1950-03-08

SUGGESTED CHANGE IN PRAYER AT OPENING OF DAILY SITTING

Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I wish to draw your attention to a matter connected with the House of Commons. I submit that the third paragraph of the prayers of the house is outmoded and not in keeping with the present constitutional status of Canada; nor does it express the intention of members of the House of Commons who wish to include in their prayers all the sovereign states of the commonwealth. Therefore I suggest that the paragraph should be redrafted.



QUEBEC HANDICRAFTS


Mr. Jean Lesage (Monlmagny-L'Islet):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the house and our friends the members of the press gallery have received an invitation to visit the Quebec handicraft exhibition at the Chateau Laurier tonight at 8.30. I may assure everyone that he will be received with the legendary French-Canadian hospitality. The exhibition itself is a marvel of art and good taste, and is displayed here in Ottawa to show all Canada the refinement our people have attained in the craftsmanship handed down through generations by our forefathers.
As member for Montmagny-L'Islet I am proud to draw your special attention to one of the finest displays: the wood carvings of the world famous Bourgaults of St. Jean Port Joli.



REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN &quot;GLOBE AND MAIL&quot; OF MARCH 7

Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, in the Globe and Mail of Tuesday, March 7, page 3, appears an article headed "P.C.'s likely to oppose rise in wheat price". The first paragraph of the article reads:
Progressive Conservatives may be laying the groundwork for an attack on the government's preelection policy of increasing the initial price paid to western wheat farmers from $1.55 a bushel to $1.75 a bushel, effective April 1, 1949.
I do not think there is any doubt that I have been persistent in pointing out to the house the very great loss suffered by the wheat producers as a result of this wheat policy, and that to some extent the loss should be made good by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James Arthur Ross: I beg your pardon?


Mr. Speaker:: I am asking the house to come to order so that the hon. member for Souris may make his statement without interruption.


James Arthur Ross: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall not quote all the article, because it is lengthy. It is based upon a question I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) the other day, whether the last report of the wheat board would be referred to the committee on agriculture for further study.
I wish personally to refute the interpretation set forth in the heading of this article. In fairness to the reporter, Mr. Warren Baldwin, may I say that as the report is written I do not think it called for the heading it bears.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the statement I made in the house on February 23 to the effect that the match report under the Combines Investigation Act had been submitted to outside counsel for an opinion as to whether prosecution is warranted. I said then that the opinion was expected in the near future. That opinion has now been received, and it is to the effect that prosecution is warranted. Mr. John G. Ahern, K.C., of Montreal has been retained as senior counsel on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada, and has been instructed to proceed with the prosecution. He will have associated with him Mr. Guy Favreau, barrister, also of Montreal.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Is that the same Mr. Ahern who is referred to in the original report?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We submitted the report to Mr. Ahern for an opinion as to whether prosecution was warranted. In retaining him to

Inquiries of the Ministry prosecute we are following what has always been the practice in submitting a report to counsel for an opinion as to whether prosecution is warranted, and, if he says it is, he is usually retained.


Mr. Drew:: You mean you sometimes do.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I read in the report by Mr. McGregor that he is greatly indebted to Mr. Ahern, who had conducted the investigation. Is it the same Mr. Ahern who conducted the investigation, reported to the commissioner, had the report referred to him, said it was all right to go ahead, and then is retained? You have only the one man throughout the whole picture.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Mr. Claxton:: Do you think there should be four or five?



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue with respect to order in council 458, passed on January 31, 1950, making certain changes in computing depreciation. In view of the fact that this order in council was made effective for 1949 taxation and may cause confusion among farmers who, in accordance with the law, filed their interim returns on December 31, will the minister consider delaying its coming into effect for this year?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: The Minister of National Revenue is not in his seat today, but I shall have this matter brought to his attention and he can answer tomorrow.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Justice with reference to the R.C.M.P. patrol vessel St. Roch? Is it the intention to remove this patrol vessel from Esquimau, and, if so, will she be replaced by another vessel?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer to the hon. member's first question is that the St. Roch has been under care and maintenance at Esquimalt since she came out of the western Arctic two years ago. As she can be used to advantage on the east coast this summer, it is the intention to remove her to the east coast for that purpose.


The answer to the second question is that the matter is under consideration.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development. At the last session the minister stated that the government had engaged a business management firm to check the management activities, etc., of the national film board. Has that firm completed its report, and, if so, is the minister going to table the report in the house?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: The survey by the management firm has been completed but the report has not yet been submitted. I expect that when it is received it will be tabled in the house.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the minister know when the report will be made? We should like to have it before the estimates of that department come up.


Robert Henry Winters: The survey was completed about a week ago, and I do not know how long it takes a management firm to write a report of that kind. I would expect that it will be available within a period of say two weeks.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And the minister will table it?


Brooke Claxton: He did not say that at all.


Robert Henry Winters: I said that I expected it would be tabled.



PIT PROPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. T. Richard (Gloucester):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. A report was issued yesterday that Turkey was seeking permission to spend United States dollars for the purchase of pit props in eastern Canada. Has the minister any pronouncement to make on the subject?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have not seen the report referred to. Turkey has been a purchaser of pit props in the past. Negotiations with that country have been in progress, and probably the report is correct.

Inquiries of the Ministry
DOMINION ELECTIONS	WHEAT



REPORT ON TRIAL OF ANNAPOLIS-KINGS ELECTION PETITION  QUESTION AS TO SETTING UP OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the report on the Annapolis-Kings election, tabled in the house by Mr. Speaker on March [DOT]6, included recommendations to the House of Commons that changes be made in the elections act or in the elections regulations, may I ask whether consideration is being given to setting up a special committee on the elections act and referring that report to such a committee?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Consideration had been given to the setting up of a committee on the elections act even before this report was received. The house will remember that there were special provisions in the terms of union with Newfoundland which enabled the chief electoral officer to adapt the Dominion Elections Act to actual conditions in Newfoundland for the first general election. But the chief electoral officer has not that power now that the general election has taken place, and in order to make the elections act fit the situation in Newfoundland the chief electoral officer has advised me that amendments will be required. My colleagues and I are waiting for further recommendations from him for the purpose of having the material submitted to a committee to consider the elections act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will this report be referred to that committee as well?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The chief electoral officer has told me that the practice is for him to make recommendations, and in addition to submit all representations made to him by any interested parties.


Mr. Higgins:: Arising out of the answer of the Prime Minister to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I should like to ask him whether the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act are legally enforceable in Newfoundland.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They have been declared to be a part of the laws of Canada which apply to the new province of Newfoundland, but there are some expressions in the Dominion Elections Act for which no application can be found in the province of Newfoundland.



INQUIRY AS TO PAYMENT ON SALES, 1945 TO 1949

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, arising out of a number of representations and resolutions which have been received from farmers' organizations in the western provinces on the question whether there will be any further payment this spring by the wheat board on account of the sales of wheat during the years 1945 to 1949. Is the minister in position to say whether consideration has been given by the board to that matter in particular?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The matter is under study, but there are difficulties. The number of cheques involved is something like 1,200,000, as it involves the payments on five crops. The cost of making the interim payments is estimated by the board to be about $500,000. I have not been able to refer the matter to my colleagues to obtain a decision as to whether or not payment should be made under these circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: If it is possible to do so before spring work commences, I know it would be appreciated.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I directed a question to the Minister of Transport about a collision between two express trains on the main line of the Canadian National Railways between Montreal and Halifax. The minister said he would have the answer in a few days.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I asked the officials of the Canadian National Railways for a report. I am sorry I have not yet received it, but when I do I shall be glad to give the information to the hon. member.



SHIPPING OF POTATOES AND TURNIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct an urgent question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of long-distance telephone calls from Charlottetown and Toronto which I received just
564	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry before coining into the house. Will the minister advise, instruct and demand that the Canadian National Railways provide reefer cars for the shipment of potatoes and turnips from Prince Edward Island? The shortage of reefer cars at the present time is the greatest they have experienced in years.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to make a survey of the position in Prince Edward Island so far as reefer cars are concerned, and make a statement to the house.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Nose worthy (York South): I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development. Has there been any discussion between his department and the provincial authorities at Queen's Park, Toronto, as to the housing policy announced there two days ago, namely, that of building and selling houses under a joint dominion-provincial agreement with no down payment? Has that policy the approval of the federal government?
Robert Henry Winters: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. In yesterday morning's papers I saw a Canadian Press report in which Premier Frost is reported to have said it was possible that no down payment would be required. I am not aware of the context from which Premier Frost's remarks were taken, and I do not think it is safe or fair to interpret them as a statement of policy at this stage.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. On October 31 last two motions for production of papers were passed in my name, and on December 7 last an order for return was passed in my name. None of these documents has yet been produced. Will the minister look into the matter in order that they may be brought down at an early day?


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of Slate):: shall be glad to do so.
IMr. McLure.]



CLOCKS IN CORRIDORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: should like to ask the Minister of Public Works if he will be kind enough to have the clocks in the corridors of the House of Commons attended to. Some of them are out as much as half an hour.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the moment I am through with my work in the house I will attend to the clocks.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. F. H. Larson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne provides an opportunity for members to bring before parliament conditions affecting the welfare of the ridings which they represent. The constituency of Lanark, which I have the honour to represent, has for years been the centre of the cheese industry in the Dominion of Canada. Because of the type of land it is well suited for pasturage, and there are large areas of fertile tillable ground for field crops. The county of Lanark had its place in the establishment of the cheese trade with Great Britain as far back as sixty years ago, and especially Cheddar cheese. Near the Canadian Pacific Railway station in Perth there is a monument commemorating the fact that the largest cheese ever made in the world was manufactured there. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will remember this, because he was present and officially unveiled the monument some years ago.
The story of the mammoth cheese is of interest in view of our trade relations with Great Britain, especially as to the export market for Cheddar cheese. I am going to tell the house the story of how the export trade in Cheddar cheese was first initiated with Great Britain. The mammoth cheese was originally made for exhibition at the Chicago world's fair of 1893. Officials of the dairy branch of the Department of Agriculture co-operated with the Lanark county cheesemakers in producing it. A great press

[DOT]of steel boiler plate was erected to accommodate the casing of the cheese. The casing was nine feet in diameter, six feet high and weighed 3,000 pounds. The estimated weight of the cheese was 22,000 pounds, and 272,000 pounds of milk were used in its manufacture. The total weight of the cheese with its casing and cover was thirteen tons.
The cheese was kept during the winter at a constant temperature of 40 degrees Fahrenheit. In order to arrange for its exhibition at the Chicago world's fair it was necessary to build a special stand, and a special truck had to be built for hauling. The truck was a massive affair specially designed to increase the impression of size made by the cheese. When the time came to move the cheese to Chicago it was loaded on a flat car, and another car carried four 1,000-pound cheeses made in the county of Glengarry. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company provided a special train. When the mammoth cheese arrived at the Chicago exhibition it caused some excitement by crashing through the floor, which was too weak for the concentrated weight of the cheese. This caused so much publicity that newspapers gave it more attention than any of the other exhibits at the fair. At the same time British and European papers carried illustrated descriptions of the cheese. The publicity was an excellent thing for the Canadian cheese trade. There was no refrigeration in the year 1893, and the cheese underwent a severe test, because it was exhibited during a whole summer under a glass roof. At times the temperature in the room in which it was exhibited was as high as 93 degrees; nevertheless the cheese scored high enough points at the fair to secure the exposition diploma and bronze medal. Dairy experts praised its quality. However, a rumour spread that the cheese had gone bad; and Sir Thomas Lipton, who had purchased it, repudiated his contract. It was purchased by a caterer in London and shipped to Britain. When it arrived at the London dock, special permission had to be obtained from the London city council to move it through the streets to the warehouse from the point where it was unloaded. Six heavy draft horses were used to draw the special truck with its load of cheese; and the fact that the London authorities were afraid it might break through the streets when being drawn from the dock added a great deal to the publicity. When it was cut up, the high commissioner for Canada and many other notables were present. A section of the cheese was sent back to Ottawa in May of
The Address-Mr. Blair that year, and samples were widely distributed, one being given to each member of the House of Commons and the Senate.
While this story of the world's largest cheese is very interesting, it should be noted that it was the advertising and publicity gained by this mammoth cheese, which was made in the county of Lanark, that were responsible for the beginning of the cheese export trade to Britain; and this trade has been carried on successfully since 1893. In large measure eastern Ontario has been the centre of this trade, and the manufacture of cheese is one of its most important industries.
The cheese industry means dollars for people in eastern Ontario. In 1904 we exported to Britain 253 million pounds of cheese, which returned us $21 million. The price was low; but the price obtained for that cheese was on a parity with the prices of other commodities. In those days cheese was the main export outlet for our surplus milk. During the last war another outlet was developed; the dry milk market offered competition to convenient local cheese factories. Now, however, cheese is our only dairy export surplus, and cheese fixes the prices of all other dairy products. If the floor price for butter is fixed at 53 cents, as is reported in the press, the cream producer will get a net return of about $1.80 per hundred pounds for 3-4 per cent milk. With cheese at 28 cents a pound, and allowing four cents for manufacturing, the net return to the farmer will be approximately $2.15 per hundredweight. This is a price that is below the cost of production.
Some market for our surplus cheese must be found which will pay the farmer a reasonable profit. Britain can use more Canadian Cheddar cheese than we are selling this year under our contract for 80 million pounds; and again I point out that in 1904 we exported to Britain 253 million pounds of cheese. The British market for Cheddar cheese, which has existed for sixty years, should be maintained. since it has been in the past and will be in the future our best market. This market has been lost largely through competition from other countries. It is obvious that if Britain is to buy more of our cheese we shall have to buy more from Britain; but our imports from Britain should be diversified in order not to interfere with our own industries.
Not only do I wish to stress the importance of maintaining our cheese market in the United Kingdom. I want to point out that we could increase the sale in the domestic market by putting up a packet of good Cheddar cheese for home consumption. We


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The debate on the address, Mr. Speaker, has been continuing now for some time and it is not my intention this afternoon to attempt, in forty minutes, to answer all that may have been said with reference to the activities of the Department of Agriculture. I wish, however, to reply with regard to two or three matters which were referred to, some of them by the last speaker and others by previous speakers on the opposition side of the house.
Before going on to deal with the general charges which have been made with regard to the activities of myself as Minister of Agriculture before the election, during it and


since, I should like to join with all those who have commented upon the speeches of the mover and seconder of the address. It goes without saying that I was much interested in the speech of the mover owing to a fact of which probably not many members of this house are aware. When I went into the legislature of Saskatchewan in 1914 my seat-mate was one of those fine Scandinavian immigrants that we were getting into western Canada about that time, some of them coming direct and some of them coming by way of the United States. That particular seatmate was the grandfather of the present hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson). I know that all those who are representative of that fine race of people that we had coming into western Canada at that time will be pleased with the fine showing he made at the opening of this session.
I was not able to follow the speech of the seconder owing to the fact that I do not speak any language but English; and some people think I do not speak that language well. But I find that the translation reads just as well as the part of it which was in English and which was of a high character. I wish to congratulate both of these young members in the house upon the showing they made.
The two matters to which I wish to refer directly and which were introduced into the debate at an early period, one by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) and the other by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), are of interest particularly to the people of western Canada. I therefore desire at the very beginning to clear away some impressions that might have been produced by statements which were made.
I recall that when the hon. member for Souris was speaking he quoted an editorial from the Winnipeg Free Press. I do not know that he subscribed to what the editorial said, but nevertheless he read it to this house; and a member is supposed to subscribe to everything he reads to the house, particularly when it is critical of government policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Do you?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I subscribe to most things that I read to the house, unless I declare at the time that I am in disagreement with what they say. Sometimes I am.
The statement was to the effect that the wheat which was exchanged this year from the 140 million bushels which we were required to deliver under the wheat contract, in order to induce the British to purchase from Canada pork products which they otherwise would not have purchased, to induce them to purchase lumber or wood products

which they otherwise would not have purchased, or to induce them to purchase fish which they otherwise would probably not have purchased, would likely result in a loss to the wheat growers of western Canada. What I want to say is what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said to the farm delegation when that point was raised at the time the Canadian Federation of Agriculture met us a short time ago just before the opening of the session. When the remark was being made the other day the Prime Minister asked me if I intended to speak-and I said that I probably would-and suggested that that matter ought to be answered in the house just as he answered it to the farmers.
There is another reason that I am referring to it. It has not particularly to do with the affairs of my department; it has to do with the Department of Trade and Commerce. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was not here at the time that the farm delegation met the government and he therefore was not a party to the discussion. But he was here when discussion took place as to whether or not the exchange would be made. What I wish to say to this house, and through this house to the country, is that the Prime Minister stated to the farmers that it was decided during the first discussion that every dollar the wheat pool was entitled to as a result of the British agreement would be paid into the pool by the end of this crop year, on the basis on which the British agreement called for the deliveries, and that therefore there would be no possibility whatsoever of any loss being taken by the farmers of western Canada as a result of that exchange. The money will be paid into the pool by the government of Canada and any loss which is taken-if any loss is taken; and we do not expect that there will be any-would naturally be taken by the treasury or by a settlement that we get from the British under the "have regard to" clause rather than by the farmers themselves. I thought it was necessary that that matter should be cleared away at this time in order that we may avoid discussion of the idea in the future.
The other question, which was raised by the hon. member for Melfort and which I think should be cleared up, is again to an extent a question which is of direct concern to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He has stated to the house since that question was raised that it is his intention, if it is the desire of the house, to have the report of the wheat board referred to the committee on agriculture. Therefore it is unnecessary for me to discuss the matter at further length, more than to say this, that when the wheat board was asked in 1948 to pay out in 1948 all of the money which was then in the
The Address-Mr. Gardiner treasury of the wheat board, as a result of the trading of 1945, 1946 and 1947, every member who spoke from the opposition side of the house was insistent that that money be paid out. As a matter of fact, as I recall it, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), back at the time when we were discussing what the initial price would be- the price of $1.35, back in 1946 and 1947- insisted, and a motion was moved in the house, receiving the support of all the opposition, that that advance payment ought to be $1.55, the claim being that the government had no right to keep in the treasury money which actually belonged to the farmers of western Canada, rather than to hold it for final payment at a later time.
So in that year three payments were made, 20 cents on 1945, 20 cents on 1946, and 20 cents on 1947, which resulted in a very considerable sum of money. In other words there was not any great carry-over from that year into the next one.
Then, in the fall of 1948, after one of the most difficult crop failures western Canada had ever experienced, one as great as any we had had in the thirties-with the possible exception of 1931 and 1937-a crop failure which matched the failures of other years, and which had been preceded by a crop failure in the preceding year, the farmers of western Canada, as was indicated the other day by a resolution read into the record by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Dewar), indicated that they desired to have a 20-cent payment made again, and that such 20-cent payment should be made before seeding-not after.
In order to make sure that I was right the other night when I raised the question while the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) was speaking, I caused a hurried look to be taken through my own files and found it contained many resolutions such as those I now hold in my hand, and along the lines of the one which was read into the record the other day.
These are not resolutions passed by individuals; they are resolutions of municipal councils, representing the views of farmers in the municipality. All I need to do, in order to indicate their widespread nature, referring even to this limited number, this half dozen I have in my hand, is to tell the house that the first one is from municipality 220 in Saskatchewan and the second from municipality No. 221. Those two are side by side. This third one is from municipality No. 141, a long distance removed from the first two. This fourth one is from municipality No. 108, and the fifth from municipality No. 315.


Mr. Johnston:: What are the dates?

The Address-Mr. Gardiner


James Garfield Gardiner: They are dated November 4, 1948, December 7, 1948, January 11, 1949, January 8, 1949, February 28, 1949, and December 29, 1948. As a matter of tact, with the exception of those in January and February of 1949, they are all in the latter part of 1948.
What is the nature of these resolutions? Well, they are not all in the same wording, but all have a similar meaning. Here is the one from municipality 108, directed to me and stating:
That we ask the federal government to use their influence in having the 20 cents per bushel payment on the 1945, 1946 and 1947 wheat crop paid in the areas which have suffered from drought at the earliest possible date and that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Hon. J. G. Gardiner, federal Minister of Agriculture and to the Canadian wheat board.
Those resolutions were passed throughout the country. I say this only in reply to the suggestion made the other day by the hon. member for Melfort that the farmers did not ask for 20 cents. They did ask for 20 cents. They put it in resolutions, asking that 20 cents should be paid.
There is only one way in which money can be secured to handle wheat throughout the wheat crop year, when payment was made in the preceding year, and that is by borrowing at the bank. Ever since we have had a system of wheat board handling of wheat, we have had the provision whereby the board was to be in a position at all times to borrow money. There is no other way of carrying on from year to year. When the wheat starts to come into the elevators the farmer is to be paid his initial price. He is being paid this year on a basis of $1.75 per bushel. Previously he was paid on a basis of $1.55. Every bushel of wheat that was delivered into the elevators had to be paid for as soon as it was dumped into the elevators, and the money with which to pay for it was borrowed at that time.
The transaction goes on. The wheat is gradually moved to seaboard and then over to Europe, Great Britain or some other place. Until that wheat is actually disposed of and payments are made, financing must be done by that method-and always has been done by that method.
The effect of the complaint being made by those who do complain-and, so far as I know, they are all in this house, and in the other place-is that somebody did not guess exactly what the payment was going to amount to. In other words, in paying out $213 million, they found when they got to the end of July that they did not have quite as much cash proceeds from sales as they had borrowed at the bank in order to make the payments. My hon. friend's accusation


in connection with this is that someone in the government-and I think 1 know as much about the wheat business as anyone in the government; I am sure, too, that my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) knows just as much as I do about it-was in error. I venture to say that neither of us would claim that we could estimate the payments which were going to be made within some $4 million or $5 million of .what the amount would actually be. Payment was made at 20 cents per bushel over a period of four years and, as was suggested a while ago, this time when payment is made it will be for five years.
That being so, we have no criticism to make of the hon. member for taking his cue from an hon. member in another place, and introducing it into this house. But we have been wondering why everyone stopped talking about it as soon as he did introduce it. I think probably he got good advice to the effect that there was no other way of doing the job, that if we were going to do it again we would have to do it in the same way and, since he wanted us to do it again, probably he had better keep quiet from now on. I think probably that is the answer to it, or the reasonable conclusion which could be drawn.
Those are the two or three matters which had been brought up and with which I wanted to deal. But there is another phase of the discussion which has taken form in this debate, and to which I think I should pay some attention. There appears to have been a great deal of worry in the minds of hon. members from the opposition side of the house on the question as to how we on this side of the house managed to get three-quarters of the membership of the House of Commons at the last election. They have been worried about it.


Mr. Cardiff:: You are going into that again?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and probably you will wish you had not gone into it. Mr. Speaker, I have been in public life for almost thirty-six years, and while I am not very good at quoting Shakespeare or any of the great authorities on English, nevertheless I remember that somebody once wrote something like this:	He who steals my purse, steals trash,
but he who robs me of my good name, robs me of something which leaves me poor indeed.
I have always thought that under our democratic system of government there is only one way you can get elected more than twice. Sometimes you can get by once and sometimes you can get by twice by misleading the people, but you are never able to get by very often if you continue to mislead them.

I have managed to get by on twelve occasions. Therefore I am somewhat concerned when members of this house, beginning with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and following through to the leader of the C.C.F. group (Mr. Coldwell)-I do not think my friends of the Social Credit went quite so far although they seemed to be playing with the idea-say that we have the great representation that we have on this side of the house because we misrepresented, and that the greater part of that misrepresentation had been carried on by the Minister of Trade and *Commerce (Mr. Howe) and by myself as Minister of Agriculture.
I have my own idea why we have so many .members on this side of the house and why there are so few on the other side. I think if the Conservative party had talked more Conservatism in the last election they would have had more members. I think if the C.C.F. had not agreed so much with the Conservatives they would have had more members. In view of the campaign which they both conducted I was a little surprised that the Social Credit party did not have the largest group on the opposition side because after all they were talking a purer kind of Toryism than anybody else on the other side.
I think I should take the opposition over a little of the route they should have travelled if they were looking for votes. There is a publication in Canada which is considered to be a classic on the matter of trade by a man named Porritt and called, "Sixty Years of Protection in Canada". It contains a complete record up until a certain date of everything that happened having to do with the establishment of protection. One paragraph in that book establishes when and how and by what means the Conservative party adopted the policy which they followed for many years with regard to trade. The book quotes a speech by the grand old leader of the Conservative party, who by the way established the party in the beginning, Sir John A. Macdonald. This speech was delivered at Stanstead, Quebec, in 1877, prior to the election of 1878, and he said:
Shall we not say Canada Is for the Canadians, and protect our markets for ourselves.
A few moments ago when the last speaker said something like that I noticed that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) said, "Hear, hear". Then Sir John went on to say:
Shall we not say if we have a short crop, our own people shall consume it, and pay a fair price for it.
And again:
We will say to the United States, "We were free traders. We took our cue from the mother country. We did not recognize the differences between the
The Address-Mr. Gardiner circumstances of an old country and a new one like ours. We will pay you the compliment of saying we were wrong and you were right; and we will do to you as you do to us."
That is the good old policy of the Tory party. That is the policy which our friends have in mind when they keep twitting the government on this side of the house with being too friendly with the United States. That policy is as old as the Tory party and was enunciated when the policies of that party were being laid down. But it will be said that that is a long time ago, that was in 1877. May I say that there has not. been a Tory government elected in Canada during the whole history of our country on any other policy. Mr. Borden was elected on that policy in 1911. Mr. Bennett was elected on that policy in 1930. There never has been a Conservative government elected on any other policy.
A good many people who belonged to the Conservative party wondered during the last campaign why the Tory party took as their chief advocate George McCullagh of the Globe and Mail. I listened to a speech which he made over the radio. I had not heard his name announced as I began to listen in the middle of the speech. I remarked, "That fellow is certainly making a cracking good Liberal speech; who is he?" The members of my family said that they had not heard his name. I waited until he finished. Just before finishing, and after making a cracking good Liberal speech advocating many of the things which the Liberal party had been doing-trying to tell Liberals that they were not liberal enough-he finished up by saying, "Go out and vote for Mr. Drew and his policies."
That is not the way in which people in Canada are induced to vote. One must believe in something. One must go out and defend something. One must sell it to the people of this country. When any man speaks over the radio or on a platform and tells people that the best policy for them is the policy believed in by another party, they rush right out to the polls and vote for that party. There are a good many of us here who might not be here if something else had happened, although I am not too sure that we would not have been here anyhow.
Coming down to 1935 after Mr. Bennett had blasted his way into the markets of the world, what do we find he said? I quote from page 85 of Hansard of 1934 where Mr. Bennett is reported as follows:
Where a market existed thirty years ago, there is none today; where one existed ten years ago.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner there is none today. We are endeavouring to supply our own wants and other countries are doing the same.
In other words, there is not any possibility of saving this country by trade. Our C.C.F. friends, not to be outdone, had their leader get up at the next session and say, as reported on page 97 of Hansard of 1935:
I suggest that it is only as we get away from the idea that we must solve our problems by a larger measure of trade that we shall begin to set our feet on the road that will lead to a permanent solution of our economic problems.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has well said that the open market is a thing of the past. I do not think he has quite so clearly realized that the world market, the expanding market, is also a thing of the past.
In other words, those people were in agreement in 1935. I may say also that the organizer for the Social Credit party agreed with them in a very few words when he said: 'Disregard all this nonsensical talk about ,rade and tariffs". We at least have them all on the one side of the house. There is not a very large group even when you count all who are sitting over there. The fact that they did all get on the one side of the house at that time may be one reason for our winning elections.
Bringing you down nearer to the present time I am amazed that during this session of parliament our friends have not carried out so far what they were boasting before they came here they were going to do. I had a good speech all ready for them, and I had to change it completely because they did not do what 1 thought they were going to do.


Mr. Harkness:: It is too bad to disappoint you.


James Garfield Gardiner: You did not disappoint me at all; you made it better. There is always a reason for everything that anyone does.


An hon. Member:: You put your foot in it that time.


James Garfield Gardiner: A short time ago we had a by-election in the province of Saskatchewan, and the government of that province thought I was so busy attending these great protest meetings in Ontario, one of which was referred to a few moments ago, that I could not possibly go out there. Therefore they said: We will have an election right away; we will run it on federal issues and we will defeat the provincial Liberal candidate who was running provincially but defeat him on federal issues. You can travel very fast these days and I managed to get out there all right. Just before I got there the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) made a speech, and here is what he said:
"The agricultural policies of Canada affect everyone and the agricultural future presents a dangerous

picture. Mr. Gardiner is responsible for those policies and I say that they are one of the main issues in this election." By virtue of his agreements Mr. Gardiner had assured farmers of future markets for their produce in the United Kingdom. That experiment in security, Mr. Diefenbaker said, had failed completely.
Then he goes on to say:
To support the Liberal candidate will be construed by the federal Liberal party as approval for its agricultural policies.
That was the Conservative party. Let us see now what the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) had to say at about the same time. He said:
"I am particularly anxious at this time to prevent the election- of Liberal candidates, provincially and federally, because of the effect it would have on the Liberal administration- at Ottawa. Of particular interest to this constituency," said Mr. Coldwell, "is the manner in which the Hon. James G. Gardiner and the federal government have failed to protect the interests of our agricultural producers. Our farmers have seen their markets disappearing and their incomes slashed."
You could not get words uttered by two men on two different platforms at two different times and without their having met-I do not think they did meet-more nearly similar than what was said on the one hand by the Conservative party and on the other by the C.C.F. Do you know what happened? We have run elections in that constituency for a long time. We won it once by nineteen votes and another time by twenty-nine votes. I think one of our highest majorities was a little over 400 votes. In that constituency they took the words of the hon. member for Lake Centre and they did not vote for the Conservative party. There were only 373 votes polled for the Conservative party in the whole constituency. The Conservatives came within nineteen votes of defeating the Liberals in that constituency on one occasion, and within twenty-nine votes of defeating them on another, and I know where the greater part of the votes went that they did not get this time. When they put the two together and added them all up we still had them trimmed by 132. I can understand why no one raises that issue any more. We have heard very little about it in the house during the present session.


James Arthur Ross: Would it not be fair to refer to Mr. Tucker's statement that night?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Tucker's statement that night was all right. There are some Conservatives who follow good advice, and we did get some of them. That was the position in 1935 and the position in 1949. All I want to say about it is that from the time Sir John A. Macdonald made his speech at Stanstead, Quebec, in 1877 to the present day Conservative policy has been a policy opposed to trade as a solution for the problems of this

country, and the policy of the C.C.F. party as announced is the same. On the other hand, the policy of the Liberal party has been one of trade in order to improve the affairs of this country.


Mr. Hatfield:: Free trade.


James Garfield Gardiner: Therefore we have had good times when we have had a Liberal government in power, and we have had bad times when we have had a Conservative government in power.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did you forget to say "free trade"?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have here a considerable file which proves that everything that has been said in criticism in this house by the opposition with regard to what I said before the election and since is wrong, but I want to say that it proves that the press is right. Whenever I say anything which hon. members on the other side of the house rise and say is not correct, then they say that I am condemning the press. I do not say anything of the kind. Everything in this file is correct. Everything in it quotes me from 1944 down to the present as having said that when we brought in the support act we were introducing it to deal with a condition which might develop when the time arrived-which possibly would arrive-when we would not have contracts for the sale of farm products. Opposition speakers claim that was not said until the election was over. That was the appeal made to the people during the election campaign. My friends say that I misrepresented the situation to the people. I think that hon. members will permit me to do what it is not my usual habit to-do in the house. I think they will permit me to follow my notes of a speech which I delivered over the trans-Canada network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on May 28, not very long before the election. It was an address I made at the request of the Liberal organization in order to set forth to the farmers of Canada the policy of the government concerning agriculture. This is the statement which we made, and upon which I appealed to the farmers to support Liberal candidates from one end of Canada to the other. At that time I said:
We have entered upon a federal election. The date fixed for voting is June 27. The Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent has given a nation-wide broadcast. He has pointed out that the Canadian people are being guided through a period of transition from war to peace in a prosperous condition. We are sure that the majority of the people will give credit to the government for having given that guidance which assured the present degree of security and prosperity.
The Address~Mr. Gardiner
Then I dealt with the Conservatives as follows:
We have two sets of critics. The Conservatives say we should have removed wartime controls immediately war was over and given a free hand to everyone who desired to make profit by developing our natural resources.


George Alexander Drew: You knew that was not true.


James Garfield Gardiner: You will think it is true before I am through with it. I went on to say:
They also say we should take off those forms of taxes which were found necessary for the prosecution of the war. This they claim would have given incentive to men and corporations to produce for profit and then distribute those profits through giving employment.
That is the good old policy of Sir John A. Macdonald.


George Alexander Drew: Did you speak about the millers?


James Garfield Gardiner: I continue reading:
They do not seem to think there is any possibility of any person or corporation when given an absolutely free hand taking more out of the primary producer or labour than he is entitled to by retaining too much profit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the free hand you gave the millers?


James Garfield Gardiner: I find it hurts both the Tories and the C.C.F.'ers now just as much as it did out in the country. I am going to deal next with the socialists.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the McGregor report and the way you kept it secret?


James Garfield Gardiner: You are just giving your case away when you come to the protection of the Tories. They will be coming to your protection in a minute. Then I went on to say:
The socialists or C.C.F'ers, and communists on the other hand, maintain that this and every other country should retain at all times the controls which they claim brought prosperity to the masses during the war. They say there should not be profits: production should be for use and not for profit. They claim that if you allow production for profit the average run of person, when he becomes a capitalist, that is when he acquires property, is so selfish that he cannot be trusted to manage it. They claim that either the property itself should be taken over by the state or the product produced by the application of labour to the natural resources should be taken over and marketed by state boards. They claim that when the product is marketed the planning boards of the government should see to it that all that part of the return which previously represented profit should be spent by boards to give service to the people. Sufficient should be returned to the producers so that they can go on producing, but no more.
The C.C.F'ers know that this is not a very popular doctrine, so they plan to water it down in its presentation until they get control of enough provincial governments to put themselves in power at Ottawa. When this is accomplished they will then enforce the policy in its entirety.
The Liberals think neither of these criticisms to be well founded. Liberals believe that war is the most foolish possible method by which to try to settle anything. Nevertheless we realize that during

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
each of the last two wars we had experiences which taught lessons. We should benefit by those lessons.
We do not agree with the Conservatives that every form of control and all taxes necessary to the conduct of the war should have been done away with at the end of the war. On the other hand we do not agree that every control or every tax found valuable during the state of war is good in peacetime.
Liberals believe that individuals should be free to own property and acquire rights to develop our natural resources. We believe that individuals, companies and corporations should be encouraged to make profit and be free to make their own decisions with regard to the expansion of their operations or the transfer of their investments from one operator to another. Liberals believe that if the development of an industry is dependent upon the utilization of products of primary producers or labour, the individual, company or corporation responsible should be free to see that the proper proportion of earnings is distributed to primary producers or labour before profit is allowed to increase unduly. Liberals believe that if individual or corporation management places undue emphasis upon profits, or even inadvertently allows profits to exceed reasonable levels, then the state should step in either to control or to tax excessive profits into the treasury.
Liberals believe that after those profits are taxed into the treasury they should be so distributed as to put back in the hands of primary producers or labour amounts which management might have put there in the first instances. This is done either through direct payments or through social services, [n answer to the socialist we say indiscriminate regulation and a system which denies the individual or corporation the right to handle what might be termed profits robs the individual of a freedom which was won from the state after centuries of struggle.
Then what about our experience and practice? This is what I stated to the voters of Canada:
The government had an experience during the war which they have benefited by since the war. We wanted ten times as much money to finance the war as we were able to collect before the war. The old practice was to go to a country such as Britain or the United States and borrow the money.
During the last war we raised $5 billion a year. Half of it we borrowed from the Canadian people and the other half we taxed from them.
The Liberals decided to do neither of the things that were suggested by the other two parties; and I went on to say:
The Liberals decided to do neither but to collect a considerable part through special taxes after the individual or corporation had shown what profit could be realized. They decided at the same time to distribute vast sums to veterans back from the war, to mothers through family allowances, to labour through unemployment insurance, to old age pensioners, to the sick through hospitalization, and to the public in general through assistance in industry and agriculture.
Each of these policies greatly increased the purchasing power of individuals and thereby provided a better home market for all our commodities. This purchasing power among the masses of the people has been greatly accelerated through a 32 per cent decrease in the income tax on those who are in the lower income brackets. 770,000 persons who paid income taxes prior to January 1, 1949, pay no income tax now. The income tax reductions together with other reductions leave $369 million in the pockets of those who paid higher

taxes last year. Family allowances put $271 million more in the hands of mothers in 1948-49. Old age pensions paid by Ottawa put about $67 million in the hands of the aged. Unemployment insurance makes available $49 million. Demobilization and reconstruction payments amount to $434 million . . . These policies increased the purchasing power where assistance is most needed by over $1 billion, $800 million of which is provided for through these special taxes.
What does that mean? I went on to say:
This increased ability to buy has had a marked effect upon Canada's home market for Canadian food products.
I am sure my friends at the other end of the house will agree with that statement.
Canadian farmers have produced more food in the last ten years than in any other ten-year period. During the first half of that period there was great difficulty in disposing of grains, with the result that much of it was converted into meat and dairy products. In spite of that we were carrying 600 million bushels of wheat in the middle of the period about a year before the end of the war. This wheat, together with all we have grown since, or about 2,500 million bushels of wheat, has been disposed of in five years.
That is the greatest problem we have in western Canada, disposing of our wheat; and here we disposed of 2,500 million bushels in a period of five years.
That is as much as entered into world trade a few years ago. Our oats and barley, with the exception of a small quantity for malting, have all been turned into meat and dairy products . . .
We have not had quite so many hogs on our farms in the last five years as in the previous five, but the average dressed weight of slaughterings has been higher. There is no surplus of hog meat begging for a market, and we have been obtaining a higher price recently than could be obtained on the American market. We are not able to fill our British contract.
Our milk production has been higher in the last five years than in any other five years in our history. There is such a demand for milk in other forms that cheese production is at a long time low in spite of the fact that the Canadian price is higher than the Minnesota price. The British contract quantity has been greatly reduced in each of the last two years because we knew we would not have the surplus cheese. We have not produced the reduced quantity. The reason is obvious. We have been consuming the milk in other forms. There is no surplus begging for a market.
That is a statement my friends sometimes condemn me for having made. There is not a surplus begging for a market. '
There is not a single one of the staple farm products of western Canada searching for a market. Until very recently we have had markets closed to most of them because we could not otherwise supply our best long time market. Even now, when Britain is temporarily short of dollars, we have been able to negotiate contracts which would take more to supply than we have to sell.
My hon. friends should listen to that.
This being the case it is not only foolish but untrue to state that Canada is losing her markets.
My friend the leader of the C.C.F. party is foolish enough to believe I was applying that remark only to him. He was not as important

as all that, at least in my opinion. I was applying the remark to everyone making that statement.
This being the case it is not only foolish but untrue to state that Canada is losing her markets. A much truer statement would be that Canada cannot fully supply the markets available for staple food products.
One of the reasons for this is our own greatly increased purchasing power. Almost 50 per cent more of our wheat disappeared in Canada in the last five years than ever before. Wheat can be fed when livestock products are at present prices. We consumed 33 per cent more beef in the last five years than during the previous five and last year 50 per cent more than ten years ago. We consumed about 20 per cent more pork in the past five years than in the previous five, and about 70 per cent more than ten years ago. We are consuming more milk and milk products than ever before. As a matter of fact we are consuming nearly all we are producing.
It is true that we are having a little trouble cleaning up some war specialties such as linseed and berry pulp, but they too are disappearing. The only product we are having any real trouble with is apples. We have been having that trouble ever since the war started and partly because of the 1932 trade agreements. But the government has seen to it that the Canadian apple crop has been marketed at the highest returns to the grower he has ever experienced and there are none of those lying around in surplus. The storages are cleared for the new crop.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to have to inform the hon. minister that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on; put it on the record.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is only a little more of it. It reads as follows:
There is no part of our policy we can appeal upon with greater confidence than that upon trade. And there are no parties which should be more hesitant about raising an issue of finding markets than the Tories and C.C.F'ers. The then leader of the Conservative party stated a few years before the war that: "Where there were markets thirty years ago there are none today. Where there were markets ten years ago there are none today." The then leader of the C.C.F. party agreed by saying that was the truest statement the leader of the Conservative party had ever made.
I read that statement a few moments ago.
The Social Crediters were maintaining that the only way to sell our products was to increase the purchasing power of our own people. The Conservatives were maintaining the only market was the home market. We have been in power ever since those statements were made. We got into power by stating there were markets and we would find them. We did not, however, lose sight of the' fact that the home market could be improved. We had cut unemployment in half before the war started. We have seen to it that it has not returned. We have increased the purchasing power of the masses by taxing those able to pay and reducing taxes on those with lowest incomes, by increasing old age pensions, by making payments to returned men and by establishing family allowances. In addition to all this we have found and are finding a market for practically all farm products.
The Liberals have reason to be proud of the conversions they have made on the matter of trade.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner The Tories now claim that the only solution for any possible problems of the future is foreign trade. The C.C.F'ers are shouting that there is danger of our losing world markets. Both are stating that if we lose world markets we are in for all the calamities of depression including unemployment.
When the Liberal government took office we were being warned by both parties that there are no markets. We have succeeded in convincing them that trade is our only salvation. The record which convinced them is an impressive one.
Canada's annual average trade was $2,250 million during the last four years of the first King government. It dropped to one-half that while the Bennett government was blasting its way into the markets of the world between 1931 and 1935. Canada's annual average trade increased by 60 per cent under the Liberals between 1936 and 1940. From 1941 to 1945 it increased by 245 per cent over 1936-40. But our opponents will say that was during war. We have not been at war during the years 1946 to 1948. The increase in trade has been greater than ever. The average annual figure is $5,455 million which is 300 per cent over 1936-40, the last period of peace prior to the war, and five times as great as during the last period of Tory rule in Canada.
No wonder they have dropped their slogan "There are no markets" and substituted the Liberal slogan of 1935-40 and 1945, "Markets Bring Prosperity".
That prosperity is demonstrated in the fact that whereas there were only 3,700,000 gainfully employed persons in Canada in 1939, there were 5,031,000 in 1948 or an increase of one-third.
That prosperity is demonstrated in the fact that whereas the net income of farmers in 1939 was $484 million it is over $1,700 million in 1948. In short it is more than three times as high. That prosperity is demonstrated in the fact that our national income is three times as high in 1948 as in 1938.
Finally that prosperity is demonstrated in the fact that since 1945, or the last year of war, taxes have been reduced by approximately $1,300 million and the public debt by $1,600 million.
It is no wonder our opponents have come to the conclusion that the slogan of the Liberals "The Liberals Believe in Trade, Trade Brings Prosperity", is the only one upon which to appeal for support.
They admitted it, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat that the people of Canada believed that the only party to put back into power was the party that had always advocated trade as the road to prosperity and not recent converts, and that is why they voted as they did.
If we have converted the leaders of the opposition groups that only means that the mass of the people have been convinced. You know that those who proclaimed the idea 15 years ago and applied it so successfully throughout the period are best fitted now to continue the policy in operation.
The home market has improved to an unprecedented degree under the Liberals.
The export market gives us five times as much under the Liberals as under the last Tory government.
Markets bring business and trade; trade brings prosperity. Liberalism fosters business, trade and prosperity.
But the Liberal party does not intend to rest upon its laurels. It is fortunate for Canada that we have markets for our surpluses at home and abroad. It is fortunate for Canada that we have high national income. It is fortunate that we have practically no unemployment. But these must be maintained and improved upon.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend groans, but I venture to say that during the election campaign he did not demonstrate in any way that there was any considerable unemployment in this country. I continue reading the speech.
The greatest periods of development in Canada's history have been under Liberal policies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has been continuing on borrowed time, and he is not going to make a statement such as that. I certainly did speak about unemployment, and I pointed to the proposals which the government had made in 1945, and which have not been acted upon.


James Garfield Gardiner: I continue to read from the speech:
Now that the war is over and we are facing a period of peace we must assist in perpetuating it by developing this country.
Then, I go on to deal with policies under which we could bring about that development.	[DOT]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did you forget to deal with the McGregor report?


James Garfield Gardiner: I wound up by making an appeal to the people of this country to vote for the Liberal candidates on Liberal policies, particularly as applied to agriculture. I venture to say that every statement that I have been criticized for making is contained in the speech that was delivered over the radio, but the people of Canada did not criticize it. The people of Canada supported it. That is why we have three-quarters of the members.
The opposition members of this house have stated that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had something to do with obtaining the majorities that were obtained in the last election. They went on to state that we did it by misrepresentation. I want to tell them that we made the same statements throughout the election campaign as we had made from 1944 until the election campaign. That fact is borne out by the press reports and by Hansard. In addition to that, I would point out that everything we said during that election campaign has come true since the election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No one was ever more wrong than the minister has been.


James Garfield Gardiner: Within the last week we have received a request from the FAO committee for the surpluses we have in Canada to offer to the world. You could put them all down


in three words, and to each one you could add a few million pounds, then there would not be anything left. And all these surpluses, a little bit of cheese, a little bit of butter and some honey.


An hon. Member:: How much?


James Garfield Gardiner: A little bit. A year ago my hon. friends were insisting that we had to have 10 million pounds distributed over Canada as a surplus in order to make it possible for butter to be distributed to consumers at the end of the year. We are not going to have much more than that by the time we get to the end of the year.


An hon. Member:: Three times that.


James Garfield Gardiner: In other words, we would hesitate to say to the world today that there is a large surplus that could be available.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have also a small surplus of cheese, a small surplus of butter and a small surplus of honey-


Some hon. Members:: Time!


James Garfield Gardiner: -and my hon. friends get excited about time. If they were in power, we would be back to the old unemployment position we were in in the thirties.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker-


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Bow River.


James Arthur Ross: I just want to ask one question.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


James Arthur Ross: Are no questions to be allowed?


An hon. Member:: No questions.


James Arthur Ross: May I just ask the minister this question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for Bow River.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is it any
wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberals obtained so many votes in the last election,-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And only 49 per cent at that.


Charles Edward Johnston: -when one listens to that great political speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). There is no doubt in my mind that there is no better political stump speaker than the Minister of Agriculture. The thing that amuses me is that the

people are so easily misled. The Minister of Agriculture is an expert at saying one thing today and another thing tomorrow.
When 1 was listening to him-and I always listen to him with a great deal of pleasure- I was shocked at his references to the great production of this country. It is true that this country is able to produce an abundance of agricultural goods; but when he was saying just a moment ago that we in Canada now could not supply the market, and when he said that when the FAO conference was requesting him to supply surplus products for world distribution he had to inform them that we had a very little surplus, I was shocked.
My mind went back immediately to what the minister said in December, 1948. I have not the exact speech here but the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) was mentioning it this year on February 28. I just want to put on the record, so that it will be clear following the minister's speech, what the hon. member for Peace River had to say in regard to the speech that the minister gave to the Canadian chamber of commerce in December of 1948. The hon. member for Peace River was speaking, and as reported at page 323 of Hansard he had this to say:
I should like to draw to the attention of this house the surpluses that are here in reality, or that could be here, but for the policies of this government- policies of taxation and restriction that discourage production.
I should like to read briefly from what the Minister of Agriculture said in a speech before the Canadian chamber of commerce in London in 1948.
I should like hon. members and the people of Canada to notice the difference between the statements made by the minister on this occasion today and those that he made in London a year ago. The quotation is:
"It is difficult for us to understand why anyone should expect us to be other than disappointed with the 1949 contracts. They provide for 160 million pounds of bacon, for 50 million pounds of cheese, and no cattle or beef."
Where is the great production the minister was talking about a moment ago? Then the hon. member for Peace River goes on:
A little further along, he says:
There are no dollars available in the United Kingdom with which to purchase Canadian apples. Partly because of this we have financed the pulling out of 240,000 apple trees in Nova Scotia. There are no dollars available with which to purchase Canadian fish.
Where are those great markets the minister was just talking about? Where is this extra production that he was talking about? They are finding markets-how? Certainly we have no surpluses to export now because we have been destroying, and discouraging production in this country. The hon. member goes on:
I suppose if it were possible to pull out the fish beds, the government would do that, and pay for 55946-37
The Address-Mr. Johnston it. Tt is a policy of discouraging and restricting production. I say that when you do that you are making it impossible for the Canadian people to help a world that is sadly lacking in food.
It is important for us to keep in mind that the minister went over to England, and negotiated with the British people, not for 160 million pounds of bacon. At another point in his speech the minister said:
"All of our discussions on food bulk contracts were proceeding satisfactorily until difficulties arose in adjusting the relationship between dollars and sterling. We were aiming at being able to provide the United Kingdom with 350 million pounds of bacon, 125 million pounds of cheese, 75 million dozens of eggs and having 400,000 head of cattle which we could dispose of either to the United States or to the United Kingdom."
I think that answers effectively the question of what has happened to our production and our markets.
I want to turn to another point which closely follows those remarks I have just read and it greatly concerns the agriculturists of today. In view of the fact that we have been rapidly losing our markets over the years, and particularly the last while, the people in agriculture in Canada are greatly discouraged. It will be of interest to them to note that the Agricultural Prices Support Act may be made permanent. So far it has been on a yearly basis, but now it is proposed to make it permanent legislation, something which the Social Credit members of this house and others have been advocating for a long time.
When speaking at the C.F.A. convention at Niagara Falls on December 1, the Minister of Agriculture said:
Farmers cannot expect floor prices to be set at the highest level prevailing during the last three years. In most cases the price was set about ten per cent lower than the highest level.
Let me point out to the Minister of Agriculture that farmers particularly are concerned about this support price because of the dropping markets. One remembers that during the war years this government particularly announced to the farmers that they were not going to lose money because they were selling goods then at less than the world market price. I was interested just the other day in an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of Monday, March 6, 1950, in regard to this matter. It is headed "Butter Price Slash Would Alarm Farmers" and reads in part as follows:
The butter price now is supported at 58 cents a pound. Dairy experts predicted in Ottawa Friday that agriculture minister Gardiner will announce shortly a drop of five or six cents a pound in the floor price.
Mr. Milburn was speaking at this convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The article goes on to say:
Mr. Milburn said in a statement that there is a downward trend in agricultural prices and that eventually all other prices will fall.

The Address-Mr. Johnston
"It means there will be a reduced income for farmers at a time when labour and other callings are receiving increased prices and wages. We see no reason why the farmer should take less."
That is the danger tanners see ahead of them. On every hand they find that the commodities they must buy are increasing in price, while the prices of the commodities they sell are being lowered.
Let me pass a warning on to the farmers at this time in regard to markets. It seems to me that the only source of marketing they will have at their disposal will be those organizations which they may themselves set up by way of co-operative marketing.
The Rural Co-Operator of Tuesday, February 28, says this:
The January 6 issue of the United States News carried in its business outlook for 1950 an interesting forecast:
"Corporate profits estimated up $1-6 billion. Farm cash income estimated down $1-6 billion."
And then later on it says:
If the United States News' forecast is correct the money farmers won't get in 1950 is going into the pockets of the coupon-clippers!
Time to wake up, Farmer! Time to buy yourself an organization that can fight back!
It seems to me the only possible way left of marketing goods successfully will be through those co-operative marketing agencies which the farmers themselves set up. That would seem to be the position from now on. It appears strange that now the government should take the view that it ought not to have anything to do with helping the farmers to dispose of their surplus products. Yet there was no hesitancy during the war, when it was easy to sell. Now when it has become more difficult the farmers are being told, "You take this thing, yourself. We want to get rid of it."
I was pleased to note that when he spoke a few moments ago the minister made reference to another matter, namely the operations of the wheat board. What he said was of interest to me. I believe one of the reasons he gave for people voting Liberal was that they must believe in something. However, as I said at the outset of my speech, the Minister of Agriculture surpasses anyone else in Canada in making statements today and contradicting them tomorrow. He said he had been able to ibe elected twelve times, and that that was a pretty good record.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He said he got by.


Charles Edward Johnston: Oh, I beg your pardon, that is right-he got by. He was able to be elected.


James Garfield Gardiner: A majority of forty-seven hundred is not bad.
^Mr. Johnston.]


Charles Edward Johnston: There is no mystery about that, because the minister could go out on a platform and make the farmers believe- and probably did-that they were being treated better under a Liberal government than even they themselves ever expected to be.
I want to speak about the operations of the wheat board, and perhaps what I shall say will explain to the minister why so many people were fooled at election time. To my mind the functions of the wheat board should have always been to market the farmers' produce at the best prices obtainable. In that respect the board would be a worth-while organization. It could continue to function very successfully with the co-operation of provincial marketing agencies. I would like to see it continue as such an agency, and particularly have it operate to dispose of Canada's surplus production through ICCH.
The minister made particular reference to the interim payment of 20 cents discussed here the other day by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), and went on to point out again today that the only possible way in which those payments could be made to farmers was by borrowing. He made that definitely clear today

and if it was not clear today, certainly it was made very clear on February 27 when, replying to the hon. member for Melfort, the minister said, as reported at page 284 of Hansard:
May I ask the hon. member if he is not aware that every farmers' organization in western Canada, including the pool locals, were asking for that 20-cent payment before seeding,-
I think I can agree with the minister on that, because when I asked him a moment age when the resolutions he was reading were received he said they were from Novembei 4, 1948, to February 28, 1949. No wonder the pool organizations, the farmer organizations and even members of the House of Commons were asking that that payment be made because they all thoroughly believed that the payment which was about to be made would be from moneys which had accrued to the credit of the wheat board. In fact, the insinuation was made as early as March oi 1948, before the minister began to receive these resolutions, that there would be a payment of 20 cents. Of course farm organizations, pools and members of the House ol Commons did insist that those payments be made. But they had the knowledge that thal money was right there, in the treasury of the wheat board.


James Garfield Gardiner: By way of correction may 1 say that my hon. friend has said my statements will not bear investigation. Therefore I do not want him to put any on the record which will not.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not want to.


James Garfield Gardiner: The whole question the hon. member is now discussing was discussed before the board of the wheat pool. Everyone associated with the wheat pool knew the position. As a matter of fact every grain dealer in Canada knew it, and the fact that there were some members in the House of Commons who did not know it only indicates that they do not keep check on the records available to them.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am glad the minister said that, because I shall refer to the records in a moment or two, to prove what he says now is not the fact.


James Garfield Gardiner: But you cannot prove it. The record shows $65 million was available, and $213 million had to be paid out. How could you pay that out without borrowing?


Charles Edward Johnston: I will show whether I can prove it or not. But, before turning to that, I wish to finish with this quotation. On February 27 the minister said to the hon. member for Melfort:
-and is he not aware of the fact that there could not be enough money to pay it without borrowing?
There is no misunderstanding about that statement made on February 27, when he said that there is no other way of making the payment except by borrowing. He has just repeated it today, so there can be no argument as to his meaning in that respect.
I wish to go back to the record as it appears in Hansard for February 27, 1948, page 1677, when the relevant discussion took place in the house. On that occasion the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was speaking in a debate on the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and had this to say regarding this 20-cent payment:
Instead, the government Is taking power to increase the initial payment from time to time, whenever the cash position of the pool would appear to justify such action.
"Whenever the cash position would appear to justify such action". No member in the house could doubt for one moment that the cash was right there to make the proposed distribution.
If there is any doubt about that-because the Minister of Agriculture may well say "I am not responsible for statements made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce"-


James Garfield Gardiner: I will agree with that; nevertheless, it does not bear out your statement.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, it does. Then, let us turn to page 1719 of Hansard for February 27, 1948, at which time the Minister of Agriculture was speaking about the same thing. I intend to prove that every party in this house was of the same opinion that I am expressing 55946-371
The Address-Mr. Johnston now, that the money was there to the credit of the wheat board. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) had this to say, as reported on page 1719 of Hansard of February 27, 1948:
We would have to go to the bank and borrow money and pay interest on it, and the farmers of western Canada are not asking us at the present time to go to the bank and borrow money and* charge the interest up to them and pay them another twenty cents over and above the possible-twenty cents we may pay under this legislation,-They are asking us to sell their wheat at ttin best returns we can get, to retain funds sufficient to carry on and make sure we shall be able to carry this through to the final conclusion.
There is no misunderstanding about that.


James Garfield Gardiner: What is the date of that?


Charles Edward Johnston: February 27,	1948, just
before you received the resolutions.


James Garfield Gardiner: Before we received the further requests from the municipalities.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister then went on to say:
Then they are asking us to amend the act so that as time goes on we shall be in a position to pay out any sums of money we may have to their credit.
That is not borrowed money.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was my statement to this house and to the public, and even after that they sent in their resolutions and said that they wanted it paid.


Charles Edward Johnston: That view was not expressed in the resolution which the minister has placed on Hansard. As I recall it, they
expressed the view that they wanted that payment made and certainly they had every right to expect that this money was there to their credit because the minister told them. Lest there be some mistake, let me quote again from that same page 1719, where the minister is reported as follows:
We should be in a position, Mr. Speaker, not only once a year but at any time throughout the year, if the operations up to date have given them sufficient cash-
How much clearer could it be that it was not borrowed money?
-with which to make payments to the farmers- whether it is in the summer, in the winter or any other time-to determine that they are in a position to make those payments.
The minister told us in unmistakable terms when this very payment was being discussed that there was the cash to the credit of the board. In case anyone might say that that was my understanding of it and that no one else in the house or in the country had such an understanding-

The Address-Mr. Johnston


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not saying any such thing. I am saying that with that information before the country they still said they wanted the twenty-cent payment.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister is trying to
imply that those organizations and the members of all parties in this house knew very well that the money would be borrowed. It is a mistake to get up in this house and say one thing one day and then contradict it the next, because the record is here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister did not tell
them that in the speech he made over the radio and which he read today.


Charles Edward Johnston: He did not tell them that in the election. Is it any wonder that they voted for him? They were hypnotized by his great oratory. I turn now to page 2114 of Hansard of March 11, 1948, which is a little before June 27, where I find the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) is speaking. The hon. member for Provencher had quoted some of the things which I have quoted here today. Let there be no misunderstanding about every party in this house being of the opinion that the money which was about to be paid out on that twenty-cent payment was cash in hand.


James Garfield Gardiner: What is the date again?


Mr, Johnston:: This is March 11, 1948.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the payment that was made on the first three crops and it has nothing to do with the payment we are discussing. That payment was made in the middle of the summer on the crops for 1945, 1946 and 1947. What the hon. member is presuming to discuss now is the next year's payment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The payment was made just before the election.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is the year before the election.


Charles Edward Johnston: This is the payment the minister was talking about the other day. Here is what the hon. member for Provencher said on that occasion:
That is exactly the position now; and X think it should be made clear to all members that when they vote this amount they are not voting public money. I am referring to the initial price. From remarks made to me from time to time, I know this is a misconception common to many members. One cannot blame them, because they are told they have to vote for a certain amount of money to be paid to the western farmers when, in actual fact, they are only giving power to the Canadian wheat board to pay out another few cents, or some specific sum of money, which belongs to the farmers.
There was no misunderstanding about that when one of the Liberal members was speaking in this house.


Mr. Heiland:: Are the farmers kicking?


Charles Edward Johnston: They are kicking when they have to pay millions of dollars in interest, to be bribed for voting for the Liberals.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: They are well satisfied.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me go now to another part of the house. I quote now from page 2189 of Hansard where a member of another party-


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member will not find anything there to prove what he is trying to prove, so I shall go out and read my Hansard.


Mr. Hansell:: Exit the expert.


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) was speaking on this matter and he evidently had the same impression when he said:
The payment per bushel is not an additional amount per bushel payable to the farmer as an initial price. It is, in fact, a predistribution out of the participation account. The government knows how much it will pay; $230 million, I believe, is the amount that it now holds to the credit of the Canadian farmer.
The exact amount was $213 million, according to the board report, so I am speaking about exactly the same thing. Then the minister interrupted to say:
Everyone but the hon. member for Lake Centre always knew those facts.
Always knew what facts? That the $213 million which was about to be paid out was cash in hand. Yet the minister tries to tell us that everyone in the country knew that this money was to be borrowed. I take still another portion of the house and quote from page 2191 of Hansard of 1948 where the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) is reported as follows:
Let nobody make the mistake that the farmers are getting money from the treasury of Canada, because this money belongs to the farmers of the prairie provinces, as well as many millions of dollars that are not in the fund at the present time. In many cases farmers are still paying interest on their debts which should have been discharged with these belated payments on their wheat.
Then I should like to quote from page 2183 of Hansard where the member of another party, the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), is reported as follows:
With the amount that is available for this payment-and I believe it is $234 million-I think a fairly substantial payment could be made . . .
There was no misunderstanding in any part of this house that the money which was to be paid was cash in hand. We only found out what the true situation was when the wheat board report was tabled in the house. We were assured by the Minister of Trade

and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and doubly assured by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), that the money being paid out was cash in hand, but the fact of the matter is that when the wheat board report was made available to us we found that such was not the case. I should like to refer to page 18 of the report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year 1948-49 under the heading "bank loans," where it reads as follows:
In accordance with the provisions of order in council P.C. 919 of February 24, 1949, the initial price paid to producers was increased from $1.55 to $1.75 per bushel-
May I point out again that that is the payment we were talking about, and not the one that the Minister of Agriculture tried to drag in as a red herring. The report goes on to read:
-basis No. 1 northern wheat in store Fort William/Port Arthur, or Vancouver. This increase became effective on April 1, 1949, and under terms of the same order the board was directed-
Against the board's better judgment they were directed to pay in accordance with the policy of the government, and therefore when anyone says that the wheat board was being used as a political agent to further the interests of a political party he is absolutely correct. The report continues:
This increase became effective on April 1, 1949, and under terms of the same order the board was directed to pay to producers the sum of 20 cents per bushel in respect of deliveries by producers to the board on the 1945-49 pool account for the period from August 1, 1945, to March 31, 1949.
Therefore there is no misunderstanding about it. We were not referring to any other payment at all. The report goes on to say:
This payment involved a cash distribution by the board of $213,445,541.88 which was commenced on April 1, 1949.
That was about two or three months before the election. I continue:
To meet this and other cash commitments, the board as at March 31, 1949, had funds on deposit with the chartered banks totalling $25,051,551.87 and investments in Dominion of Canada | per cent treasury notes in the amount of $40 million. The funds provided from the foregoing sources, together with funds received from daily operations of the board, permitted the board to meet its cash commitments from April 1, 1949, to June 8, 1949. On this latter date board funds became exhausted and on June 9, 1949, the board commenced to borrow its daily cash requirements from the chartered banks at the established interest rate of 3 per cent per annum compounded monthly.
Note that, Mr. Speaker: three per cent compounded every thirty days. That is not a bad profit when you consider that the board was receiving five-eighths of one per cent for their money. No wonder the Liberals have lots of campaign funds. There
The Address-Mr. Johnston cannot be any doubt about it, Mr. Speaker, that the reason people voted Liberal in the 1949 election was that they were bought by the farmers' own money. That pool payment was made for one specific purpose, to fool the farmers, and I must congratulate the Liberal party because they did fool them. To the sorrow of the farmers they are finding out now that because they received that payment in the manner in which it was paid it is going to cost them millions of dollars in interest charges. Not only must they take a drop in the price of agricultural products at this time but they must also pay through the nose for having a Liberal government elected on that occasion.


Mr. Boucher:: Your remarks are an insult
to the farmers of Canada.


Charles Edward Johnston: My remarks are based on facts. If you had been listening you would know that I quoted from Hansard, and they were not my words. You would also have known that every party in the house, including your own, was of the same impression as I was.


William Albert Boucher: I say your remarks are an insult to the intelligence of the farmers of Canada.


Charles Edward Johnston: Some people just do not know when they are insulted so I will not comment any further.
I want to say a few words to the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters). I do not do so in a critical manner because I think in the time allotted to him he has done a fairly good job. He has made some worthwhile improvements in the National Housing Act, and I want to congratulate him on that. He has taken some good steps, belatedly it is true, as to a highway across Canada. I am not going to discuss the route of the highway because that has been talked about on many occasions. I spoke about it last year. I said at that time I thought the judgment of the minister was good in allowing the provinces to make the decision as to the route. I was sure that the decision the province of Alberta would make would be a satisfactory one. They have decided that it should go through the city of Calgary, and I think their judgment was good.
When I was speaking on this matter before, I suggested to the Minister of Resources and Development that in my judgment provision should be made to construct a four-lane highway. I pointed out that as time went on traffic would increase, and in certain localities it would be necessary to build a four-lane highway to accommodate the tourist and freight traffic wanting to travel over it. He

The Address-Mr. Johnston indicated at that time that was his plan, and I think that showed good judgment on his part.
I also indicated to the minister on that occasion that care would have to be taken as to the regulations respecting trucking. I was of the opinion at that time that the government might endeavour to interfere with the free exercise of trucking privileges in Canada, and I was not mistaken. There are two reasons why I am concerned about this matter. In eastern Canada there is some competition for the railways particularly in the transportation of freight. You have the St. Lawrence river, the great lakes and the canals involved in that waterway system which offer effective competition to the railways. In western Canada we do not have anything like that. The only competition we can hope for there is that in time trucking will become a more effective competitor. I think such a hope is only natural, and trucking should be allowed to provide fair and reasonable competition to the railways.
I think the people of Canada are justified in concluding that one of the reasons why the trans-Canada highway was put off for the last twenty years was to protect the railways of Canada. Goodness knows they are getting enough protection from the government as it is. I find that my suspicions are verified. I have here a clipping from the Ottawa Citizen of February 23. The heading of the article is:
Says issue on highways prejudged.
The article reads:
G. M. Parke, president of the Automotive Transport Association of Ontario, said yesterday the federal government "prejudged" the issues being studied by the royal commission on transportation. Mr. Parke, addressing the convention of the Ontario good roads association, referred to a speech here Monday by transport minister Chevrier. He quoted Mr. Chevrier as saying: "I think that the present-day development of highway trucking is a very serious threat to the well-being of our railway system."
Surely the railways are not afraid of a little free competition. Are they trying to drive trucks off the roads so that they will be able to hoist their rates another 10 or 20 per cent as they have just recently? It seems that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is assisting them. Then he goes on:
If it is left unchecked it will undoubtedly impair the efficiency of our railroads and destroy the economic advantages which we still enjoy . . .
I would not like the impression to prevail that I am advocating the complete curtailment of highway trucking operations . . . but I am equally convinced that trucking has gone beyond its economic radius of operation, so much so that it has contributed in no small measure to the thorny transportation problem which faces Canada today.
It is clear that the minister has in mind exactly what he wants to do. He says he

does not want to completely curtail trucking; but he also says it has gone beyond its economic radius of operation. Who is he to judge in that regard? The only people who can decide that are the truck transport associations themselves. When they begin to operate beyond the economic radius of operation they will soon find it out from their returns, and will cut down that radius. There is no doubt in my mind but that this government intends to limit the radius of operation of trucks so they will not even give fair competition to the railways, and will not be able to operate beyond a radius of fifty miles; and what would be the result? It would mean that if a person living in Calgary wanted to move his furniture to Edmonton, it would have to be done by rail. At the present time a truck will come to your door, load all your furniture, even though you have a five or six-roomed house, deliver it the same day in Edmonton, and unload it at your other house. The Minister of Transport takes the view that this would be uneconomical. What a lot of rubbish. We had better face the issue while it is clearly before us. It is clear that this government, through the Department of Transport, is going to hamstring trucking in this country in order to benefit the railways. I think that is something about which this House of Commons should be very careful. They should see to it that industry has a chance to operate unmolested by the federal government sticking its nose into things it knows nothing about.
Now I want to say just a few words about old age pensions; I would not like this opportunity to pass without having something to say with respect to the elderly citizens of our community. I am pleased to see the motion on the order paper to have this matter sent to a committee, where it can be gone into thoroughly and from which recommendations may be brought back. I believe the time has come when we should begin to delve into this problem, and should start treating these elderly people as human beings. I have often thought one of the best ways to find out whether or not the old age pensioners were receiving enough to maintain a decent standard of living would be to have members of this house limit their budgets to the amount allowed for old age pensions. If that were done I am sure there would be no need for a single speech in this house to urge that old age pensions be sufficient to keep body and soul together.
The Social Crediters have always maintained that old age pensions should be given as a right of citizenship when a person reaches the age of sixty-five. I firmly believe that it should be on a non-contributory basis. Let no one think for a moment that the old age

pensioners do not contribute toward the cost of their pensions now. Every time they buy an article they make a substantial contribution to the revenues of this country through the payment of indirect taxation. When this matter is considered in committee I hope all these points will be taken into consideration and that a recommendation such as I have suggested will be brought in.
There is one other point I want to mention, though my time is passing very rapidly; that is the means test in regard to the old age pension. I believe that the means test should be eliminated. It may be that during the first stages of the inauguration of this noncontributory plan without a means test we will have to move slowly, so it may be necessary to alter that position in some respects; but I shall deal with that in just a moment. I was amazed at the remarks of the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) on this matter, as they appear at page 252 of Hansard:
I believe that everyone in this country, regardless of party, is in favour of the elimination of the means test.
May I say right off the bat that the hon. member is due to be disillusioned. Here again the people of Canada probably were fooled, because all parties in this house do not agree with the elimination of the means test. One party that does not agree is the Liberal party.


An hon. Member:: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: Who said that? It sounds like someone from the west. I want to point out that the Liberal party in western Canada, to be exact the Liberal party in Alberta, does not believe in the removal of the means test. I do not hear any interjections, though I waited for them.


An hon. Member:: Baloney.


Charles Edward Johnston: Baloney, is it? I can assure you that anything coming from the Liberal party in the west is baloney, and everyone out there knows it. I have a clipping here from the Calgary Herald of January 4, 1950, headed "Liberals favour means test." You will be surprised to learn who were at the meeting; but let me read the clipping:
The Edmonton Liberal association Tuesday night approved a resolution to be presented at the party's provincial convention next month that the annual convention be held either in Calgary or Edmonton each year.
The association defeated an amendment to a pensions resolution, one of many passed, that would have urged abolition of the means test. The resolution called for bringing old age pensions to the same level as those in British Columbia.
So at that meeting it was moved that the means test be abolished; but the Liberal organization as such, in convention, defeated that resolution. Even those from eastern
The Address-Mr. Johnston Canada should know better than to trust the Liberals from the west; but now we all know that the Liberal party in Alberta, not as individuals but as a party, stands for the maintenance of the means test. Let me quote further:
Another resolution called on the Alberta government to relax some of the provisions of its part in the federal hospitalization plan.
The provincial hospitalization plan is endeavouring to provide hospitalization for anyone anywhere in the province at a cost of a dollar a day, but the Liberal party in Alberta is against that. And do you know who were at the meeting? This should be of interest to hon. members. The report states:
Fred Macdonald and George Prudham. Liberal M.P.'s for Edmonton east and west, addressed the meeting.
Now let us get it straight. The Liberal party is not in favour of removing the means test; so when the hon. member for Maple Creek says everyone in this country, regardless of party, is in favour of the elimination of the means test he does not know what he is talking about. Then he went on:
If it is to be eliminated and there is not sufficient money available to carry the additional burden of old age pensions, what particular social service could those who moved the amendment offer to reduce the burden of providing additional pensions for the aged?
Now, it would seem that we were in a rather bad state. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) told us a moment ago how much we could produce in this country, and what a wealthy country it was. Then, a Liberal member gets up and says that if we eliminate the means test, we must eliminate some other social service.
Then, he goes on to say:
There is only one way of carrying old age pensions without a means test, and that is to increase production.
Where has the member been all this time? The Prime Minister told him something about production when he spoke on February 20. It is recorded at page 55 of Hansard, and reads as follows:
Our gross national product, that is the total value of all goods and services produced in the country, has tripled. Our foreign trade is nearly four times what it was in 1939.
Do you want to increase it any more, before we give the old age pensioners a sufficient amount to keep body and soul together?
Then, the Prime Minister goes on:
Those gains are striking in themselves, and they are striking in comparison with what has happened in other countries.
As a matter of fact, I believe the gross national product was something like $16 billion.

The Address-Mr. Johnston


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him he has exhausted his time, and can only proceed with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Charles Edward Johnston: I shall be only a few moments, as I do not want to take advantage of the generosity of the house. I should like the members to recall that, if we are basing the amount of pension we can give to the pensioners on our ability to produce goods and services in this country-I would say that should be the only limit upon it- then, when we have had an increase in production such as the Prime Minister says, we should not be quibbling about what social services we are going to cut out if we eliminate the means test.
We further agree, Mr. Speaker, that the age should be lowered to 65, and that the wife should automatically qualify when the husband receives a pension. I believe that is self-explanatory, so I shall not take the time of the house to explain it.
A moment ago, I spoke about the initial steps that might be taken in eliminating the means test. Let there be no misunderstanding about my position. I believe the means test should be permanently abolished. I think it is a criminal thing. As a first step, we might have to apply a principle which is advocated by the Alberta pensioners society in a statement which I received the other day. I should like to put that statement on record, as I believe it has some merit. It says this:
We want the standard of living that is recognized in the Income Tax Act. That is to say the ceiling on income, in the Old Age Pensions Act for a single man over 70 years of age is $600, but the single man over 65 years of age is exempt from income tax below income of $1,500. The married man with wife over 70 years old in the Old Age Pensions Act has a ceiling on income of $1,080. The married man with wife is exempt from income tax if his income is less than $2,500. What we maintain is that the same standard of living should be recognized in both acts, and that the old age pensioners, single and married, should have their ceiling on income raised to the level of exemptions on income for single and married as in the Income Tax Act; both are based on a standard of living.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I hope when this old age pensions bill goes to the

committee it will receive the very best consideration, and will come back here embodying some of the suggestions I have already made.


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he believes the means test will eventually have to be abolished?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes.


Paul-Émile Côté: So the hon. member considers that, at this time, there may be some difficulty in the way of doing that; there may have to be a levelling off before the test is abolished?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Eventually, why not now?


Charles Edward Johnston: I have stressed that I am quite aware the Liberal government does not intend to remove the means test, and I believe everybody in Canada should know that. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. What I am trying to do at this time is to get as much as we can for the old age pensioners, despite this Liberal government. As the first step towards that, the very least the Liberal government should do is to recognize the income tax exemptions as the ceiling on income for old age pensioners.


Paul-Émile Côté: How could the hon. member be aware of the policies of the party? I have never seen him in any of our caucuses.


Charles Edward Johnston: May I say to the hon. member that on one occasion the Liberals were having a caucus in the railway committee room. They even had policemen on duty there, but in all innocence I walked into that meeting. I was allowed to remain until I found out with whom I was associating, and I certainly got out.


Mr. Major:: It being nearly six o'clock, may I move the adjournment of the debate?
Motion (Mr. Major) agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Tomorrow we shall continue this debate.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 5.45 p.m.

Thursday, March 9, 1950