off-shore export markets but the deal was really in a different category, as it was an arrangement which was consummated by the British Food Mission with the Canadian government and ourselves.
I could go on quoting the struggle they have had in trying to capture some of the United States market. But they have made a wonderful arrangement whereby a large quantity of apples is being shipped to the United States market. I am merely pointing out to you that genuine efforts have been made to place our fruit without bothering the government. We have advertised this year more than usual in practically every paper of repute across the Dominion of Canada. Again we are handicapped by freight rates in reaching the markets of Quebec and Ontario. But in spite of that our excellent product, as a result of the efficient way in which it is packed, has penetrated even into Ottawa,
Agricultural Prices Support Act Montreal and Toronto. I find that last year 27,900 boxes were sold in our new province of Newfoundland.
I could go into the organization of the tree fruit board, but many hon. members realize and know full well that this is possibly the best organized industrial group in the whole Dominion of Canada. With all the handicaps it has had to face over a number of years it has brought remarkable success to an industry that has struggled from a poor start twenty-five years ago. I have pointed out to you how we have searched every avenue for trade and how the competition from the United states apple growers has handicapped our export sales. The subsidy of $1.25 a box by the United States government cannot be overcome by an apple that carries no subsidy as such. This naturally has placed the Canadian grower in a disadvantageous position in the foreign market, particularly the United Kingdom market.
I am going to put before the minister this suggestion. The farmers who have done so much to stabilize their own industry, and then have met conditions which are entirely beyond their control, are deserving of help. I know a formula could be evolved whereby the cost of production could be maintained over a period of years. I am glad to know that this bill extends the life of the prices support act. A period of one year gave no stability to the fruit industry in which, as I pointed out before, the farmer has to look ahead ten, fifteen or twenty years.


Mr. Blackmore:: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Owen Lewis Jones: Surely.


John Horne Blackmore: I was wondering if that $1.25 subsidy which the United States government gives applied to apples offered by the United States for export to Canada or only to apples for sale in their own country?


Owen Lewis Jones: I do not think it is on exports to Canada. I think I mentioned an arrangement made between Canadian producers and the United States producers. They work together.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the hon. member permit another question?


Owen Lewis Jones: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Do they offer that same subsidy as an export subsidy in order to penetrate other markets such as the European markets?


Owen Lewis Jones: Yes; that is the object of it.


John Horne Blackmore: Thereby competing with Canadian apples?


Owen Lewis Jones: That is right.

Agricultural Prices Support Act


Mr. Coldwell:: Where is the non-discrimination policy?


Owen Lewis Jones: I mention the matter at the present time-and I know the minister is giving favourable consideration to assistance to the farmers-because I should like the government to declare its policy as early as possible. I say that because the farmer is obliged to expend a great deal of money early in the year. At the present time pruning has to take place and has to be paid for. In a short time, before the buds are actually open, we must spend far more money for spraying this year than we did last year. All these costs the farmer, unless he has a subsidy for last year's crop, will not be able to meet.
I should like to draw to the attention of the minister the resolution which was passed on March 17 of this year. I will read it in part:
The executive of the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association has given instructions that the following resolution regarding financial assistance from the dominion government be placed in your hands:
It is addressed to all members of the dominion cabinet and members of parliament from British Columbia. The resolution continues:
Whereas in 1949 due to a large crop and adverse marketing conditions, the fruit from British Columbia's tree fruit area is being disposed of at a sacrifice price, andi
Whereas the recent announcement by B.C. Tree Fruits Limited that it had made a deal with Great Britain to take a considerable quantity of British Columbia apples without charge, and
Whereas this deal will place a very heavy burden on the growers of the British Columbia tree fruits area who cannot afford to carry this load without substantial financial assistance from the dominion government,
Therefore, the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association, as unanimously represented by its 28 locals comprising 3,805 registered growers, hereby urge that the dominion government subsidize the growers on the total apple crop of British Columbia tree fruits area to an amount equal to the average price of the last three years' prices.
In determining what assistance the farmer should have, the process is simple. We know exactly the average cost of producing a box of apples. As I pointed out before, it may vary from 95 cents to $1.05. It depends on the operation. But from district to district I understand the variation is not more than 10 cents. I plead on behalf of the farmers who today have less than half the cost of production in sight if no subsidy is given. On their behalf I plead that the government give assistance to the extent of the cost of production, in order to keep a flourishing industry prospering in a prosperous valley and to keep 120,000 people living in one of the finest communities in Canada, which

could easily be wrecked by failure of the government to come through to their assistance at this time. The situation may not occur again; we hope it will not. But the conditions were beyond their control and they are appealing to you on that basis.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, to have this opportunity of speaking in support of a resolution to extend the life of the Agricultural Prices Support Act on an indefinite basis. I feel a good deal easier about this resolution than I did about the one which appeared on the order paper last year and which would have limited the life of the Agricultural Prices Support Act to the end of this parliament. However, whilst the passage of this legislation will enable the government to keep faith with the farmers of Canada, on the other hand it does not guarantee that they will do so. In other words, legislation of this kind is of little value to the farmers unless it is actually utilized.
That remark is prompted of course by what took place in Canada in December of last year and January of this year, when the price of certain agricultural products took a drastic drop. For example, it may be remembered that the price of poultry products dropped to depression levels and it took a matter of a month or more before the government took action to correct the situation. I think one of the main reasons why the government took that action was probably the storm of protest that swept Ontario. I certainly must say that I think the remarks made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. McCubbin) at that time were unyvise because they undoubtedly gave the impression that he was advocating that the government should break faith with the farmers. I am not saying that was his intention, but that certainly was the interpretation which was placed by many farm organizations upon that statement of his.
Let us make no mistake with regard to the responsibility of the government to support farm prices at a level that will bear a fair relationship to the price of other commodities, because, as the Minister of Agriculture has already said, during the latter years of the war the farmers were asked to take less for their produce than they might otherwise have obtained. They were asked to do that in the name of stabilization and therefore this legislation is for the purpose of carrying out a government obligation to bring about or to maintain the stabilization of agricultural prices in the post-war period.
I am not going to say what the losses were that were suffered by the farmers during those years. I notice that a number of hon.

members on the other side have criticized figures that have been used by hon. members on this side of the house. Hon. members have emphasized the fact that different figures have been used. Of course different figures have been used because they were being used in regard to different commodities. The figure of half a billion dollars has been used in regard to the losses on wheat-it may be more or it may be less-but generally speaking they are based on the figures that were tabled in the house by the government. Then the figure of a billion dollars or more has been given in relation to all agricultural produce. I am not going to attempt to say whether that figure is too high or too low, but it was given in regard to all agricultural produce, and not in regard to wheat alone. I look upon these losses which resulted from agriculture subsidizing the Canadian consumer as a fund which should now be held in trust by the government for the purpose of subsidizing or stabilizing agricultural prices in the future. I feel that agriculture now definitely has a large credit with the government as the result of having subsidized the consumer during those war years.
The minister referred to the $200 million fund under the Agricultural Prices Support Act as a revolving fund. I do not think we should be under any delusion in regard to that matter because no doubt there will be times when considerable costs will be incurred to carry out the obligations under this act. In his speech the minister said that there may be times when goods bought under this act will have to be sold at a loss. Personally I do not think there is any doubt about that. At times these losses may be severe, but I doubt very much whether they will be anything near as great as the losses that were suffered by the farmers as the result of the government's stabilization program during the war. Therefore the farmers will not be asking the people to put up any money that the farmers have not already put up themselves during that war stabilization program.
After all, when we stabilize agricultural prices we are not merely helping the farmers out; we are helping the people of Canada out as well, because we cannot have an efficient agriculture unless we have parity prices. Unless we maintain agriculture on an efficient basis we cannot hope to maintain agricultural production at a high level, and it is in the interests of the people of Canada, and the people of the world at large, that agricultural production should be maintained at a very high level.
I have noticed in the press recently what I would call mischievous articles regarding price support. It is unfortunate that articles
Agricultural Prices Support Act of this kind should appear, because they may help to undermine public opinion, and if you undermine public opinion on this matter it makes it that much more difficult for the government to carry out policies that agriculture has a right to expect. I want to quote one of these press articles which appeared in the Financial Times of February 17 under the byline of "Tempus". It reads as follows:
Incidentally, while we are putting ceilings on this and floors under that, I would llkd to see one politician who has guts enough to get up and ask: what about the poor old consumers?
Then he goes on:
If we took out the subsidy structure from foods, I often wonder where we'd land. Maybe the consumer would get a break; a thought, apparently, often repugnant to the government.
Let me say that no group in this house has given greater consideration to the needs of the consumer than has this group. On the other hand, let us not forget that, as the Minister of Agriculture said, 60 per cent of consumers are either directly engaged in agriculture, or in some way directly connected with it. Therefore a very large percentage of the consumers are interested in agriculture and are affected considerably by agricultural policy. There are no truer words spoken than that the prosperity of Canada depends to a very large degree upon the prosperity of the farmer. Tempus suggests that if we drop price support the consumer will get a break. I recall that back in the thirties there was no price support on agricultural produce. The bottom dropped right out. The price of butter fell down to 8 cents a pound, eggs to 5 cents a dozen, wheat 19| cents a bushel, oats 5 cents a bushel. You could not have the price of agricultural produce very much lower than it was at that time. I ask this question. Did the consumer get a break at that time as a result of these low prices? I would say definitely that the consumer went broke because in many instances he was not able to buy even at those reduced prices. Especially do we remember that during that period we had a million people on relief, over half a million unemployed, and many people with very low income. Therefore as a result of agricultural prices falling to that low level the whole Canadian economy was badly wrecked. When Tempus suggests that we might give the consumer a break by letting agricultural prices fall, I would say history proves the contrary to be the truth. When agricultural prices have been high the people of Canada as a whole have been prosperous, and have been in a position to pay those high prices.
I think it is well to remember that secondary industries set their prices at a level

Agricultural Prices Support Act to recover costs and profit. All that agriculture is asking today is that its prices should be allowed to bear a fair relationship to the prices of the secondary industries.
The question is often raised as to whether or not farm prices are too high at the present time. We often see suggestions made that they are too high, and no doubt in good faith many housewives feel that they have to pay too much for farm produce. Therefore I want to quote from a brief presented by the federation of agriculture to the cabinet showing the relationship between farm prices and the general purchasing power. I quote from page 5 of the brief:
The general purchasing power in the domestic market is at an all-time high, and there is no legitimate reason why farmers should be compelled at this time to sell at reduced prices in the domestic market.
Using figures provided by the dominion bureau of statistics and the Department of Labour, we find that during 1949 food prices were not high in relation to other prices and to incomes. Based on an average of the existing wage rates in eight leading Canadian industries we find that, with the exception of the depression years of the thirties, one hour's wages would buy more cheese, more eggs, more bacon, in 1949 than at any time since 1913. Speaking of cheese alone, one hour's wages in 1949 would buy 42 per cent more cheese than in 1925-29. Similarly one hour's wages would buy 16 per cent more bacon and 6 per cent more eggs in 1949 than in the 1925-29 period. This indicates that general purchasing power during 1949 was equally high or higher than price levels for farm food products.
It is well to keep these figures in mind when you hear people suggesting that the price of farm produce is too high. Yet we find today that agricultural prices are falling while, at the same time, farm production costs are continuing to rise. We see one rise in freight rates after another. The cost of machinery is still going up, chiefly as a result of devaluation. Last fall the price of farm tractors-and I am thinking particularly of one make of tractor-increased by $185.
Labour in various parts of Canada is considering it necessary to ask for increased wages, which result in still further increases in the prices of the commodities they are producing. There is therefore no justification for the suggestion that the prices of agricultural products in Canada are too high at the present time.
I recall hearing the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) say at the convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at Niagara Falls that the Agricultural Prices Support Act was no alternative to markets, and that the prices support act could stabilize prices only where surpluses were small. That being so, I am sure the minister would be the first to admit that there should not be any problem in stabilizing prices today, because he has

stated in the house that our surpluses are very small. He said in particular that we had only small surpluses of butter, cheese and honey. That being so, there should be no difficulty in the stabilization of agricultural prices, if that should become necessary.
Speaking about markets, it is well understood that we have two, namely the home market and the export market. The maintenance of both is the responsibility of the federal government. In connection with the home market it is the responsibility of the federal government to take steps to maintain the purchasing power of the people at a level which will make it possible for them to buy the production of the country, or that of other countries for which our products may be exchanged.
With respect to the export market, it is the responsibility of the government to maintain a realistic trade policy under which it will be possible to exchange our goods for those of other nations. There is no doubt that the home market in Canada today could be greatly expanded. I have been glad on several occasions to hear the Minister of Agriculture say that our surpluses have been reduced as a result of an expanding home market because, in my opinion, the home market is the one which should have preference over any other market at all times. If our surpluses are reduced as a result of expanding consumption there is nothing to worry about. On the other hand, when our surpluses are reduced as the result of a reduction in production, then we have an unhealthy situation.
In dealing with the home market the government should give consideration to the proposals made last year by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in their brief. Special consideration should be given to the proposals put forward from time to time by Professor Hope, economic adviser to that organization. May I quote briefly from a speech he delivered before the convention of the federation at Niagara Falls. The Rural Co-operator in its issue of February 14 quotes him as follows:
"The timid and cautious way the government has handled price supports in the past month." said Dr. Hope, "leads the farmer to believe that tht policy seems to be based on a desire to protect the $200,000,000 fund to the utmost.
"The government appears to be fearful of holding a surplus and taking a loss on it. We may as well face the facts: price support action is bound to result in some cost, otherwise there would be no need for supports.
"Some will say that if there is no market the government should take off the market produce it cannot sell. A year ago at Saskatoon I said Canada needed a domestic surplus food disposal plan to channel surplus foods into the hands of low-income consumers.
"I repeat that statement today," said Dr. Hope. "We cannot dump the food overseas-there would be immediate repercussions from other countries.

But we have a large potential market in Canada of low-income people. We must tap that market by special measures.
Then the federation of agriculture referred to the food allotment proposals being put forward in the United States. Consideration should be given to the Brannan plan, which has received a good deal of publicity. It is true that the farm bureau in the United States did oppose that plan, although a Gallup poll discloses that a majority of farmers in that country were behind it.
In my view the chief objection to the Bran-nan plan-and I believe this is the one that was raised by the farm bureau-is that under that proposal the prices of farm products would be allowed to fall, thereby increasing consumption. The farmers would then be paid a price to make up the difference between the prices at which agricultural products sold and what was considered to be a parity price. The objection of the bureau was that the claim would be made that farmers were being subsidized to that extent. It wanted the prices of agricultural products to be maintained at parity level, and then to have the general consumer subsidized so that he could buy those products at reduced prices.
If any subsidizing is to be done, then it is the latter plan which I believe would be the better one, namely that of first of all trying to maintain agricultural products at fair prices, and then to subsidize Canadian consumers to buy those products at whatever prices may be considered advisable.
With respect to export markets I would repeat what I have said before in the house, that the condition of those markets is due to the policies of this government and policies followed by the United States under certain international agreements passed in 1945. Those agreements made international trade a financial problem rather than a problem of exchanging goods and services for goods and services.
Our stand has always been that the true function of international trade is the exchange of goods and services between nations on a basis of mutual advantage, instead of following the policy this government has followed consistently since 1945, of trying to make our sale of goods to Europe dependent upon their being able to pay us in dollars.
May I at this point congratulate the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) upon what I thought was a progressive and realistic speech delivered in the house on the question of marketing our exports. Apparently his speech did not meet with favour among the rest of the cabinet. I believe his proposal was a logical one. Evidently he had reached his conclusions after visiting a number of countries. It was his view that if we could
23. 1950
Agricultural Prices Support Act set up a body of men to trade our surplus goods for the surplus goods of other nations we would in that way be able to overcome our trade difficulties. That is what we in this group have been proposing ever since 1944. Therefore I was disappointed when I found that the Minister of Agriculture had turned down the proposal for an international commodity clearing house, when it was placed before the FAO conference recently. He stated that while he supported the underlying principle, he felt that what was proposed under the international commodity clearing house could be accomplished individually by Canada. Therefore it did not receive his support.
In view of the fact that the government did turn down the international commodity clearing house on this ground, I think there will be no justification in the future for the federal government saying that they have a surplus problem. They had a chance to support an organization that would have taken care of surpluses, but they turned it down on the ground that they could take care of those surpluses themselves. I hope we shall not hear anything more in the future about the government not being able to dispose of our surplus products.
When the Minister of Agriculture says that the Agricultural Prices Support Act is not an alternative to the securing of markets, then he should keep in mind the fact that the job of securing markets is the responsibility of the government. In the meantime if there are surpluses the Agricultural Prices Support Act will provide the means whereby our farmers will receive fair prices for those commodities. The ideal set-up for dealing with the marketing of our agricultural products would be a federal marketing board backed up by the Agricultural Prices Support Act and working in full co-operation with provincial boards in disposing of surpluses by means of consumer subsidies in the home market and by trading with other nations to exchange surpluses through bodies such as' the ICCH or by methods similar to the one suggested by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew). The government have made it quite clear that they do not like these bodies so it is up to them to bring down proposals that will deal with these matters satisfactorily.
However, one thing should be kept in mind. The world today requires that the production of agricultural produce be maintained at a high level. We have been assured by scientists and by the director of FAO that the population of the world is increasing more rapidly than the production of food. Unless there is to be wholesale starvation in the world it is absolutely essential that we do
1058	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Prices Support Act everything in our power to maintain the production of agricultural produce at a high level. The Minister of Agriculture referred to a statement he had made in 1944 when he said that they would not agree to the destruction of food. While we agree with that entirely, if the government's policies are such that the production of food is curtailed, then I submit they will be just as vicious as though food were to be destroyed. There can be no justification for the curtailing of food production while there are hungry people in the world.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron North):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the bill but there are a few things I should like to say. Considering the money our Canadian farmers lost during the war they are entitled to at least a similar amount of support. We must not forget that the government sold our farmers short in the world markets and you are only giving them back what is rightfully theirs. A lot has been said already and I shall not repeat it. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) said many things that I intended to say and again I shall not repeat. His troubles are not the same as mine because conditions in the different provinces vary.
The other day I read a press dispatch in which the minister was reported to have said that he was blaming oleomargarine for the present surplus of butter. I am glad he admits that, because everyone knows the government is responsible for the mess the dairy industry is in. If the provisions of this act are properly applied the dairy industry can be given the support it needs and should have if it is going to continue to operate. That industry was getting along fairly well before oleomargarine came into the picture. I am not arguing that oleomargarine should not be offered to the people but I do contend that the mark-up should not be greater than that on butter. If it were not so great there would not be so much oleomargarine sold. It will not take the place of butter except in the case of people who feel they cannot afford to buy butter at the price it is.
I should like to say a word on tariffs. We do not object to tariffs on certain goods in order to protect our manufacturers, but what difference is there between a tariff and a floor under agricultural prices? I cannot see any myself. If our manufacturers are entitled to protection our agriculturists are just as much entitled to a floor under their prices.
I think the government failed miserably when they permitted the price of eggs to stay where it was for so long. A number of flocks were disposed of and many people went out of hens when they really could not afford to. They were placed in a most


precarious position because the government did not take action soon enough. There was $200 million behind this legislation and the government could have stepped in to support the egg market much sooner than they did.
I feel sorry for the veteran who has just started farming. The well-established farmer may be able to stand a drop in prices but the man who has just started up with very little is in an entirely different position when the prices of farm commodities come down. I hope that some support will be given to these men. Many veterans have gone into farming during the past five or six years and they have made good farmers. Many of them had very little to start with and if it had not been for their parents or good neighbours they would not have been able to start .at all. Because of the small allowance they had many could not afford to buy sufficient machinery, and now when prices are below the cost of production they are in a serious position.
I may have more to say when the bill is before us, but I have nothing more to say at the moment.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, along with other members who have taken part in this debate I am in agreement that these acts must be continued as the minister is proposing to do under the legislation which he has introduced today. We are not satisfied, however, that the mere extension of them will be enough to meet the problems of agriculture in this country at this time. I should like to deal for a short time with the Agricultural Products Act, the resolution concerning which we passed a short time ago as a result of which the bill was introduced and given first reading. Under that act as extended from year to year we have carried on our exports of agricultural products to Great Britain since 1947, and we are proposing to extend it for a further period of one year.
I was convinced at the time it was first introduced that there should have been more permanency to it than there was, that it should not have been an act which we had to extend from year to year. I felt that if we were going to continue to maintain our markets in Great Britain we would have to have a more permanent form of legislation under which they could be maintained. That was not the only reason we lost our British markets, but it was one reason. There were very few of us who expected, as a matter of fact, that we could retain our market in England to the extent that we had enjoyed it during the war years, especially during 1944 and 1945. We did expect, however, that we would be able to retain a fairly large portion of it, and at least a larger portion than we had

enjoyed during the years prior to the war. That was a natural expectation on the part of the farmers of Canada, but it has not worked out that way.
Today our markets for farm products in Great Britain are at a lower ebb than they have been for some time, and are likely to fall lower. Just recently a report appeared in the press stating that the United States congress was proposing to use $1 billion of ERP funds for the purpose of selling United States agricultural products to Great Britain, western Europe and mid-eastern countries during the coming year. If in this way the United States during the coming year markets $1 billion worth of its surplus food products the outlook for Canadian farm products in those markets does not look very hopeful. That is why I think the government made a mistake in 1947 in not having some permanent legislation whereby they could have entered the British market on a long-term basis. If they had done so I am convinced that we could have secured a far larger portion of that market than we have. If the government had been prepared in 1947 to enter into negotiations on an exchange basis with Great Britain, accepting certain goods from her in exchange for our agricultural products, I am convinced we could have had long term agreements with them for the sale of cheese, bacon, apples and other products. Having failed to do that we found that these markets were disappearing, that countries in Europe such as Poland, Holland and Denmark, as well as commonwealth countries, were able to secure the British market. Today we find ourselves in the position that we have surpluses accumulating in Canada. Not only that; when officials from Great Britain came here to negotiate contracts with us I do not think the government used the right approach in meeting those negotiators.
Last year, for instance, about the time that the British food purchasing mission was in Canada, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made an address to a board of trade dinner in Brantford, Ontario. In the Ottawa Citizen of December 6, 1949, I find the following:
... he recalled that prior to the second world war, Canada was Britain's chief source of wheat and apples, and also supplied considerable quantities of pork, cheese, beef and other foods. During the war Canada became Britain's chief supplier of pork, eggs and cheese, and also shipped large amounts of beef and milk.
"During the last two years", he said, "a very decided official effort has been made to drive every one of these products excepting wheat off the British market. And now that the four year wheat contract is drawing to a close an effort is being made to drive off a considerable part of our wheat as well."
23, 1950
Agricultural Prices Support Act
Later on he stated:
"I am a free trader and advocate the freest possible exchange of farm products for the necessities required on the farm. But when one is convinced that the other party to the trade has made up his mind he is not going to buy anything from us that he can avoid buying, free exchange is impossible."
I would say that is not a very diplomatic statement to make while negotiators are in this country-


James Garfield Gardiner: They were not; they had gone home.


Percy Ellis Wright: -endeavouring to negotiate contracts for our food. If the minister was consistent in his statements it would not be so bad, but a short time before that, speaking in Alliston, Ontario, he told a different story. He stated then:
"In any conversations I have had with Sir Stafford Cripps and Right Hon. John Strachey, food minister, I have never gathered the impression they were not prepared to take all the products they could afford to pay for from Canada. I am satisfied that they will."
The article goes on to state:
In an earlier speech in Ottawa, the agriculture minister said in his opinion "the view that Canada is to be depended on for supplies of food only during the war is rather hard on Canadian agriculture." He added that he did not believe that this was the view of a great many people in Britain.
Certainly those two statements do not jibe.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Percy Ellis Wright: When the house rose at six o'clock I was pointing out that I did not think the approach of this government to the British government in renewing our food contracts with Great Britain had been very diplomatic. I do not think, however, that was the main reason why we were unable to renew many of these contracts, and to obtain the prices we would have liked to obtain. There is no doubt in my mind that the main reason for this was the lack of dollars on the part of the British government with which to purchase our products. I feel equally sure that had we, in 1947, been prepared to make bilateral agreements with Britain with respect to our marketable surplus, 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 was not the policy of the government at that time, however, nor have they changed their policy since. The result has been that we have practically lost the British market,
1060	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Prices Support Act except for about three basic products, wheat, cheese and some bacon. We may lose the market for cheese and bacon in another year if, as I stated, the United States is prepared to make ECA dollars available to western Europe and other countries, with which to purchase surplus food supplies in the United States. Having lost these markets, the minister is seeking to renew this Agricultural Products Act for one year. The purpose of that must be simply to finish out the present British contract which we have, and then allow the farmers themselves or the producer boards, under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act which was introduced last year, to try to win back those markets in Great Britain. I do not think that is good enough. I think this Agricultural Products Act, which we are renewing today for one year, should have been made a permanent piece of legislation. Under it, this government could set up export boards to export our surplus agricultural products.
I am quite convinced that no producer boards, set up under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, are going to be able to win back those markets. Look at what they are up against. In the first place, they have no control over our exchange. They have no control over tariffs on goods coming into this country. They have no control over the availability of dollars. It is only the government that has those controls and can win back those markets in Great Britain.
In the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, which was passed last year, and which will give the producer boards the power to go into the export market, clause 2 provides:
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.
Then clause 3 reads as follows:
The governor in council may make regulations prescribing the terms and conditions governing the granting and revocation of authority under section 2 and generally may make regulations for carrying the purposes and provisions of this act into effect.
Now, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture what regulations there are under this act. I think he should tell us what the regulations are under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, so the provinces or producer boards which are set up will know what specifications or regulations they have to meet. Until that is known, it is going


to be rather difficult for any group of farmers to set up a board to market their products, or to go into the export market.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was discussed fully at the meeting the day before yesterday with the provinces and the federation.


Percy Ellis Wright: Did the minister tell the people who were gathered there what the regulations were under this act?


James Garfield Gardiner: I said there were not any.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is just what I expected, there are not any. As a matter of fact, it is just a blank act which means nothing until the regulations are passed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The model act was presented to us by the federation of agriculture. I assume that the section which is being quoted is in the act for the same reason as it is in many other acts having to do with the Department of Agriculture. This house would not give me, as minister, the authority. 1 was told I had to get the authority from council to do those things.


Percy Ellis Wright: When I look over and see the members of council on the government side today, there are about 9 lawyers and there is one-I do not know whether you would call him a farmer-whose occupation, one among many, is that of a farmer. He was a school teacher and then a farmer, but he is the only man in the cabinet who understands the agricultural situation. I suppose the cabinet will naturally have to take his advice when they are passing regulations under this act.


James Garfield Gardiner: The opposition have always said that they did not want to give me that authority. They have said that I should have the authority with the other 20 men in the cabinet, and I agree with them.


Percy Ellis Wright: According to the statute, the minister has taken it.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I have not.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, the minister has. He is the only member of the cabinet who knows the agricultural situation across the dominion. I do not see how the cabinet could do other than accept his recommendation concerning the regulations under this act. I do not think that is good enough. What agriculture wants at this time is something permanent; something which will enable the farmers to know what the situation is. There should be some act under which the farmers could make long-term agreements to take care of our surplus agricultural products. There should be some forward pricing system in this country, by means of which the farmers would have some idea of approximately what they

are going to get for their products in the years ahead. Floor prices should be put under these products which would be effective for more than one year.
All we have been doing under our Agricultural Prices Support Act up to the moment is waiting until some agricultural product has reached a level where the farmers are raising such a row the government has to do something about it. Then, floor prices are set. We do not set floor prices at the level the minister suggested he thought those prices should be set in the statement he read to the house today. He stated that, in setting agricultural prices under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, he would take into consideration the fact that for ten years in the thirties our farmers had accepted prices which were below the cost of production. He stated that he would take into consideration the mortgage indebtedness of the farmers, the deplorable condition of their equipment, and the prices which farmers had received during the first three years of the war when they had accepted prices which were below those which other sectors of our economy were receiving for their labour and for their products which they had to sell.


James Garfield Gardiner: The last three years of the war, not the first.


Percy Ellis Wright: During the first three years of the war, from 1939 to 1942, the farmers were still receiving prices which were away below the cost of production. Wheat, for instance, was selling at 60 cents a bushel, and less than that on the farm, until 1943, I believe it was, before the price was raised. The minister stated that consideration would be given to the farmer's cost of production.
I am sure that in setting the floor price for eggs at 38 cents a dozen the minister has not taken these things into consideration; and in setting the price that was set for potatoes down in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick a year ago, I do not think that all of those factors were taken into consideration, or the floor prices would have been better than they were for those products. I know that there are difficulties. I know that, if floor prices are set too high, overproduction may result and surpluses may accumulate in this country. But 1 am convinced that, along with floor prices on products which are especially for Canadian consumption and Canadian marketing, there must be some regulation of production. I think the farmers can do that themselves through their Agricultural Products Act. But when it comes to the surplus of basic products which go into the export market, I think the government must and should accept responsibility for them. If they do not, and if we allow agricultural prices to
23, 1950	1061
Agricultural Prices Support Act drop even 25 per cent in this country, I am convinced that the unemployment problem will be multiplied three or four times. Instead of having 400,000 people out of employment, we shall have a million people out of employment in Canada.
Last year, in 1949, the farmers of this country spent over $200 million for new equipment. I know that in my own constituency alone the agricultural implement dealers figure that last year they sold $8 million worth of agricultural equipment. A drop in the price of agricultural products will mean that there will be a drop of from 50 per cent to 75 per cent in the sales of agricultural machinery. Make no mistake about it, our farmers today have some equipment on their farms; and if prices drop they can get along with simply buying repairs for that machinery and will practically stop buying new equipment. If that event takes place, those in eastern Canada here will find that their unemployment problem will be something that will remind them of the 1930's again.
I would therefore say to the government that, in renewing this Agricultural Products Act, they should make it permanent. As a matter of fact, if we could have moved an amendment that would have been in order we would have moved one which would have made it a permanent piece of the legislation of this country under which the government could set up export boards for the surplus agricultural products. I would urge the government that, instead of renewing it for one year, they should bring in permanent legislation in this country to take care of our export surpluses.
With respect to the Agricultural Prices Support Act, I hope the minister will give us his interpretation of certain clauses of this act. Section 9 (2) states:
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.
I think the least that the government can do in renewing this act is to place in it some clause by means of which the farming industry of this country will know the formula or the method the government is going to use in determining those prices. When the resolution is in committee I hope the minister will give us that information; because unless we have that information we are going to find that those engaged in the agricultural industry of this country are not going to be satisfied by the action of the government in

Agricultural Prices Support Act simply renewing these acts without any assurance as to what action the government is going to take under them.


Mr. H. H. Hatfield (Vicioria-Carlelon):: am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is renewing this act. He gave a glowing account of it when he introduced it in the house in July, 1944. I should like to read some of his statements. As reported at page 5581 of Hansard of that year the minister, in introducing the act, quoted the views of a Liberal convention as follows:
We advocate a policy under which Canada will provide security for farmers and fishermen by safeguarding against inflation now and by guaranteeing minimum prices for their products against collapse of prices after the war.
Then he quoted a speech he made at London, Ontario, on October 15.
Speaking at London, Ontario, on October 15, I made this statement as Minister of Agriculture when speaking to a group of people, representatives of agriculture in that area, got together by the Kiwanis club, as reported in the Windsor Star of October 16:
"In placing ceilings upon products, with limited subsidies now, the government is assuming responsibility to maintain floors until this country is reestablished after the war. The government owes this to the farmers who have maintained production under ceilings, and also owes it to the men and women who will return from the services to the farms."
Then he continued:
On December 2, 1943, the Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King), speaking over the radio said:
"As an essential part of its post-war policy the government intends to ask parliament, at the next session, to place a floor under the prices of the main farm products."
In the speech from the throne this statement was made:
To ensure economic stability for agriculture, you will be asked to make provision for a price floor for staple farm products.
Speaking to the house on the bill which set up the act, the minister said it would include all farm products except wheat. He was asked numerous questions at that time and, as reported at page 5612 of Hansard of 1944, he said:
I am asked, what will they do with all that surplus, will they get rid of it? I can assure hon. members that if I am minister charged with the task, there will not be any of it that will be burned or dumped into the ocean or into the lake. One thing has been demonstrated to us during the war, and as a matter of fact we have always known it. We have always known that there are areas in the world where there are famines from time to time . . . I am not worrying about finding some place where we can put the surplus food of a country that has only twelve million people in it to start with.
Then after the dinner recess:
Before the dinner recess I was dealing with some of the points that were suggested by hon. members opposite, particularly the questions raised

by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). Perhaps I can best sum up the answers I should like to give to those questions by saying that it would not be fair to the farmers of Canada to do certain things in the transition period.
First, I should say it would not be fair to order them, immediately the war is over, to reduce production to the level at which it is certain the commodities could be sold at a given price. I was asked what we were going to do, provided that we had great surpluses, and I call attention to what I have just stated as an answer to that question, and to repeat what I said just before the dinner recess. During this war period we have been asked to increase production to the limit in order to provide food to those of our allies who require it, as well as to our own people. I repeat that it would be unfair to the farmers, immediately the war is over, to say they must reduce their production to the point where everything they produce can be disposed of at a given price. And I would state that this bill contains provision for dealing with a situation where a given price is essential for uncontrolled production during the transition period.
Then I should say it would be unfair to the farmer immediately to require him to sell at the cost of production.
When the bill was introduced the minister said that he would not allow any farm product to go down to the cost of production. He assured the farmers of this country that so long as he was Minister of Agriculture they would receive prices above the cost of production. That principle has not been carried out.
I am disappointed in the regulations made under the act on the statute books. They do not look anything like the bill which the minister introduced in the house, and they have not been used in the way that the minister said they would be used when he introduced the bill, as will be found in his speeches in Hansard. He said that he would set up a board, and that the duty of the board would be to deal with the prices of agricultural products across Canada, except wheat, at any time that the price went below the cost of production. When that happened the board was supposed to step in and put on a floor price above the cost of production. That board has not done its duty as laid down by the minister in the speech he made when he introduced the bill. Every time that we asked for a floor price, or a support price, on potatoes a number of delegations had to come to Ottawa to see the minister, and we had to get support from the other provinces to persuade the minister to put a support price under potatoes.
I was surprised to read in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of March 21 that Mr. Duffle had advised a meeting of 200 potato growers at Grand Falls to form a cooperative. I quote from the article:
The decision followed a report by T. E. Duffle on conferences in Ottawa early this month with

Right Hon. James Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, and J. G. Taggart, head of the agricultural prices support board. Mr. Duffle reviewed the provisions of the Agricultural Prices Support Act of 1944.
Mr. Duffle quoted Mr. Gardiner as saying that he was promised1 a year ago that the potato growers would attempt co-operation under such a system and that he still based future aid to the growers on this assumption.
As explained by Mr. Duffle, the co-operative would enter into contracts with individual growers at planting time to purchase their potatoes at a set price. The co-operative would also enter into a contract with the federal government providing for what amounts to a floor price for the potatoes sold by the members to the co-operative. The co-operative would also set up a selling agency, which could be an existing organization, a new organization or a provincial marketing board.
The grower would know at planting time what the minimum price would be for his crop and could get advances on his crop. The government would determine the minimum price, in consultation with the co-operative organization, and the minimum would not exceed 80 per cent of the previous three years' sale price.
The government would pay to the co-operative any loss due to poor markets and would also pay the actual processing, carrying and selling costs, up to a maximum set in advance.
What is suggested in this quotation sounds like something that has never been done before. I would like to know from the minister whether he told Mr. Duffle when he was here in conference with him that a co-operative would be set up which would tell the farmers what they would receive for their potatoes, or any other commodities, before they were planted.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not what Mr. Duffle said. He is simply quoting the co-operative act of 1939, which is not this act at all. Everything the hon. member has read is in the act of 1939.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The act of 1939?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The co-operative is being set up under that act, is it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Co-operatives have been set up across Canada under that act. Furs in Prince Edward Island and in other provinces are sold under that act.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I have never known of a co-operative under the government's program telling the farmer what he would receive for his products before they were produced. I have never known of any action such as that being carried out except in regard to wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member was here when it was passed.


Heber Harold Hatfield: That would be a very good act for the farmers. They would be glad to have an act like that. If you promised them a certain price before they plant their potatoes they would be pleased. That is what Mr. Duffle explained to the potato growers at
Agricultural Prices Support Act Grand Falls. He made the explanation after a conference with the minister. However, the potato support which was given in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island last year was not carried out that way. We did not receive the benefit of the support program until away on in March or April, and the needy farmers, and the veterans who had returned from the war and who took up farming under the Veterans' Land Act, had to sell their potatoes before the support program went into effect, and they sold them below the cost of production.
As I said before, the regulations do not work in the way they were intended and the board that has been set up has not done anything since it was set up, as far as I know. We have always had to come here and appeal. Every organization has had to appeal to the minister, or to the department, to carry out the provisions of the support act; whereas in the house it was said that the board would study everything, and as soon as any farm product got down to near the cost of production the board would act. That is the kind of support act I thought we were getting in 1944.


Major James William Coldwell: should like to say a word or two, particularly because of the interchange that took place a few moments ago. I remember the passing of the co-operative act of 1939. Speaking from memory, I believe that under that act the government could guarantee up to 90 per cent of the average price of the previous three years.


James Garfield Gardiner: Up to 80 per cent, as Mr. Duffle said.


Major James William Coldwell: I thought it was 90 per cent. The joker about that is that it has never been guaranteed up to that amount. The guarantee has been up to 50 per cent, perhaps, but not to the extent that the act would make it attractive to the co-operatives to ask for such a guarantee.
We have had a very interesting discussion today. I think the resolutions do show an advance on the part of the government in regard to its marketing legislation. I am very glad indeed to see the one-year limit removed from the Agricultural Prices Support Act, and left so that it is somewhat indefinite. I regard that as an advance in this legislation, and I welcome it. I welcome it, may I say, because I believe that sooner or later-and, I think, the sooner the better-we shall have to do what has been suggested both by the hon. member who has just taken his seat and on numerous occasions by colleagues of mine in this group, including today the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) and the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce).


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why did they vote Conservative, then?


Major James William Coldwell: That is a good question. As a matter of fact, may I tell the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that I was predicting before the election was held that they would continue to vote Conservative, and the reason for their doing so was that they are traditionally Conservative. They have never voted anything else, and it will take a new generation to get them to vote anything else. When I was a boy, even a Liberal candidate-a Liberal, mind you-could not get a hall in some parts of the county of Devonshire in which I was born, from the platform of which he could speak. The squire and the local authorities saw to it that he did not have a hall. Often he had to speak from a wagon in a farmyard.
However, they have advanced beyond that and I have no doubt, as time goes on, they will advance still further to the day when they will join with the rest of the people in England in supporting many more progressive measures than they seemed inclined to support in the recent election. But I say it is tradition, rather than anything else.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: The Liberals were on the wagon, so to speak.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, I am not saying anything on that score. But the prosperity of those agricultural regions is due to the planning of their agricultural production and the guarantee they have that they will get certain prices after they have reaped their crops. This permits them to make plans. If they wish to buy a piece of land-and they can do it today, whereas they could not years ago- they know they will have certain returns to meet that obligation. If they wish to buy machinery, or any other types of farm supplies they are now using, they know they will be able to pay for it as the days go by.
Let me add this, that one of the reasons I think there was no change in the usual voting strength of the parties in the rural

districts was that the Conservatives as well as the Liberals were in favour of this legislation, and there was no issue because the farmers knew they were going to have a continuance of the policy which one of the great agriculturists of Great Britain, an old Tory peer, Lord Bledisloe, described as the great agricultural charter.


James Garfield Gardiner: Put in by the Conservatives, in the first place.


Major James William Coldwell: Did I not say that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: I said it was the coalition government.


James Garfield Gardiner: Before that.


Major James William Coldwell: And I said it had been carried a step farther by the Labour government. I thought I was perfectly fair in what I said, because I was not giving the credit to any one government for having done all of it. I do not propose to do that, because I think the less partisanship we have in dealing with this problem the better it will be for all of us and for the country. May I remind the minister that what I am doing now is endeavouring not to discuss this from any partisan standpoint at all, but rather to put before the government what I believe should be considered, and modified to meet our Canadian conditions perhaps, but nevertheless undertaken in part by the government in Canada.
The increase in the last few years in farm production owing to that policy in Great Britain has been nothing short of phenomenal. Figures I have here from a British government report-and I am not referring to any party report-show that the dairy herds have increased by over 200,000 head, young cows by more than 400,000 head and other cattle by 35,000 head since 1947. Flocks of sheep have increased by two and three quarter million. The heavy losses suffered in the winter of 1947, which hon. members will recall, have been completely overcome.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The flocks of sheep in the House of Commons have also been increased.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not commenting on that situation just now although I may on some other occasion. The same thing with pigs; 1,200,000 more last year than in 1947. Poultry, 10 million more than in June, 1948. As we all know, the production and consumption of fluid milk has increased by over 60 per cent.


Mr. Hosking:: They still only get two pints per week.


Major James William Coldwell: It has been increased a little lately, but supposing what my hon. friend
Agricultural Prices Support Act says is true, the fact is that they are drinking 60 per cent more fluid milk than they were in 1939 before the war.


William Scottie Bryce: I should like to correct the statement made by the hon. gentleman who has just interrupted.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. gentleman rising on a question of privilege?


William Scottie Bryce: I want to tell the hon. gentleman that there is no milk rationing in Great Britain.


Major James William Coldwell: Even if there was, what I am saying is that forward pricing has increased both the production and consumption of fluid milk. While what my hon. friend has said may have been true, they are drinking 60 per cent more than they were in 1939. Every child in school is provided with a bottle of milk and instead of a few people with money being able to buy all the milk, the kiddies of Great Britain are getting milk today, many of them for the first time in their lives. That is the answer to the interjection made by the hon. member.
As I said, minimum prices are fixed well in advance. For instance, in the spring of 1949 prices were announced for the 1951 harvest. Livestock prices have been fixed right up to 1953. My hon. friends will say that that requires a good deal of planning and regimentation. As a matter of fact, what planning there is is undertaken by the county committees consisting of the farmers themselves. The farmers, the farm workers and even the land owners have the principal say in the planning of agricultural production. Although it is peculiarly difficult to plan agriculture, the fact is that it has been rather successfully done and without regimentation under the agricultural act to which I have referred.
I think we have to go beyond where the proposed resolution takes us, although it perhaps takes us part of the way. We must adopt a policy of agricultural advance pricing. The condition in our own country with regard to future markets is uncertain. I am not going to repeat what has been said about how we are going to market any surpluses that may occur in the future. This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) quoted from a speech he made in 1944 when he said that we could not dump foodstuffs into the sea or into our lakes, that we could not burn or destroy them. I thoroughly agree that we have to find other ways of disposing of these goods for the welfare of mankind.
We have suggested on occasion, and it has been suggested today, that we should try to enter into direct trade relationships with our customers and arrange for the exchange of

Agricultural Prices Support Act goods. In the speech on the address I proposed that in addition we should accept some sterling for investment in the sterling area, but let that be. I notice the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) made a most interesting speech before the University club in New York last Saturday. There is one paragraph in the report I have of that speech, which I hope is correct, in which I am particularly interested. The minister gave an example of what is going on in the world, and at page three he is reported as saying: Few countries have yet been able to make much headway toward freeing their foreign commerce from import, export and exchange restrictions. Actually the progress that is being made in some countries in this regard is being largely offset by the increasing extent and severity of restrictions in other countries. Not only that. Our old aversion, the bilateral agreement, in its many different forms, is very much in the picture. The proportion of total world trade that is being moved today through the closely controlled channels of bilateral trade and financial agreements is probably greater than it ever was at any previous period, including the eight or ten years of the pre-war depression when the German-inspired system of barter and compensation trade was at its height. Bad as it may be from the standpoint of liberal commercial-
That is a liberal with a small "1".
-policy, it may be taken for granted that this widespread use of bilateral agreements is not going to disappear, nor be much reduced until unstable currency values and heavily unbalanced trade between different areas has been corrected to an extent that will assure the many countries that are using this trading system that they can give it up safely and with something better in sight.
That is a rather broad and most interesting statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce of this country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I never took any other view. Mr. Coldwell: Speaking from the other side of the house I have always felt that the moment bilateral agreements were mentioned, immediately there was a feeling, and indeed sometimes there were remarks which indicated, that to a similar proposal here the answer would be, "No." While the minister in his speech did not say that he was prepared to embark on bilateral agreements, he states most plainly that for some time to come that is the method by which many countries are going to trade.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said that there is a great deal of it, but we are. not going-


Percy Ellis Wright: You will not trade at all.


Major James William Coldwell: May I read that again:
Bad as it may be from the standpoint of liberal commercial policy, it may be taken for granted that this widespread use of bilateral agreements is not going to disappear, nor be much reduced until unstable currency values and heavily imbalanced trade between different areas has been corrected to an extent that will assure the many countries that are using this trading system that they can give it up safely and with something better in sight.

As the minister puts it, that is the system that many nations are using; and let me remind him that among those many nations are some of our best erstwhile customers. If our own surpluses are going to continue for some time to come, as the minister suggests, then I say that whether we like that system of trading or not we should be considering it. I am not saying that the minister said that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Up to this moment we have been able to successfully sell all our surpluses without resort to bilateral agreements.


Major James William Coldwell: Supposing I accept that statement except, as the Minister of Agriculture said recently, for a little butter, a little bit of cheese and some honey, why have we been able to do that? It is not because we are exchanging goods; it is largely because our overseas customers have been financed from ECA and Marshall plan funds.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That statement is greatly exaggerated.


Major James William Coldwell: That may be so. It may be somewhat exaggerated, but if we look at the trade relations of our country what do we find? I do not want to enter into this phase particularly, because it really does not come under the resolution I am discussing; but taking our trade relationships we find, for example, that we accepted some $400 million less in goods from the United Kingdom than we sent to them. I am speaking from memory, and it is around that figure. That has to be financed in some way. As a matter of fact it almost balances the amount representing the excess of what we bought from the United States last year over what we sold to them. When Marshall aid and ECA dollars are finished we shall be driven to consider ways and means of trading our surpluses in exchange for goods we can use. The minister shakes his head, but surely that is the way trade should be carried on even if we do not make bilateral agreements.
I do not know whether there is any truth in the statement in the evening paper, but if there is we are going to place another barrier against the sale of Canadian farm products and other commodities to our customer across the sea. There is a story in the press tonight that British cars coming into this country will be impeded by the imposition of some form of dumping duty in order to raise the prices more nearly to the level of our Canadian cars. I hope that is not true.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who is going to do that?


Major James William Coldwell: The article said that the government was considering it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I do not see how these remarks are directly related to the resolution. The house seems to be greatly interested in them and in the subject, but if I allow the hon. member to continue further I shall have to allow other hon. members to do the same. Therefore I suggest to him that he might revert to the resolution.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to transgress the rules of the house. Perhaps I was more or less inspired to get a little bit outside them by one or two interruptions. We are however dealing with two resolutions, a resolution to amend the Agricultural Products Act by extending its operation for a period of one year, and a resolution to amend the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944. What I was arguing was that if we are going to support our agricultural products and sell them in the markets of the world we must enter into trading relationships that will enable us to sell overseas. Mainly I rose to say, and I am going to repeat it, that I thoroughly support the suggestions that have been made-and may I say we have been making them for several years-that we shall not only adopt floor prices that are adequate but that we shall also set up a system of forward pricing so that our farmers will know what they are going to get not a few months ahead, indeed not inadequate support prices that are put into effect after prices have fallen, but the minimum prices they will get for their produce one, two or even three years in advance. It has worked out successfully in another country, perhaps with a different economy, but nonetheless I believe if we are to have a stable and planned agriculture then we have got to adopt a policy of this description. While we support these resolutions, and particularly the one relating to the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, we want to go beyond that both for our farmers and our fishermen whose industries require similar guarantees.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks on these two resolutions because they seriously concern quite a number of my constituents.
I want to express my support of the principle of the two resolutions, a principle which has been so strongly endorsed by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and in my own province by the British Columbia fruit growers association. Before proceeding, may I say that I want to support particularly the remarks of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) when he said he thought this type of legislation should be made permanent. I 55946-69
23, 1950
Agricultural Prices Support Act am of the opinion that neither the government nor the farmers can do any long-range planning or have any measure of security so long as this measure is in force only from year to year. It is my opinion that this legislation should be made permanent if we are going to have a sound foundation upon which to build our future agricultural marketing structure.
The fruit growers of British Columbia, as represented by the delegates at the British Columbia fruit growers association annual convention, expressed their strong support of these principles, and also passed a resolution thanking the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for finally introducing into the house the Agricultural Products Marketing Act last year. I support the proposals made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture as to floor prices for bacon, cheese, butter, eggs and so on.
In my riding there are a considerable number of poultry producers, and their number increased greatly during the war years largely at the request of the government for more production. Now they find themselves in a most difficult position. It is my opinion that no section of agriculture is more speculative than the poultry industry or makes a less effective protest to government. Strangely enough, I think it is largely because it is not as well organized as some other branches of agriculture. Its voice is not heard as well on a national basis as some of the other sections of agriculture. The poultry producers are now in a most difficult position. I am quite sure there are many poultry producers in other constituencies who are also faced with the same problems of rising feed costs, other rising costs, and falling prices for their eggs and poultry. In discussing with consumers the situation of the poultry producers, particularly people who live in the cities, I often find there is quite a misconception on the part of consumers as to the share, shall I say, that the poultry producer is getting of the price his products bring. In that connection I want to quote an extract from a brief prepared by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture with respect to support proposals. It has this to say as to eggs:
The average Montreal wholesale price of grade A large eggs in 1949 was 56-4 cents a dozen, slightly higher than the average of 55-8 cents for 1948. In spite of the seasonal high retail price of 75 cents a dozen for August last year, the average retail price for 1949 of 62 cents a dozen was only 14 cents a dozen or 29 per cent higher than for the five years 1925 to 1929. But in 1949 wage rates in Canada were more than twice the rates of the 192529 period. In terms of the buying power of urban consumers the average retail price of eggs in 1949 was very reasonable.
10G8	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Prices Support Act
I just place that on the record, Mr. Speaker, because I find a great deal of misunderstanding of the actual position of the poultry producer on the part of many consumers in the city areas.
I should like to say a word or two in connection with price support for the products of the dairy producers. There is in my constituency a mixed farming, lumbering and mining development. There are a number of small farmers, who do a certain amount of dairying under somewhat more difficult conditions than those which prevail on the larger farms. Many of these farmers depend for their living on the cream they ship to the creameries, so the price of butter is of very serious import to them. There again, the freight costs, feed costs and other costs, particularly in the district I represent, are mounting. I am sure that those producers welcome the price support program for butter, and I urge continued support at a satisfactory level.
I rise this evening, Mr. Speaker, particularly to say a few words about the position of the tree fruit industry in British Columbia. In dealing with this question, I am not only speaking as a member of this house, but I am speaking as a grower of some 40 years' experience. While I am only a small producer, I have been a member of the British Columbia fruit growers association for all that time; 35 years as a member of various cooperatives, and at present I am vice-president of the Kootenay storage co-operative. When I speak on this subject, I represent a number of small growers, who have carved their farms out of the forest as a result of great toil and labour, and in many cases a considerable expenditure of capital. These people as a whole are hard-working and frugal in their way of life. If any people deserve some support or some assistance, they do. When I speak about them, Mr. Speaker, in my mind's eye I can see them now, pruning and spraying; making preparations for this year's crop.
I believe this government's marketing policies have seriously affected the position of the fruit growers. The general retreat of the government from the commodity board principle is one that is regretted by the fruit growers in my constituency. The failure to support the principle of marketing surpluses, advocated by the international commodity clearing house, is equally regretted by the fruit growers of the constituency I have the honour to represent. I urge upon the government, Mr. Speaker, careful consideration of the proposals that have been advanced by the C.C.F. members of this house. Throughout the country I find that these ideas are gaining the support of many people. First of all, I do ask the government to explore further the possibilities of selling some of our agricultural
[Mr. Herridge.l

surpluses for sterling, which sterling could be reinvested in undeveloped areas. I find there is considerable support in responsible quarters for that proposal. I do ask the government to investigate the possibilities in this direction.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a continuation of the present policies so far as marketing in the international sphere is concerned will result in more agricultural surpluses, and poverty and want at home and abroad. I want to bring one other suggestion in this respect to the attention of the minister. I understand that about $400 million are used annually at this time for the purchase of Canadian wheat by the government of Britain. The government made some arrangements for deferring the purchase of a certain amount of wheat, in order to make it possible for the British to buy a certain amount of cheese and bacon. I should like to suggest to the minister that, since $400 million are to be expended on wheat, and an arrangement was made for the suspension of some of that in order for the British to buy cheese and bacon, surely if the matter had been taken up with the British they would have been willing to arrange that four or five million dollars be used for the purchase of fruit. An important consideration in this matter is that you can keep wheat from year to year, but you cannot keep fruit. I think if the minister had made some arrangement such as that it would have been of great assistance to the fruit growing industry, of great assistance to the British, and to this government.
Before sitting down, I should like to deal with the loss of the British preference, because I believe the easy way in which our government gave up the British preference, upon the recommendations of its officials, indicates that the government did not examine the future possibilities as it should have done. When the British preference was given up, I stated in this house in 1948 that I was quite sure the government officials were wrong when they said there was no future in the British market for apples. On that point, I should like to quote from the record of the 1948 committee on banking and commerce. The matter was of some concern to the British Columbia members representing constituencies in which fruit is grown. I should like to quote briefly from page 234 of this committee report. The member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) is questioning Mr. MacKinnon of the Department of Trade and Commerce. It reads as follows:


Mr. Fulton:: This would probably be the time to ask you about the loss of the preference on apples. I have studied very carefully, Mr. MacKinnon, the statement which you made to the Senate committee on trade relations and particularly the passages at page 43 where several senators were asking you

questions on the loss of the preference and asking why our delegation gave up the preference. The tenor of your answer was that it was felt the British preference on apples was not of very substantial value and you said the British apple market was losing its attraction. I would like to read the words you yourself used when questioned as to the British apple production and you said:
At this point, the hon. member for Kamloops quoted Mr. MacKinnon.
I believe that they could produce this year all their requirements; they would not need to import a single apple. Apart altogether from Considerations of exchange and trade agreements, they would not need to import an apple for their own use this year. The extent to which the orchards in Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Norfolk have been developed is simply amazing. We had to keep in mind the consideration that we were dealing, as Mr. Deutsch intimated yesterday, with the livelihood of our people. The fact was that the United Kingdom market was becoming not only less attractive in that sense, but probably less real as regards the benefit of the preference; that is, in view particularly of the fact, in the short term, that she had no money with which to buy apples; and, in the long term, that it seems to be her policy to become selfsufficient in apples.
Then the member for Kamloops continued:
Now I hesitate to disagree with you, Mr. MacKinnon, naturally, but I should say this. I questioned the British food commission in Canada on those statements and I have a number of figures here which they gave me as to their own apple production. and I can find nothing in what they told me to substantiate your statement that the United Kingdom is seeking to become self-sufficient in apples.
Then later on, Mr. MacKinnon says:
However, it apparently is the fact that, from now on, barring the unforeseen catastrophe in the form of blights or bad weather, Britain will be selfsufficient as regards fresh apples.
There was further questioning of Mr. MacKinnon with respect to the question of the loss of British preference for apples, and at page 238 of the committee report he was asked the following question:
Just on that point, Mr. MacKinnon, was there any pressure by the United States or any other nation as to the elimination of this particular preference?


Mr. MacKinnon:: No more pressure than was brought to bear by the United States in respect to many preferences.
Now that was the point, Mr. Speaker. At the time we were discussing this question in 1948, the two points I made were, first, that I was quite certain there were future possibilities for the sale of Canadian apples in the British market; and second, that pressure had been brought by the United States upon our delegation to relinquish these preferences, although at the same time they were trying to tell us that there was nothing worth-while being relinquished. I think any sensible person would realize that no competent United States businessman uses his pressure for the removal of a preference unless it means some advantage to him.
Agricultural Prices Support Act
I think that the government made a big mistake in overlooking the future possibilities for the sale of Canadian apples in the British market. British Columbia must find a market for between two and a half million and three million boxes a year, in the export market, if the producer is going to experience any sense of stability. What are the facts? In 1948 our officials said this market had disappeared, that it had no future. The facts are these. Approximately within the last thirty days the Australians made a deal with Great Britain to supply three and a half million boxes of apples. At the present time the shops in England are full of United States apples. Large importations are coming from Italy; hundreds of thousands of pounds of apples, not boxes, are going to Great Britain. Going to Britain are also apples from Belgium and the Netherlands. The demand is there in Great Britain for Canadian apples. The correspondence I receive from relatives and friends in England indicates that they miss Canadian apples in the British market. Our government has relinquished these preferences, has done nothing, and these countries are taking advantage of the situation.
I have here a quotation I wish to give. It is from Country Life, the August 1949 issue. Country Life is an agricultural paper published in British Columbia. The article is headed: "British Lament Miserable Quality of Import Apples: Italian Disgrace Cull Pile", and reads in part as follows:
"Everyone in (Great Britain) was lamenting the miserable quality of apples-not only domestic, but imported supplies. The greatest criticism was directed at Italian imports which were said to have arrived in shocking condition and were a disgrace to a cull pile."
These are sentences taken from the introductory paragraph of a report, prepared by Fred A Motz agricultural economist, of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, following an examination of fruit marketing conditions in the United Kingdom, as part of the "study of foreign market outlets and competition with United States fruits, conducted under the provisions of the U.S. research and marketing act."
From my knowledge of what the situation is in Great Britain at the present time and from what I read in articles such as this, of the actions of the United States government, I think they are, shall I say, much keener than our government has been in finding markets for these commodities. I think there is no question about it, Mr. Speaker, that we made a big mistake in giving up the British preference, and when we took for granted what we were told, namely, that there was no future for Canadian apples in the British market.
I ask our government to give further consideration to the matter. I realize the sterling difficulties but I think these can be overcome if $4 million or $5 million of the $400

Agricultural Prices Support Act million used for wheat were diverted for the purchase of apples. Somehow or other I find this fault not only on the part of the government but on the part of officials and trade commissioners. Our trade commissioners are bright boys when it comes to selling industrial products; but it is my opinion that our trade commissioners are not as active and are not as keen, when it comes to selling agricultural products, and they do not understand the selling of agricultural products to the same extent that they understand the selling of industrial' products. I ask the government to give consideration to the possibility of marketing Canadian apples next year by the use of some of these funds that are provided for wheat or by the acceptance of sterling, and the possibility of re-investment of that sterling in undeveloped areas.
I support the request of the British Columbia fruit growers' association for financial assistance from this government under this legislation. The resolution was read this afternoon by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Tones) and I am not going to repeat it. But without question-and I am quite sure the minister would agree with this-the fruit growers of British Columbia have been a patient group throughout the years in presenting their problems to this government. The minister knows that even during the war when we could have obtained from $1 to $3 more for cherries our organization-that is, the fruit growers' organization-voluntarily said "No, this is too high a price". There was a terrific demand. They willingly accepted a lower price on cherries and other fruits in order to keep customer good will and to serve the Canadian people at a reasonable price because they considered that the grower was getting a satisfactory price, and that is all they want. I think that the fruit industry's record in that respect is excellent. It has always taken a constructive approach. It has never pressed the government for assistance unless it was in a serious position. The fruit industry in British Columbia is in a serious condition at this time and I urge the government to give consideration to their requests and to their resolution.
I have on my desk a statement of a grower that I know in my own district, at Deer Park on the Arrow lakes. He is a small fruit grower who has made a reasonable living for the last few years. He sends me this statement which shows his returns for some of the fruit produced on his five-acre orchard this year. His return for this year shows that he is in the red on that production to the extent of $241.49. That is going to be the experience [DOT]of a good number of growers in our district, and in British Columbia generally, unless some assistance is given by this government.


Spraying costs, farm machinery costs, and box costs are going up. For instance, in 1939 we were paying 12 cents per box for apple boxes from the factory. Today we are paying 33-2 cents per box. Freight, machinery, sprays, fertilizers, boxes, all commodities, are going up while prices have dropped rather rapidly.
In conclusion, therefore, I urge the minister and the government to give consideration to this large industry which requires some support at this time in order to get through the present difficulty; and also to give consideration to plans such as those I have suggested in my few remarks, with a view to stabilizing the industry in the years to come. Immediate assistance in the present difficulty, long-term policies on the basis of commodity agreements, and the other arrangements I have mentioned, will I think do a great deal to bring a sense of security to the agriculturists and to the fruit growers now and in the days to come.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Agricultural Prices Support Act
There is the situation. The agricultural production of Europe is increasing. One has only to go over the statistics for beef, milk and grain this year to prove that. The question that we must pose to ourselves in this house is this: Is that increase in these products to be permanent? If it is, then it will present a serious problem to the farmers of this Canada of ours, and we shall have to look elsewhere for a market for our products.
I said that the increased production is due largely to the policies of some of their governments, and largely to our own mistakes. I submit that some of it is due to our refusal to accommodate ourselves to changed marketing conditions, and our determination to stick to conservative methods of marketing. Under normal conditions Europe will not need coarse grains this year. Many countries are now, and more are becoming, self-sustaining in the matter of dairy products, and in fact they are using much more because their standards of living are rising and they are demanding more of these types of foods. Subsidies are being given to farmers in Britain, Denmark and Belgium to produce milk, butter and products of that kind. Since this has happened1, since we have lost those markets, and since there is little likelihood of our regaining them, whose fault it is need not concern us now. The point is that there are in this country-farmers who are faced with the loss of these markets, and that is my argument. That is all the more reason why there must be planning in agricultural marketing in this country, and hence my support of the Agricultural Prices Support Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, while I do not think hon. members of the C.C.F. have intentionally misled the house, they have left the impression that the greatly increased production in Great Britain has been due to Labour government controls and subsidies.


An hon. Member:: No.


John Alpheus Charlton: Be that as it may, they have left the impression that in these last few years all the increase has been as a result of the controls and subsidies.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John Alpheus Charlton: The truth is that the acreage in Great Britain has been greatly increased, and much of that acreage was formerly virgin soil which had never been worked. Much of the increase can be traced to the increased volume of land in production, as well as improved methods.


I suggest the minister should give the committee some information as to the quantities of bacon, cheese and eggs contracted for in the last few years, and the quantities sent under those contracts each year, together with the prices paid. That information would be useful if it were placed on record.


James Garfield Gardiner: Dealing first with bacon in 1939, the first year of the contract, the minimum contracted for was 291 million pounds, and we delivered more than that. The figure for delivery is 331 million pounds. In 1940 the amount contracted for was 425-6 million pounds and we sent that amount. In 1941 the amount contracted for was 600 million pounds, and we delivered 600 million pounds.
Then, in the year 1942-43-and we were dealing at that time with what we called the hog year, running from October 1 to the following September 30-we contracted for 675 million pounds and sent 675-1 million. In the fifth year of the contract-and let me point out that in January 1, 1944, we switched over, so that when we give the figure of 700 million pounds it will be understood that it is partially due to the change which took place.
In the period of two years, from January 1,
1944,	to December 31, 1945, we contracted for 900 million pounds, sending over 450 million pounds in the first year and 272-9 million in the second year. Then, in the seventh year, from January to December we had contracted for 350 million pounds, and sent over 225-9 million. In the eighth year we contracted for 225 million and sent over 176-4. In 1949 we contracted for 160 million. The figure I have here shows a delivery of 67-1 million down to a certain date, but it is not complete. My understanding however is that it did run to 100 million last year. It will be noted that the figures for the last number of years have not nearly met the amounts contracted for and which could have been shipped if we had produced it.
Then may I add there are other quantities here which are related to pork. I have in mind canned pork, hog casings, pork offals and the like, which would bring these figures up to the total amounts sometimes used when we are referring to pork products. However, the amounts are not large. I might add that lard would also be included.
Then, coming to beef:	we did not have a
beef contract until 1944. We did have one from January of that year until December 31,
1945,	a two-year contract. The minimum quantity contracted for was 100 million pounds, and the actual quantity shipped amounted to 348 million. In the second agreement, from January 1, 1946, to December 31,
1946,	we agreed to send 60 million and sent 119-8 million. In the third year we agreed to

send 120 million and sent only 40-6 million. That was at the time when we began to arrange to send our beef to the United States instead of sending it to Great Britain. In the fourth year we had an agreement for 50 million pounds, and sent 16-9 million. We then discontinued, and sent our beef to the United States.
With respect to poultry:	Our first agreement was of November 11, 1943. We agreed to send 250,000 pounds and sent 258-3 thousand. The next year we agreed to send
2.000.	000 pounds and we sent 1,973,000 pounds. The third year we agreed to send 12,500,000 pounds and we sent 13,329,000 pounds. That agreement was dropped and we have been shipping to the United States since.
In the case of eggs, the first contract in 1941 ran from April 1 to December 31. In that year we contracted for 13,800,000 dozen and we sent 15,337,000 dozen. The next year we contracted for 38,100,000 dozen and we sent 33,402,000 dozen. The next year we contracted for 57,000,000 dozen and we sent
33.643.000	dozen. The next year we contracted for 50,400,000 dozen and we sent
79.920.000	dozen. The following year, from January 1, 1945, to December 31, 1945, we contracted for 50,400,000 dozen and we sent
42.000.	000 dozen in shell form and 47,700,000 dozen dried. The sixth year we contracted for 83,000,000 dozen and we sent 54,000,000 dozen shelled and 14,000,000 dozen dried. The next year we contracted for 83,000,000 dozen and we sent 58,000,000 dozen shelled and
30.569.000	dozen dried. The eighth year we contracted for 64,000,000 dozen and we sent
36.270.000	dozen shelled and 26,976,000 dozen dried. Last year we contracted to send
46.000.	000 dozen but the final figure is not in this book. We did send something over
40.000.	000 dozen.
I imagine hon. members might be interested in cheese. The first cheese contract was in 1940 and covered from May 28 to November 30. We contracted to send 78,000,000 pounds and we sent 93,000,000 pounds. The next year we contracted to send 112,000,000 pounds and we sent 115,000,000 pounds.


John Alpheus Charlton: Could the minister also give the prices?


James Garfield Gardiner: The first year, 1940, the price was 14 cents per pound. In 1941 it was 14-4 cents. In the third year, which was 1942-43, we contracted to send 125 million pounds at 20 cents and we sent over 142 million pounds. In the fourth year we contracted for 150 million pounds at 20 cents and we sent 116-2 million pounds. In the fifth year we contracted for 125 million pounds at 20 cents and we sent 123 million pounds. In the sixth year we contracted for 125 million pounds at 20 cents and
Agricultural Prices Support Act we sent 126-7 million pounds. In the seventh year we contracted for 125 million pounds at 20 cents and we sent 92 million pounds. In the eighth year, which covered from April 1, 1947, to March 31, 1948, we contracted to send 125 million pounds at 25 cents and we sent only 56 million pounds. Then in the ninth year we contracted to send 50 million pounds at 30 cents and we sent 32 million pounds. Last year we contracted to send 50 million pounds at 30 cents and we sent 50 million pounds. We had about 20 million pounds left at the end of the contract period which the British would not take. There is still what I called the other day a little surplus which amounts to some 18 million pounds. After all, that is not very much cheese to have in Canada.
I do not think the evaporated milk figures are important except to the people who are selling that product. They do not represent a great volume and it would take quite a time to give them all. I shall not do so unless hon. members request me to give the details.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Has the minister given any thought to looking for markets for our agricultural products along the Pacific? We have been shipping to the English market for one hundred years. In 1858 there were considerable shipments of grain from Upper Canada to Great Britain and that has been going on ever since. I would refer the minister to the Turgeon commission on grain which reported prior to world war II that the only part of the world where there was a demand for the surplus grains of Canada was along the Pacific. I just throw that out as a suggestion.
A lot of time has been wasted discussing the various angles of the agricultural situation. Hong Kong is a tributary to Vancouver. For fifty years we have been subsidizing ships that run to Hong Kong, and yet I think the returns will show that the people of Hong Kong before the war were buying bacon brought from Czechoslovakia or some place in Europe. No effort was being made by our Canadian people to develop a market in that British port. There are 80 million people in Japan and that country should provide a market for some of our surplus products.
I recall a contract that was entered into by certain people in Shanghai for the purchase of ice cream to be manufactured in British Columbia. This transaction was upset by the outbreak of war. There is a civilization developing over there which is becoming quite modernized and the people are acquiring a taste for bacon, flour, apples and many other products which we have in Canada.


An hon. Member:: And cheese.

Agricultural Prices Support Act


George Matheson Murray: Cheese and dairy products. It might be well to think of developing some of these sources of trade when we are finding the markets of Europe so difficult to enter.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Minister of Trade and Commerce is not here at the moment. He would have a much more intimate knowledge of the matter that has been raised than I have. I agree with most of what has been said tonight, that the best market for our Canadian products is in Canada. Right now we are getting higher prices for most of what we do sell in Canada than we could get anywhere else in the world. This applies to practically all animal products except beef cattle.
As long as the farmer can sell all that he produces in Canada, that is where he is going to sell especially when he can get more here than anywhere else. When we think he is not going to get enough, under this legislation we provide him with another three and a half cents per pound for Wiltshire sides and three cents per pound for cheese, partly by way of subsidy and partly by saying to the consumer in Canada that we would like him to pay it. With that help our farmer is getting higher prices than he could get elsewhere.
That is just what we said to him six years ago when this legislation was put on the statute books. We told him that we would help him to get better prices for staple products than he could get anywhere else, and he has been getting them. I suppose it may be argued that he has not been getting them long enough. I do not know, but up to now he is getting it. He is going to sell all he can in that market. In that regard may I say that we were doing a lot of talking a short time ago about the price of hogs. We have eaten 32 per cent more pork in the last two months than we ate in the same two months last year. We have eaten so much that the price of hogs today is just about at the floor price where it was last year when we were selling Wiltshire sides to Great Britain at $36 a hundred. Because our own people are eating bacon at a higher price than it is now being sold to Great Britain we are not getting the bacon to send there at the present time. Just a fraction of what we had expected to send to Great Britain has gone over in the last two months. We are not so much concerned now as we were a little while ago about whether the 60 million pounds in the contract is going to be used up in the first six months. I say that in order to show that when you can sell hogs at the price we are selling them in Canada, when you can sell cheese at the price you are selling it in Canada, when you can sell butter at the price you are selling it in Canada, there is no use thinking about trying to sell them in China


because the Chinese just do not pay that much for the food they eat even if they had the dollars to pay for it.
After you get through with Canada the second best market, provided they will let us into it, is the United States. That is proved by the fact that when I was out in Alberta the other day I warned them about the situation. I might say to my friend from Calgary West-and he is concerned about that country-that one of the reasons why I went out there was to point out to them that they are selling 500,000 head of cattle a year, and Saskatchewan is selling 400,000 head of cattle a year. By doing that for the last few years they have reduced the number of cattle on the farms by two million. If they keep on doing that for a few years longer we will be wondering where we are going to get our production. We will not be wondering what we are going to do to sell it. I was warning them against selling their cattle at that rate and putting in three million acres more wheat last year. I was warning them that they should not do that another year, that they should keep their cattle on the farms, that they should keep on feeding cattle and cut down on their wheat acreage.
I say that in order to point out that there is no way in which you can determine that you are going to sell products to a market that is not as good as the one to which you are selling them. There is no place else in the world where you will get a price for cattle that will cause our farmers to cut down their herds to the extent they are in order to sell cattle in the United States. When they started to do that they did not think they were going to have those prices for cattle long enough to cut down their herds. They thought they were going to get something for what they had carried over and then eventually come to a lower level, but they have not yet.
After we get by the United States, if we have anything left to sell to anyone, apart from the trade restrictions that are put on and the fact that people refuse to buy it, the best market is the British market. If after we get through supplying those three markets we have anything left certainly we start to hunt for other markets, but it is not very often we have much left. We are always prepared to sell our products anywhere in the world that we can sell them and get the same return for them as we can get anywhere else. We have our feelers out in every country in the world where products can be sold in order to get all the information we can. I repeat what I have repeated on a number of occasions-and I hope I will not start a discussion by saying it-that we are not experiencing any great difficulty in selling our surpluses. When I

say "surpluses" I am speaking advisedly and using the word "surplus" in the broadest sense of the term: you produce more than you want to consume in your own country. I am not talking about what is left over at the end of the year. I could go through these figures in front of me to indicate to you that when we get to the end of the year we have not very much of anything left over, if anything.


An hon. Member:: Except butter.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have not much of that. We eat a million pounds of butter a day. You could eat in ten days in this country all the surplus we have carried over. If it snows until the end of April as it has today you will eat it all. We have not got any more than enough in this country if we go through an April such as we have often had.


George Alexander Drew: It will be bad if we have snow in June.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have seen snow in May and I have gone skating on the 7th of May.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You go skating every month in the year.


James Garfield Gardiner: My friend says I go skating. I used to do a lot of skating, but I don't any more.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You skate on pretty thin ice, too.


James Garfield Gardiner: I used to keep some people who are in the house fairly busy too.


An hon. Member:: Not on thin ice.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; we put the ice some place where it would not break through, but nevertheless we had it. In concluding my remarks on this matter, I want to say that we explore every market in the world for farm products. From time to time we are selling products in Israel, India, Greece, Italy and France. We sell them in every country where we can, and it is not always just because we are worried about surpluses. It is because we want to encourage people to do what some of my friends over here have in mind when they talk about barter. We like to make some of these people feel good by giving them what they want even if we have to run ourselves short sometimes.


Percy Ellis Wright: 
James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, the board has followed exactly the practice as outlined in what I read this afternoon, and exactly the practice stated in the legislation itself. If my hon. friend did follow what I said at the federation meeting at Niagara Falls, he will recall that I was asked that question there. On the night of the broadcast, when Mr. Galbraith was there from the United States, I was asked by Mr. Hope, who is well known to members of this house, how we arrived at our floor prices. I stated that the practice we had followed had been to set up an agricultural prices support board in 1944. We gave them the task of comparing the costs to the farmers at that time with the returns they were obtaining, that is for 1943, 1944, and 1945, the last three years of the war.
1076

Agricultural Prices Support Act
Then I said that in setting floor prices we went back over those figures and had them checked. Then we compared them with the prices that the farmers were paying for the same list of products now, and what they were getting for their products under the floors. Well, that was the first answer. Then Mr. Hope asked Mr. Galbraith which period would give the farmer the better return if it were taken as a basis for what was called parity, the period of 1943-45, or the period 1926-29, or the period 1909-14, which is the period used by the United States. Mr. Galbraith said he did not have the figures for 1943-45, but he did have the figures for 1943-48, and he said the best period in the United States was that period. He said the second best period was from 1926 to 1929, and the third best was from 1909 to 1914. If I remember correctly, he said that the highest one was about 15 per cent better than the other one. While he did not have the exact figures on the centre period, he thought it might be somewhere around 10 or a little lower, better than the period 1909-14.
The next day I was asked this question again in the open meeting, and I gave the answer that I have just given. Mr. Hope stood up in the meeting-I am sure that if he were here tonight he would tell you what I am going to tell you now-and said, "When I asked the question last night and got the answer I did from Mr. Galbraith, I was a little surprised; so I went right up to my room and took those figures." For the benefit of the members of this house, 1 might say that up until last year Mr. Hope was the economic adviser to the Conservative party on agricultural matters. He is now economic adviser to the farm federation. Mr. Hope said he went up to his room, took the figures which he had, checked up on what had been said, and applied it to Canada. He said, "I must say that the last period is still the better in Canada." He did not say how much better, but he said it was better in Canada. In other words, our base is the highest price.
What I want to say, in reply to the question that has been asked, is that we have checked the floors we have put in. A Mr. Maclnnis, the gentleman who has been going around Ontario making speeches about hogs, got up in the meeting and said, "Can you give me those figures?" I told him I could not give him those figures now because I did not have them with me, I checked them before I agreed to the 321 cents, and before I agreed to the figure that is being paid by all concerned. I said, "All I can tell you at the moment is that the price which was agreed to is highest." Well, I have


sent him the figures since, and speaking from memory-I can give the correct figures later if it is necessary-it works out to 24 cents and a fraction for hogs that are now selling in Toronto at 27 cents and a fraction. You will find if you go over the others that there is not very much difference in the others as compared with that. In other words, we have not written a formula into the act; we are trying to use common sense in working out the figures. We think they are quite satisfactory.


Percy Ellis Wright: I take it from the minister's reply that the period 1943-45 will be used in determining-or is it 1943-48?


James Garfield Gardiner: 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. 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 for farm products. That is the price we obtained in 1949, the highest price we ever obtained.
The only criticism that has been made of what we have done is that we should have put the floor at the peak. We did not undertake to do that.


Percy Ellis Wright: It is quite evident from what the minister has stated now that', so far as the government is concerned, it is not going to give a guarantee at all. It is only going to figure out the 1943-45 price and decide on each product as it comes up, whether to set the floor prices at 70 per cent of parity, 90 per cent, or 25 per cent.


James Garfield Gardiner: The people learned a long time ago, and have demonstrated it quite a few times in recent elections, that the security of having a Liberal government in power giving them these undertakings is sufficient.


John Alpheus Charlton: Has the minister compared the prices in Canada for 1943-45 with the figures for the United States for the same years?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think I have them here for the same years, but I think my hon. friend knows Mr. Galbraith. He is a native of Ontario, and has held prominent positions in the United States department of agriculture, as well as in United States universities. He has figured out prices for the United States, but has spent a considerable part of

his time in this country. If my hon. friend does not know Mr. Galbraith, I am sure he knows Mr. Hope. These gentlemen have both said that the position is a better position, if you take those years, both in Canada and in the United States, than you could get by taking any other years.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am not questioning Mr. Galbraith's figures for 1943-48. Mr. Galbraith took the figures from 1943-48-


James Garfield Gardiner: But Mr. Hope did not.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister is taking the figures from 1943-45, and is not considering 1946, 1947 or 1948.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Hope, in making his statement the next day, took the period I took, and said he had to admit that it was a better period.


John Alpheus Charlton: Let us get this straight, Mr. Chairman. The figures the minister has just said were taken when floor prices were fixed on these products were from 1943-45; is that correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say we took those figures in order to set the prices at all. I said we calculated what tlie relationship was in those three years and took what the relationship is now as between what the farmer buys and what he sells. We found that a certain figure was a better price for the farmer than if we took that particular relationship. We gave him more. We did not give him that amount.


John Alpheus Charlton: The only thing I can say is that it seems extremely strange that this price now with the subsidy paid by the government seems to be halfway between the old price and the new price in the contract. The same is true of both bacon and cheese. It looks extremely suspicious, as if they just divided it and said "There, take that" and let it go.


James Garfield Gardiner: We did not do that. I am not going to allow that to go unchallenged. We did not do that. As a matter of fact, what did happen was this. The British said, "We will not pay you any more than 25 cents for cheese. It does not make any difference what you think about it. You people can make up your minds whether you want to sell us any cheese at all or not. If you want to sell us cheese at 25 cents, all right, we will take it." They said the same thing with regard to hogs. They said, "We will take your Wiltshire sides at 29 cents but we will not give you , any more." As a matter of fact, when one of the newspaper reporters tried to put a different interpretation on it, Sir Andrew Jones himself came out in the press and said that was true. He said they refused to give us any
Agricultural Prices Support Act more. It was the highest price we could get from them. Then when they said that was the highest price they would give we figured out what the proper relationship was. I may as well be quite candid with the committee. I do not think the price of farm products is going up when they are higher in this country than they are in any other country in the world. As I say, we figured out what the proper relationship was and we gave the farmer a higher return because we had said when we brought in this legislation in the first place that for a while he ought to have more than that worked out to. When we found that it was more, we put it halfway in between. I may say that the price of hogs is $28.75 in Toronto today. If my friend gets a broad enough smile on, he will be able to smile away the fact that that is about $1.15 higher than the floor price is for hogs at $36 a hundredweight for Wiltshire sides.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister has just
admitted that they did as I a moment or two ago said they did. Here is another thing. The minister has suggested that prices are higher here than in any other country in the world. I should like him to compare the price of potatoes here, for instance, with the price of potatoes in the United States; and also the price of beef here with the price of beef in the United States.


James Garfield Gardiner: I say on the products we are talking about, the products that we have had contracts for.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister said "farm products".


James Garfield Gardiner: We are talking about products for which we had contracts with Britain. There were never any contracts with Britain for potatoes. This is with regard to bacon, hogs, dairy products, cattle and so on.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister has quoted the price for hogs at Toronto-the prevailing price, so he says-to prove that the present price in Canada today is a certain amount above or below, I am not sure which, the present floor price. I can tell the minister that the price for B-l hogs at Winnipeg on March 16 was $28.50 a hundredweight and the price in the week of March 18 a year ago was $29.10 a hundredweight. In other words, there has been a drop in hog prices of $2.50 this year as compared with last year.
I have here the wholesale prices of eggs in Saskatoon for the month of February of this year and the month of February of last year. The wholesale price for this year is 39 cents; the wholesale price last year was 44 cents a dozen. There has been a drop in the wholesale price of 5 cents a dozen. It is therefore clear that no matter what period the minister

Agricultural Prices Support Act has taken, and not for the purposes of establishing floor prices but merely for the purpose of checking, the fact is that there has been a substantial drop in the prices of these commodities at a time when farmers' costs have not gone down. For me at any rate it is not enough for the minister to say to this committee that he is going to check a certain set of figures and then the government is going to decide the floor. If the farmers of Canada want any security under this legislation, I think it needs to be written into that legislation, and we need a proper formula. I do not know what years the minister checked a year ago when he started to buy butter at 58J cents a pound. I am wondering what years he is going to check this year when he sets the price, and if it is going to be a different set of years. I wonder if he thinks the cost of producing butter has gone down any, and I wonder if the floor price of butter is likely to drop within the next few days. I should like to ask the minister how long the floor price under hogs will be maintained, what the government hopes to do after the British contract expires in July, whether the government will endeavour to have new contracts signed after that date; and whether there is a contract signed or not, if the present support prices will continue for at least one year.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that I need to answer the questions just as they have been asked because if I did I would have to search out the occasions which suit the government least and to quote those prices. My friend quotes a price of 50 cents for eggs or 44 cents for eggs at a certain period. During 1946 the average price of eggs was 44-3 cents. He has stated that they were at that price at some particular time. The lowest price was 38-4 and the highest price was 50-5. You can, of course, take different periods in between there and compare them with some other time in some other year and get almost any result you like. In 1949 the average price was 56 cents; the low price was 42-3 and the high price was 71-5. There is therefore quite a wide range there. As a matter of fact, it was partly to take up that range that we set 38 cents right across the year as the floor price, thus making it possible for the consumers to get eggs throughout the year at a reasonable price whereas the farmers would get a reasonable price throughout the whole year and not a low price when production is up and a high price when production is down.
Then as to butter, the average price in 1945, which is the year we have been talking about, was 35-2; the low was 34-1 and the high was 36-5. In 1948 the three comparable figures were 67-8, 65-3 and 68-5. In 1949 the average price was 61, the low being 58 which


was our floor, which coyered the greater part of the year; and 68-5 was our ceiling which was the highest price that there was in the year. We had a ceiling at the beginning of last year. Those are figures which indicate that you do not get very much by making comparisons as between today and some other date at some other time. The fact is that these prices for hogs today in Canada are higher than the floor makes it necessary for someone to pay. But when you look at comparable prices in 1941, cheese was 16 cents; in 1946 it was 23-8; in 1948 it was 36-5; in 1949, it was 33 cents. That is still double what it was back at the time we started these different policies. As to hogs, the prices were $11.17, $15.86, $24.96 and $24.59. That is for live hogs. For cattle, the prices were $8.95, $13.89, $21.25.
I do not know how anyone can argue that the farmer is getting poorer when his prices are improving in that way.


John Alpheus Charlton: Did I understand the minister to say, in the prices that he quoted, that eggs averaged somewhere near 44 cents, with a low of 42 cents and a high of 55 cents?


James Garfield Gardiner: In what year?


John Alpheus Charlton: 1949.


James Garfield Gardiner: In 1946, 44-3 cents with a low of 38-4 cents, and a high of 50 -8 cents. In 1949, 56 cents was the average with a low of 42-3 cents and a high of 75 cents. Of course these prices are wholesale prices.


John Alpheus Charlton: How did the minister arrive at 38 cents as the floor price for eggs this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member will take a look at the prices for the different years that we have been mentioning he will find that it is not very far out of line. In 1941 the average was 34-6 cents, with a low of 24-8 cents and a high of 50-6 cents. In 1946, which is the year after the period we are talking about, the average was 44-3 cents, with a low of 38-4 cents and a high of 50-8 cents. Thirty-eight cents was the floor price in the year 1946. But if you put the test to it that we have been putting to these others you will find that it works out just about the same as it does for the other produce.


Percy Ellis Wright: This afternoon the minister read into the record the speech which he made in 1944 when the prices support act was passed in this house. In that speech he said that due regard would be had for certain losses which the farmers had sustained in the thirties, and during certain of the war years, in the setting of floor prices under the act., I would take it to mean that in the setting of floor prices the lowest floor price should be at least as high as the prices in the 1943-45 period if they are to compensate the farmers

for losses during the thirties and during the early years of the war, when the prices were on a level with other sections of our Canadian economy.
The minister has not stated whether in setting these floor prices these other considerations will be taken into account. I should like him to say whether he thinks the farmers have been compensated. Does he think that today, because of the prices they received during 1946, 1947 and 1948 or in 1948 and 1949, they have been compensated for any losses which they may have sustained in those earlier years? Does he intend to take that into consideration in setting floor prices from now on?


James Garfield Gardiner: Under this act we set up a board to report to me from time to time what the situation is; and they report to me that up till now we are above that price in the returns that we are getting generally for farm products. I think it would be apparent to anyone who has been associated with agriculture that you may be able to pick out some particular product that for some period of time may be below, but the farmer on his return generally will be better off-and every farmer realizes that; I do not need to figure it out for him-now than he has ever been at any time. He knows that.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 17, to amend the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


FISHERIES PRICES SUPPORT ACT
Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the continuation in force of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Mr. MacNaughi:: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the bill which will be introduced when this resolution passes is to place section 9 of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944, on the same basis as the other sections of the act.
Section 12 of the act provided as follows:
Section 9 of this act shall come into force on a date to be fixed, and remain in force for such period as may be determined, by proclamation of the governor in council.
Fisheries Prices Support Act
Section 9 of the act was accordingly brought into force on July 23, 1947, by proclamation of the governor in council. When this bill is enacted, section 9 will be placed in the same category as the other sections of the act.


Mr. Higgins:: I should like to say a word in connection with this resolution. Yesterday, as reported at page 1004 of Hansard, the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Catherwood) asked what was the total consumption of margarine in Canada in 1949, and what percentage of the oils and other ingredients contained in margarine was imported. The answer given as to the consumption of margarine was 71,992,000 pounds, and that the utilization of oils and fats in margarine production during 1949 was 60,074,339 pounds, of which 44,814,521 pounds, or about 75 per cent, consisted of cottonseed, peanut, coconut, and palm kernel oils. The answer, however, states that these ingredients would be imported as raw product or refined oils. That means that these particular oils were being imported from the United States. What I want to bring to the attention of the parliamentary assistant is the fact that marine oils should be used. Marine oils have been used for a long time prior to this year. They are still in use, but for some reason or other the manufacturers of margarine desire to use these United States oils. The United States dollar situation is bad, but nevertheless these people are importing these oils and are paying United States dollars for them. I have referred to this matter before, but I do say, Mr. Chairman, that in view of the unemployment situation, not only as it affects the province of Newfoundland but the maritime provinces, and all of Canada, the use of marine oils should be made obligatory by the manufacturers of margarine.
In that connection I might add that the historic sealing voyage that was prosecuted in Newfoundland, and which the Secretary of State so ably described to a gathering in recent days, in former days by 31 ships, is prosecuted this year by only 4. The reason is that they cannot sell the seal oil. It is not my intention to delay the committee on this matter, but I would appreciate it if the parliamentary assistant would once again bring this matter to the attention of the minister. I feel it could be made a proviso, and would be as good as price support.
One other matter before I conclude what I have to say. I mentioned earlier the grave necessity, for the Newfoundland economy, of making available the conversion of sterling. In the last newspaper received from Newfoundland we find an account of a declaration made by the premier of Newfoundland in the legislature of that province on March 13. In that declaration he refers to a meeting held

Fisheries Prices Support Act in Ottawa between the officials of the fisheries board, the Minister of Fisheries and the Prime Minister. He named the people who were present representing the codfish association of Newfoundland, and pointed out that there were present members of parliament and senators from the salt codfish section of Newfoundland, Quebec, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.
I know that all the Newfoundland members, with the exception of my confrere from St. John's West, and myself, were present. We do not know what went on at that time. The statement in the press, however, suggests-[DOT] and perhaps the Prime Minister, who is now in the chamber, might make some comment on this-what took place. The newspaper article states that the premier had said:
-that the problem was not one of markets but to find ways and means of obtaining payment for the fish.
He states that the whole situation was thoroughly threshed out at Ottawa. Describing further the conference which took place, he states that a special committee was appointed to represent the five provinces, and meetings were held between that committee and the Minister of Fisheries and his senior officials. Then the article quotes him as follows:
I had the honour to introduce the representatives of Nafel and the salt codfish association to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister of Canada, when the problem was discussed with frankness and sympathy.
I can say with assurance that we found both the Minister of Fisheries and the Prime Minister to be well-informed on the situation, and thoroughly up-to-date in their information. I can say with equal assurance that they fully appreciated the situation and that they gave ample evidence of possessing a strong desire to be helpful. We were all very favourably impressed.
The impression I gather from that is that the problems of the salt-codfishing industry of Newfoundland have been solved, at least for this year. Would it be fair to ask the Prime Minister if he could say anything in the matter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: What I would have to say is that the hon. member's assumption goes farther than anything that I said would justify. I did not say that the codfish problem was solved. I did say that the very best efforts were going to be put forth to solve it, and that there was reason to expect that those efforts might bear fruit.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I did not intend to convey the impression that the Prime Minister had said that. But the inference from the premier's statement was to that effect.


An hon. Member:: No.
IMr. MacNaughtJ


William Scottie Bryce: May I ask the parliamentary assistant if he can tell the committee how much money has been paid out under the Fisheries Prices Support Act since it went into operation, in each of the years. Would he also tell us how those expenditures have been divided as between the Atlantic coast, the prairies and the Pacific coast? Would he also tell us how the surplus was disposed of and how much money he was able to get from the disposal of that surplus.


John Watson MacNaught: I have not the information with me. However, I shall read the question in Hansard and have the information for the hon. member when we are in committee on the bill.


William Scottie Bryce: That will be satisfactory.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Is the government considering having the manufacturers of margarine use fish oils, whale and seal oils? I understand a representative of the department was in Toronto some weeks ago to discuss the matter with the margarine manufacturers, with a view to inducing them to use those oils in place of some of the vegetable oils they are now using. What was the result of that interview?


John Watson MacNaught: I am informed that all the seal oil for 1949 has been disposed of satisfactorily, and that it is too early in 1950 to make any estimate as to what we are going to do with the 1950 product.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is it not a fact that it was solved at such a late date that it has the effect of more or less making this a token seal fishery this year?


John Watson MacNaught: The information I have was that it was sold satisfactorily.


Gordon Francis Higgins: But within the last three weeks.


John Watson MacNaught: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Fournier, Hull (for Mr. Mayhew) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 54, to amend the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944.	[DOT]
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Brooke Claxton: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to revise and consolidate in one act the several acts respecting

the Department of National Defence and the armed services of Canada, with provision inter alia for the payment of pay and allowances of officers and men of the forces, the salaries and expenses of members of the defence research board, fees and allowances of the members of the court martial appeal board, the compensation for loss or damage due to the exercise of emergency powers, advances to meet expenses and costs of calling out forces in aid of civil power, the acquisition and disposition of property and generally the costs of and incidental to the operation of the act, and all other matters directly concerning defence.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would the minister make a statement now?


Brooke Claxton: Could we not have it in committee?


George Randolph Pearkes: Very well.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the national defence bill which will be introduced if the resolution is adopted is to modernize and consolidate in one statute all legislation respecting the Department of National Defence and the armed forces of Canada.
The bill is a further step in the announced purpose to unify and co-ordinate all of the defence forces of Canada.
The bill is also a further step towards the complete Canadianization of the armed forces of Canada. If this bill is passed, all provisions governing the armed services of Canada will, for the first time, be found in a statute enacted by the Canadian parliament representing the Canadian people.
In content the bill is the largest to be put before this house since the session of 1934. It contains 251 sections but these will replace over 600 sections in the seven statutes now applicable.
During the last session of parliament the bill was introduced in the other place where it was my privilege to give an explanation before it was referred to the committee on banking on the motion of the government leader. In that committee and in the house itself, the bill was carefully and fully considered and passed with certain amendments on December 8, 1949. Since the prorogation of parliament took place on December 10, 1949, it was impossible to proceed with the bill in this house but, as hon. members are aware, the very earliest opportunity has been taken of putting the bill before you. In addition, hon. members here, many of whom have had distinguished careers in the armed forces of Canada in one or both of the world wars, have had an opportuntiy of examining the bill as it was put before the other place.
As I indicated in the house last year, it is the intention of the government to refer the
National Defence
bill that will be introduced in consequence of this resolution, and also the other two defence bills, to a special committee. I hope this suggestion will appeal to hon. members of the house as obviously it is a measure which can be dealt with most effectively in that way. I am in the hands of the committee and I can go on and make a full statement, or I can do it on second reading.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I did not want to interrupt the minister but I think perhaps it might be as well to consider a point that should be borne in mind and we should do our utmost to avoid a certain possibility arising. You will recall that a motion was dealt with in this house which asked for a committee to be set up to deal with the broad problem of defence. Then at a later time proposals were put forward in discussion and it was suggested that there be a committee to deal with the more limited aspect of the defence problems, and that the estimates be referred to that committee. Contrary to our request and fully conscious of what the effect of that would be, we urged that this should be dealt with-


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt-


George Alexander Drew: Are you not prepared to listen to the rest of this?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. When the chairman rises it is the rule that the hon. member who has the floor must resume his seat. The chairman does not rise to his feet simply to interrupt an hon. member or for his own pleasure. There is a rule that provides that the member who has the floor should not be interrupted except for the purpose of raising a question of privilege or a point of order. In this case the leader of the opposition stood up and said that he was sorry to interrupt the minister who was speaking.


Some hon. Members:: No.
The Depuiy Chairman: One second, please. The minister sat down, indicating his willingness to listen to the remarks of the leader of the opposition. The leader of the opposition is talking about a matter which has been decided by the house by a vote and that vote stands as the judgment of the house. Later when the matter was brought up again there was an appeal from a ruling by the chairman which was confirmed by the house. I am quite willing to let the leader of the opposition continue the remarks he has started, but I want to warn him that we must not get into a discussion of a question which has been decided by the house.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, are you ruling that because-

National Defence


Louis-René Beaudoin: It is not a ruling. I am only warning that I do not want a repetition of the discussion of the other day. I said I was quite willing to permit the leader of the opposition to speak but I am warning him that he should not go into the question that was decided the other day by the house.


George Alexander Drew: I have no thought of going into the subject. It is quite obvious that this will not come up for consideration tonight, but for the purpose of facilitating the consideration of what course should be followed I would point out that as a result of that unfortunate ruling the other night the minister should find some way in which this committee can be set up.


Brooke Claxton: I have indicated already that there will be no difficulty about setting up the committee if that is the wish of the house. I made the suggestion at the last session that we should have a committee specially set up to deal with this bill. I had indicated in the words which the leader of the opposition followed that it was the intention of the government to set up a committee to deal with this bill and with the other two bills dealing with defence. This is quite a different matter from anything the leader of the opposition had in mind.
Our thought is that just as soon as the resolutions relative to the three defence measures are adopted the bills will be distributed. Then on the occasion of their second reading I propose to move that they be referred to a special committee. I have indicated already that that is the procedure the government hopes to follow and I do not think the leader of the opposition or anyone else would like to object to that.
I am in the hands of the committee as to how far I should develop the exposition of the bills before us at this time. It seems to me that having one act to cover the defence forces of Canada, and which would bring up to date legislation which has been on the statute books since 1868, with few amendments, is something that would appeal to the common sense and good judgment of this house. That is the purpose of the legislation.
If it is the wish of hon. members, I can make a full statement at this stage, but it seems to me that the time for that would more properly be when the bills were before us and the intentions of the government made known. My suggestion to the committee is that the most sensible course to follow would be for me to postpone any more extended remarks until the bills have received first reading and are in the hands of hon. members in all parts of the house. Then tomorrow if the business of the house permits we could
[Mr. Green.}
proceed with them in the most orderly way possible. If that were done then it would be my hope that in consequence of the discussion tomorrow it would be possible for us to set up the special committee to deal with these three bills in order that we could have these measures, which I regard as of great importance, dealt with by a committee of the house. I suggest that, because of their peculiar character, because they are rather technical-certainly two of them-that is much the most convenient way of dealing with them.


George Randolph Pearkes: In view of the extreme importance of this resolution, I think the house would like to have a full explanation at this time. The minister appeared in the other place and gave a very full explanation to its members. I feel that members of this house would like to have the same full explanation now because many of them have not had an opportunity to see the bill.


Brooke Claxton: I shall be very glad indeed to respond to the invitation of the hon. member for Nanaimo.


Mr. Gillis:: I should like to make a few remarks on the question of order. I agree with the chairman's ruling that the leader of the opposition was not in order in the remarks he made, but I also agree with the leader of the opposition as to the importance of setting up a defence committee. I do not agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo as to the resolutions to which the Minister of National Defence has referred at this time. I do not think that any long or detailed explanation is required. They merely involve technical changes in the pension set-up, military law and all that kind of thing. An explanation at this time would mean very little to us. So far as I am concerned I would be quite prepared to move the whole thing along as rapidly as possible to a committee so that we may have something done about it.
At the same time I do not want the Minister of National Defence to create the impression that the bills to be based on these resolutions, and which it is intended to refer to a committee of the house, have anything to do with matters of national defence. I think there is no more serious, urgent and important problem facing members of the house today than a competent committee to sit down with the Minister of National Defence, his advisers and everyone else concerned, and go into the whole matter of defence. Personally I often feel sorry for the minister. He supervises the army, navy, air force, atomic energy, everything that has to do with the defence of

Canada, and in a very threatening atmosphere. If I were he I would welcome handing over a lot of his responsibility to other members of the house rather than be the spokesman in the house, the apologist and the one who has to take it on the chin for a lot of people outside whom he knows very little about, or about what they are doing. He must accept their word for things.
The resolutions before us do not mean anything, so far as I am concerned. I am quite prepared to proceed, let them go through tonight, and get them to a committee where the technical details and changes in regulations and so forth can be looked after. Before the minister goes any further, I should like him to tell us whether it is the intention of the government in the foreseeable future to set up a committee of the house on the whole matter of national defence.


Louis-René Beaudoin: In view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, does the hon. member for Nanaimo still insist on having a full statement?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South just illustrate the importance of a full explanation at this time.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall I call it eleven o'clock?
National Defence


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the helpful remarks of the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and I should also like to meet the wish of the hon. member for Nanaimo. In view of the difference of opinion, I think perhaps the only possible course to follow is to make a statement on this resolution, and then look forward with hopefulness to the appointment of the committee about which I have spoken, not the one to which the hon. member for Cape Breton South has referred, to deal with these bills as soon as possible.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take up first the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance to amend the Transitional Measures Act, 1947. Then we will discuss the motion to set up a committee on old age security, and then the motion to refer the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to the standing committee on external affairs. We also hope to pass motions Nos. 4 and 12 on today's order paper.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 24, 1950